Welcome to Gaia! ::

People talk about religious morals or whatnot being the basis of laws, but I heartily disagree.

Social Conscience.

Humans are, by nature and result of evolution, pack animals. We don't generally do well in isolation and crave others. Therefore, actions that disrupt the pack are seen as bad, mostly because of "natural" traits.

Take theft as an example. By taking something that isn't yours, you cause disruption, it belonged to someone else, and since there are other means for you to acquire it, the action is seen as wrong.

Obviously, differences between packs can be resolved in different ways, certainly fighting for territory can be observed in the animal kingdom, though not to the degree we humans do.

War, of course, is a uniquely human trait.

I'd say there is a very simple one:

In the humans vs everything else category: Sentience. Anything even minimally sentient is deserving of legal rights.

In the inter-human category, I'd say there is no clear cut distinction as to when full legal rights ought to be granted (perhaps some form of 'maturity test' as opposed to arbitrary ages??) , but that those rights should be a universal type o' thing.

Indeed. You got to it before I did.

Here's how I define it.

In order for something to be eligable for legal rights, it must also be practical to apply legal limits to the said being. For instance, if we grant legal rights to a tree, we must also take away its right to, say, fall and kill someone/damage property in a storm.

However, in many cases, this is impractical, or even contrary to the nature of the said being. No legal predicament will prevent that tree from falling over during the storm, just as no legal predicament will prevent the wolf from killing the deer, or the deer from killing the grass as it eats it, etc.

With this being said, we have the right to deny such legal rights to any being on whom it would be illogical to enforce the same limit. In other words, if it is illogical to say that by legally forbidding the deer to kill the grass by eating it, the deer maintains the legal right not to be killed by the wolf, then it is illogical to grant the deer the right to life in the first place.

I am, however, dissatisfied with my definition, as it holds several, major, unaswered questions.

For instance, if I use the wolf-deer-grass set-up to justify my killing the wolf, deer, or grass, how do I know I have the right to do this or if, by killing something, I merely add myself to that list of things which are not deserving of the said legal right and may be killed?

In other words, my thoughts are incomplete.

Where I personally would make the distinction is based on purposiveness. Purposiveness and intent, though, are difficult to field in a court of law. Death, simply, is the way of life. We all kill to live and sustain our own existence. The basic rule of thumb is that if you eat what you're killing or use it for some sort of utilitarian purpose, that's fine. If you're killing for the sake of killing... that is morally abominable be the creature human or nonhuman. What precisely "utlitarian purpose" means would have to be more precisely defined.

I think here maybe we can throw in the concept of "ownership." Humanity believes that it can "own" things and things which are owned are not to be violated by any phenomena, be it a human hand or a tornado. So since you "own" your house, the squirrel chewing holes in your roof is seen as an infringement upon your territory. You have, then, the right to remove it based on concepts of ownership and territories. Likewise in many states I hear you have the right to shoot any person who tresspasses on your property.

I understand the practicality of such measures. Things "owned" and territories claimed are survival tools and investments. To take them away is to in some way jepordize your own survival. If your house is burnt down, that's not good for your survival and well-being.

Well, if you couldn't tell from my tone (and my sig) I have some questions with the whole concept of "owning" in general... (chuckles) there's so many double standards it's... yeah. If you want to get very technical, we don't have ownership over anything whatsoever. Everything we "own" is obtained from something else. We don't even own our own bodies... the atoms that make it up originally came from whatever you just had for dinner. But... I'll stop myself from going on that tangent.

In human societies, usually if you baught it, created it, or cultivated it, you own it. That technically in some ways endorses slavery, but I think the difference is that most exchanges are not made with this intent. You may "own" something, but because abuse or maltreatment is considered punishable by law. Tricky part is what exactly qualifies as abusive treatment and what owned objects "deserve" protection from abuse. The narrowness of what the human species generally consideres "deserving" protection from abuse is part of the reason why we're destabalizing the world's climate and biosphere. xd