Let's assume that parents tortured for two months and then killed their 3 months old baby. Let's also assume no one even knew they had this baby besides them. Now replace "baby" with "adult dog". What's the difference? The dog is definitely more intelligent than a 3 months old baby and I personally would feel more compassion for the dog, since 3 months old babies are not as complex creatures as adult dogs so their suffering is not as severe, at least from my perspective.
Most libertarians will claim that torturing and killing animals is not a crime, while torturing and killing a baby is a serious crime and can be punished with capital punishment. But why is that? The two cases seem completely equivalent to me.
An excellent article about this can be found here: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/A%20Libertarian%20Replies%20to%20Tibor%20Machan's%20'Why%20Animal%20Rights%20Don't%20Exist'.htm
The baby has grandparents who could speak for it, the dog doesn't.
But I said no one except the parents knew the baby even existed (up until it was killed). Besides, this is irrelevant. Why would you give the grandparents the right to exact vengeance but you won't give the same right exactly to a dog owner whose dog was murdered?
If you are a materialist then your opening argument would be correct. Now given the intuitive oppostion to such a position it would indicate that materialism is insufficient.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
But I said no one except the parents knew the baby even existed (up until it was killed).
That is relevant if you want to make a Colombo episode out of it, but isn't important for the morality of the thing.
We know that there is in fact a victim (the baby), even if people who are its legal representatives (parents forfeited that role) are not aware of any of it.
Why would you give the grandparents the right to exact vengeance but you won't give the same right exactly to a dog owner whose dog was murdered?
I assumed they killed their own dog? You said to replace the baby with a dog.
Thank you so much for pointing me towards this article.
Although I do not think baby is a good example because they have the potential for moral agency, the marginal cases argument is very interesting!
Eugene:Let's assume that parents tortured for two months and then killed their 3 months old baby. Let's also assume no one even knew they had this baby besides them. Now replace "baby" with "adult dog". What's the difference? The dog is definitely more intelligent than a 3 months old baby and I personally would feel more compassion for the dog, since 3 months old babies are not as complex creatures as adult dogs so their suffering is not as severe, at least from my perspective.
I'm an unabashed "speciesist", so I'd feel more compassion for the 3-month-old baby than the dog. Honestly, I don't know why anyone would feel otherwise.
Eugene:Most libertarians will claim that torturing and killing animals is not a crime, while torturing and killing a baby is a serious crime and can be punished with capital punishment. But why is that? The two cases seem completely equivalent to me.
First off, I don't know how you can say that "most libertarians" think murder can be punished with capital punishment.
Second, the cases don't seem completely equivalent to you, based on what you said earlier - that you'd feel more compassion for the adult dog than the 3-month-old baby.
Third, and most importantly, morality and rights are inherently human concepts and therefore only apply to humans. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: morality and rights are inherently human concepts and therefore only apply to humans. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that.
Eugene:But why is that?
There is no objective reason why animals should be treated differently from people in the libertarian identity.
Autokylos: Third, and most importantly, morality and rights are inherently human concepts and therefore only apply to humans.
Nielsio: Autolykos: morality and rights are inherently human concepts and therefore only apply to humans. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that. Aliens If an intelligent species were to arrive on earth, they would most likely be peaceful. It is hard to imagine how an unpeaceful group of individuals would ever develop the technology required for such a journey. Secondly, technological advances make the spread of information easy so that good ideas beat bad ideas; and so peaceful and productive ideas would have long beaten unpeaceful and destructive ideas. In that case there would be no reason to regard such individuals as anything less than human societal participants; and so inter-species societal integration is entirely possible. http://www.vforvoluntary.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=61
I'll deal with the issue of aliens when we encounter them.
There are some really poor arguments for allowing abuse of arguments but the argument 'that rights are inherrantly human things' has got to be the worst.
I have never ever from anyone heard a decent argument as to why extremely mentally handicaped humans should be considered as worhy of rights but animals not.
They always end up with the respondent i) making an abusive comment ii) telling him that 'that was what he was always taught (as if that means anything) or some religious based shit.
Charles Anthony: Autokylos:Third, and most importantly, morality and rights are inherently human concepts and therefore only apply to humans. The second part of that statement does not logically follow the first. You are simply stating your personal preference of what moral code of conduct you like.
Autokylos:Third, and most importantly, morality and rights are inherently human concepts and therefore only apply to humans.
The second part of that statement does not logically follow the first. You are simply stating your personal preference of what moral code of conduct you like.
Can you please substantiate how it does not logically follow?
AaronBurr:There are some really poor arguments for allowing abuse of arguments but the argument 'that rights are inherrantly human things' has got to be the worst.
That's nice. It also has no impact on me whatsoever.
If animals have rights, then what can't have rights?
You first. You demonstrate the logic you are applying --- something which can not be done -- then you have a worthwhile statement to consider.
However, I will respond:
The application of morality to certain specific situations has no bearing on who is applying it and to whom it is applied. Just like, the color of your skin has no bearing on how you should be treated either.
These are all just preferences.
I would feel more compassion towards a dog than a 3 months old baby because dogs are more complex creatures, and they are more conscious of their surroundings than young babies. They feel pain more sharply, they have more complex emotions, etc... I have no proof of it (though there are studies on this subject), I am talking from personal experience.
So why should we treat humans in some special way just because they are humans, that's just like treating white people differently just because they are white. Instead we should treat individuals according to their qualities, not according to their belonging to a particular race.
I would feel more compassion towards a dog than a 3 months old baby because dogs are more complex creatures, and they are more conscious of their surroundings than young babies.
Then it's okay to beat the fuck out of a low-grade moron that spills your drink at the bar? I know that question is out of left field, but the consequences of your choice depend on the implicit declaration that some individuals are more valuable than others. I don't see there being a way to value a life of any intelligent being versus that another in non-lifeboat situations.
And in lifeboat situations, I bat for my own team (the human species) because it's the one that gave birth to me and I wouldn't fault any other intelligent species to do the same if it was a choice between a human baby versus a their own young since it's a logical choice to continue your own species than to continue others.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Well you treat individuals according to whatever qualities you desire and understand that other people will do the same.
To me a 3 month old baby's qualities(I have a 3 month old nephew) are more than enough for me not to give a damn about a dog. Don't misunderstand I love dogs they're amazing, but I tend to have powerful emotions associated with humans- and I don't find anything wrong with reaching conclusions based on those feelings. I do find something wrong with rejecting those types of feelings in favor of some logical train of thought that we're all living beings so we're all the same.
Why don't we have the right to kill a completely retarded person? Because that super retarded person is still a creature and as such has a right not to be aggressed against. I think the same is true for any animal with the same complexity and intelligence.
Why don't we have the right to kill a completely retarded person? Because that super retarded person is still a creature as such has a right not to be aggressed against. I think the same is true for any animal with the same complexity and intelligence.
For you- intelligence/complex behavior is your criteria for rights is it not? Why should that be a criteria for rights?
Yes, my criteria for rights is indeed emotinal and intellectual complexity. This is more general than having a criteria exclusively for humans. In theoretical world with aliens this would simply not suffice, but even today with animals sharing our planet such rules are already not sufficient.
Why should emotional and intellectual capacity have anything to do with what rights you deserve or don't?
What else do you propose then? If there is a better alternative I would definitely like to hear it.
That's where I find the difficulty myself in attempting to assign rights, it doesn't seem to come from any basis other than "Well just because I want it that way".
All I can say is that I believe humans have rights because of my own existence as one- trying to base who gets rights and who doesn't on intelligence, how much pain a creature feels, or their emotional capacity seems to just lead to all sorts of confusion and no real justification besides personal preferences.
The fact that something can be clearly defined doesn't make the definition better. With your definition how are you going to deal with aliens for example?
Besides I think its important for us to understand whether we support the non-aggression principle because it is the best principle that avoids conflicts or because we think aggression is morally wrong, and we shouldn't apply it. In the former case perhaps your definition is better, in the latter case my definition is better.
There are some really poor arguments for allowing abuse of arguments but the argument 'that rights are inherrantly human things' has got to be the worst. I have never ever from anyone heard a decent argument as to why extremely mentally handicaped humans should be considered as worhy of rights but animals not. They always end up with the respondent i) making an abusive comment ii) telling him that 'that was what he was always taught (as if that means anything) or some religious based shit.
I don't understand why others defend the rights of beings who do not posess rational, deliberative mental faculties. Rights do not exist unless asserted. The question of whether an individual (or sentient being, or non-sentient being) was justified in the use of defensive force is a matter that can only be settled through rational, deliberative discourse. The mere question of justification presupposes that not all individuals agree regarding the course of action taken by a being. In other words, the offending being (human or not), in the estimation of another, ought to have acted differently (not supposing free will, as one may assume that the act created an unequal exchange and thus requires correcting through arbitration or settlement of the dispute). Animals, babies, the mentally retarded, and others who are not able to engage in rational, deliberative discourse have no rights, or else have rights to the extent that they are able to assert (rationally and deliberatively) that they have been wronged by another who stands on similar grounds.
But this is not a tragedy for the mentally impaired, since it places them in the realm of nature, which man can appropriate for his use. Thus, a parent can own their child or parent so long as the child or parent has limited mentality. The same applies to non-human beings. Any non-human being that can conduct itself in rational, deliberative discourse can assert its rights. This means that any being able to defend its rights can also protect and defend their property, which may include humans and animals as well as non-living material.
In that case how can you punish people for killing their children if the children are their property?
Let's assume that parents tortured for two months and then killed their 3 months old baby. Let's also assume no one even knew they had this baby besides them. Now replace "baby" with "adult dog". What's the difference? The dog is definitely more intelligent than a 3 months old baby and I personally would feel more compassion for the dog, since 3 months old babies are not as complex creatures as adult dogs so their suffering is not as severe, at least from my perspective. Most libertarians will claim that torturing and killing animals is not a crime, while torturing and killing a baby is a serious crime and can be punished with capital punishment. But why is that? The two cases seem completely equivalent to me.
I believe free market law would treat torture of animals as a kind of depravity. Depravity incites feelings of anger and retribution in other people in much the same way that cussing them would. That is, humans are simply hardwired by nature to be angered by acts of depravity or obscene language. I think that the law would hold people less severely accountable for torts committed in response to depravity or obscenity. To take a more extreme example to make the point, imagine that I am tapping the reflex point on your knee with a rubber mallet like a doctor does to test reflexes and then you kick me in the mouth. Now, I initiated your reflex by tapping you on the knee, so you can hardly be held responsible for the mechanical reflex that resulted in me getting kicked in the mouth. I'm arguing that there's a similar kind of "psychological reflex" going on if I am torturing an animal and you threaten to beat me up if I don't stop. If you do beat me up, I think you could later argue that you are less responsible for your actions than you would have been if I had been just sitting there minding my business since the depravity of torturing an animal would enrage any decent person.
As Marko pointed out, the difference in the level of protection given to babies versus animals is that babies have a large number of people willing to defend them at law. Animals have fewer such advocates (though more than zero).
Clayton -
The quality that is needed to assert that one has rights, or that one is owed something by another because of the actions that the other has taken or failed to take (in cases of contractual promises having been made), is the ability to engage in rational, deliberative discourse. How else are disputes settled in a free market? How else could they be settled, without coercion or the initiation of force?
Yes, if I kill a deer with my bow and arrow, in some kind of cosmic sense this represents an unequal exchange. For I have taken the life of the deer without giving anything (to the deer or the community to which it belongs) in return. If the deer belonged to some non-human animal capable of rational deliberative discourse, then that animal could claim that I have trampled over its rights of ownership in the deer.
If I injured a deer and it were capable of rational and deliberative discourse, then it could make a similar claim.
And in the cosmic sense, I will one day either be killed by some creature, or else my body will stop functioning and it will "return to the earth." I will be devoured by some animal, or else microorganisms. Biologically, I my body will be given back, what I have taken will be returned.
I don't think you can use the depravity argument for children. Children do have some rights, even though less rights than adults. Its not that once a child becomes adult suddenly he has all the property rights of an adult, surely this has to be a gradual process in which the child acquires more and more rights as he grows up. At first the basic right to own parts of his body, then some basic property rights, and so forth. So if children have rights, surely animals have some minimal rights as well.
An adult dog is not more intelligent than a baby. It might have experience, but definitely not more intelligent.
Children are not property. The right to guardianship (the power to exclude others from caring for a child) is a property right. It should be saleable, as Rothbard argued. It should be subject to lawful re-assignment in the case of torts. Hoppe describes parents as "trustees" which is OK so far as it goes except that there is no contract specifying the terms of the trust when a child is born. Such a contract could be drafted, I suppose, but in most cases it is not. This implies that people believe there is an unstated contractual trust which a child's guardian holds. I would assert that this unstated contractual trust is something like "I agree to preserve the interests of other genetic relatives of the child in the survival of their genetic material in this child and, upon failure to act according to the terms of this agreement, I cede my property rights in the title of guardianship to the next-of-kin if he or she agrees to the terms of this agreement."
Regarding a previous post, parents do not own children. It is impossible for a human being to own and thereby exercise unlimited control of another human being. Coerced labor involves an element of consent. Resistance, non-cooperation, or gasp (crying) is always an alternative even if the result is death.
Parents have a claim of guardianship nothing more. Parents have the first lien against stewardship. Word it how you want..
Self ownership is a right. It is something that can never be taken away only impaired.
The difference between animals and babies is obvious. Babies enjoy allegedly more so called legal rights because it is more likely someone makes a claim on behalf of a baby than a dog. Presently in the United States legal system claimants are typically in the order of parents, immediate family, and the state. Obviously the state has a vested interest in future revenues. The state wants to make sure all of the Citizen Cattle grow up to graze on the United States farm so they can be milked on demand.
This concept of claim is not alien to the present system. People make claims on behalf of dogs all the time. For instance if your dog gets shot by a neighbor. People defend claims on behalf of dogs all the time. For instance if your dog bites someone.
The whole framing of the OP is bogus. So called legal rights don't mean anything until a valid claim is asserted to the socialized monopoly of injustice....
So maybe I can also represent a deer, so that if someone kills it, I can claim I represent the family of the deer, or the deer itself since it is not capable of rational discource. I think if the non-aggression principle is universal, then it doesn't matter whether someone uses aggression against a baby, a dog or a deer. In all of these cases aggression was used, and in all of these cases those individual creatures had the right not to be aggressed against. Even if they can't claim this right, someone else can claim this right for them, perhaps a lawyer.
Maybe you should start with something already in existence like a cow and try to work it out in your head why cows are stamped...
"The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment "-David Wechsler
That is David Wechsler's definition of intelligence. David Wechsler developed the system which has become the most famous IQ test. If you accept this definition, would you still say that babies are more intelligent? That might have to do with whether or not capacity includes future capacity.
"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgments."-Albert Einstein
I don't think you can use the depravity argument for children.
I think you should be able to. If you are mercilessly beating your child and I seize your hand so that you cannot strike him again and then you sue me at court for assault, I think I should be able to argue that you were acting in a depraved manner and my response was merely human and, therefore, not tortious to you.
Children do have some rights, even though less rights than adults.
Children are not able to argue at law. Therefore, they have no rights per se. Rather, the guardian has rights in the protection of his or her child but these rights can be transferred by law if the guardian is violating the rights of other potential guardians (grandparents, aunts, uncles, other relatives) in the child.
Its not that once a child becomes adult suddenly he has all the property rights of an adult, surely this has to be a gradual process
I think history is against you on this one. The concept of majority is basically that once the children reaches a certain age or passes some other kind of test (say, he can answer a set of questions), he is recognized to speak for himself at law and all rights in guardianship of the child end.
in which the child acquires more and more rights as he grows up. At first the basic right to own parts of his body, then some basic property rights, and so forth. So if children have rights, surely animals have some minimal rights as well.
Children don't have rights per se because they cannot speak for themselves at law. Someone must always speak on their behalf. The same is true of animals except that animals are not held in trust unless such a trust contract is explicitly drafted.
"That is David Wechsler's definition of intelligence. David Wechsler developed the system which has become the most famous IQ test. If you accept this definition, would you still say that babies are more intelligent? That might have to do with whether or not capacity includes future capacity."
Lol yes.
intelligence-
The same is true of animals except that animals are not held in trust unless such a trust contract is explicitly drafted.
And similar to how kids can call the cops on parents, a remedy will be created as soon as cows or dogs start filing claims on their own behalf objecting to any contract they are a non-conseting party to. :)
I am on the same page as Clayton... +1 to you dude...