Most of my friends consider me as animal-fanatic-carrying person. Still, I don't believe that animals have "rights" and it is absurd position that, if implemented consistently, will lead towards the end and chaos in the living world. First, "rights" are human convention/invention - it doesn't and can not apply to animals. Animal "rights" are nothing more than a, as I call it, "a civilization privilege" - we, humans, reach some points in our development when we decide to be compasionate towards animals and we found many ways how to live in harmony with the other live beings. Thus, what I found so wrong with "animal rights"!? Well, first of all "rights" concept implies responsibilities - responsibility that the lion will have towards other living beings on which he feeds himself. If the lion kills other animal ... what will happned? We will kill the lion!? Or, we will act to prevent of this kind of "killings"!? And what then will eat the lion himself!? Grass? But, then, why we should extend the "rights concept" only towards animals!? Why not include every living being, including the plants, insects, and bacteria!? Obviously this is complicated position, and "marginal case" is flawed argument. Rights concept is human invention and applies to humans only - if, individuals, on their own property and with their own body, decide to extend the "rights concept" to include animals, they are free to do so. But, they don't have any other "moral right" to agress towards other people just to implement their ideas.
Hos is that even a case for animal rights?
I find it strange that so many of my fellow libertarians and anarchists oppose and ridicule rock rights with such passion. For one thing, a rock right is perfectly libertarian in that it is a negative right. Unlike incoherent positive rights, such as the 'right' to education or health care, the rock right is, at bottom, a right to be left alone. It does not call for government to tax us in order to provide rocks with food, shelter, and veterinary care. It only requires us to stop killing them and making them suffer. I can think of no other issue where the libertarian is arguing for a positive right--his right to make rocks submit to any use he sees--and the other side is arguing for a negative right! Nor is libertarianism inconsistent with rock rights, unless one is an exponent of contractarianism, an ethical theory riddled with problems. The nonaggression principle states that it is morally wrong to initiate force against others (or their property), except in self-defense. The question is whether this principle applies to rocks. Are rocks part of the 'moral community' that is covered by the nonaggression principle? In his recent essay 'Why Rock Rights Don't Exist,' Tibor Machan argues that rocks cannot have rights, which is to say that the nonaggression principle cannot apply to rocks. Does his argument succeed?
I find it strange that so many of my fellow libertarians and anarchists oppose and ridicule rock rights with such passion. For one thing, a rock right is perfectly libertarian in that it is a negative right. Unlike incoherent positive rights, such as the 'right' to education or health care, the rock right is, at bottom, a right to be left alone. It does not call for government to tax us in order to provide rocks with food, shelter, and veterinary care. It only requires us to stop killing them and making them suffer. I can think of no other issue where the libertarian is arguing for a positive right--his right to make rocks submit to any use he sees--and the other side is arguing for a negative right!
Nor is libertarianism inconsistent with rock rights, unless one is an exponent of contractarianism, an ethical theory riddled with problems. The nonaggression principle states that it is morally wrong to initiate force against others (or their property), except in self-defense. The question is whether this principle applies to rocks. Are rocks part of the 'moral community' that is covered by the nonaggression principle? In his recent essay 'Why Rock Rights Don't Exist,' Tibor Machan argues that rocks cannot have rights, which is to say that the nonaggression principle cannot apply to rocks. Does his argument succeed?
But realy now, animal rights simply lead to contradiction, and are equivolant to slavery:
...However, what about the removal of moral distinctions, that is, broadening the category of moral agents to include animals, for instance? It can be shown that this is not the removal of a moral categorical distinction, but in fact the introduction of one. It is because animals are cognitively “blind” to the notion of rights and the rights of others; they cannot then be logically held accountable for committing rights violations any more than a blind man can logically be punished for bumping into someone, after taking all possible precautions. Therefore, to claim that the rights of animals should be respected by man is not to claim that animals are equal to man, but rather that animals are superior to man. Man will be punished for spitting in the face of a lama, but the lama will not be punished for spitting at his*. (*Again, to argue the lama should be punished is a clear reductio ad-absurdum)
Too much to reply to, but I will respond to this:
I'm surprised no one has actually challenged you to provide an actual source for this, so let me be the first to do so.
I'm surprised myself, but here, here, and even here.
Has ever a non-human animal said to a human or to another animal: "don't tread me as an animal" ? Or "Why are you agreding me"?
One has to realise that ethics emerge from conflicts, and humans can choose how to solve them, violently or not. They can start an argumentation trying to convince the other to avoid violence and to adhere his behavior to ethics. They can say "yes" or "no". Non-human animals can't.
One of the most dangerous things about the humanisation of animals is the covert "animalisation" or deshumanisation of humans that is going on in democratic societies.
Uh, yeah, animals have their own way of saying, "You're pissing me off so don't fuck with me."
It's abundantly clear to me that many animals act, think, and have some degree of conciousness. However it's unclear whether, except for some of the most intelligent species, they have any concept of mortality beyond the instinct to survive. One of, if not the, most defining charactaristics between animal and man is the concept and utilization of language. We can share very complex thoughts with eachother, and teach our offspring the same concepts. This allows us to create even more complex/developed concepts, as we don't have to learn everything from scratch. Unfortunately animals, although they have rudimentary communication via body language and auditory signals, lack the capacity to speak and teach. As such, it is extremely unlikely, essentially impossible, for them to conceptualize the idea of a right. As they cannot conceptualize the idea of a right, they cannot assert it, nor could they participate in any sort of legal system. So I don't think it's possible to apply human self-ownership and the NAP entirely to animals. That said, considering empathy and the concept of proportional/humane treatment, animal cruelty is reprehensible. This doesn't preclude raising, slaughtering, and consuming animals, or keeping them as pets. It just means that one must treat them with respect, and cause no undue harm. You don't defend your property against an accidental trespasser by throwing battery acid in their face, and you don't torture an animal needlessly when you eventually slaughter it.
Bert - I was busy yesterday so I didn't see your reply until just now. The point is that humans have the possibility of engaging in production and exchange, while animals do not. Now since the future is uncertain and the most efficient methods of the production and allocation of resources is the free market, the 'rights' (as you call them) of humans are to be defended at all times regardless of what any individual humans are engaged in at the current time. And even though the future is uncertain, I'm willing to take the bet that animals will never be able to engage in production and exchange - they can easily, however, be part of the market process as producer goods and consumer goods.
Also, you seem to think that I believe that animals do not act, when I explicitly said that I do think they act at least twice in this thread. It is simply that in my mind there is no reason why an acting being should necessarily be protected from aggression.
On the issue of animal rights and vegetarianism/veganism I really enjoy the writing at: http://letthemeatmeat.com/
It's written by a former vegan and he actually comes off as fairly libertarian at times. The "ethics" section is some pretty good reading.
He's made a couple essays addressing marginal cases before:
http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/3975549237/problems-with-the-argument-from-marginal-cases-and
http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/9657424632/forget-sentience-heres-the-real-reason-we-grant
The point is that humans have the possibility of engaging in production and exchange, while animals do not. Now since the future is uncertain and the most efficient methods of the production and allocation of resources is the free market, the 'rights' (as you call them) of humans are to be defended at all times regardless of what any individual humans are engaged in at the current time. And even though the future is uncertain, I'm willing to take the bet that animals will never be able to engage in production and exchange - they can easily, however, be part of the market process as producer goods and consumer goods.
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that the "accepted" outcome of them being part of the market process is that of their own life, which itself is the end of any market process. I just don't believe they do this voluntarily and I'm sure an animal can differentiate between a violent act and non-violent. They are forced into the market process.
No, I understood your position, but what reply I had was in regards to someone else. If I understand correctly you believe acting being or not is not necessarily entitled to protection from aggression (as if it transcends human and non-human). I partially agree, because it sounds like you don't believe they (anyone) should necessarily be protected as if they have a right to protection (they are entitled to someone protecting them etc.), but at the same time aggression is a disruption of their own being by someone else, it's a violent act. It goes from something like "there is no reason why an acting being should not be protected from aggression" (positive rights) to "there is no reason why an acting being should be protected from aggression" (negative rights). Thus human and non-human are not entitled to protection. Now I'm curious as to where do we go from here, if this concept breaks the idea of rights what foundation is the NAP on or what foundation is libertarianism on if no one is entitled to protection of any sort?
It seems they are faster than I thought:
A Dutch scientist has created 'meat' from stem cells – and wants Heston Blumenthal to cook the first batch. Steve Connor reports on the ultimate in culinary experimentation.