Why would it be ok to own, say a chimp, but not own a human?
But What About Voluntary Slaves?
Voluntary Slavery and Lawful Consent
There are also good discussions in the comments.
Clayton -
"
Voluntary Slavery and Lawful Consent"
I don't understand?
I would say because the chimp can't stand up and say you don't own me. And, if my pets get out, i actually do let them go. They usually come back.
"I don't understand?"
Those are links to things that Clayton has written regarding the matter of human ownership. I am therefore making a massive assumption and assuming that he thinks reading those would answer your question.
What are your own opinions on the subject?
Why is ok to throw a rock and not a human?
That's a loaded question, Wheylous.
Thus, it is OK to throw Wheylous because he is not human.
QED
Kant tackles this issue all over in his ethical and moral writings.
Rational beings are not to be treated as means, but only as ends (thus they are both the legislator and interpretor or universal laws - namely that humans are rational beings). Animals do not have the ability to think rationally (they only act on impulse) thus they cannot conceive of moral living (they cannot universalize their maxims of choice to universal laws) and aren't "rational." You can disagree with this, but that is Kant's distinction between the human animal and the average animal and it has had some staying power in the intellectual realm.
Probably for the same reason that it is ok to kill and eat an animal where it's not in regards to humans.
"What are your own opinions on the subject?"
I think it is wrong to own a chimp.
What if this chimp prefers to live in a loving human home than in the wild?
limitgov: "What are your own opinions on the subject?" I think it is wrong to own a chimp.
I think that it is foolish to own a champ - cats and dogs not so much.
Depends what the ownership entails I suppose. Are we talking about having a chimp as a pet, or owning a chimp so it can do chores around the house and sweep chimneys?
Are we talking about having a chimp as a pet, or owning a chimp so it can do chores around the house and sweep chimneys?
Why can't that be both? Why can't you have a dog that is a pet and that herds sheep?
That's a very good point. Sheepdogs love to herd though, so I suppose it all depends whether the work being done is in the animals nature. Not sure I would like to see a dog being forced to work, if such a thing would be possible.
Consumariat:That's a very good point. Sheepdogs love to herd though, so I suppose it all depends whether the work being done is in the animals nature. Not sure I would like to see a dog being forced to work, if such a thing would be possible.
Before dogs were used to herd sheep by man, was it in their nature to herd sheep anyway? Did man witness a dog herding sheep on its own and got this idea or did man have to train the dog to herd sheep?
"Probably for the same reason that it is ok to kill and eat an animal where it's not in regards to humans"
What about people in a permanent vegetative state? Can we nibble on them?
I would totally buuld a chimney just to see a chimp sweeping it.
If were being idealistic, I would say because most people aren't as bat shit crazy as hippies and intellectuals.
Back in the old good ol' pagan days they would own both, starve the animal and feed their human slave to it, than eat the animal; all for a good day's shits and giggles with merley the sentiment that it was better to be a master than a slave. Now instead of being pagans, everyone wants to be some uselss busy body mystic moralizer. I can't say for certain what era would be worse to live in - but I can certainly say what era is more annoying.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Back in the old good ol' pagan days they would own both, starve the animal and feed their human slave to it, than eat the animal;
Do you mean they would own both people and animals? and when you say "than eat the animal" do you mean that they would rather feed their human slave to the animal than eat the animal? Or did you mean that they would feed their human slave to the animal then eat it (presumably for shits and giggles)?
How can you say that the pagans weren't mystic moralizers? Pythagoras, ahem, ...? Pythagoras was a vegetarian, a mystic moralizer, and he wouldn't let his proteges eat beans. i don't know if your statement was meant to contrast the mystic moralizing of kant with the likes of greek pagans, but Pythagoras is both so...ultimately I'm not sure your what you are trying to say...
The post above perfectly demonstrates vive's point.
Crazy Coot:What about people in a permanent vegetative state? Can we nibble on them?
Nope. But I don't believe that animals are in a permanent vegetative state. Do you?
They would own both - and eat the animal. All of them did this all the time, every day - no exceptions.
As for the main point, it's probably nothing outside of a very superficial Nietzchean, Feuerbachian, Stirnerite look on things. And to further the quip here's Fritz:
"Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial"
So, you meant THEN. NOT THAN. That is what I thought....then is temporal; than is comparative.
and also, "except for the vegetarians of the time."
I don't understand the last part of statement - there were no vegetarians, just pagans who ate animals fed off the meat of their slaves.
And I'm telling you that the Pythagoreans didn't eat animals...
"What if this chimp prefers to live in a loving human home than in the wild?"
then you wouldn't have to ensalve him or own him, it would be voluntary.
"Depends what the ownership entails I suppose. Are we talking about having a chimp as a pet, or owning a chimp so it can do chores around the house and sweep chimneys?"
I guess I'm talking about owning an animal, in that you can just sell it to another person at the drop of a hat. Let's say, take a baby animal away from its mother and sell it to someone else.
Just curious, are you a vegan? Even the Hindus own animals as property and at one time the ancestors of domestic animals were wild animals snatched from nature. One could make an argument that owning animals is necessary to human health and domestic animals are better off for being owned (Hindus are vegetarians no vegans)
"just curious, are you a vegan?"
No. I eat animals. And use animal products and take my kids to go see locked up animals.
From another, similar thread:
We've had quite a few threads on animal rights in the past. The defining distinction is the ability to argue. If someone or something is not able to argue (e.g. a young child, a senile person, a comatose person, a mentally retarded person, an insane person, etc.), then they are a legal non-entity, that is, they are not able to "stand at law". They are incompetent. Hence, in order for them to have rights, someone who can stand at law (competent) must be willing to advocate on behalf of the incompetent individual. However, we must be clear that, in terms of "rights", the advocate is only ever speaking of his own rights. For example, let's say Alice beats her dog. Let's say that Bob decides to become a legal advocate for Alice's dog. Bob sues Alice and claims that her beating of the dog is unlawful. The only basis on which Bob can make this claim is that he must show how Alice is violating his rights in the dog's welfare. This means he must show that he actually has such rights. -Clayton http://mises.org/community/forums/t/32512.aspx?PageIndex=1
However, we must be clear that, in terms of "rights", the advocate is only ever speaking of his own rights. For example, let's say Alice beats her dog. Let's say that Bob decides to become a legal advocate for Alice's dog. Bob sues Alice and claims that her beating of the dog is unlawful. The only basis on which Bob can make this claim is that he must show how Alice is violating his rights in the dog's welfare. This means he must show that he actually has such rights. -Clayton"
My question should have been, is it moral to take ownership of an animal?
Ownership implies the right to destroy. So if you think it is morally right to destroy an animal, then it is probably right to own it, and vise versa.
"Ownership implies the right to destroy. So if you think it is morally right to destroy an animal, then it is probably right to own it, and vise versa."
I don't think it is right to destroy an animal. I do it occasionally with insects, but I certainly don't think it is right with more intelligent animals.
I tend to agree. I think if A and B are capable of cooperation, then they have rights with respect to one another. This is regardless of species. As long as cooperation is possible, rights exist. That is what argumentation is after all, basic cooperation.
"I don't think it is right to destroy an animal." Do you think it is right if an animal destroys another animal? For instance, my neighbor's dog will kill stray cats(and leave them to rot, that is he doesn't kill the cat for survival) if they happen to find themselves on the grounds.
This conversation started on a stupid premise and now it has evolved into one of the stupidest conversations I have ever seen.
Challange:
Link 3 conversations about rights on any public political message board that aren't batshit crazy.
It can be done, but it isn't easy.