Do any of you own a pet? How would you react if they ran away? Would you put up a fence in response?
Do you eat factory-raised meat? Does it matter to you how an animal is raised before it reaches your mouth?
Does the species of an organism determine whether they deserve sovereignty?
A dog is man's best friend.
I don't eat meat (vegetarian; I'd be vegan if I didn't like cheese so much), and it's mainly due to my problems with the meat industry (chemicals, handling of animals, etc etc) and other things, but eating meat is natural. I have no problem if someone hunts for their meat or prefers free-range cattel.
It depends, and this can vary culture to culture. One should respect all animals, but there's a difference in shooting a deer because it was on your property one morning, and trying to get rid of pesky rats in your house.
TelfordUS:Does the species of an organism determine whether they deserve sovereignty?
As I understand it,Libertarian philosophy does distinguish what deserves rights, and what doesn't, using the meter of whether of not the individual is capable of willful action. It seems to depend on personal interpretation where that defining line is placed.
Animals are property. That is my understanding. Being property, the owners may do whatever they wish with them.
TelfordUS: Do any of you own a pet? How would you react if they ran away? Would you put up a fence in response? Do you eat factory-raised meat? Does it matter to you how an animal is raised before it reaches your mouth? Does the species of an organism determine whether they deserve sovereignty?
If my pet ran away, putting up a fence would no longer make sense. Would I put up my fence to keep my dog from running away? Yes. Am I a tyrant for doing so? To the dog, yes. I won't pretend to know your angle, but my assumption is that you extend many of the common views held by people visiting these forums to how they are interpreted across species. The thing is, when men are given freedom, they can improve their lot and the lot of others, far better than under the hand of tyranny. When the dog is given freedom, it eats, craps, and runs around until it gets hit by a car. This is a situation that no dog can improve for itself, nor for any other dog.
Helmuth Hubener: Animals are property. That is my understanding. Being property, the owners may do whatever they wish with them.
Not exactly. I believe ethics comes into play. You may own your animals, but you couldn't mistreat them or kill them without a just cause. To do whatever you wish is a big assertion.
Well said. If animals want rights, let them take up arms and take them from us.
When people talk about "animal rights", they mostly think of dogs, cows and other cuddly creatures with sad, big eyes. But what about ants, flies, ticks or mosquitos? Do these also have habeas corpus when they're starting to mess with me?
Sphairon:When people talk about "animal rights", they mostly think of dogs, cows and other cuddly creatures with sad, big eyes. But what about ants, flies, ticks or mosquitos? Do these also have habeas corpus when they're starting to mess with me?
Jains got it figured out.
I'm well aware this is the usual tagline - but I think the problem is that there's an obvious difference between an animal and say, a rock.
Actually I already made a post that addresses much of what's in this thread (before I noticed this one).
Bert: Helmuth Hubener: Animals are property. That is my understanding. Being property, the owners may do whatever they wish with them. Not exactly. I believe ethics comes into play. You may own your animals, but you couldn't mistreat them or kill them without a just cause. To do whatever you wish is a big assertion.
If animals are propery, you can do what you want with them, period.
If you can't, then they aren't property.
Ansury:I'm well aware this is the usual tagline - but I think the problem is that there's an obvious difference between an animal and say, a rock.
Yes, there is. What's your point?
Jackson LaRose: Sphairon:When people talk about "animal rights", they mostly think of dogs, cows and other cuddly creatures with sad, big eyes. But what about ants, flies, ticks or mosquitos? Do these also have habeas corpus when they're starting to mess with me? Jains got it figured out.
I still think it would work itself in odd moral situations with bacteria, virus (if you consider that life), micro organisms, and plants that you will inevitably kill (trampling over grass). There seems to be an empathy with humans (in general) in relation to the way we classify things in taxonomy, and the way an animal has traditionally served us.
Ex: We tend to sympathize more with vertabraes over non vertabraes, animals over non animals, mammals over other vertebrate phyla, etc.
Of course it is all none sense and is just one way to demonstrate that morality is nothing more than a justification of ones empathy and aesthetic. The fact is we are heterotrophs, designed killaz..
Yes. Animals have absolutely no rights.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Dondoolee:Of course it is all none sense and is just one way to demonstrate that morality is nothing more than a justification of ones empathy and aesthetic.
Sh!! Stop questioning things!
Nothing deserves sovereignty. We have the sovereignty that we claim.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
What about that monkey that knows sign language? Gotta hook em' up with some rights.
von Vodka: What about that monkey that knows sign language? Gotta hook em' up with some rights.
Hm, “rights” is a misleading word. Let us be clearer: A monkey knows sighn language. Do you kill a guy who shots the monkey? That would mean to have “rights".
Let's say animals don't have rights, and the animals you own are your property. Is it ethically and morally correct to harm them? Do they deserve to be harmed or mistreated?
If you know someone (a neighbor for example) who beats and starves their dog, would you allow it?
If you know people who are involved with dog fighting, what would your reaction be to this?
Bert: Let's say animals don't have rights, and the animals you own are your property. Is it ethically and morally correct to harm them? Do they deserve to be harmed or mistreated? If you know someone (a neighbor for example) who beats and starves their dog, would you allow it? If you know people who are involved with dog fighting, what would your reaction be to this?
Libertarianism does not proscribe what is ethical, rather what could be punishable. In this case, I wouldn’t advocate punishing the neighbor, though of course I myself would not be very fond of that guy.
Merlin: Bert: Let's say animals don't have rights, and the animals you own are your property. Is it ethically and morally correct to harm them? Do they deserve to be harmed or mistreated? If you know someone (a neighbor for example) who beats and starves their dog, would you allow it? If you know people who are involved with dog fighting, what would your reaction be to this? Libertarianism does not proscribe what is ethical, rather what could be punishable. In this case, I wouldn’t advocate punishing the neighbor, though of course I myself would not be very fond of that guy.
I'm sure there has to be a line that when crossed would drastically bring into question the animal's welfare. I know this is an exaggerated example, but what if instead of beating his dog, he's butchering dogs in his backyard on a weekly basis?
Bert: I'm sure there has to be a line that when crossed would drastically bring into question the animal's welfare. I know this is an exaggerated example, but what if instead of beating his dog, he's butchering dogs in his backyard on a weekly basis?
Well, there are a number of ways in which something not inherently punishable could be punished under anarchy. The easiest way is for the guy who owns the block you live in (rent) to set up rules against what he considers excessive animal cruelty.
An other would be for those who feel like you to ostracize that neighbor, stop talking to him and the like. That is a very, very powerful tool, trust me (I’m very fond of it in my personal life).
Yet another would be for an arbiter to actually hold animal cruelty to be punishable. If he can get any clients at all, than this rule will come to be used in at leas some occasions.
Is it ethically and morally correct to harm animals? Sure. Smile in the mirror some time. What are those four pointy teeth for?
The question 'do they deserve to be harmed?' doesn't make sense to me. Does a field "deserve" to be plowed? Does a bird "deserve" to fly? "Deserve" doesn't seem to have any rational application in the animal realm.
Definitely I would "allow" my neighbor to beat and starve his dog -- it's none of my business!
Dog fighting, cock fighting, horse and greyhound racing, circus animal whipping, cosmetics testing, harming or killing animals in the course of producing a motion picture, and meat production are all perfectly legitimate uses of animals. I have no more objection to dog butchery than to cattle or turkey butchery, neither morally nor even aesthetically. But then I am not a pet person. If some dog-loving anthropomorphizer does have an aesthetic problem with using dogs for meat production, he might try counter-measures such as the first two of the three solutions Merlin suggests (the third, actually punishing, would be aggression and illegitimate).
Helmuth Hubener:If some dog-loving anthropomorphizer does have an aesthetic problem with using dogs for meat production, he might try counter-measures such as the first two of the three solutions Merlin suggests (the third, actually punishing, would be aggression and illegitimate).
Why is it OK to harm Canis Familiaris, or Bos Primigenius, but not Homo Sapiens? Why do you consider humans privileged among animal species?
The humans themselves consider it. The other species do not consider that, nor anything else. Believe me, if some super-ape or -dolphin arose and started acting sapient, I would want to be right beside him in the trenches fighting for the porpoise liberation front.
I'm sympathetic to the view that humans are deserving of rights because they are uniquely rational, though admittedly I'm not sure how strong of an argument that really is. But as has been mentioned already, if animals deserve rights, where do we draw the line?
And considering that animals routinely commit violence against each other, why must humans be held to some sort of higher standard? Surely the fact that crimes are committed (even among humans) doesn't make them just, but I still think it's a rather tricky argument to make.
Jackson, does your own criterium for rights-possession, willful action, imply self-awareness / self-consciousness? That is, do you require the capacity for rationality and other higher forms of thought which are unique to homo sapiens, or is "willful action" something broader in your mind, including some of the more advanced animal species?
Helmuth Hubener:Jackson, does your own criterium for rights-possession, willful action, imply self-awareness / self-consciousness?
Rather than extend "rights-possession" to all life, I tend to not believe in "rights-possession" at all.
Helmuth Hubener:That is, do you require the capacity for rationality and other higher forms of thought which are unique to homo sapiens, or is "willful action" something broader in your mind, including some of the more advanced animal species?
I would also contend that humans are the only executors of willful action, with all other species of animals mere genetic automatons responding to stimulus. Perhaps humans may be the only species capable of contemplation of their actions, but they aren't the only species out there making choices between certain actions to achieve ends.
bobbyveech:And considering that animals routinely commit violence against each other, why must humans be held to some sort of higher standard?
LOL, you made me think if an “animal tribunal” where wolves that ate sheeps would be tried and hanged, in the King’s name. Or viruses that harmed bacteria. There would be a billion cases for every common flu one catches!
Or, to carry on, why would we consider the whole animal/human/plant as a living being, and not its cells? Humans would only be a Joint Stock Corporation made up of individual cells. It would be very, very funny indeed.
On a lighter note, one could certainly think of scenarios where our line between “property” and “sentient” would be put to the test...
But I believe individual arbiters would take care of such cases very well.
"I would also contend that humans are the only executors of willful action, with all other species of animals mere genetic automatons responding to stimulus"
LOL. Genetic automatons love to comfort themselves with thoughts like that.
Edit: If viruses and bacteria have rights, what about a rock? A rock has some similarities to an animal. A rock is a mineral automaton that responds to external stimulus. For example, it will crack if I strike it with a hammer. It will deform when heat is applied.
What about a computer virus - does it have rights? Is it criminal kidnapping when I have my virus scanner place the virus in a quarantine vault? Is deleting the virus murder?
baxter:Is it criminal kidnapping when I have my virus scanner place the virus in a quarantine vault? Is deleting the virus murder?
While I support your idea of ridiculing "animal rights", I think you should think of better examples than the quote above. I mean, even if malware had rights, deleting it would merely be defending your property.
That ridiculing is on the same line of "how many vegetables died for your salad?" type of insult. It's just a pathetic attack.
There's an obvious difference in a rock and a computer virus, and something that actually lives, thinks, and has emotion. There's also a difference in killing animals for food than killing them without a legitimate reason.
Asking if they deserve unjustified harm does make sense, because it brings no progress and is destructive towards life to harm and kill animals without reason. Should an animal be killed for food? Yes, that's the course of nature. Should an animal be killed for the hell of it? No, why should it be?
"...circus animal whipping, cosmetics testing, harming or killing animals in the course of producing a motion picture..." - I'd like to think that's a joke, but I'm sure you're serious.
"And considering that animals routinely commit violence against each other..." - What happens in the animal kingdom in the wild is most likely the natural course of nature; I don't believe torturing animals for "progress" or for our own entertainment is natural.
Bert: "And considering that animals routinely commit violence against each other..." - What happens in the animal kingdom in the wild is most likely the natural course of nature; I don't believe torturing animals for "progress" or for our own entertainment is natural.
I agree that torturing animals (dogfighting, animal cruelty, etc.) is detestable. As long as we pledge to use non-coercive methods of punishment for those who commit those acts, I'm on board. If you want to boycott those people who promote things like dogfighting, more power to you.
Please delineate why hunting/processing animals for food is OK, but not using them for cosmetics testing.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Please delineate why hunting/processing animals for food is OK, but not using them for cosmetics testing.
If you can depict why using animals for cosmetics testing is the most efficient and humane means.
Helmuth Hubener: Jackson, does your own criterium for rights-possession, willful action, imply self-awareness / self-consciousness? That is, do you require the capacity for rationality and other higher forms of thought which are unique to homo sapiens, or is "willful action" something broader in your mind, including some of the more advanced animal species?
You can make subjective classifications to your heart's content to catagorize and classify things to help you understand the way the environment works around you. The fact of the matter is though, it is all 100% value free and subjective. "Life vs non life" , "animal vs plant", "rational vs non rational" etc. Things don't have to be catagorized as such, it is all subjective. When you make an arbitrary moral division and call it law, you are inviting a controversy that can not be objectively settled. It is impossible.
Do you really think all organisms besides Homo Sapiens lack free will and conscience? My dog wags it tail and jumps all over me whenever I enter my house and it sticks its head in between my arm and my torso whenever we lay together. I feel safe to say that my dog understands the concept of affection and the concept of suffering. If I were to strike my dog, it would react with fear and sadness.
As a side note, I choose not to eat meat from factory farms because it reminds me of the Holocaust too much.
TelfordUS:As a side note, I choose not to eat meat from factory farms because it reminds me of the Holocaust too much.
Seph: Ansury:I'm well aware this is the usual tagline - but I think the problem is that there's an obvious difference between an animal and say, a rock. Yes, there is. What's your point?
The point was that simply saying "animals are property" and that's it (same as a rock), ignores the obvious differences between the two. It's more complicated than that. Are animals property? I don't know, maybe, but I'm not sure. Is a newborn human property?
Something that often gets left out of these discussions is the possibility of holding the view that animals don't have rights, yet it is unethical to arbitrarily inflict harm on them. If some dude randomly beats a dog, they're simply a psychopath, regardless of whether or not the dog can be said to have rights. While political philosophy or libertarianism might not have something to say about it, more general ethics and psychology most certainly can, and I definitely don't think that libertarianism logically binds anyone to be indifferent towards psychopathy.
Unfortunately, the common trend in these discussions is an animal rights activist on one hand, and a libertarian on the other hand that fallaciously concludes that there's no ethical question because animals aren't subject to political philosophy (thus expressing indifference towards psychopathy by reducing everything to rights). And that's just a symptom of the more general issue of reductionism-of-ethics-to-politics that often pops up in libertarian circles.
Efficient to what end? My question is why using it for that purpose is any less 'natural' than feeding off them.