If I walked into a tigers territory, it will attack me. Humans are smart enough to know this. If a tiger walked onto my property it doesn't know I might kill it or that it's even personal property. Since it doesn't know the law doesn't apply to it. As far as ownership, what about blind people and their dogs?
> 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.
I think you do not mean you contend that, but rather the opposite: that you contest this point. So you set up "willful action" as the criterium so you can easily knock it down? Look, humans are very very different than any other species of life we are aware of, in a number of major cognitive and behaviorial ways. Glance at the Hoppe quote on the other animal rights thread. One can, without too much difficulty, point to any one of these differentiating characteristics and say: here is why these rules (rights, or mutual respect, or division of labor, or whatever) should apply to our species and will give very good results for us, but there is no reason to apply them to these other species, for they don't have these same factors going for them and wouldn't get the same good results.
I guess you want to make it seem the whole concept of rights is totally arbitrary and idiotic, but in this particular instance -- excluding animals -- there are measurable, observable, objective factors that one can invoke and say: that's why rights should apply only to humans. So disagree with rights as superstitious nonsense, fine, I shan't convince you otherwise, I'm sure, but deliniating between humans and animals is not any problem for rights theory. One could do it with half his brain tied behind his back.
Brainpolice: 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.
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.
YES!!! This sounds like what I'm trying to get across, dammit! In every friggin overwhelming, fast-paced animal debate thread I've been in here.
See my other post about the "2 categories vs 3 categories" of "rights". I don't know if you'd have to call it animal "rights", but simply acknowledge that there's an ethically relevant difference between a sentient animal and a tree or a rock, or any other obvious property.
Jon Irenicus: If you can depict why using animals for cosmetics testing is the most efficient and humane means. Efficient to what end? My question is why using it for that purpose is any less 'natural' than feeding off them.
If you can depict why using animals for cosmetics testing is the most efficient and humane means.
Efficient to what end? My question is why using it for that purpose is any less 'natural' than feeding off them.
There are lab rats and lab rabbits that are used for experiments that were produced just for those reasons (because it's quick and they can go through many generations in a short period), what I'm referring to is outside of that, because they still do animal testing to animals such as cats, dogs, and monkeys which usually don't yield results that are even applicable to humans.
Doing neurological and psychological test by making a cat mangled in spikes with electric shocks going through it's body, or by making a dog smoke to find what effects it has on the lungs doesn't seem very natural. In the wild do you see other animals inject each other with AIDs to see what effect it will have on them, or electricuting them to see the effect it has on the mind?
Bert:(...) doesn't seem very natural.
You're falling for both the naturalistic fallacy ("natural equals good") and what I call the false natural/artificial dichotomy*. I contend that everything man does is natural, since man is part of nature. To say otherwise would entail that man is a supernatural being, like a god or something, and works via miracles. You might very well consider animal testing to be distasteful and boycott or otherwise shun companies and individuals that engage in it, but you are wrong (at least from what I understand as the libertarian perspective) in thinking that animals have a right not to be treated that way, or that what you're proposing is any more natural than the alternative.
* I am not above using the word "natural" colloquially to mean the opposite of "artificial", for lack of a better word (always saying "not man-made" and "man-made" instead would be tedious), but strictly speaking I consider that an error. Even the formulation of "natural rights" doesn't mean anything if taken literally, and I am more comfortable calling them innate, or better yet, basic rights, in that they are the basis for the only known universal ethic, namely the NAP.
Merlin: Helmuth Hubener: Animals are property. That is my understanding. Being property, the owners may do whatever they wish with them. Well said. If animals want rights, let them take up arms and take them from us.
Helmuth Hubener: Animals are property. That is my understanding. Being property, the owners may do whatever they wish with them.
Animals are property. That is my understanding. Being property, the owners may do whatever they wish with them.
Well said. If animals want rights, let them take up arms and take them from us.
Ahhh, that sweet might-makes-right fallacy. It's so convenient when you have the upper hand.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi: Ahhh, that sweet might-makes-right fallacy. It's so convenient when you have the upper hand.
Well, I meant it in as a test of rationality and desire of freedom at the same time, but you could see it as “might makes right” (which applies in the real world, even if we strongly disagree with that: slavery ended only when it was profitable to substitute paid labor with it).
Helmuth Hubener:I think you do not mean you contend that, but rather the opposite: that you contest this point.
Merriam - Webster: Main Entry: con·tend ntransitive verb 1 : to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : struggle2 : to strive in debate : argue
ntransitive verb 1 : to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : struggle2 : to strive in debate : argue
Helmuth Hubener:deliniating between humans and animals is not any problem for rights theory. One could do it with half his brain tied behind his back.
Give one example.
Brainpolice: 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.
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.
But is that really ethics?
Jackson, get serious, is English not your first language? When someone writes "I would contend that people are good", they mean "it is my position that people are good". Invariably. 100% of the time. As for giving you an example, you already gave yourself one: homo sapiens is the only species capable of serious contemplation regarding his choices.
That is just one example, there are any number of such differences, as gone into by Hoppe and as any marginally intelligent person can readily see. Only in the world of Disney movies are animals anything like humans. Any child can tell the difference between the two.
Helmuth Hubener:ackson, get serious, is English not your first language? When someone writes "I would contend that people are good", they mean "it is my position that people are good". Invariably. 100% of the time.
Yeah, maybe it was an awkward use of the word.
Helmuth Hubener:As for giving you an example, you already gave yourself one: homo sapiens is the only species capable of serious contemplation regarding his choices.
That may be the case for some people, but what about children or the severely disabled? I just don't see how being the most intelligent animal automatically makes us deserving of rights exclusively. Where up the evolutionary ladder is the line of demarcation in our ancestors? Homo Erectus: no rights, Cro-magnon: rights? They even had to justify it in the BIble (the part where God created humans specifically in his image, in order to rule the Earth). It just seems so arbitrary to me.
Right, it was already mentioned by several here that any uniquely human behavior or cognition will have exceptions. At minimum, infants and vegetables exhibit no uniquely human characteristics. That doesn't negate the reality of unique human characteristics. Cheetahs run fast. The two crippled cheetahs in the world don't make that untrue.
The fact is that there are these characteristics, and one can make a pretty good case they mesh well with freedom. Freedom is going to be a good regime for a species with advanced cognition, extreme individual variation, tool use (aka capital accumulation), etc. to really thrive under. It will be super-effective and successful for that species to operate in freedom. For other species, they don't have the same plus-factors as humanity and won't thrive in the same way if given Rothbardian rights.
You and Dondolee are right that wanting to treat certain animals nicely and gently is merely an aesthetical affinity, an arbitrary affectation, and invoking the concept of "rights" is just a way of trying to force everyone else to behave according to those prejudices.
Now, you think talk of morality and rights is a joke anyway, so why should you care either way? Why not be indifferent to us doling these magic, imaginary rights to anyone or anything we like? Because restricting the free range of individual humans to use animals however they wish will cause a meaningful drop in the utility or well-being of humans -- making cosmetics more dangerous, introducing uncertainty into the legal system, making certain research impossible, etc. On the other hand, endowing animals with habeas corpus, immunity from torture, and whatever, will cause no real long-term benefits to their species.
Helmuth Hubener:Now, you think talk of morality and rights is a joke anyway, so why should you care either way? Why not be indifferent to us doling these magic, imaginary rights to anyone or anything we like?
I care because righteous action is the most dangerous force known to man. It frightens me when people genuinely feel justified in action. If you are the sort who just finds it convenient to delineate rights by some arbitrary standard for the sake of efficiency, I can't understand why you do, but I guess I really don't care that you do.
Marko: Brainpolice: 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. But is that really ethics?
Why wouldn't it be? At a minimum, insofar as it reflects on the character of the human, it seems to be an ethical question.
There are lab rats and lab rabbits that are used for experiments that were produced just for those reasons (because it's quick and they can go through many generations in a short period), what I'm referring to is outside of that, because they still do animal testing to animals such as cats, dogs, and monkeys which usually don't yield results that are even applicable to humans. Doing neurological and psychological test by making a cat mangled in spikes with electric shocks going through it's body, or by making a dog smoke to find what effects it has on the lungs doesn't seem very natural. In the wild do you see other animals inject each other with AIDs to see what effect it will have on them, or electricuting them to see the effect it has on the mind?
You sure as hell don't find meat processing factories either though, do you now? Very few ways people go about getting food have much to do with how nature goes about it, so I assumed you're talking about the naturalcy of the 'want' in question. Like others said if you find it ethically distasteful you can boycott organisations engaging in this kind of testing, but I really don't think you can neatly delineate it from breeding animals for feeding.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Butler Shaffer makes the following point:
"Restricting the sense of personhood to humans, alone, does find support in the behavior of other species, which may suggest a genetic basis for such a distinction. This is why the insistence, by other life forms, on respect for territorial boundaries tends to be confined to members of the same species. For the lioness to respect the personhood of the aforesaid wildebeest would be fatal to the lioness as it would be to the wildebeest making the same concession to the grasses. This might suggest to us a biological basis for our exclusion of nonhumans from the "rights" equation" (bold mine)
So the concept of rights is intra-species. Humans have rights with respect to humans. Cats have rights with respect to cats. Arguments about what makes our species different to other species miss the point. The fact that we ARE different is enough of a justification.
Ultimately however, with a free market in law, the laws will reflect the will of the population and what laws they are willing to pay to be enforced. What animals have what rights will be determined by consumer demand.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Josh : TelfordUS:As a side note, I choose not to eat meat from factory farms because it reminds me of the Holocaust too much.What about those poor fruits and vegetables that you eat?
TelfordUS:As a side note, I choose not to eat meat from factory farms because it reminds me of the Holocaust too much.
Fruits and many vegetables are made by the parent organism to be eaten and returned to the soil to fertilize the seeds.
It wasn't a rhetorical question -- I wasn't saying you shouldn't care, I was really asking why you should care, so I could then I answer myself that you should care because of the utilitarian reason I gave. OK, so actually the question was a rhetorical device, just in a different way than normal. I shouldve wrote "it is because" instead of just "because". To restate: rights should not be applied to animals because to do so hinders humanity, and doesn't really help animal species.
I feel completely justified in brushing my teeth. I feel completely justified in not doing so. I feel completely justified in writing this post. I feel completely justified in flushing my fish (if I had one) down the toilet. Do any of these actions frighten you?
Anyway, I shouldn't make fun. I'm not going to convince you to beleive in morality, and haven't been trying. I've been communicating with you in a perfectly good, utiltarian way. Is your main purpose here to convince me and others that morality does not exist? Because you should be smart enough to realize: that is not likely to happen. It's probably a waste of your time. But, that's subjective ;).
Wiki seems to have a somewhat high quality answer to this (yay). Ethics addresses questions of morality and ...morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people.
Do you not consider needless pain and suffering, pointless death and torture, or indifferent neglect of sentient captive beings to be wrong? I'd say it sounds perfectly relevant to ethics.
Brainpolice: 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.
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.
Psychopath isn't even a clinical term anymore, much less a term anyone should care about when dicussing what one should or should not do. Not only that, we really have to look at the implications / defintions / relevence / relation of peronality disorders to varying psychological philosophies of antisocial personality (which is what I think you are refering to) or anyother personality disorder. Likewise, it may be nothing more than a Christian / post-Christian mind set to give a flying fuck about anything outside of the human tribe and customs one associates with (from a socialogical / social psychological / anthropological / theological viewpoint) much less to have a concern about anything outside of human, excluding a some ancient Indian type of mindsets.
If you want to philosophise on a theory of law in the role of society with animals that is one thing, but it should be distinguished. That is probably a more interesting and productive debate.
Helmuth Hubener:Do any of these actions frighten you?
The specific actions? Not really. The fact that you feel it is an absolute right (complete justification) to do all those things, well, that's a little creepy.
Helmuth Hubener:Is your main purpose here to convince me and others that morality does not exist? Because you should be smart enough to realize: that is not likely to happen. It's probably a waste of your time. But, that's subjective ;).
No, It's more to understand why people find them necessary.
Dondoolee: Brainpolice: 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. Psychopath isn't even a clinical term anymore, much less a term anyone should care about when dicussing what one should or should not do. Not only that, we really have to look at the implications / defintions / relevence / relation of peronality disorders to varying psychological philosophies of antisocial personality (which is what I think you are refering to) or anyother personality disorder. Likewise, it may be nothing more than a Christian / post-Christian mind set to give a flying fuck about anything outside of the human tribe and customs one associates with (from a socialogical / social psychological / anthropological / theological viewpoint) much less to have a concern about anything outside of human, excluding a some ancient Indian type of mindsets. If you want to philosophise on a theory of law in the role of society with animals that is one thing, but it should be distinguished. That is probably a more interesting and productive debate.
When I say "psychopath", I'm talking about most of everyone's moral intuitions about what someone who's right in the head just doesn't do, not a clinical term. I don't think it takes an elaborate psychological philosophy to see that someone that gets their jollies by needlessly inflicting violence on animals is messed up. I'm not talking about a theory of law, I'm talking general ethics - and that's the whole problem with libertarian discussions like this one, where everything is reduced to a question of law or rights. As far as I can tell, there is no productive debate to be had with people that want to rationalize lighting a cat on fire on the grounds that cats aren't legal persons. To me, this is just a reductio of thin libertarianism.
Brainpolice:As far as I can tell, there is no productive debate to be had with people that want to rationalize lighting a cat on fire on the grounds that cats aren't legal persons.
I'm sorry to say that it's you who is doing the rationalizing. There is no essential difference between slaughtering pigs for meat and lighting cats on fire, as ridiculous as that may sound.
Your argument for there being a difference is probably that one is being sadistic for fun, and doesn't have to be so, but the exact same thing could be said about eating meat or using other animal products. Meat is not essential to a person's survival (that used to be different, but you can supposedly lead a healthy life as a vegan nowadays).
You may very well detest a person for deriving satisfaction from torturing animals, but your reasons for that are of a subjective and aesthetic nature, and not grounded in a universal ethic.
assimilateur: Brainpolice:As far as I can tell, there is no productive debate to be had with people that want to rationalize lighting a cat on fire on the grounds that cats aren't legal persons. I'm sorry to say that it's you who is doing the rationalizing. There is no essential difference between slaughtering pigs for meat and lighting cats on fire, as ridiculous as that may sound. Your argument for there being a difference is probably that one is being sadistic for fun, and doesn't have to be so, but the exact same thing could be said about eating meat or using other animal products. Meat is not essential to a person's survival (that used to be different, but you can supposedly lead a healthy life as a vegan nowadays). You may very well detest a person for deriving satisfaction from torturing animals, but your reasons for that are of a subjective and aesthetic nature, and not grounded in a universal ethic.
I'm not an ethical universalist in the first place - but the alternative is not subjectivism or aesthetics. It is not a merely aesthetic position to object to harming life for fun - it's an ethical evaluation of the animal-torturer's character. It might not be grounded in *political justice*, but it is grounded in a eudaimonistic ethics. Eudaimonism isn't aesthetics. I'm not argueing on the grounds of what is essential for a person's survival, but on the grounds of what is reflective of a person's character.
Brainpolice:but on the grounds of what is reflective of a person's character.
Believe it or not, but I agree. Still, I contend that it is a person's right to be a sick fuck if they're not aggressing against another person. And by "right" I mean that other people are not entitled to any coercive action against the supposed sick fuck.
Accordingly, I consider it lawless and immoral to put an animal abuser behind bars, but I see - and even somewhat share - the reasoning behind detesting and perhaps even boycotting them.
Jon Irenicus: You sure as hell don't find meat processing factories either though, do you now? Very few ways people go about getting food have much to do with how nature goes about it, so I assumed you're talking about the naturalcy of the 'want' in question. Like others said if you find it ethically distasteful you can boycott organisations engaging in this kind of testing, but I really don't think you can neatly delineate it from breeding animals for feeding.
I don't eat meat, and the shampoo and conditioner I own was not tested on animals.
When it comes to the meat industry I find it rather peculiar. Yet, I haven't put much focus on just the idea of breeding for feeding on such a large scale. That's more of a personal dislike of how it's done.
assimilateur:Accordingly, I consider it lawless and immoral to put an animal abuser behind bars, but I see - and even somewhat share - the reasoning behind detesting and perhaps even boycotting them.
How about a compulsory fine, if the person is brought to a private court or whatever and the arbiter decides that a fine should be imposed.
Why anarchy fails
AJ:How about a compulsory fine, if the person is brought to a private court or whatever and the arbiter decides that a fine should be imposed.
That would be aggression against the person's property, and equivalent with fining someone for faggotry or snorting cocaine (i.e. you have an ethical problem with the guy and want to see him punished).
Note that I base the above on the fact of animals having no rights. I say fact, because I have yet to read a sensible and consistent (with natural rights) rights-theoretical argument (as opposed to emotional or aesthetical, which wouldn't be an argument in the first place) to the contrary.
assimilateur:Note that I base the above on the fact of animals having no rights. I say fact, because I have yet to read a sensible and consistent (with natural rights) rights-theoretical argument (as opposed to emotional or aesthetical, which wouldn't be an argument in the first place) to the contrary.
Is it a jump to say that you only believe humans have rights because you've heard a convincing rights-theoretical argument (with natural rights) that said so?
AJ:Is it a jump to say that you only believe humans have rights because you've heard a convincing rights-theoretical argument (with natural rights) that said so?
No, not only. Before I had read arguments by Rothbard and others whose names I now can't recall, I regarded animal rights as completely inconsistent with how they are treated in practice.
That being said, I don't see what your point is supposed to be. Would you have a problem with me being convinced by sound rights-theoretical arguments that animals had no rights?
Above it sounds like you're saying that animals have no rights because you haven't seen a convincing (natural) rights-theoretical argument for animal rights. It seems relevant to ask you, then, whether you hold to the same standard for human rights.
(Possibly you misread my previous post? "Is it a jump to say that you only believe humans have rights because you've heard a convincing rights-theoretical argument (with natural rights) that said so?")
AJ:Possibly you misread my previous post?
Yes, I did. My apologies. You misread part of my post as well: where you quote me "(with natural rights)", it was actually "consistent (with natural rights)". It's no big deal, but that fragment doesn't make sense how you quote it, though I admit that my phrasing was somewhat weird.
On topic: I became convinced about people having rights, or more precisely, having property rights, based on Rothbard's argument that only complete self-ownership is consistent with nature and universal. That's how I understood him in The Ethics of Liberty, and I'd be happy to hear your arguments in case you either disagreed, or thought that this was irrelevant to the discussion (rereading this last sentence made it sound awfully redundant, but I'm going to let it stand as an expression of me trying to keep an open mind).
assimilateur:On topic: I became convinced about people having rights, or more precisely, having property rights, based on Rothbard's argument that only complete self-ownership is consistent with nature and universal. That's how I understood him in The Ethics of Liberty, and I'd be happy to hear your arguments in case you either disagreed, or thought that this was irrelevant to the discussion
First, I'm a little curious how you would have responded (before reading Rothbard) to someone who says that, for instance, torturing some group of people is OK because they have no rights.
As to self-ownership and natural rights, there was a period last year when they were discussed frequently by me and others. I linked the two that I know for sure focus on self-ownership, but they all deal with natural rights. I am of course always happy to debate on the matter.
"Actual logical proof of natural law" http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/9828.aspx"Can you define natural rights as a meaningful concept?" http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/9870.aspxWhat are rights according to those on the forums? http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8946.aspx"The question of "natural" rights" http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/9308.aspx "Oughtism and its cure" http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/10108.aspx"David Osterfeld on natural rights and self-ownership" http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/9952.aspxHow do natural rights cross the is-ought divide? http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/9787.aspxDoes it make sense that human morality be a matter of deduction? http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/9786.aspxRasmussen natural rights proof http://mises.org/Community/groups/natural_rights/forum/p/7370/238502.aspxRothbard self-ownership, my refutation http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/9952/240824.aspx#240824Adam Knott's outstanding post on Mises and objective ethics http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/13643/295359.aspx#295359O'Neil's essay Ayn Rand Is-Ought http://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_4.pdf
I think we can agree that normative rights are based on ethics, and ethics are based on what is right and wrong. On right and wrong, I follow Mises when he said, "We originally want or desire an object not because it is agreeable or good, but we call it agreeable or good because we want or desire it."
And so it is with cosmetics too.
I am at once thankful for those resources, as well as humbled that you think I need to brush up as heavily on my rights theory as that number of links suggests (I'm only half-serious on that latter part).
assimilateur: I am at once thankful for those resources, as well as humbled that you think I need to brush up as heavily on my rights theory as that number of links suggests (I'm only half-serious on that latter part).
Nah, I just put them all there because I had the list lying around in case you were interested. The best value-for-money is probably to read the O'Neil article.
I don't think it takes an elaborate psychological philosophy to see that someone that gets their jollies by needlessly inflicting violence on animals is messed up
I would still think if one wants to try to look at personality types, it can only be judged and measured within the context of the environment. i.e. someone breaking some type of homeostasis to a dramatic degree. Killing animals for the heck of it, is not without precedence in human history. Even a theory of ethics would probably be best off to kind of look at things in the same light.
While I won't do it now, it may be interesting to see how various societies throughout history looked at, treated, and defined excessive cruelty. Off the top of my head, I can already think of some major discrepancies.
As far as I can tell, there is no productive debate to be had with people that want to rationalize lighting a cat on fire on the grounds that cats aren't legal persons
To me it intuitively seems like a kind of "aspergery" or at least overly dogmatic approach to things if some one wants to defend lighting the cat on fire. I certainly would not share the same aesthetic values with that person. But I still think there may be room for productive discussion.
To try to think of something off the top of my head: If some one loves the world of Hoppe, for example, and anarchy was essentially just a micro kingdom with culturaly conservative values, I still some how think frying a cat for the lulz would go against culturaly conservative values. I still think there may be a type of cultural precedent that could be argued to have some thing not reward psychotic cat killing.
Dondoolee:To me it intuitively seems like a kind of "aspergery" or at least overly dogmatic approach to things if some one wants to defend lighting the cat on fire.
Some of us are going to be defending lighting cats on fire because having the right to do that sort of shit to your own pet or livestock inevitably follows from unrestricted self-ownership and animals not having rights. I guess that has to be elucidated, because apparently (which was a surprise to me) not all libertarians hold the above axioms (is that even the right word?) of self-ownership and moral agency being a prerequisite for rights to be evident.
Now, that does not mean that I'm in favor of torturing animals, as defending the legitimacy of an act is not necessarily (and in this case, decidedly not) the same as defending its aesthetics or even morality. I merely posit that it goes against the NAP to engage in coercive action (fining, imprisonment, etc) against a person who's defiling their own property, because that property happens to be cute and cuddly.
Boycotting a person for the above reasons, however, is completely legitimate.
Right, but I think BP went out of his way to say it wasn't legal theory that is being discussed. I wasn't really thinking about legal theory either. When I said "overly dogmatic", I meant more along the lines of using the NAP as one's de facto definer of good / bad and right / wrong.
Jon Irenicus: When it comes to the meat industry I find it rather peculiar. Yet, I haven't put much focus on just the idea of breeding for feeding on such a large scale. That's more of a personal dislike of how it's done. And so it is with cosmetics too.
The difference is that testing animals in cosmetics has nothing to do with the actual product itself. You can get cosmetics without them being tested on animals. In the meat industry the animal is the product. My personal dislike has to do with the process in which the meat is processed, not the product itself.