Some of you will be guffawing to your Objectivist selves saying, "Self, how ridiculous this JCFolsom is! Everyone knows animals have no rights! They think not, they communicate not, they can enter into no agreements. They work by pure instinct, not rationality; they are no different than the robotic toys that imitate them, purely property." Please correct me or add justifications if I'm wrong or understating the case.
Yet, methinks we can demonstrate quite clearly that at least some animals can indeed think, communicate, and even enter into agreements. We shall take as our example that oldest of human allies, the dog. What other animal so clearly feels as a dog? Evident in them is anger, fear, joy, and affection. Those who deny it are committing the opposite error to anthropomorphizing, discounting all human-like features as mere deceptions because that fits more neatly with their pre-conceived worldview. Taking this position, you may as well count all other humans as philosophical zombies, too, and thus justify slavery.
Animals also enter into agreements. Dogs on a show room floor expect and receive treats, above and beyond the food needed to keep them healthy, for performance. That this agreement was not spelled out in words makes it no less real. Humans can and do come to such agreements. If the trainer consistently failed to produce treats for performance, the dog would cease performing in a nearly perfect example of inter-species trade.
Dogs can also solve problems, figuring out how to unlatch gates and the like with the rather dissimilar tools at their disposal. Their ancestors in the wild, wolves, learn via experience the best strategies to capture their prey, and coordinate with other members of their packs to do so as well. I have seen stories of certain types of birds and primates grieved unto death at the loss of a mate or mother, too depressed to eat or otherwise care for themselves. Elephants have been observed blocking the roads of poachers with logs, and caressing the bones of their dead.
Is this complicating for our activities towards animals? You're damned right it is. Nonetheless, I believe the case can be made that any being that acts primarily from its own motivations cannot be truly owned, in that ownership implies primary control. Indeed, methinks this is the only real argument against slavery, including that slavery which a person enters into voluntarily. The one who sells himself into slavery does so fraudulently, whether he realizes it or not.
I'll leave it there, for now. Fire away!
Do you believe animals are self-aware?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego:Do you believe animals are self-aware?
What is self-awareness? That's a sticky topic. I believe some are. I don't believe too many animals suffer from existential angst, or ponder greatly the purpose behind their existences. Then again, I really don't think most people do either.
This will go nowhere unless you define what is morality first, or what is necessary for one to be a moral agent such that they may possess rights.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Do animals have consciousness?
Jon Irenicus:This will go nowhere unless you define what is morality first, or what is necessary for one to be a moral agent such that they may possess rights.
Alright, let's try this one on for size. An entity (hopefully none here would say that only members of the human species can have rights regardless of the capabilities of other beings we might encounter) which acts in a self-directed fashion that we have reason to believe is not an entirely mechanical reaction to stimuli (at least no more or only by degree more so than human actions) cannot be owned, because primary control of its actions is self-generated.
What I will mean by morality here is not taking actions that violate the non-aggression principle. Before anyone gets all up in my grill talking about reciprocity and such things, children, the retarded, and the insane cannot necessarily be expected to understand or respect the rights of others at all times, either (and it is foolish to expect even the adult and able to all the time), and most of the arguments used against animals will apply just as much to them.
When pressed, some will say that indeed, children and the mentally handicapped (only for brevity, not for political correctness, though I suppose I ruined brevity with this comment) have no rights. Which would imply that they are eligible to be property. So, I can enslave the severely retarded without harming a moral agent. Or, for that matter, kill and eat them. Yum.
Ego:Do animals have consciousness?
Consciousness of what? Again, this is an amorphous word. They have a degree of consciousness, rather differing degrees of consciousness for different species. Such variation can be found, not only between humans but for a single human within a lifetime.
If animals do have consciousness, even a limited version, then I'd say that we treat them the same as we would treat a human with severe mental disabilities.
I strongly doubt that animals have consciousness, purely because the idea of incremental consciousness makes no sense to me. That would imply that even a calculator (or a rock) has some degree of consciousness.
The question of animal rights in an anarchist society is irrelevant. They have no rights in an anarchist society. Animals have no way of hiring someone to protect their rights or to have their rights recognized, even if we could somehow establish that they have them.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Ego:If animals do have consciousness, even a limited version, then I'd say that we treat them the same as we would treat a human being with severe mental disabilities. I strongly doubt that animals have consciousness, purely because the idea of incremental consciousness makes no sense to me. That would imply that even a calculator (or a rock) has some degree of consciousness.
This is untrue. Rocks and calculators act solely upon inputs. Calculators are the more illustrative example. A calculator, or any computer, takes an ultimately human-derived input, puts it through an algorithm determined entirely by humans, and spits out an entirely predictable response. It is deterministic.
Conscious beings, however, can, in the presence of identical external stimuli, act in an unpredictable, yet nonetheless non-random fashion. Unpredictable meaning that it seems to match no algorithm, and non-random in that it fails statistical tests for randomness. Humans can act in this way. So can some animals. One thing to remember about consciousness is that one can never prove its existence, except experientially. I know I am conscious, but to describe what that means rather closely resembles describing red to a blind man.
The question becomes, I guess, do I believe that my 20-year-old crochety white dog that thinks she's a human actually enjoy her coffee? Does she just stimulus-response react to it, or does she experience it? What do you think? I think that dogs and indeed probably animals down to a rather lower level of intelligence than that actually experience things. They are not merely machines.
Spideynw:The question of animal rights in an anarchist society is irrelevant. They have no rights in an anarchist society. Animals have no way of hiring someone to protect their rights or to have their rights recognized, even if we could somehow establish that they have them.
That's nice. Reason #386 why I'm not an anarchist.
JCFolsom: That's nice. Reason #386 why I'm not an anarchist.
Of course this begs the question, how are a child's rights protected in an anarchist society? Or do they even have rights? I mean, if the right to life is a "natural" right, then don't children and animals have a "natural" or inherent right to life as well? If so, how can those rights be protected without government?
Spideynw:Of course this begs the question, how are a child's rights protected in an anarchist society? Or do they even have rights? I mean, if the right to life is a "natural" right, then don't children and animals have a "natural" or inherent right to life as well? If so, how can those rights be protected without government?
They can't. Thus government. The US, flawed as it was, was created as a Constitutional Republic to prevent, in part, the tyranny of the majority. Majorities are rarely the ones in danger, government or no. Rather, it is minorities, those outvoted or outmanned, that are constantly at risk.
JCFolsom: They can't. Thus government. The US, flawed as it was, was created as a Constitutional Republic to prevent, in part, the tyranny of the majority. Majorities are rarely the ones in danger, government or no. Rather, it is minorities, those outvoted or outmanned, that are constantly at risk.
I think it is better said the "weak" are constantly at risk, since sometimes the "weaK" can be the majority. Federal government decisions are made by a paltry ~550 people in the U.S. And the approval of only ~300 are needed to make law.
Regardless, how can the "weak" be protected in a free society?
I agree, anything that acts soley upon input (in other words: a soup of chemicals) isn't conscious.The question is: at what point do organisms cease to be chemical reactions? If humans didn't have consciousness, I would assume that we too are simply complex chemical reactions.
It's certainly possible to create a computer that is as complex as the human brain (it would be huge and expensive, but it's still possible). That computer would still be a computer, though, and it wouldn't be conscious. It doesn't make any sense to me that complexity leads to consciousness, so I hesitate to assume that animals have any.
Ego:I agree, anything that acts soley upon input (in other words: a soup of chemicals) isn't conscious.The question is: at what point do organisms cease to be chemical reactions? If humans didn't have consciousness, I would assume that we too are simply complex chemical reactions. It's certainly possible to create a computer that is as complex as the human brain (it would be huge and expensive, but it's still possible). That computer would still be a computer, though, and it wouldn't be conscious. It doesn't make any sense to me that complexity leads to consciousness, so I hesitate to assume that animals have any.
Okay, then, why do you assume that anyone is conscious, excepting yourself? You could well be the only actual consciousness in existence, all others merely being extremely sophisticated simulations, or even mere figments of your imagination. I could deny that I am a simulation all day, but I could no more prove it to you than a dog could. So let me ask you, what would you take to be sufficient evidence of consciousness in another being for you to make the leap of faith into believing they are conscious?
Ego: I agree, anything that acts soley upon input (in other words: a soup of chemicals) isn't conscious.The question is: at what point do organisms cease to be chemical reactions? If humans didn't have consciousness, I would assume that we too are simply complex chemical reactions. It's certainly possible to create a computer that is as complex as the human brain (it would be huge and expensive, but it's still possible). That computer would still be a computer, though, and it wouldn't be conscious. It doesn't make any sense to me that complexity leads to consciousness, so I hesitate to assume that animals have any.
At what point does a human child aqcuire consciousness? The human brain does not quit forming until about age 25. So are you saying humans are not actually conscious until age 25? Or are you saying a human is conscious from birth? If so, it can be shown that dogs have the mentality of a three year old, as such, should they not be considered conscious as well?
I don't know for a fact that anyone else is conscious (and neither do any of you). I think it's reasonable to assume it because I'm human and so is everyone else, but it can't be proven.
On the same token, why don't you think that paramecia are conscious? What is the lowest level of complexity that creates consciousness? What's chemically different about that organism and the organism "beneath it"?
Why don't you think that complex AI (that's "ai") simulations are conscious? They can display emotion, boredom, joy, etc. much better than a dog.
Spidey, I think that humans are conscious before 25 years old because I'm not yet 25 years old!
Ego:Spidey, I think that humans are conscious before 25 years old because I'm not yet 25 years old!
Well that explains your confusion! Your brain isn't fully developed yet! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Seriously, though,
Ego:I don't know for a fact that anyone else is conscious (and neither do any of you). I think it's reasonable to assume it because I'm human and so is everyone else, but it can't be proven. On the same token, why don't you think that paramecia are conscious? What is the lowest level of complexity that creates consciousness? What's chemically different about that organism and the organism "beneath it"? Why don't you think that complex AI (that's "ai") simulations are conscious? They can display emotion, boredom, joy, etc. much better than a dog.
Well, you see, therein lies the issue. The only way we conclude that our fellow humans are conscious are that, firstly, we are human and conscious, and that other humans are similarly structured and act in a way that we recognize as being similar to our ways of consciously acting. Because we only have one certain example, we must base all our conclusions, such as they are, on the only model available.
The same situation exists with animals. Animals differ in their structures from us more than other humans do, but particularly higher(chordates, maybe some molluscs and arthropods) animals are nonetheless quite similar. On top of this, they act in ways that at times seem quite reflective of our own reactions to our experiences, appearing to make choices from a combination of internal and external motivations. Can we prove that? No, but I think the preponderance of evidence supports it. That is all that we have for anything. If we discount this evidence, we take a tremendous risk of doing great evil.
Let us look at what is called our closest relative, the chimpanzee. This is a creature that customizes tools for its use, forms strong group bonds, commits murder and goes to war. They give many signs of being excited by the hunt or by battle. This creature varies from us in the structure of its hips, its size, the hair on its skin and a lack of subcutaneous fat, somewhat in the shape and greatly in the size of its brain, but all these structures are recognizable homologs of our own. Everything differs only by degree, our body plans quite similar, the materials of our construction nearly identical. As you move further away, structures vary more, but you must go far indeed (subphylum level, I'd say) before you come to a place where structures vary not so much in degree as in type. Does that mean that I consider a goldfish a particularly conscious being? No, I do not. However, I do consider it grossly premature, and if you'll pardon the word, inhuman, for us to accept the historical designation of animals as property without far more examination.
I'll respect the rights of animals when they respect the rights of each other as animals. Which they never do. They don't have any concern for animals they eat or have to kill; some even kill for fun. I don't see any problem with eating them. Though it's bad to be cruel to them (and beyond my interest to do so), I don't see how eating them or selling their carcass is better than that.
I readily admit that I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about when it comes to this. Can you answer some of the questions I laid out in my previous post though? At what level of chemical complexity does a consciousness form? Why? Or is it something else?
Ego:I readily admit that I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about when it comes to this. Can you answer some of the questions I laid out in my previous post though? At what level of chemical complexity does a consciousness form? Why? Or is it something else?
That gets into the realm of religion (for science certianly has no answer to it). I can go into that with you if you like, but methinks this is perhaps not the best place for it.
JohnSchreimann:I'll respect the rights of animals when they respect the rights of each other as animals. Which they never do. They don't have any concern for animals they eat or have to kill; some even kill for fun. I don't see any problem with eating them. Though it's bad to be cruel to them (and beyond my interest to do so), I don't see how eating them or selling their carcass is better than that.
I'll respect the rights of humans when they respect the rights of each other as humans. Which they never do. They don't have any concern for animals they eat or have to kill; some even kill for fun. I don't see any problem with eating them. Though it's bad to be cruel to them (and beyond my interest to do so), I don't see how eating them or selling their carcass is better than that.
See how easy that works? Or how about this one, for something more reminiscent of an actual attitude those in power have held:
I'll respect the rights of black people when they respect the rights of each other as black people. Which they never do. They don't have any concern for animals they eat or have to kill; some even kill for fun. I don't see any problem with eating them. Though it's bad to be cruel to them (and beyond my interest to do so), I don't see how eating them or selling their carcass is better than that.
Let's expand upon it:
I'll respect the rights of humans when they respect the rights of each other as humans. Which they never do. All through their history, they have killed great masses of each other over petty differences of opinion and territorial disputes. Their sheer malice towards one another is without precedent. They don't have any concern for animals they eat or have to kill; some even kill for fun. That latter bit, the killing for fun, even goes for other humans. They've even forced people to fight each other in arenas for their amusement. They enslave each other terribly, they bomb people with the barest pretense of a reason, with a full knowledge that many non-targets will be killed, for abstract foreign policy goals. Would that they were like the bonobo, pretty much hanging out, eating plants, being fairly peaceful, screwing all day. I don't see any problem with eating them. Though it's bad to be cruel to them (and beyond my interest to do so), I don't see how eating them or selling their carcass is better than that.
As they say, "If god didn't mean for us to eat people, why'd he make us out of meat?"
I think rights are reciprocal in nature. And in order to establish any norms of conduct between two parties there must be some form of argumentation.
Now say you come into conflict with a mosquito. I lands on your arm and starts sucking your blood. Does it make sense to start arguing with the mosquito? No, you just swat it.
What if you come into conflict with a gorilla and it wants to eat you? Does it make sense to try argue with it? No, you just pull a strap and blow it away.
Because animals are not capable of argumentation, they are not capable of possessing rights. For a creature to possess rights is must have a rational capacity.
I'm not following you or seeing how you've refuted what I've said.
Also note, that I would eat a bonobo if I thought it'd taste good and it was reasonably priced.
Stephen Forde:I think rights are reciprocal in nature. And in order to establish any norms of conduct between two parties there must be some form of argumentation. Now say you come into conflict with a mosquito. I lands on your arm and starts sucking your blood. Does it make sense to start arguing with the mosquito? No, you just swat it. What if you come into conflict with a gorilla and it wants to eat you? Does it make sense to try argue with it? No, you just pull a strap and blow it away. Because animals are not capable of argumentation, they are not capable of possessing rights. For a creature to possess rights is must have a rational capacity.
First off, gorillas are strict herbivores. It seems snarky to bring this up, but unless you at least know something about animals and how they interact with humans and with each other, you will come in ill-equipped to this discussion.
Secondly, both mosquito and gorilla are agressing against you. You would have a right to defend yourself, even if they were human.
Finally, Hellen Keller was not capable of argumentation before someone put in immense efforts to make her capable of communication. Her writings, however, wound up being quite impressive. Toddlers aren't capable of argumentation, either. Do you suggest we eat them? How about the mentally retarded? How about just really stupid people?
JohnSchreimann:I'm not following you or seeing how you've refuted what I've said.
I haven't. I've just pointed out that all of your arguments can be applied as well to humans as they can to animals. If this is indeed your attitude, you are no libertarian but a Hobbesian anarchist, perhaps even a sociopath.
Okilidokily...
JCFolsom:Finally, Hellen Keller was not capable of argumentation before someone put in immense efforts to make her capable of communication. Her writings, however, wound up being quite impressive. Toddlers aren't capable of argumentation, either. Do you suggest we eat them? How about the mentally retarded? How about just really stupid people?
Toddlers are a special case. They are capable of developing rationality, so the same rights apply to them. I think retarded people fall into the same category. Even really stupid people have capabilities that the smartest animals don't. Simple things like the ability to criticize one's behaviour and establish norms. They can consider whether or not it was a good idea to sleep the day away, or get up and work. Animals don't have that. And having no ethical norms they have no rights.
I think a good source for this kind of discussion is Hoppe's "The Nature of Man and the Human Condition" lecture (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/hoppe/1.mp3). And also his "Law and Economics" lecture (http://mises.org/mp3/MU2003/MU03-Hoppe-3.mp3).
Stephen Forde:I think retarded people fall into the same category. Even really stupid people have capabilities that the smartest animals don't. Simple things like the ability to criticize one's behaviour and establish norms. They can consider whether or not it was a good idea to sleep the day away, or get up and work. Animals don't have that. And having no ethical norms they have no rights.
Really, so a snot-licking near-jawless person with about a mostly fluid-filled skull, no eyes and perfect pitch is more capable of reason than a chimpanzee, eh? Also, some animals have abilities some really stupid people don't. Again, you're making distinctions of degree, not category. In a less cosmopolitan world, one could come across an African native that spoke in clicks and hoots and, assuming no ability for argumentation, go ahead and start a barbecue. After all, the sounds they make have no real resemblance to human speech. Right?
And what do you mean by argumentation, anyway? Please define this thing that every human is capable of to a greater degree than animals.
Argumentation requires at the very least posturing and signally a willingness to establish an interpersonal norm. And yes. The snot-licking near-jawless person with about a mostly fluid-filled skull, no eyes and perfect pitch is more capable of reason than a chimpanzee.
JC, I'm not necessarily opposed to what you are saying, but where do you draw the line? Are mice conscious? What about lizards? Roaches? Trees? Why should we assume that other species are conscious? The questions I raised earlier that you said were religious questions are extremely important, especially considering animals and plants may not be conscious.
I think animal rights will continue to be an issue as long as the knowledge of animal's (including humans) true mental faculties & capacities, remain unknown. The only consistient answer I can seem to across is that if there is a line, it's a grey line that is constantly being re-drawn; one hopes not resulting in humans eventually back stepping off a cliff with a bunny laughing over them...
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Ego:JC, I'm not necessarily opposed to what you are saying, but where do you draw the line? Are mice conscious? What about lizards? Roaches? Trees? Why should we assume that other species are conscious? The questions I raised that you said were religious questions are extremely important, especially considering animals and plants may not be conscious.
I think a good source for answers to these sorts of questions is Hoppe's "The Nature of Man and the Human Condition" Lecure (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/hoppe/1.mp3).
Here is another issue: animals don't understand or respect property rights, yet are we supposed to respect theirs?
Hobbesian anarchist... sociopath?
You use a lot of convoluted and usually meaningless rhetoric (not to mention confusing analogies) that goes no where. Though some of the other people have fallen in your trap, sad to say.
Stephen Forde:Argumentation requires at the very least posturing and signally a willingness to establish an interpersonal norm. And yes. The snot-licking near-jawless person with about a mostly fluid-filled skull, no eyes and perfect pitch is more capable of reason than a chimpanzee.
Absurd. Mere bigotry. Simplistic religious faith in the categorical difference between human and animal experience. I don't know what else to say on this. If you would hold such a position, our starting points for viewing reality are clearly too different to continue this avenue of argument.
By the way, you must be a pro-lifer, right? Since your argument for the future abilities of a toddler apply to the unborn as well.
Ego:Here is another issue: animals don't understand or respect property rights, yet are we supposed to respect theirs?
I dunno. Humans burgle, rob, shoplift and otherwise aggress from each other all the time. Meanwhile, animals certainly have a sense of territory, and they often seem to understand very well that they are stealing, or at least that they are likely to face retaliation for their theft. Hell, the vast majority of people don't understand property in the Austrian sense.
It seems to me that we ought do things what is right because it is right, not because we expect, necessarily, that others will act in kind. Expecting reciprocity for your respect for the property of others is a bit naive, given the influence of socialism in all nations today.