Mark B.: I will agree with you that majority of the commercial chicken industry behaves in a rather barbaric manner when it comes to their treatment of the chickens. While I absolutely deny animal rights in any way, shape or form, I cannot tolerate unnecessary suffering. Unfortunately, the poultry industry has been more resistant to pressure than the beef industry was. However, change IS coming to the poultry industry. Barbaric brood cages are slowly being abandoned in a small number of companies. Without the chickens crammed into these cages, it will no longer be necessary to engage in beak clipping and foot clipping. The agent for the change in the poultry industry, as was the case earlier in the beef industry, is direct pressure brought against the END users <i.e. McDonalds, Burger King, etc.>. Under pressure from radical organizations, these companies in turn brought pressure on the beef slaughterhouses and forced them to modernize their facilities and submit to animal welfare audits. This has virtually ended cruelty in the beef industry <except at a few slaughterhouses serving GOVERNMENT customers>. This same process is now occuring in the poultry industry and I think you will see massive changes in a few years. The bottom line is that this change that has occured and that will occur, has not required so much as ONE piece of government regulation or involvement to bring about. It was all done using the force of consumer preference in the free market. Proof that the free market CAN and DOES bring about desired change.
I will agree with you that majority of the commercial chicken industry behaves in a rather barbaric manner when it comes to their treatment of the chickens. While I absolutely deny animal rights in any way, shape or form, I cannot tolerate unnecessary suffering. Unfortunately, the poultry industry has been more resistant to pressure than the beef industry was. However, change IS coming to the poultry industry. Barbaric brood cages are slowly being abandoned in a small number of companies. Without the chickens crammed into these cages, it will no longer be necessary to engage in beak clipping and foot clipping.
The agent for the change in the poultry industry, as was the case earlier in the beef industry, is direct pressure brought against the END users <i.e. McDonalds, Burger King, etc.>. Under pressure from radical organizations, these companies in turn brought pressure on the beef slaughterhouses and forced them to modernize their facilities and submit to animal welfare audits. This has virtually ended cruelty in the beef industry <except at a few slaughterhouses serving GOVERNMENT customers>. This same process is now occuring in the poultry industry and I think you will see massive changes in a few years.
The bottom line is that this change that has occured and that will occur, has not required so much as ONE piece of government regulation or involvement to bring about. It was all done using the force of consumer preference in the free market. Proof that the free market CAN and DOES bring about desired change.
I like the idea of such a market-based solution, I really do. At the same time, if I come upon a man torturing a dog, I would feel entirely justified in stopping him, using whatever force was necessary. Frankly, I consider a man that would torture a dog to be worth rather less than the dog, which if treated well would desire naught but to love his master. I rather think most people would agree with me.
Input is a completely generic term. Its meaning varies with the context. In a physical system, input could simply mean one object colliding with another. In an electric circuit, input could mean current from a power source. In a human neurophysiological sense, inputs in neurons are understood as influx of cations(or sometimes anions) which eventually give rise to action potentials(or alternatively are inhibited from AP), because of changes in the membrane potential, which then travels along the length of the neuron and eventually results in the release of neurotransmitter into the synaptic cleft. What I described to you was an oversimplified version of the events for my ease. Nerves communicate in this way. Using this knowledge, scientists have determined vast neural circuits and have been able to conduct experiments demonstrated that certain types of mental activity correlate with increased neural activity in certain areas of the brain.
Nowadays we can mimic neural transmission well enough that prosthetics can operate from neural input from the brain.
There is something special and unique about biology. It seeks to explain how organisms operate using knowledge generated by empirical testing. Seeing that humans are organisms, we, and therefore our brains, should be explainable. I admit there are things well beyond our capacity. Your reasoning is lacking though. If our consciousness is the result of a series of different processes, then according to scientific logic only things created in a similar way, with similar intent, and with similar processes will result in something that resembles a human mind. A rock does not fit these criteria and therefore does not display anything resembling human consciousness. I can safely say no rock has intelligence and I wouldn't have to spend my entire life looking at every rock to make sure that's true. Science's strength relies in its predictability. What defines a rock is how it was created. If a rock was created in the exact same way a brain was created, then it would not be a rock because it wouldn't share any of the characteristics you would associate with a rock. It would be known as a brain.
Does it make any sense that arranging molecules in a certain way creates something as immaterial as consciousness? If we recreated all brain communication using computer software, would that program be conscious? If not, why not? What if we recreated all brain communication using a giant and complex system of rolling marbles? Would that be conscious? Or would it just be a huge system of pipes and rolling marbles? If it's not conscious, why not?
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.
I just killed a bird.........for fun.......... So it better not have rights.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
JCFolsom: I like the idea of such a market-based solution, I really do. At the same time, if I come upon a man torturing a dog, I would feel entirely justified in stopping him, using whatever force was necessary. Frankly, I consider a man that would torture a dog to be worth rather less than the dog, which if treated well would desire naught but to love his master. I rather think most people would agree with me.
For me, it would depend on a couple of factors. Is the dog the man's property, or is the dog the property of another person or a feral dog? Is the man on his private property or on a public right of way?
If the dog belongs to the man and they are on his own private property, as much as I would be repulsed by the man's actions, I would be the aggressor if I intervened. My first aggression would be trespassing on the man's property. My second aggression would be interfering with the man's private property <i.e. the dog.> I would most certainly tell the man off and tell him what a piece of s*** scumbag he is and if possible I would videotape his actions so the rest of the community would also know the same and shun him. However, in a libertarian society that would be the permissible extent of my actions.
If the dog does NOT belong to the man and if the man was located on a public right of way, then it WOULD be permissible for me to intervene if safely possible to end the abuse, although I could not take any action beyond what was required to allow the animal to escape. HOWEVER, even though it would be POSSIBLE to intervene in this situation, it still may not be PRUDENT, in which case I would take the actions described in the first scenario.
In the alternative scenarios where 1. Dog is property of man/public right of way 2. Dog is not property of man/private property: I would respond as in the first scenario above.
Would I like to intervene in the other situations? Yes, of course. However, in a libertarian society such intervention would constitute aggression on my part.
Some of you have asked about the nature of consciousness and whether or not we can be sure that a given animal--or plant--has it. To paraphrase E. F. Schumacher, we could say that we can be sure that animals have consciousness if only because we know that we can knock them unconscious. You cannot knock your mother's rose bush unconscious. A house cat knocked unconscious is not altogether different than that rose bush, as both are possessed of physical materials and life, but neither (at least at the moment) are conscious. They might both serve as peculiar forms of decoration--at least until the cat regains consciousness.
Another way to recognize consciousness is to see if you can get the given entity's attention one way or another.
I highly recommend Schumacher's book A Guide for the Perplexed, and you can find some interesting material regarding "ontological discontinuities" in Chapter 2 and the first several paragraphs in Chapter 3.
Here's a PDF: http://www.mediafire.com/?221cugxlgbz
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
You can make ants go "unconscious" by freezing them, and you can make computers and toy-robots go "unconscious" by leaving them idle. None of that implies self-awareness.
I liked the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on PETA which I think explained this nicely. With rights come responsibilites. If animals in our society today were given rights we would have a bug problem. Animals would be arrested for attacking, murdering etc other animals and humans. They would be arrested for not paying taxes and we would have to have animal courts and animal prisons. Animals are property; period. I love animals, I have 2 cats actually. Just because I dont think they have rights doesn't mean I abuse them. Rights and responsibilites are essential. If animals have rights, then no more meat for us humans to eat because killing animals would be illegal. Animals who attack other animals would have to be put in trial for violations against rights as well. Personaly I think animal rights is an obsured and rediculios concept. I think PETA and animal rights advocates are bored, misguided activists who just need to protest something. Besides most PETA/enviromentalist/animal rights people I see are pretty well off, rich white people who have too much time on their hands and can never form a coherant argument.
[
Aristotle100:With rights come responsibilites
Absolutely. When animals can truly be held responsible for their actions, then they can have rights. Conversely, ownership of animals by humans gives humans rights over them and responsibilities for them. Mistreating an animal you own could be considered irresponsible (depending upon the result of the mistreatment), while mistreating an animal that belongs to someone else is just a violation of the other person's property.
There's just no need to go to the extreme nonsense that PETA advocates.
macsnafu:There's just no need to go to the extreme nonsense that PETA advocates.
And especially not the stuff they actually do, like slaughter animals by the thousands.
http://veritasnoctis.blogspot.com/search?q=PETA
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
I completely agree with animal rights, now it's time to go out and round up every last preditory animal and try them in court.
My cat's on the phone to a defence attorney right this minute.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
robdailey: JCFolsom: [1] Can you prove that no non-human animals are capable of introspection? [2]Further, can you prove that all people are? [3]Why is introspection the definition of consiousness, and why is consciousness the criterion on which we base what is humane? If a creature can suffer, and acts to avoid its suffering, do we have a right to override its clear wishes. The fact is, most of the time, animals mind their own business, and are no more likely to violate your rights than another human. This is not based on an explicit agreement, but you don't have such an agreement with most people. It is in the interest of most beings to avoid conflict if possible. [1] No, as it is a logical falacy, you cannot prove a negative - can you prove dogs can't fly? We live by our assumptions, we assume dogs cannot fly, but any amount of empirical evidence that backs this assumption will never prove it to be true.
JCFolsom: [1] Can you prove that no non-human animals are capable of introspection? [2]Further, can you prove that all people are? [3]Why is introspection the definition of consiousness, and why is consciousness the criterion on which we base what is humane? If a creature can suffer, and acts to avoid its suffering, do we have a right to override its clear wishes. The fact is, most of the time, animals mind their own business, and are no more likely to violate your rights than another human. This is not based on an explicit agreement, but you don't have such an agreement with most people. It is in the interest of most beings to avoid conflict if possible.
[1] Can you prove that no non-human animals are capable of introspection? [2]Further, can you prove that all people are? [3]Why is introspection the definition of consiousness, and why is consciousness the criterion on which we base what is humane? If a creature can suffer, and acts to avoid its suffering, do we have a right to override its clear wishes. The fact is, most of the time, animals mind their own business, and are no more likely to violate your rights than another human. This is not based on an explicit agreement, but you don't have such an agreement with most people. It is in the interest of most beings to avoid conflict if possible.
[1] No, as it is a logical falacy, you cannot prove a negative - can you prove dogs can't fly? We live by our assumptions, we assume dogs cannot fly, but any amount of empirical evidence that backs this assumption will never prove it to be true.
Every statement can be expressed as a negative. Some statements are provable. Therefore, some negatives can be proven. The logical fallacy is not when one attempts to prove a negative, but rather, when one uses negative proof (i.e. "X is true because there is no proof that X is false," or, "X is false because there is no proof that X is true.") A lack of proof is not proof. I can, however, prove that my hair is not red, my car is not green and one plus one does not equal five. Even the example you give could easily be expressed as, "Can you prove dogs are land bound?" The fact that neither a dog's ability nor inability to fly can be proven has nothing to do with a logical inability to prove a negative, but rather with a lack of evidence.
robdailey:Animals cannot abide by our social contracts, most importantly the concept of private property. Therefor we must treat them like animals, and likewise they may treat us like animals in return, which of course they do. For us to be able to contract with them we would need to have a way of communicating with them. Until then we must treat them as non rational. I think communication is the main, possibly the only qualifier.
That's a rather large assumption. Again, there is a lack of evidence one way or another regarding animals' abilities to keep our social contracts. A human does not need a contract to expect his rights to remain unviolated - and indeed, a hermit may shun all contact with others. Still, no one else has the right to agress upon him or his property. Further, logically speaking, it is as absurd to assume non-rationality as it is to assume rationality. There is simply no evidence either way.
robdailey:And I think you can most certainly have rights without morality, if you start from a system based on private property, the individual being first soverign in the right to his own body and go from there.
It is by morality that we assert our rights. Non-agression is nothing if not a moral code.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler:Some statements are provable.
A tangential point: Deductive matters are provable. Inductive matters are subject to falsification at any time.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
I will agree with you that majority of the commercial chicken industry behaves in a rather barbaric manner when it comes to their treatment of the chickens. While I absolutely deny animal rights in any way, shape or form, I cannot tolerate unnecessary suffering.
andWhat I do know, though, is that half-mile lines of ***-covered layer hens with clipped beaks and feet grown around the bars of their cages is a truly hell-like level of horror, and a terrible crime against even the barest speck of awareness and emotion. That kinda sheiss needs to stop.To put it as a virtue, we must behave with compassion.
Two days ago I sprayed some nests of yellowjackets with poison, killing about 30 of them. They died horrible, agonizing deaths I am sure...curled up on the ground with their bodies twisted in weird shapes and crawling around trying vainly to escape.
Just the other day I did the same to a bunch of carpenter ants in an old stump in the yard. As I ripped bark off the stump and sprayed poison everywhere I watched in horror as they grabbed the larvae and tried to run. There were dozens of ants carrying their squirming young gently in their mandibles, hoping for some kind of escape. But I was mercilous, and they all died terribly...twitching for minutes afterwards.
The problem with most people is that they only care about the cute animals...the chickens, the cows. How can you be against poultry farms but also have no qualms about using horrible poisons to kill helpless bugs?
Someone said that they might physically try to stop a person abusing a dog. Would you physically restrain a young boy who was walking around kicking up anthills? Or putting out poison traps to kill squirrels?
You can't have it both ways. If you are for animal rights then it's for everything, not just the cute and fuzzy ones.
'Twas I that said I'd stop the person kicking the dog. A dog is far more similar to ourselves than an ant, thus, it is rather more reasonable to think that it may have some true consciousness of suffering. However, we need not use such a subjective measure:
In the case of the poisoning of insects, I can only assume you were doing so because these creatures had become pests. They were damaging you or your property. I never said you should lay down and die if a cougar decides you're dinner. I will not hesitate to kill a mosquito.
The boy kicking anthills is another matter, more likely to produce incovenience to the ants than actual injury. In any case, the strength of my reaction will vary based on the strength of my conviction that the being involved can, indeed, experience suffering. I am not sure ants can. I am pretty darn sure dogs can. I still might say something to the boy.
I never said you should lay down and die if a cougar decides you're dinner. I will not hesitate to kill a mosquito.
I agree, but you did comment on the level of suffering allowable when performing the act. I didn't just kill those animals...I tortured them. I didn't just squash them with a hammer...I subjected them to nasty horrible deaths. I didn't just kill the cougar that wanted to eat me...I cut all it's limbs off first. What's the difference? Is a cougar cuter than a yellowjacket? Or an ant? Can the cougar feel more pain than an ant? Prove that.
In any case, the strength of my reaction will vary based on the strength of my conviction that the being involved can, indeed, experience suffering. I am not sure ants can. I am pretty darn sure dogs can.
This is your personal BELIEF, not proved by any logic or scientific data. You cannot base the laws and morals of a society just on the "strength of my conviction". Why do you believe that dogs can experience suffering more than ants? Because Disney has made more talking dog movies than bug movies?
I'm not just being fascicious here...we all have a cultural bias. I once watched a documentary on animal cruelty, and there was a segment which showed cat farmers who were preparing a cage of cats for shipment to market. Yes, there are several countries where people eat cat. They were treating these cats as a farmer would treat any other livestock. As I sat there with my two cats on my lap, I could barely watch. I would not have had the same reaction if there were pigs in that cage. Or chickens.
Once you start creating subjective grey lines you enter a world of trouble. So cougars are more like us than ants, so cougars have rights. What about dolphins? Jellyfish? Rats? You enter into a never-ending loop of rationalization, and that is no way to run a society.
Hacking off the limbs of a cougar is not the most efficient method you have available for doing away with it. Spraying ants with poison is more efficient and effective than attempting to smash them individually with a hammer. In other words, hacking the limbs off a living cougar is cruel, because it is imposing unnecessary suffering. If the only way to be sure you've stopped the ants for a reasonable investment of your time (you are hardly obligated to make mercy your primary motivation in selecting methods to rid yourself of aggressors).
Pigs are at least as smart as dogs, and I tend to avoid eating them, though this is not a hard-and-fast rule with me. If people are killing and eating cats (you're a cat person, that explains it!) that is okay. Using animals for food, any sort of animals, is one of our biological needs as omnivores.
Again, if you read back a bit, I'm backing off the whole "rights" bit. I think that most of the arguments people have presented against animal rights, which are often good, apply just as well to humans. Well, what of it? We can't go around acting with cruel aggression towards our fellow man, now, can we? This discussion has done two things:
Anyway, it is your personal BELIEF that animals have no rights, and this obligates you to stand by and watch as the most terrible abuses are visited upon a non-human animal, unless that animal be your own "property". I started this thread speaking about rights, but really, I should have named it Animal Ownership, and I may start up another thread to do just that. I feel that this dissection of the language of "rights" has diluted my major points.
I agree that the concept of "rights" is icky. If your "snarky" comment was directed towards me, I certainly haven't tried to come across like that!
If animals were essientially robots (non-self-aware) you would have no problem doing anything to them, correct?
No, certainly not you, Ego. More like the "I'd eat a bonobo" guy. I wasn't really offended, but he was clearly trying to offend.
To your question, no, despite a robot's ability to move, it is completely deterministic and has no subjective experience. It is the same as a rock, in terms of morality. So, if someone could somehow show that animals were essentially robots, I would have no problem doing anything to them, philosophically speaking.
Again, the whole problem with this conversation is the idea that something can only have rights if it is self-aware. This would mean that retards, people in comas, and babies would not have rights.
In an anarchist society, the only ones who would have rights are those that could pay for the protection. Since neither children nor animals could possibly pay for protection of their "rights", they would not have any. The inherent rights argument is worthless. Therefore, the self-awareness argument is as well.
And in a governed society, rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware. And I think animals should have a right to not be tortured.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Whence does it follow that one only has a right if they can enforce it? A right is an enforceable claim, but it does not follow that it must be enforced to be a right. Children are self-owners, but until they're old enough to be in full possession of their rational capacity, they're under the custody of their parents. Inherent rights arguments are perfectly appropriate.
Spideynw: Again, the whole problem with this conversation is the idea that something can only have rights if it is self-aware. This would mean that retards, people in comas, and babies would not have rights. In an anarchist society, the only ones who would have rights are those that could pay for the protection. Since neither children nor animals could possibly pay for protection of their "rights", they would not have any. The inherent rights argument is worthless. Therefore, the self-awareness argument is as well. And in a governed society, rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware. And I think animals should have a right to not be tortured.
Spidey, I apreciate your political correctness, and your reference to "retards", I can only asume you are a towering intelectual
(obviously underapreciated by your peers). But your definition of the origin of rights is quite dangerous. By your definition "rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware". This is the very definition of a statist. All rights become subject to the interpretation of the state. I'm sure you would agree that governments (such as some in the middle east) which have laws that punish the sharing of a faith other than the muslim faith by death. Now I am not saying that any faith is the correct faith, or whether there is even a God. My point is that surely you don't think that this law does not infringe on anyones "rights". In the sanctity of your own home, should you not be allowed to express your point of view no matter how preposterous or offensive without facing death because the government (legislators) claim that speaking against the nation faith is breaking the law and punishable by death? The pupose of law is to provide a framework, or "rules of the game" that are consistent for everyone. I won't comment further because most threads on this message board seem to be posted by and repled to by people who haven't read any of the basic literature pertaining to the ideology of the host (mises.org). I don't have any problem with people who are willing to learn, but it seems most people just want to post their opinions and not learn anything new.
Jon Irenicus: Whence does it follow that one only has a right if they can enforce it? A right is an enforceable claim, but it does not follow that it must be enforced to be a right. Children are self-owners, but until they're old enough to be in full possession of their rational capacity, they're under the custody of their parents. Inherent rights arguments are perfectly appropriate. -Jon
The government determines until what age they are under the custody of their parents. The government also determines if they even are under the custody of their parents.
robdailey: Spidey, I apreciate your political correctness, and your reference to "retards", I can only asume you are a towering intelectual (obviously underapreciated by your peers).
(obviously underapreciated by your peers).
I have to assume you are being sarcastic. Instead of hiding your real meaning behind words, why not actually say what you think?
robdailey:But your definition of the origin of rights is quite dangerous. By your definition "rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware". This is the very definition of a statist.
I beg to differ. From wikipedia.org
Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe: Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters. A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe:
robdailey:All rights become subject to the interpretation of the state.
And they are. If you study the history of oil, if someone discovered oil, they had to extract it quickly, because someone else could just drill a few yards away and take it too. It was the government that determined that this was the case instead of it being that whoever discovered oil had full rights to all of the oil underground, regardless of whether or not it was under someone else's property.
When air waves were discovered, there were all kinds of problems, since anyone could use them. It was not until the government stepped in and started leasing the rights to the airwaves that "rights" were established.
Without the government, there are no "rights" to property. It is a free for all. It is chaos.
robdailey:In the sanctity of your own home, should you not be allowed to express your point of view no matter how preposterous or offensive without facing death because the government (legislators) claim that speaking against the nation faith is breaking the law and punishable by death?
Of course I think one should have the right to say whatever they want to say in their own home. But that is because, when it comes down to it, the moral justification for all victimless crimes is that they "ultimately make society better off". But there is no evidence that this is ever the case. As such, there really is no moral foundation for these crimes.
By what right?
Your view is statist, in that you think that laws are made rather than discovered, rather than being independently justified; this is open licence for a government to exist, and the very basis many political philosophers have used to call for a State. But this requires further proof. It's not some axiomatic revelation.
Spideynw:The government determines until what age they are under the custody of their parents. The government also determines if they even are under the custody of their parents.
In a libertarian anarchic society, custom and customary law will do so. And these are better than legislation.
Spideynw: Again, the whole problem with this conversation is the idea that something can only have rights if it is self-aware. This would mean that retards, people in comas, and babies would not have rights.
Did you miss my arguments (maybe not in this thread but at least in another thread dealing with animal rights or children)? Children, including babies, do have rights. Retards have rights. People in comas have rights. Why? Because they have the capacity for rational thought, even if this capacity is temporarily diminished for some reason or they are temporarily unable to exercise it for some reason.
Spideynw:In an anarchist society, the only ones who would have rights are those that could pay for the protection. Since neither children nor animals could possibly pay for protection of their "rights", they would not have any. The inherent rights argument is worthless. Therefore, the self-awareness argument is as well.
So? With regards to children, that's what parents are for. As for retards, depends on how retarded they are but they aren't all incapable of taking care of themselves from day to day, and again this is what parents are for. Comas? Family, friends and charities.
Oh, and to echo what Jon said, you have rights whether you can pay for protection or not, whether you can exercise them or not, whether you are exercising them or not, whether they are being violated or not.
Spideynw:And in a governed society, rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware. And I think animals should have a right to not be tortured.
Yeah, that's pretty screwed up. If "rights" are determined by legislators, then they aren't rights, they're privileges.
Other animals don't have the capacity for rational thought. Although if you can prove any of them do, then I'd be happy to recognize that they have rights. But just because they don't have rights, this doesn't mean that people don't have an un-enforceable moral obligation not to torture them.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Did you miss my arguments (maybe not in this thread but at least in another thread dealing with animal rights or children)? Children, including babies, do have rights. Retards have rights. People in comas have rights. Why? Because they have the capacity for rational thought, even if this capacity is temporarily diminished for some reason or they are temporarily unable to exercise it for some reason.
On the contrary, a person in a coma, or a retard, may have a permanently diminished capacity for rational thought. They may never develop it. Indeed, many retards won't. So, what of them? If a retard has no more capacity than a dog to develop rational thought, do they have the same level of rights?
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Oh, and to echo what Jon said, you have rights whether you can pay for protection or not, whether you can exercise them or not, whether you are exercising them or not, whether they are being violated or not.
Given the argument above, based on what? If a retard has a permanent lack of the ability to think rationally, does he still have rights, and if so, whence derived?
JCFolsom:On the contrary, a person in a coma, or a retard, may have a permanently diminished capacity for rational thought. They may never develop it. Indeed, many retards won't. So, what of them? If a retard has no more capacity than a dog to develop rational thought, do they have the same level of rights?
With regard to the coma, if we know it is permanent then the person is essentially dead. If there is a reasonable chance he'll wake up, then his rights are intact and a family member, close friend, or whoever he specifies in his will will act as his guardian or trustee, exercising his rights for him. As for the retarded person, what percentage of retarded people have such diminished capacities as to be on the level of a dog's mental functioning? (Since dogs lack even a diminished rational capacity, not having any rational capacity at all, it is hard to make sense of this analogy.) In any case, just as with children, retarded people who are incapable of living independently (largely on their own) still have rights; it's just that their capacity to exercise them is limited and their parents or someone else can serve as their guardian or trustee. None of this is new or all that controversial. We've been over it before in this forum.
JCFolsom:Given the argument above, based on what? If a retard has a permanent lack of the ability to think rationally, does he still have rights, and if so, whence derived?
It seems to me you might be conflating rational capacity with how well one exercises what capacity one has. The word 'ability' is ambiguous in that sense. I'm not aware of any retarded people completely and permanently lacking any rational capacity whatsoever. Mental retardation is a continuum of diminished capacity. Do any of them really lack even a diminished rational capacity? I don't now. This is largely an empirical question. Certainly it is no strong objection to rights being based on rational capacity. Basing rights on rational capacity dates back to the beginning of classical liberalism and even to Aristotle (although he wasn't a classical liberal or libertarian). I have seen nothing else that could serve as the basis for rights.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Children, including babies, do have rights. Retards have rights. People in comas have rights. Why? Because they have the capacity for rational thought, even if this capacity is temporarily diminished for some reason or they are temporarily unable to exercise it for some reason.
If no one protects those rights, then those rights do not exist.
Jon Irenicus: The government determines until what age they are under the custody of their parents. The government also determines if they even are under the custody of their parents. By what right?
Leading question. The assumption is that they need to have a "right" to do so.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:With regard to the coma, if we know it is permanent then the person is essentially dead. If there is a reasonable chance he'll wake up, then his rights are intact and a family member, close friend, or whoever he specifies in his will will act as his guardian or trustee, exercising his rights for him.
It sounds to me like you are offering a circular definition: A person has rights because he has the capacity for rational thought -- which in turn is determined or identified by the rational thought of other people. It sort of sounds statist to me.
What if you do not know the coma is permanent? Who really knows that anyway?
What if you do not know the "person" is actually human, either?
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Basing rights on rational capacity dates back to the beginning of classical liberalism and even to Aristotle (although he wasn't a classical liberal or libertarian). I have seen nothing else that could serve as the basis for rights.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:As for the retarded person, what percentage of retarded people have such diminished capacities as to be on the level of a dog's mental functioning? (Since dogs lack even a diminished rational capacity, not having any rational capacity at all, it is hard to make sense of this analogy.) In any case, just as with children, retarded people who are incapable of living independently (largely on their own) still have rights; it's just that their capacity to exercise them is limited and their parents or someone else can serve as their guardian or trustee. None of this is new or all that controversial. We've been over it before in this forum.
Ah, but dogs do have some rational capacity. Dogs in the wild can strategize, to some degree, while hunting. Dogs can problem solve to some degree as well. These are rational behaviors. So dogs to not utterly lack rational capacity; indeed, you would need to look fairly hard among mammals to find an one that does. At least some birds and even invertebrates also have some ability to make rational choices. Give me an example of one behavior by which you would decide a creature was rational, and I will either give you an example of a non-human behavoir that does it or an example of a human incapable of it. The attempt to place some sort of line of rational versus irrational between humans and non-humans demonstrably fails.
They need a justification. Unless one is forthcoming, my question remains, "why?"
Why, I asked, does a right need to be enforced to exist? I still want the answer to this.
Jon Irenicus: Leading question. The assumption is that they need to have a "right" to do so. They need a justification. Unless one is forthcoming, my question remains, "why?" Why, I asked, does a right need to be enforced to exist? I still want the answer to this. -Jon
The justification for government deciding at what age people become adults is simply that if the government does not do it, then no one can.
If you define 'government' broadly enough to encompass courts functioning on common law, sure.
I hate to necro a thread but....
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Other animals don't have the capacity for rational thought. Although if you can prove any of them do, then I'd be happy to recognize that they have rights. But just because they don't have rights, this doesn't mean that people don't have an un-enforceable moral obligation not to torture them.
Can you or someone else explain that one to me? How is it a moral obligation that is also unenforceable? If they have no rights then how is it immoral for me to "torture" them? If the rock or something similarly not possessive of rights, indeed has no rights, surely its not immoral for me to graffiti it by scratching my name all over it or hitting it with a hammer?
*confused*
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
If animal rightsists want animals to have rights, but people who dont believe in animal rights say they dont, why cant the animal rightsists just find common ground and homestead the animals, blanketing them in their own rights? It's essentially the same thing.
I could be way out of line here, but it seems to me that a living being only has the rights and/or self-ownership that it is 1) capable of recognizing, 2) capable of exercising, and 3) capable of enforcing.
Considering it from that perspective, I would say that yes, animals are self-owners (to some extent) and they do have rights.
Capability of recognition, I think, goes without saying. Animals are still alive, and they do not simply sit and resign themselves to death when a predator comes. This clearly demonstrates that animals are in clear recognition at least of a right to life. (It should be noted that predators - humans included and yes, humans are predators - have a right to live, too. This means that they also have the right to hunt other species to fulfill their need for food. It's all a part of the balance of life, but that is just my opinion.)
As for exercising their rights, animals do it every day. Whether it is by self-aware recognition or instinct is irrelevent. Animals simply do the things that they, as self-owners, need to continue living.
And as for enforcing, that again is pretty clear. They flee, they fight, they do what they perceive - intelligently or instinctively - as necessary to survival. It's what they do. Try hunting a boar without a boar spear or a high-power rifle and you're probably in for it. You go at a wolf or a large cat with your bare hands, and I'm laying my bets on the wolf or the cat.
I would say that animals - no differently from humans - have rights, so to speak. However, I also think our society has grossly misrepresented and misinterpreted the entire concept of rights. As I said, a being only has rights they are willing and able to enforce. The earth is a predator-prey kind of place and the only solution available to human and animal alike is to attempt not to be prey.
The concepts of legal legal and natural rights are bunk. To have legal rights, you must place your self in the hands of a predator entity (government) in the hopes that it will benevolently protect your rights. Doing so, however, negates your self-ownership and by extension actually negates all of your rights, even those the predatory entity claims to protect. To quote a friend at school...the concept of legal rights "is grade-A horse hockey." Governments do not and cannot protect your rights. The existence of rights is a self-made decision, and that decision includes enforcing them. Nobody can do it for you. You as a human being must stand up and assert them. As for natural rights, history and nature herself both beg strongly to differ with that concept. Where is the gazelle's right to live when the lion catches it? Or the right to liberty of the deer surrounded by a pack of wolves? Or pursuit of happiness for the millions of animals that starve to death over harsh winters? They had none to begin with except those that they were prepared to assert, even over the objections of others. God (or nature or evolution, whatever) grants us - and animals - only self-ownership...the only real right which includes our ability to decide what our personal rights are and to assert them for ourselves. Personal opinion, concepts of legal and natural rights are both inherently dangerous as they often negate assertion and enforcement by individuals or species. Without assertion and enforcement, rights don't exist.
Does the animal have a right to live? If it is willing to assert and enforce it, yes. However, so do humans, and like it or not humans are predators. Humans require meat to survive - red meat being the richest natural source of iron, animal fat and dairy being among the best sources of EFAs, and red meat being the only natural source of vitamin B12 (all according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) - and (contrary to the beliefs pushed by animal rights activists and vegans) humans cannot survive on vegetable matter alone for prolonged periods of time. Now, unlike dedicated carnivores we are omnivorous predators, so we also do require a balance of meat and vegetable matter to survive. That, however, does not negate the inherent - and instinctive - predatory nature of humans as animals. In the predator-prey relationship that is life, humans must occasionally continue to live by violating the perceived right to live of the animal. Cold hard fact, sorry.
Perhaps, though, I am way out of line on all of that. That, though, is my current opinion on rights.
Now, taking it a step further into animal abuse:So long as the animal recognizes you as an owner or leader - "boss" cat, alpha dog, whatever - then you, frankly, can do whatever you want to it. That's how the pack and the pride work. "Boss" cat and alpha dog get the first pickins, and everyone else gets the scraps. If there's a disagreement, they fight and might makes right. That's just how it works, I see it all the time with my two cats. However, there may come a time when a dog perceives weakness or a cat decides to fight back. Again, might makes right as far as the animal is concerned.
If a person wants to abuse their animal(s), more power to them, if that's how they get their jollies. But if they get bit, mauled, clawed, or killed by the animal they're abusing, I'll then assert my right to cheer the animal on. Again, life is predator-prey and if the animal decides not to be prey, well then we have a problem, don't we? We now have a conflict of predators deciding who is prey. As far as an animal is concerned, might makes right, and the animal is going to be quite certain that he's the right one. When a human being asserts his or her right(s) over an animal, they can do so only so long as they are prepared to reap the consequences of failure.
Again, perhaps I'm way out of line on that, but that's just how I'm perceiving things right now.