Why can't it be the other way around, they do have and you have to show why they should be treated as slaves instead of selfowners who should be left alone as long as they don't harm others.
You are arguing animals have rights. Then prove it. I could just as well state "well how do you know machines don't have wills and souls, so why shouldn't they also be self-owners?" Do you extend your analysis to microbes? Plants? Why not? Prove that they don't have rights!
And you haven't answered my questions, it's you who is evading,
No, I am saving time. I will not proceed until you establish your argument. Your verbosity gives me even less inclination to do so.
And I specify clearly before that I only refer to mammals and birds, once these is clearified and agreed, we could continue moving on.
Why? Are you arbitrarily excluding other animals, inanimate objects, machines, microbes, plants &c.?
Native indians and amazonian tribes also do not have these potential, nor did they when they were 'discovered' by the europeans,
This is utterly false. Do you mean to say it is impossible for members of these tribes to learn how to reason as members of civilized societies do? Do you deny they have this potential? On what grounds? The fact that they do not so reason (arguendo) does not preclude the possibility of their doing so, once shown how. I want to know how an animal in principle can even be made aware of such concepts, and thus why it should be treated as a human both in punishment as well as in respecting its supposed rights.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
It's starting to be a waste of my time being here.
I said I start with mammals and bird because it's easy, then, when we agree on it, we can move forward the discussion.
You haven't said anything usefull, you talk about plants, microbes... why? you think this is a joke? I'm trying to explain concepts to you and you escape and appear with plants?
Have you prove humans have rights? prove it, and then I will explain to you that the basic core arguments for them apply to this kind of animals, when you do you will discovered that IQ doesn't matter, nor written language or any of the bogus defenses you have given.
Its you the one who has to prove that you can own slaves. The most logic and coherent view is that in a very delicate discussion like this you should stay neutral and away until you reach a veredict or a conclusion, remember innocent until proven guilty?
Stop lying with 'they do not reason', it's false, they reason on a different level, they use rocks, sticks, even basic phisics to achieve their goals, they build their 'homes', what right do you have to destroy the nest of a bird? why should your right to destroy them above their right to own their bodies and the fruit of their labour? why is more importante your right to eat a banana than the right of an ape to eat it? shouldn't it be for the one who first homestead it? why do you throw out of the window everything you believe in when animals are applied?
Great post. Of course, if animals have self-ownership, then they cannot aggress against one another. This changes everything for carnivores. If they can't survive or digest plant matter efficiently, HELLO EXTINCTION!
FreedomIsYellow:Player, I accept your idea that animals are self owners and therefore can't be agressed by us - nor of course one another.Currently I'm occupying a house which was built on the previous property of a great number of ants, caterpillars and spiders. Obviously, having realised the error of my ways I would like to return what is quite rightfully theirs. I won't destroy my house but just leave it to be homesteaded by them when I move out.My real passion are the Antelope of Southern Africa whom I have great interest in. I plan to start a protection agency in that area which will defend, voluntarily, all of these self-owned animals - from Wildebeest to Springbok. Naturally any aggression of these animals can be repelled with force, so I will kill any humans, leopards, lions, hyenas etc which transgress the Non Agression Principle and attempt to murder these great creatures. Of course, these predators will lose a nutrition source - that is obvious. But surely this means that they will have to divert their resources into different methods of food production rather than murder of other animals? I fully anticipate seeing newly vegetarian lions setting up homesteads and farming plots, and possibly even engaging in trade with other animals eventually as they realise the benefits of free trade and the NAP. Maybe they will eventually become my clients too.
Of course, these predators will lose a nutrition source - that is obvious. But surely this means that they will have to divert their resources into different methods of food production rather than murder of other animals? I fully anticipate seeing newly vegetarian lions setting up homesteads and farming plots, and possibly even engaging in trade with other animals eventually as they realise the benefits of free trade and the NAP. Maybe they will eventually become my clients too.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Lots of people said the same thing about slaves, about women, about indians, about blacks...
If it's wrong, it's wrong. It's not my problem that they initiate the use of force against innocents without a reason to jusfify their actions, its their problem, they should have thought what they were doing because the do have the 'potential' to understand that they are taking advantage of the weaker, maybe one day society won't allow it and will look down on those industrial farmers as *** who jailed thousands of sentient and self-owners beings in brutal conditions, I just wanted to point that however you look and read and interpret libertarian tradition, liberalism or natural rights, it has never followed that animals are our slaves, it never has been a core part of it, it's just a tradition, our parents treated them this way and so do we...
Player:Lots of people said the same thing about slaves, about women, about indians, about blacks...
Irrelevant again.
Player:If it's wrong, it's wrong. It's not my problem that they initiate the use of force against innocents without a reason to jusfify their actions, its their problem, they should have thought what they were doing because the do have the 'potential' to understand that they are taking advantage of the weaker, maybe one day society won't allow it and will look down on those industrial farmers as *** who jailed thousands of sentient and self-owners beings in brutal conditions, I just wanted to point that however you look and read and interpret libertarian tradition, liberalism or natural rights, it has never followed that animals are our slaves, it never has been a core part of it, it's just a tradition, our parents treated them this way and so do we...
Animals can be owned because they do not have rights. They do not have rights because they do not have the capacity for rational thought and communication, and thus liberty is not necessary to their natural end. Humans have rights because we do have the capacity for rational thought. Thus, our natural end is, in a very large part, self-directed, which necessitates a right to liberty, from which all other rights are derived.
There are some animals (great apes and bottlenose dolphins) that may have a sufficient capacity for rationality as to have rights; I'm not sure on this part. It can even be said that there are moral obligations that we have towards animals, and that industrial farming, animal testing, etc. violates those obligations (not endorsing, just stating). However, these obligations are not enforceable by means of force (a bit awkward, but I don't know how else to say it ).
I'm sure something like this was said earlier in the thread.
On a side note, I think that this issue points toward a weakness in axiomatic self-ownership. An Aristotelian approach based in eudaimonia clears up the issue nicely, I think.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Austrians have a couple problems surrounding this issue. The first is the issue of rights, which do not, it seems to me, have anywhere near as solid a philosophical foundation as one such as Rothbard seems to think.
Second, and probably more important, is the concept of property (on which "rights", for many, are based). Austrians seem to think that either something is your property, and you can therefore do absolutely anything to it or with it and nobody has a right to interfere, or something is not, and you therefore have no right to do anything at all to it without the express permission of the owner. It's very black and white, and, to my mind, neither philosophically justifiable nor remotely practical, and leads to truly horrific consequences for anyone or anything that might be considered "property". Such absolutism may be comfortably simplistic, but does very little to lead one to an ethical life.
Part of the problem Austrians seem to have is a suffocating rationalism that discards the value of intuition (this discarding itself being hypocritical, since intuition and natural conscience are part of human nature, and thus the natural law on which "rights" are supposedly based). I've yet to see anyone actually make a full, logical case for an actual system of ethics, outside of utilitarianism, which swiftly leads to the worst of depravity.
If you look through the posts here, you will see a number of people saying they would not themselves torture animals, nor stand by if one were tortured, even though they might then accept consequences for interfering. That is because human morals, actual morals, are intuitive, compassionate, emotional, and cannot be contained or restrained by intellectual excercises. And this is as it should be. We all understand truths we cannot explain. Morality exists, shared, yet subjective. It can be overridden by obsessive logic or any other religious dogma, but everyone who is not themselves deeply spritually injured or born evil knows that torturing a dog is wrong.
That's not true.
Of course if you say you don't recogniced their rights you may say you can 'own' them. Technically you would be slaving them, because they already are their own owners, that fact can not be disputed, you can debate whetever they can be slaved or not, but they do choose their lives, their goals and control their own bodies. So, they already have an 'owner', you can say they don't have a 'human master' or a 'human owner'.
They do have rational capacity and they do communicate, they do have languages, less complex than ours, but they even have names for each of them, words to express emotions, situations around them and so on. So you are lying, they do think, and they do speak, in a way you don't understand. They can solve small problems, opening bottles, moving chairs, so they do have abstract and geometrical thinking, they do cry for their family members, depress if their sons die... Their emotions are the same, it's only a matter of bigger abstract thinking.
"liberty is not necessary to their natural end." How can you say that? How can they feed, move around, mate with the one the like, choose and that agrees, have their family and achieve their goals if they are in a jail in a laboratory for experimentation? What's their 'natural end'? being your slave? Well, they appear not to like it, they ran away from you, cry when you experiment on them, so it doesn't seem to be their 'natural end', whatever this expression means.
"Humans have rights because we do have the capacity for rational thought" Please explain in detail and draw the line so we can judge who is apt and who isn't, once you say that, if a human fails, he fails, he has no right, you can't go back and change the rules and say, well, he has rights.. because.. he's human and that's all!!
"Thus, our natural end is, in a very large part, self-directed, which necessitates a right to liberty, from which all other rights are derived"
Self-direct yeah, that's why 90% of adult humans have babies, a wife and a home to sleep confortably in.
When a dolphin decided to risk their life to save a human from a shark it's just pure instinct, never a rational decission.
So, birds cannot have a nest for their children, but you can have a home for yours, you both modify nature to achieve it, but you are the one with 'rights' and can destroy their home/nest, steal their eggss and eat them. Because... well, both try as hard as they can to live better and feed and take care of their families and protect them, but only one of them is granted rights, you, well, because you want to and it's usefull to you, so you can continue abusing them.
This whole "animal rights" and animal self-ownership argument is becoming absurd. When a pride of lions brings down a gazelle, is it murder?
Should violence be used to stop an ongoing agression and only to stop it as according to the theory of legitimate self-defense?
I won't, I never have, for the same reasons I never have used force against the state and never will.
They are other ways, like the battle of ideas, legitimate social disobedience, boycot, propaganda, education...
But yes, I do consider it legitimate, as long as it's used only to stop the enslavement.
It's either a violation of rights or it isn't, if it is there is nothing to discuss, it's an agresion, end of discussion, if it isn't, the only remaining option would be the battle of ideas and morality as I said before, boycot, propaganda just like we do with the things we don't like.
By the way, violence is already being used. So, the question is if we can come to the defense of weaker ones who are being abused.
waywardwayfarer, that's not the question, don't bring another different discussion here, we are talking about the relations between humans and animals.
Don't hide from the question. It's entirely relevant. If animals have rights which must be respected across one species boundary, there is no rational reason why they must not be respected across all other boundaries between species. Why does the gazelle have a right to self-ownership which is enforceable only against human beings but not against lions? If you can't address this discrepancy, then your entire argument falls apart.
It does not, what others do is not a justification for you to commit a crime, no matter how many others commit it.
It can be easily address, you can protect the gazelle if you want, you can go the jungle and protect it from lions if that's your wish. You should have discovered this using logic. That follows that I could also protect cows from you and your farmer. The thing is, there are more cows than europeans, and they all are very close to our homes, in industrial farms, so, it's easier to protect them or better stop others from harming them than going to africa to adopt a gazzelle. I would not accuse you of hunting a lion if you shoot him at the moment he was attacking a gazzelle. See, I'm 100% coherent. Now it's your turn. Answer all my question in my various posts please.
Player: Juan: should violence used against humans to stop the 'enslavement' of animals ? I won't, I never have, for the same reasons I never have used force against the state and never will.
Juan: should violence used against humans to stop the 'enslavement' of animals ?
It's either a violation of rights or it isn't,
Player: It does not, what others do is not a justification for you to commit a crime, no matter how many others commit it. It can be easily address, you can protect the gazelle if you want, you can go the jungle and protect it from lions if that's your wish. You should have discovered this using logic. That follows that I could also protect cows from you and your farmer. The thing is, there are more cows than europeans, and they all are very close to our homes, in industrial farms, so, it's easier to protect them or better stop others from harming them than going to africa to adopt a gazzelle. I would not accuse you of hunting a lion if you shoot him at the moment he was attacking a gazzelle. See, I'm 100% coherent. Now it's your turn. Answer all my question in my various posts please.
So presumably you would also support trials where lions, tigers, leopards etc are brought to justice for their repeated crimes? Maybe some baboons will testify on their behalf?
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Let me be clear.
You abusing animals is a POSITIVE RIGHT.
For you to use animals products, animals have to be abused.
It's exactly the same argument used against 'free state-given education'.
Gonna have to respond to this later, I have to go and oversee arbitration between the family of a fly recently killed by a local spider...
Then leave.
No, you see, you stridently asserted animals have rights. Now, you're attempting to get me to prove men have rights. Again, however, you're evading my question. I never mentioned IQ, I never mentioned language. I asked you to answer a very simple question.
No. You said "prove that animals don't have rights!", to which I could just as easily retort "prove that machines don't have rights!" See? It's that easy.
I think the science of human biology can be of help in this situation. Daniel Dennet and Patricia Churchland who are both neuroscientists (and atheist) have pointed out that our large frontal cortex is a huge help in the creation of our reason and cognition. Any book you can read by them might help you understand the huge difference between human nature and human reason and animal nature and animal reason.
Some animals can use a type of reasoning that is essentially what a human would call motor skills but it is hardly cognition. Also Richard Dawkins and the people I have mentioned above have constantly expressed the human ability to override our very strongest instincts (for instance we have many people who were celibate over the centuries) something animals overwhelmingly fail to do since they are so very instinct driven. Our brains can formulate abstract concepts that have little to no relation to our environment or survival. Outward expressions of this can be seen with art, philosophy, physics etc etc.
Another species I think that would have characteristics to cognition such as ours would be the Neanderathal who where a seperate race from us and whom we did not actually evolve from but lived side by side with, sharing a common ancestor with them. I am certain they would retain "human" rights or more properly, the rights and autonomy of cognition.
Another thing that should be pointed out is that children, mentally handicapped and animals are not held responsible for their actions since the lack the proper capacity to be held responsible. Children and the mentally handicapped are not allowed to do certain things like the rest of us. So why are children and mentally handicapped treated better than animals? Because children have a potential to develop high levels of cognition and the mentally handicapped overwhelmingally still retain far higher levels of abstract thought than animals. Human rights need to fit the proper recipient and the mentally handicapped are not capable of retaining all of those right but are usually capable of retaining some of those rights.
Now if the mentally handicapped are so retarded that they are totally screwed well that leads to other discussions on the issues of euthanasia and the value individuals, such as relatives, place on their life. For instance my grandmother had totally lost her sanity (totally screwed by my definition) by the time of her death but she was still capable of abstract conceptualization far more than my dog is capable of and she expressed a higher emotional self awarness than any non human.
Unfortunately I must go for now and cannot continue this discussion tonight.
First, humans are animals, I'm refering to the other mammals and to birds.
I asked you to explain the proccess of recognicing rights in humans so we can start there, with this points and arguments and see if they appy also to other animals. Answering a question with another question is not an answer, it's an evasion. Leave machines alone and come to discuss what I have been writing a lot of times already and all of you avoid answering, you continue writing unrelated comments so hopefully it won't be seen what I post before and will be lost in an infinite long thread of pointless discussions and jokes, like 'haha, and what about plants, and virus? and machines? and aliens? and relations beetween other animals and other animals?'.
Please, only three points.
1. Explain self ownership, and explain how animals by your standards ended up with no self-ownership of themselves, contradicting the evident reality.
2. Explain the proccess of how an ape ended from being in the jungle to being tortured in a jail in a laboratory.
3. Explain how ethics, whose goal is to avoid conflict are being used by some to justify massive initiation of force against innocent selfowners.
Libertarism has never rely on the enslavement of animals, it does not follow, it is not coherent, it's against logic that an ethic that is designed to avoid conflicts ends creating them when the two groups can coexist and resolving the conflicts on a one per one case.
You just never gave it much attention and apply what was 'typical' and what everyone does without thinking to much on it.
Juan summarized it very well.
"Well, either human rights are above imaginary 'animal rights' or not."
So, a possitive right to abuse other for your own benefit is a 'right', the best and most powerfull one, a 'natural one', while the right to not being enslaved, tortured and murdered is 'an imaginary right'.
You are a socialist, you just use animals instead of citizens, you defend 'possitive rights' for 'the well being of x.. in this case 'humanity', for the 'general interest', because 'they do not have innate rights, only the ones we give them'. You are a tyrant, you just don't attack those in your same group, you go after the weaker ones.
So, its bad to tax citizens and kidnapd them for military servitude because that would be an initiation of force, and would stop them for pursuing their own goals, but you can use force to kidnap an ape and experiment against it constantly using force and stoping his own life and his ability to pursue his goals.
Look, I asked you a simple question, which you've yet to answer. Until such an answer is given, I am not entertaining any further debate. It would be a waste of my time. That you cannot tell a "joke" from a veiled reductio ad absurdum would indicate that much.
Player: Juan: Well, either human rights are above imaginary 'animal rights' or not. So, a positive right to abuse other for your own benefit is a 'right', the best and most powerfull one, a 'natural one', while the right to not being enslaved, tortured and murdered is 'an imaginary right'.
Juan: Well, either human rights are above imaginary 'animal rights' or not.
You don't get it.
You do not have a 'right' to harm apes. Because they are not your property, and never will.
You have no right whatsoever to start the use of force against an ape. If you do, you are not exercising a right, but attacking one.
What you are calling is a possitive right, and yes, this rights can and should be violated by the negative ones.
Player: You have no right whatsoever to start the use of force against an ape. If you do, you are not exercising a right, but attacking one.
Yes. Of course.
Maybe it's you who misunderstood libetarianism.
Maybe it's you the one who should recheck your way of thinking, maybe libertarianism truly does imply not starting the use of force and you are the ones breaking the rules and abusing of weaker ones who can not defend themselves.
Why am I the criminal? I never start nor justify starting force. It's you that justify starting it, I only come in self defense, which libertarianism allows.
Player: You don't get it. You do not have a 'right' to harm apes. Because they are not your property, and never will. You have no right whatsoever to start the use of force against an ape. If you do, you are not exercising a right, but attacking one. What you are calling is a possitive right, and yes, this rights can and should be violated by the negative ones.
Why are they not my property? Can an ape defend its rights in a court of law? Can it even understand rights?
I would really like to see you answer the question, if animals have a right to life (and no, humans are not animals), then what is supposed to happen to carnivores when they kill another animal?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
maybe libertarianism truly does imply not starting the use of force and you are the ones breaking the rules and abusing of weaker ones who can not defend themselves.
It's you that justify starting it, I only come in self defense, which libertarianism allows.
I don't get it. If you want to grant dogs rights, why don't you grant clams rights? Why not bacteria? Shouldn't eating anything at all be immoral if killing animals is immoral.
BTW, the more I've learned about Kant, the more I find myself agreeing with him. I'm mentioning him, because in his "kingdom of ends" you essentially have to be capable of moral deliberation to have the right to be treated as an ends, not a means. Non-human organisms (and a few humans) are not and will not be capable of moral deliberation, hence I find any need to give them any rights puzzling.
Political Atheists Blog
Player, it may help to actually read something on the issue, from Mr. Libertarian himself.
"Why are they not my property? Can an ape defend its rights in a court of law? Can it even understand rights?"
Well, because your property doesn't run away from you and attack you when you try to 'use' it.
They do understand their right to life, and defend it, who are you to stomp on them?
"if animals have a right to life (and no, humans are not animals), then what is supposed to happen to carnivores when they kill another animal?"
I explained before, you can go to africa and 'adopt' a gazzelle and protect it if you wish. Is anyone reading here or just asking the typical 'clever' evasive quesitons?
Oh well. I suppose "The Law" was written by a monkey
So? It wasn't written by me, doesn't it apply to me? or to the inuits living in the artic? I don't understand your point.. if women never got rights and were still 'property' of their fathers or husbands when they were traded, they would have never learned to read or write, so law wouldn't affect them?
I'm saying, the way you treat animals is wrong and it's not justified, your 'theory' or 'owning' animals is flawed, you are breaking your own theory.
You just have to accept that it never follows you can own an ape. You should left them alone and only use force to defend yourself not start to to go hunting or to torture them for pleasure.
And yes, I read rothbard ethics loong ago, and still, his own logic analysis is flawed in his chapter of animals, I guess, maybe out of respect that he never gave the shubject much thoght or maybe he just was to influenced by the traditions to challenge the viewpoint or he never had some critics in this subject.
I'm only trying to make better his work while pointing out flaws.
Any valid ethical system places reasoning at its center, not just Kant's.
Player: Juan: Oh well. I suppose "The Law" was written by a monkey So?
Juan: Oh well. I suppose "The Law" was written by a monkey
Juan: If I attack you, then you can use force in self-defense. However, if you try to stop me from 'harming' an animal, then you are attacking me and I can use force against you. By the way, do you have any proof that birds and cows have appointed you as their legal representative ?
Spideynw:Can it even understand rights?
That is the point that cuts through this whole animal rights are equal to human rights argument. Humans do not even grant the full panopoly of rights to other humans who are incapable of exercising them such as the mentally deficent and children.
Mentally capable humans may disagree with rights but they are at least capable of understanding and comprehending the system of rights. An ape or any other animal cannot understand that. Yes they may defend their right to life but that does not mean they understand the abstract notion of the "Right to life" it merely means they are acting instinctually to protect their genes.
And Player if you respond to this post please read my earlier post about the inherent differences between human reasoning and animal reasoning that goes to our very biology. I do understand that humans are a type of animal but that means nothing. Does the nature of of a wolf mean that it is similar to a bear? No. They have inherent differences. Their only similarity are that they are live and are predators. One is a pack animal to it's genes and one is not.
Jon Irenicus: Any valid ethical system places reasoning at its center, not just Kant's. -Jon
Of course.
Also this whole comparison of our lack of recognition of human rights to animals is the same as outdated views of sexism and racism is flawed.
We have overwhelming empirical proof that trumps the arguments that women and other ethnicities are incapable of cognition. You cannot take an animal and teach it through it's own level of communication the abstract notions of Kant or physics or theology. They lack the cortex system we have. This is a scientific fact.
^ Exactly. It baffles me how anyone can think that an organism lacking the ability of moral deliberation deserves any rights. Should we imprison carnivorous animals because they kill other animals for food?
JCFolsom: 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.
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.
Indeed I have to say that animals have no rights whatsoever. Rights are property rights and they are set to protect the rightful owner against aggression from other human beings. Unless you make animals responsible for their actions, in some tribes there is a court that sentences a lion to death after he attacked one of the members, animals do not have rights.
What rights would you give animals? On what basis? self-ownership? Well, every living being owns itself because it is the only entity that can decide how to act, it does not matter if that decision is made by what we call instinct or rational behavior - which seem to me to be a special human capability.
Rights do not cross the border between species at all. There is no justice applicable to animals as much as there is no justice applicable to a river that floods your basement. Both can do harm for sure, but you have no way to prevent that harm by stating a right of yours to not be aggressed by a tiger or a river or an earthquake or whatever. Such rights can only be applied between men.
Another question is whether you have an ethical standpoint that tells yo to act against animals in a specific way. The jewish laws (which are religious laws and therefor an ethical view) for example forbid to slaughter an animal in any other way than by cutting its throat with a quick cut from one arterie to the other. And this has to be done by a specialist, with a knife that does not have the slightes carve. We know now, that cutting the cervical arteries will lead to an imediate collaps of the brain and to the fastest dead we know about, much faster than shooting a bull in the head for example.
So, if you have compassion for something living you are free to act alike, because that is freedom. Yet, there is no way to define animal rights using the libertarian approach.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)