auctionguy10: Wilmot of Rochester: In the context of this particular human in this particular article? Oh yes, in fact, I don't even think it would require a thought to think about sacrificing a creature with obviously no empathy for anything for the benefit of another creatures safety. I understand this is a slippery slope, but I can't accept that someone who is so cruel to animals possesses equal "rights" and worthiness of empathy as other men. I used to know this one kid years ago- he was a pretty cruel kid, he'd find ants and kill them in all kinds of ways, sometimes he'd rip them apart, sometimes flood their colony entrance with water, or just plain step on them. I'd never think of sentencing him to death because he wasn't concerned with the ants safety. If you do then I think you're crazy- if you don't then when is cruelty to animals punishable? Which animals? Do only certain mammals receive this type of justice? Does it have to do with how cute the animal is? If you only give dogs this right- then do you think I should be punished for killing a dog for food? For clothing? Or is it only punishable when you don't like the reason the dog was killed? This curlz guy completely avoided any question regarding stepping on ants. Why don't insects deserve the same rights as dogs? Is it because they're not as visually appealing? It all sounds way too arbitrary.
Wilmot of Rochester: In the context of this particular human in this particular article? Oh yes, in fact, I don't even think it would require a thought to think about sacrificing a creature with obviously no empathy for anything for the benefit of another creatures safety. I understand this is a slippery slope, but I can't accept that someone who is so cruel to animals possesses equal "rights" and worthiness of empathy as other men.
In the context of this particular human in this particular article? Oh yes, in fact, I don't even think it would require a thought to think about sacrificing a creature with obviously no empathy for anything for the benefit of another creatures safety.
I understand this is a slippery slope, but I can't accept that someone who is so cruel to animals possesses equal "rights" and worthiness of empathy as other men.
I used to know this one kid years ago- he was a pretty cruel kid, he'd find ants and kill them in all kinds of ways, sometimes he'd rip them apart, sometimes flood their colony entrance with water, or just plain step on them. I'd never think of sentencing him to death because he wasn't concerned with the ants safety.
If you do then I think you're crazy- if you don't then when is cruelty to animals punishable? Which animals? Do only certain mammals receive this type of justice? Does it have to do with how cute the animal is? If you only give dogs this right- then do you think I should be punished for killing a dog for food? For clothing? Or is it only punishable when you don't like the reason the dog was killed?
This curlz guy completely avoided any question regarding stepping on ants. Why don't insects deserve the same rights as dogs? Is it because they're not as visually appealing? It all sounds way too arbitrary.
It is arbitrary. I accept that. I totally accept that. But it is what it is. Most people feel something when they see a dog being kicked or beaten on - similar to the way they feel when they see an innocent human being kicked or beaten on. It's just the emotion of what occurs.
I don't really think there is a morality, to be honest. This may sound contradictory, but I don't think it is because when I see something as wrong or something that really makes me respond it's based on an instinct of compassion and empathy that I think is pretty inherent in most human beings and all men - noting the difference between a biological homo sapien and a soulful, conscious man with the characteristics of humanity.
existence is elsewhere
auctionguy10: used to know this one kid years ago- he was a pretty cruel kid, he'd find ants and kill them in all kinds of ways, sometimes he'd rip them apart, sometimes flood their colony entrance with water, or just plain step on them.
We've already addressed this; murdering an ant requires you to pay reparations to that ant's colony.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I've been reading this thread and it's very interesting, but I was left wondering why there were never any responses to this:
AJ: I don't know (or care*) about Rothbard's position, but from an AnCap, anti-monopoly perspective the solution is simple. Consumer needs and wants will be better reflected without a monopoly on force, so whatever people in society want to see happen in this dog scenario will be more likely to happen under AnCap than under our current system. Heck, if enough people in a certain society that has no monopoly on force want to bring back human slavery, they will. It's just far less likely for that to happen in anarchy than under Statism, because more people are opposed to slavery than for it. So if enough people in an AnCap society want dogs to have "rights," they will de facto have them because some firms will take an interest in filling that market demand. All governments do is distort market signals so that consumer voices are more poorly reflected, and charge through the nose for the service. Getting rid of government monopoly minimizes the distortion, but the problem of evil consumer preferences never goes away fully. To fix that, you'd have to fix human nature. *Because the source of an idea has no bearing on its legitimacy
I don't know (or care*) about Rothbard's position, but from an AnCap, anti-monopoly perspective the solution is simple. Consumer needs and wants will be better reflected without a monopoly on force, so whatever people in society want to see happen in this dog scenario will be more likely to happen under AnCap than under our current system. Heck, if enough people in a certain society that has no monopoly on force want to bring back human slavery, they will. It's just far less likely for that to happen in anarchy than under Statism, because more people are opposed to slavery than for it. So if enough people in an AnCap society want dogs to have "rights," they will de facto have them because some firms will take an interest in filling that market demand.
All governments do is distort market signals so that consumer voices are more poorly reflected, and charge through the nose for the service. Getting rid of government monopoly minimizes the distortion, but the problem of evil consumer preferences never goes away fully. To fix that, you'd have to fix human nature.
*Because the source of an idea has no bearing on its legitimacy
Wilmot of Rochester:I don't really think there is a morality, to be honest. This may sound contradictory, but I don't think it is because when I see something as wrong or something that really makes me respond it's based on an instinct of compassion and empathy that I think is pretty inherent in most human beings and all men - noting the difference between a biological homo sapien and a soulful, conscious man with the characteristics of humanity.
"Morality" is just a convenient word to refer to all those reasons why a given action is a better or worse idea to do. The reasons mostly closely associated with most people's morality are things like how well said action harmonizes with their empathy and sense of justice, how well society works or doesn't work if such actions are allowed, etc. Unfortunately, what is gained in convenience is lost in clarity, and before you know it people forget that the shorthand is just a shorthand, and start imbuing with it mystical qualities. Hence the rights / natural law / morality arguments always feature a bunch of smart people chasing their tails semantically.
Why anarchy fails
Wilmot of Rochester:Look, this is awful. Thinking about it makes my eyes start to tear up. I have a real soft spot for animals, but at the same time I have a real distaste for the state.
And? Emotive reactions are not relevant. I don't find it awful. Actually, to me it's rather funny. I could find human mutilation humorous as well, but that wouldn't mean anything in regards to the legal validity of it.
Wilmot of Rochester:If it were in my neighborhood and there were no police to stop me, I'd very likely take the dog away from the owner myself and I wouldn't be too sad to see his ears cut off for double measure.
Well if we're gonna be for barbarism, as a card carrying masochist myself, I wouldn't mind watching your flesh stripped from your body while you're submerged in a vat of acid. Cliche, I know, but good fun none the less.
Do you have no more respect for sentience than to that of mere carnalism?
Wilmot of Rochester: krazy kaju: So you're one of those people who would sacrifice a human being for a dog? GTFO. Only a sick, perverted excuse for a human could propose something like that. In the context of this particular human in this particular article? Oh yes, in fact, I don't even think it would require a thought to think about sacrificing a creature with obviously no empathy for anything for the benefit of another creatures safety. I understand this is a slippery slope, but I can't accept that someone who is so cruel to animals possesses equal "rights" and worthiness of empathy as other men.
krazy kaju: So you're one of those people who would sacrifice a human being for a dog? GTFO. Only a sick, perverted excuse for a human could propose something like that.
So you're one of those people who would sacrifice a human being for a dog? GTFO. Only a sick, perverted excuse for a human could propose something like that.
So you hold up animals as being superior to human beings? Their "rights" take precedence to ours? You would go through the trouble of jailing or possibly even killing a fellow human simply because they did some cruel things to animals?
You, my friend, are no different than the kind of people who stone homosexuals or maim adulterers. You do not care about justice or what is right, you care about having things done which fit with your own aesthetic preferences. I love animals, especially dogs. I own a beautiful black lab and I would be devastated if someone harmed it as seriously as the dog in the picture. That does not mean that I have the right to attack those who abuse their animals.
This entire fiasco arises from the misunderstanding of individual rights. There are many different approaches to rights, e.g. a priori ones like Hoppe's argumentation ethics and more empirical ones like natural rights. Ultimately, however, no animal we know of has any rights. Nobody has been able to construct any such proof for animal rights. The fact that people like you want to initiate aggression against your fellow man is what disgusts me.
Political Atheists Blog
AJ:I think the time has come to resolve this issue.
Already told you, I'm not playing this game.
Yeah, I'm sensing people don't want to talk about this, which is why I'm asking for a link - no need to comply if you don't want to. I'll look for it on my own.
AJ: Yeah, I'm sensing people don't want to talk about this, which is why I'm asking for a link - no need to comply if you don't want to. I'll look for it on my own.
What link are you looking for?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
AJ: liberty student:A belief in natural rights is subjective, but the notion of natural rights itself is based on a *supposed* objective truth of existence. What is this supposed objective truth? Or link to something I could read?
liberty student:A belief in natural rights is subjective, but the notion of natural rights itself is based on a *supposed* objective truth of existence.
What is this supposed objective truth? Or link to something I could read?
I'm trying to understand where the natural rights and natural law disputes on these forums come from.
AJ:Hence the rights / natural law / morality arguments always feature a bunch of smart people chasing their tails semantically.
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."
AJ:I suspect Curlz's moral sense (probably mostly the sense of empathy) is offended by cruelty to dogs (as is mine), but not so much offended by cruelty to insects. For whatever reason doesn't really matter. So for Curlz, dogs should have rights in order not to offend his sense of empathy.
Juan:Curlz has no problems with dogs being sent to the gas chamber. So, I don't think that dogs have any rights in Curlz' world.
If that's his position, then presumably he thinks dogs should (for the purpose of not offending his empathy) have the right not to have their ears lopped off, but should not have the right not to be executed outright. That would be an odd position, but it's his own personal sense of empathy we're talking about, so we have no way of refuting it (no way of refuting the notion that he feels strong empathy for a mutilated dog but not an executed one - since we can't look inside his head).
Juan:Plus, Curlz doesn't believe that humans have rights either, since he wants to attack humans who don't obey Curlz' desires when it comes to owning dogs.
If Curlz truly believes dogs should have the right not to have their ears cut off (even by their "owners" [if he accepts that dogs can be rightfully* owned]), then he would be inconsistent if he didn't consider the act of cutting off a dog's ears an act of aggression (presumably warranting punishment).
*Again, if we dispute this we'd have to ask, "'Rightfully' for what purpose?"
Juan:What that means is that Curlz is highly confused, or worse, not that there's no such thing as natural human rights. You could as well argue that if Curlz couldn't understand 2+2=4 that would prove maths doesn't exist...
I'm not saying natural human rights don't exist (or that they can't be meaningfully defined), but that the word "right" implies some purpose(s). So if we talk of whether something has rights or not, we'll typically have to make sure we're agreeing on what the implied purpose of the right is. If Curlz defines the purpose of his proposed rights for dogs as "to avoid offending my (and I assume other people's*) sense of empathy," then it's hard to argue against him because we can't go inside his head and verify the nature of his sense of empathy directly. We can of course inform him if our sense of empathy disagrees, and point out that his sense of empathy might extend to butchered cows and pigs if he gave it some more thought. We can also point out to him that society may not work as well if we are punishing people severely for making cosmetic changes to pets, and try to get his sense of empathy tingling for little girls who may have their parents taken away for clipping Fido's ears.
*Judging by the way he posted the OP as an appeal to our emotions, it seems he's assuming our senses of empathy agree with his
AJ:"Morality" is just a convenient word to refer to all those reasons why a given action is a better or worse idea to do.
I disagree. My motivation for not swimming in shark-infested waters is not appropriately called morality.
AJ:how well society works or doesn't work if such actions are allowed, etc.
This motivation is given far too much attention. Social engineering is not a fundamental part of individual humanity. A morality based on social engineering is a peculiar artifice, useful only for would-be philosopher kings.
AJ:people forget that the shorthand is just a shorthand, and start imbuing with it mystical qualities.
This reminds me of Jacob Bloom's "morality is just a proxy" argument. I think this makes the same mistake as saying, "Love is at bottom about propagation of genes, so we might as well abandon all the romantic crap." Just because you can recognize the system you are part of, doesn't mean it necessarily makes sense to try to escape that system.
Please don't troll.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Do you mean me, or can I answer Lilburne? I don't think anyone here is trolling, with the possible exception of Curlz. It seems to me everyone is engaged in quite civil debate at this point.
I meant Curlz, the OP.
AJ:If that's his position, then presumably he thinks dogs should (for the purpose of not offending his empathy) have the right not to have their ears lopped off, but should not have the right not to be executed outright. That would be an odd position, but it's his own personal sense of empathy we're talking about, so we have no way of refuting it (no way of refuting the notion that he feels strong empathy for a mutilated dog but not an executed one - since we can't look inside his head).
Good point. I would add that, if Curlz, impelled by his outrage, took it upon himself to Karate chop the dog mutilator and rescue the carved up pup, then justice, according to his heart, would be served. If a squad of Rothbardians then jumped him, forcing him to return the dog and pay restitution, what would that be?
1) Some might join the squad in order to be consistent with their apriorist natural law ideals. This in turn might be motivated by a desire to be consistent, and to not be forced to throw out the whole "libertarian society" baby with the "intuitively strange justice" bathwater. If that were the case, only a Benthamite (greatest good to the greatest number) third party observer would regard the apriorist Rothbardian motivation as any more valid than the moral indignation of Curlz.
2) Some might join the squad out of his own indignation: over violation of property rights. But if that indignation is "learned" from reading a lot of Rothbard and Hoppe, then that doesn't seem any more valid than indignation over assertion of property rights "learned" from reading a lot of Marx and Engels. One might say Curlz's indignation is "learned" from watching 101 Dalmations too many times. But I strongly suspect that indoctrination isn't needed for such a sense of moral outrage to arise in response. Similarly, I strongly respect that a moral imperative to protect the relevant property rights of puppy mutilators would not arise without indoctrination.
In a society expunged of the "lifeboat lie" (that the state's evils are necessary else the lifeboat of society will keel over), I suspect that Curlz would have a bigger posse on his side, that he would be limited by a moral society to a proportionate response to the puppy mutilation, and that such breaches of Rothbardian propertarian theory would not open the backdoor for the reentry of the state. If anything, I think a greater threat would come from a Private Defense Agency that proclaims that it has the only valid derivations from aprioristic natural law, and that any outrages it commits are justified by pure deductive reason.
AJ:If that's his position, then presumably he thinks dogs should (for the purpose of not offending his empathy) have the right not to have their ears lopped off, but should not have the right not to be executed outright. That would be an odd position,
Curlz: Natalie: Or how about the government owned facilities that routinely kill strays? They euthanase strays if they cannot be re-homed. This is preferable to releasing them on the street where they are likely to get hit by cars or starve.
Natalie: Or how about the government owned facilities that routinely kill strays?
AJ:If Curlz defines the purpose of his proposed rights for dogs as "to avoid offending my (and I assume other people's*) sense of empathy," then it's hard to argue against him because we can't go inside his head and verify the nature of his sense of empathy directly.
This topic is one that I can't say I have a strong opinion on yet.
Here's a trail of thought I'm exploring: can some animals have some rights? (But not others?) Can this vary based on the norms of a society?
If we agree that the possession of rights requires responsibilities or duties, which to reference an example is what I think the US founders felt was implied when they specified the rights that citizens have, does this mean that the source of rights comes from the necessity of adhering to certain rules or responsibilities?
Obviously, animals don't have nearly as many responsibilities as humans, so if they do have any rights, it should be fewer than humans. But some of them do have rules of behavior and expectations that they must abide by, complete even with consequences should they break those rules. Which animals have behavioral rules and expectations that they must abide by varies based on cultural and societal norms.
So since some animals are expected to behave in certain ways (which can vary by society and region), does this entitle them to certain rights in exchange? I would not think that a small set of basic rights (for some animals, again depending upon societal norms) necessarily excludes animals from being property, but perhaps they are a different type of property than an inanimate object is.
This is a fresh idea that only recently came to mind so if there are any stupid or glaring holes in my line of thought here, point them out for me.
Lilburne: AJ:"Morality" is just a convenient word to refer to all those reasons why a given action is a better or worse idea to do. I disagree. My motivation for not swimming in shark-infested waters is not appropriately called morality.
Good point, I should have more accurately said that "morality" is just a convenient word to refer to a set of presumably shared reasons why a given action is a better or worse idea. For instance, it offends our sense of justice or sense of empathy, it'd be bad for society to allow it in general, etc.
Lilburne: AJ:how well society works or doesn't work if such actions are allowed, etc. This motivation is given far too much attention. Social engineering is not a fundamental part of individual humanity. A morality based on social engineering is a peculiar artifice, useful only for would-be philosopher kings.
I don't see what you mean. I think in order to understand you here I'd have to know how you define "morality" or "morals."
Lilburne: AJ:people forget that the shorthand is just a shorthand, and start imbuing with it mystical qualities. This reminds me of Jacob Bloom's "morality is just a proxy" argument. I think this makes the same mistake as saying, "Love is at bottom about propagation of genes, so we might as well abandon all the romantic crap."
This reminds me of Jacob Bloom's "morality is just a proxy" argument. I think this makes the same mistake as saying, "Love is at bottom about propagation of genes, so we might as well abandon all the romantic crap."
I'm saying morality appears to be a shorthand for a set of a certain category of reasons to engage or not engage in an action. If we "should" do something, there is an implication of a purpose, i.e., "should do X in order to achieve Y." Certainly empathy, sense of justice, and "getting right with God" may be worthwhile purposes, possibly mystical in their own right, but the shorthand itself is not mystical: it's just a definition.
Lilburne: Just because you can recognize the system you are part of, doesn't mean it necessarily makes sense to try to escape that system.
The only thing I'd like us to escape is a definitional conundrum. I think we may be talking past each other. I am simply claiming that words like "rights," "right and wrong," "morality," "deserve," etc. all imply a purpose (any purpose at all - even a "mystical" or emotion-based one is fine), and that we shouldn't be surprised if we have to frequently unpack that purpose (meaning, make it explicit) in order to have a meaningful discussion.
Ansury: If we agree that the possession of rights requires responsibilities or duties, which to reference an example is what I think the US founders felt was implied when they specified the rights that citizens have, does this mean that the source of rights comes from the necessity of adhering to certain rules or responsibilities?
I disagree, rights are ascribed to 'things' at the point where those 'things' are recognised as being moral agents, that possess moral agency. if you are using responsibility in this way, ie.e speaking to their moral agency then you are right. otherwise i think not.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I agree with AJ. Morality is shorthand for good/bad. Swimming in shark-infested waters is not good for you, as you state. For an adventurer or biologist the risk or fun, call it what you will, appears to be good. The degrees or impacts of what is good or bad lead up to rights which these latter are universal in their lawful application of what is good and/or bad for any particular person(s).
For instance, it offends our sense of justice or sense of empathy, it'd be bad for society to allow it in general, etc.
Juan:For instance, it offends our sense of justice or sense of empathy, it'd be bad for society to allow it in general, etc. Bad for 'society' ? What does that mean ?
In this context, it means whatever the person talking of "rights" intends it to mean. I myself think, for example, that upholding property rights is beneficial for society, because it allows for the free market, which helps everyone get wealthier on average. A communist would support different rights for different immediate purposes that he or she (however wrongly) believes would be good for society (or maybe just because his or her sense of empathy is offended by workers getting laid off, etc.).
Reminder:
Not all morals are rights, but all rights are moral.
In this context, it means whatever the person talking of "rights" intends it to mean.
I myself think, for example, that upholding property rights is beneficial for society,
A communist would support different rights for different immediate purposes that he or she (however wrongly) believes would be good for society
krazy kaju: So you hold up animals as being superior to human beings?
So you hold up animals as being superior to human beings?
No. I hold up this particular human being as being very disgusting and this particular dog of not being deserving of such treatment.
banned: And? Emotive reactions are not relevant. I don't find it awful. Actually, to me it's rather funny. I could find human mutilation humorous as well, but that wouldn't mean anything in regards to the legal validity of it. Well if we're gonna be for barbarism, as a card carrying masochist myself, I wouldn't mind watching your flesh stripped from your body while you're submerged in a vat of acid. Cliche, I know, but good fun none the less. Do you have no more respect for sentience than to that of mere carnalism?
I'd say that other than in the movie world, you're in an extreme minority.
As far as barbarism, you can call it that, if you like. I'd call it an appropriate reaction in an emotional situation.
AJ: Wilmot of Rochester:I don't really think there is a morality, to be honest. This may sound contradictory, but I don't think it is because when I see something as wrong or something that really makes me respond it's based on an instinct of compassion and empathy that I think is pretty inherent in most human beings and all men - noting the difference between a biological homo sapien and a soulful, conscious man with the characteristics of humanity. "Morality" is just a convenient word to refer to all those reasons why a given action is a better or worse idea to do. The reasons mostly closely associated with most people's morality are things like how well said action harmonizes with their empathy and sense of justice, how well society works or doesn't work if such actions are allowed, etc. Unfortunately, what is gained in convenience is lost in clarity, and before you know it people forget that the shorthand is just a shorthand, and start imbuing with it mystical qualities. Hence the rights / natural law / morality arguments always feature a bunch of smart people chasing their tails semantically.
Very true.
But the difference is that I embrace the lack of morality. I embrace emotions. I embrace the moment. So while some try to argue for the morality or immorality of this man, I'm fine with simply saying what is is, and the ears come off tomorrow.
Wilmot of Rochester: krazy kaju: So you hold up animals as being superior to human beings? No. I hold up this particular human being as being very disgusting and this particular dog of not being deserving of such treatment.
Yes and?
Rights don't hoard morality, but if you want to make animal rights a law then suggest a law that is unbiased.
wilderness: Yes and? Rights don't hoard morality, but if you want to make animal rights a law then suggest a law that is unbiased.
I'm not really talking about rights or morality. Just what I would do and what I think most people should do.
Wilmot of Rochester: wilderness: Yes and? Rights don't hoard morality, but if you want to make animal rights a law then suggest a law that is unbiased. I'm not really talking about rights or morality.
I'm not really talking about rights or morality.
ok
Wilmot of Rochester: Just what I would do and what I think most people should do.
Just what I would do and what I think most people should do.
I guess you mean personally.
he doesnt mean morally should. he just means should some other way that maybe he can tell you about if you ask nice.
Wilmot of Rochester:I'd say that other than in the movie world, you're in an extreme minority.
Relevant, how?
Wilmot of Rochester:I'd call it an appropriate reaction in an emotional situation.
If by appropriate you mean perverse.
I suppose the 'appropriate' response to animal consumption would be cannibalism?
nirgrahamUK: he doesnt mean morally should. he just means should some other way that maybe he can tell you about if you ask nice.
I'm sure I can think back to something about a "house" comment some weeks ago if that's what you're referring to.
banned: If by appropriate you mean perverse. I suppose the 'appropriate' response to animal consumption would be cannibalism?
Most people don't have any feeling towards animal consumption other than it tastes good. Empathy isn't really a factor. It certainly isn't for me.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8374/227985.aspx#227985
well remembered
nirgrahamUK: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8374/227985.aspx#227985 well remembered
Well there's a simple solution isn't there.
Don't beat up on your dogs and you won't have to worry, now will you?
Wilmot of Rochester: nirgrahamUK: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8374/227985.aspx#227985 well remembered Well there's a simple solution isn't there. Don't beat up on your dogs and you won't have to worry, now will you?
so you are biased...
unlike justice