AJ: I'd like to see Rothbard's full context on that one. I haven't read his conception of ethics yet (getting around to it), but that quote in your sig did surprise me.
I'd like to see Rothbard's full context on that one. I haven't read his conception of ethics yet (getting around to it), but that quote in your sig did surprise me.
I really don't know why you would be surprised, but you said you were. Good and bad are hugely explanatory that anybody from a scientist to a child can understand and use them and convey great meaning. Here's a larger quote from that article of Rothbards:
"The concept of "good" (and therefore of "bad") is only relevant to living entities. Since stones or molecules have no goals or purposes, any idea of what might be "good" for a molecule or stone would properly be considered bizarre. But what might be "good" for an elm tree or a dog makes a great deal of sense: specifically, "the good" is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The "bad" is whatever injures such an entity's life or prosperity. Thus, it is possible to develop an "elm tree ethics" by discovering the best conditions: soil, sunshine, climate, etc., for the growth and sustenance of elm trees; and by trying to avoid conditions deemed "bad" for elm trees: elm blight, excessive drought, etc. A similar set of ethical properties can be worked out for various breeds of animals.
Thus, natural law sees ethics as living-entity- (or species-) relative. What is good for cabbages will differ from what is good for rabbits, which in turn will differ from what is good or bad for man. The ethic for each species will differ according to their respective natures.
Man is the only species which can — and indeed must — carve out an ethic for himself. Plants lack consciousness, and therefore cannot choose or act."
wilderness: Morals is a principle of good or bad. What that even might mean for any particular instance varies but since morality is abstracted about any particular instance is why it is an intellectual principle aka a universal principle. Not that anybody might want to talk in terms of good or bad, but there is a judgment that happens in each person's actions from what kind of statement a person wants to make with their clothes, to what kind of healthy lifestyle they desire to experience, and/or if they want to not give a person a chance to pursue their happiness or not. Since what is moral is personal, unless we are talking about natural rights, then a near infinite number of moral wiggle room is available.
Morals is a principle of good or bad. What that even might mean for any particular instance varies but since morality is abstracted about any particular instance is why it is an intellectual principle aka a universal principle. Not that anybody might want to talk in terms of good or bad, but there is a judgment that happens in each person's actions from what kind of statement a person wants to make with their clothes, to what kind of healthy lifestyle they desire to experience, and/or if they want to not give a person a chance to pursue their happiness or not. Since what is moral is personal, unless we are talking about natural rights, then a near infinite number of moral wiggle room is available.
AJ: Yeah, I think we're agreeing here. As for natural rights, they seem most clearly to me to be that very limited set of rights that most(?) people can agree must be defended in order to satisfy some fairly universal moral sense in our psyches, as well as to ensure a peaceful and wealthy society, and a few other time-tested reasons. They are so self-evident that they are called "natural" (even though some people remain blinded to them).
Yeah, I think we're agreeing here.
As for natural rights, they seem most clearly to me to be that very limited set of rights that most(?) people can agree must be defended in order to satisfy some fairly universal moral sense in our psyches, as well as to ensure a peaceful and wealthy society, and a few other time-tested reasons. They are so self-evident that they are called "natural" (even though some people remain blinded to them).
They are self-evident and natural, meaning, they are "of" a person, not prescribed for them, but "of" each individual naturally. If there is any prescribing it is simply justice providing equality for each person to pursue their just end.
AJ: I take no exception to the notions of right to life, liberty, and property, but think each person would do well to make the intended benefits of enforcing these rights clear, or else no one can argue as to whether that particular conception of rights is the best for achieving those particular benefits. Since someone else may look to rights to provide a different set of benefits that aligns more closely with what they think will maximize their happiness.
I take no exception to the notions of right to life, liberty, and property, but think each person would do well to make the intended benefits of enforcing these rights clear, or else no one can argue as to whether that particular conception of rights is the best for achieving those particular benefits. Since someone else may look to rights to provide a different set of benefits that aligns more closely with what they think will maximize their happiness.
Yes various benefits, near infinite, are potential when each person is given the potential to actualize without injust interference.
banned:Utilitarian calculus applies only to percievable consequences. Obviously the guy didn't percieve he was going to get caught, else he wouldn't have done it
the ex post not nullify the ex ante.
banned: Chris George:No it isn't. utilitarian evaluation is a psychic process. It's based on conjecture, not evaluation. Evaluation determines whether the conjecture was correct. Well, a process is a series of actions. By evaluation, I am not referring to evaluating the action based on it's consequences. I am referring to evaluating the action within utilitarian calculus.
Chris George:No it isn't. utilitarian evaluation is a psychic process. It's based on conjecture, not evaluation. Evaluation determines whether the conjecture was correct.
Well, a process is a series of actions.
By evaluation, I am not referring to evaluating the action based on it's consequences. I am referring to evaluating the action within utilitarian calculus.
thought is not action. thought stimulates action
banned:Actually, action is determined by marginal utility, which is not conventionally synonymous with "maximum pleasure".
this is a semantic argument. you know what i mean. and actually, maximizing marginal utility is maximizing pleasure
banned: Chris George:you're neglecting psychic utility. these people may not feel physical pain, but they do feel psychic pain. And their loved ones surely have psychic value from their well being. Perhaps. But not necessarily. Some people cannot experience depressive emotions, and some people are hermits.
Chris George:you're neglecting psychic utility. these people may not feel physical pain, but they do feel psychic pain. And their loved ones surely have psychic value from their well being.
Perhaps. But not necessarily. Some people cannot experience depressive emotions, and some people are hermits.
in that case the loss of utility of the loved ones who hear of their demise would need to be considered.
There are three considerations in utilitarian evaluation: the physical pain and pleasure of the participants (dog and guy), the psychic pain and pleasure of the participants (dog and guy), the psychic pain and pleasure of the bystanders. the action that results in the attainment of the largest gain in net pleasure is the most moral one.
wilderness: "The concept of "good" (and therefore of "bad") is only relevant to living entities. Since stones or molecules have no goals or purposes, any idea of what might be "good" for a molecule or stone would properly be considered bizarre. But what might be "good" for an elm tree or a dog makes a great deal of sense: specifically, "the good" is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The "bad" is whatever injures such an entity's life or prosperity. Thus, it is possible to develop an "elm tree ethics" by discovering the best conditions: soil, sunshine, climate, etc., for the growth and sustenance of elm trees; and by trying to avoid conditions deemed "bad" for elm trees: elm blight, excessive drought, etc. A similar set of ethical properties can be worked out for various breeds of animals.
if this is the case, then rothbard was an amoralist (at least from a social perspective). It is impossible to derive an ought from this definition. He can only say that it is rational to accept these rules. But he cannot say that it is ethical or moral to adopt these rules because he would then be saying that one ought to accept these rules. rationality applies to real things. morality is a metaphysical concept.
Chris George: Its outcome (utilitarianism)? Ends/results are the only way of figuring out right and wrong (that is if there is such a thing as right and wrong).
Its outcome (utilitarianism)? Ends/results are the only way of figuring out right and wrong (that is if there is such a thing as right and wrong).
Utilitarianism isn't the only sect of philosophy that uses teleology. Utilitarianism is only a 19th century development and teleology was used by various philosophers back to Aristotle and potentially even before him.
Chris George: if this is the case, then rothbard was an amoralist (at least from a social perspective). It is impossible to derive an ought from this definition.
if this is the case, then rothbard was an amoralist (at least from a social perspective). It is impossible to derive an ought from this definition.
I suggest reading either Aristotle's Ethics, Aquinas' "On Human Nature", and Rothbards "Ethics of Liberty".
Chris George: He can only say that it is rational to accept these rules.
He can only say that it is rational to accept these rules.
Why wouldn't it be rational? Also, it's not only "it is rational", it is also that they are rationalized/intellectualized.
Chris George: But he cannot say that it is ethical or moral to adopt these rules because he would then be saying that one ought to accept these rules.
But he cannot say that it is ethical or moral to adopt these rules because he would then be saying that one ought to accept these rules.
What rules?
Chris George: rationality applies to real things. morality is a metaphysical concept.
rationality applies to real things. morality is a metaphysical concept.
A) People can rationalize that fairies exist. To use this specific definition from my computers dictionary:
rationalize |ˈra sh ənlˌīz; ˈra sh nəˌlīz|verb [ trans. ]1 attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate : she couldn't rationalize her urge to return to the cottage. See note at lie.
B) And morality is an ethical concept. I'm not sure how morality would be conceptualized metaphysically. And metaphysics is about "real things", but I admit I have more to learn in the metaphysics department, so to speak, before I can go into any details, yet I believe I can generalize upon this.
Chris George:Although, you appear to be stating an amoralist perspective. There is of course a possibility of some action being inherently wrong by decree of God or whatever.
Sure, that's why I wouldn't exactly say it's amoralist, but that people tend to define morals in not-so-useful ways.
Chris George:The question is "is there really inherently wrong actions/thoughts?
Right/wrong for what purpose? If by "inherently" you mean without any purpose at all (whether physical, emotional, psychic, religious, or metaphysical), then we are confronted with the question, "What is right and wrong?" If there are no purposes, "right" and "wrong" are simply arbitrary words, no different than if I walked up to you and said, "Hey, stop being flumple!" and then tried to convince everyone that we shouldn't allow people to do certain actions because they are "flumple." I know what I'm saying may seem pretty dramatic, but I am seriously claiming that most conceptions of "ethics"/"morals"/"natural rights"/"natural law" are based on, as far as I can tell, failure to see the how tricky words are.
Words are the world's biggest tricksters. They play centuries-long practical jokes.
Anyway, every action we perform and even every single thought we think has some kind of a purpose that we perceive, so we can hardly go far with any kind of moral concept that ignores purposes. It seems clear enough from this vantage point in this thread that a purpose-free moral conception leads to a dead-end.
Without purpose, right and wrong can mean nothing. So right and wrong can only be useful words if they have some (any!) purpose attached. The purpose could even be, "Because having arbitrary notions of right and wrong makes people conform better!" With clearly stated purposes, right and wrong become potentially useful as
Chris George:and if so what determines the wrongness of an action?
From above,
Chris George:Its outcome (utilitarianism)?
Legally, if people care more about outcomes, enforcement will be based more on outcomes. Interpersonally, the same; except "enforcement" will be through social, rather than coercive, means (same below).
Chris George:Its intent (Deontology)?
If people care more about intent, enforcement will be based more on intent.
Chris George:Or the content of the character of the actor (Virtue ethics)?
If people care more about content of character of the actor, enforcement will be based more on content of character of the actor.
Chris George:I content that if the "means" were the determinate feature of morality, then we would never be able to figure out what was moral and it would be impossible to be moral and therefore it can't be moral.
Surely that may be true.
Chris George:Ends/results are the only way of figuring out right and wrong (that is if there is such a thing as right and wrong).
Certainly seems practical, but then again it's not just you paying for the law. Not trying to be snide, just trying to point out that our current view of the law is terribly distorted by this monopoly-of-force situation we are in. Now we are getting the laws that special interests pay for, but in AnCap we will hopefully get the laws that we pay for, i.e., consumer preferences will be better reflected.
Why anarchy fails
Thanks for the full quote.
wilderness:Man is the only species which can — and indeed must — carve out an ethic for himself.
Yes, a set of guidelines for what is beneficial and detrimental for his own self, at least.
wilderness:They are self-evident and natural, meaning, they are "of" a person, not prescribed for them, but "of" each individual naturally.
I see that as a good way of phrasing to convince people, but not the clearest conception for theoretical purposes. I think it clearer for our purposes to leave it at the fact they are self-evident, since the concept of rights has no usefulness outside the context of whether they should be defended or not, and defense of rights under the law necessarily entails prescribing (assigning) them to the people under adjudication.
Sorry, dude, but while that is sick and disgusting to me, the idea that it should be a crime is absurd.
Quod licet jovi non licet bovi.
AJ: wilderness:They are self-evident and natural, meaning, they are "of" a person, not prescribed for them, but "of" each individual naturally. I see that as a good way of phrasing to convince people, but not the clearest conception for theoretical purposes. I think it clearer for our purposes to leave it at the fact they are self-evident, since the concept of rights has no usefulness outside the context of whether they should be defended or not, and defense of rights under the law necessarily entails prescribing (assigning) them to the people under adjudication.
That's why the rest of what I wrote stated: "If there is any prescribing it is simply justice providing equality for each person to pursue their just end."
But I don't know if self-defense can be exactly defined as prescribing, thus why I said it in this way, "If there is...".
The only purpose of animal cruelty laws is behavior control. There is no wronged party. In essence, it becomes a victimless crime. Being that it is a victimless crime, it becomes next to impossible to prove and the effectiveness of the law becomes questionable. In other words, given that the stated purpose of animal cruelty laws is to reduce certain behavior, it is impossible to know if the laws are "working". Not only that, but to catch law breakers, you have to have undercover agents go in and get people to cause the crime in the first place. Take the example provided in this thread. How is anyone going to prove who actually was "cruel" to this puppy without going undercover and convincing the owner to do it to another puppy? In other words, to punish the crime, the state has to get someone to do the crime!
Anyone who is for animal cruelty laws does not understand that the only way the law can be just is if the law is only used to resolve disputes between rational creatures.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: In other words, to punish the crime, the state has to get someone to do the crime!
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spideynw:Anyone who is for animal cruelty laws does not understand that the only way the law can be just is if the law is only used to resolve disputes between sentient creatures.
AND AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
mbarnett:Sorry, dude, but while that is sick and disgusting to me, the idea that it should be a crime is absurd.
Why? "Animals have Rights!" Why should the idea of "animal rights" be more absurd then the idea of "Human rights" (or natural rights then)?
I'm looking for where I wrote anything about "rights", whatever those are, and I can't find it. Oh, wait, were trying to pigeonhole me into an argument I didn't make so that you could play debate games? Sorry, I was on the wrestling team not the debate team in high school 20+ years ago.
Torsten: mbarnett:Sorry, dude, but while that is sick and disgusting to me, the idea that it should be a crime is absurd. Why? "Animals have Rights!" Why should the idea of "animal rights" be more absurd then the idea of "Human rights" (or natural rights then)?
Did the animal or the animal's owner have a dispute? If not, then no rights were violated.
wilderness:But I don't know if self-defense can be exactly defined as prescribing, thus why I said it in this way, "If there is...".
But aren't these rights to be enforced under the law, by PDAs and such, as well as allowing for self-defense?
Spideynw: Torsten: "Animals have Rights!" Why should the idea of "animal rights" be more absurd then the idea of "Human rights" (or natural rights then)? Did the animal or the animal's owner have a dispute? If not, then no rights were violated.
Torsten: "Animals have Rights!" Why should the idea of "animal rights" be more absurd then the idea of "Human rights" (or natural rights then)?
"Animals have Rights!" Why should the idea of "animal rights" be more absurd then the idea of "Human rights" (or natural rights then)?
I don't understand this argument. Seems that if the animal didn't want to be harmed, it would have a dispute with anyone trying to harm it. So how are you defining "dispute"? And for what purposes do you assign humans with "rights" (or demand that they be exercised)? Do none of those purposes also apply to animals?
If, for instance, one of the reasons you would like to assign humans with "rights" (or demand that inherent rights be exercised/enforced under the law) is that society will run smoother that way, you could argue that that reason doesn't apply to animals.
But if another reason you'd like humans to have (or exercise) rights is because it would satisfy your sense of empathy, if you feel empathy in seeing certain types of animals harmed why not assign them rights as well? If, contrarily, one's sense of empathy is not to be regarded as a valid reason to support assignment (or exercise) of rights, then what, precisely, are the valid reasons?
AJ: Spideynw: Torsten: "Animals have Rights!" Why should the idea of "animal rights" be more absurd then the idea of "Human rights" (or natural rights then)? Did the animal or the animal's owner have a dispute? If not, then no rights were violated. I don't understand this argument. Seems that if the animal didn't want to be harmed, it would have a dispute with anyone trying to harm it. So how are you defining "dispute"?
I don't understand this argument. Seems that if the animal didn't want to be harmed, it would have a dispute with anyone trying to harm it. So how are you defining "dispute"?
When someone takes someone to court for harming his or her self or his or her property.
AJ:And for what purposes do you assign humans with "rights" (or demand that they be exercised)?
Humans are sentient creatures. As such, they are able to both give consent and withhold consent. For example, a person can go against his or her instinct to not kill his or her self, and ask someone to kill his or her self. Humans can also, being that we are sentient, recognize the property rights of other sentient creatures.
AJ:Do none of those purposes also apply to animals?
Do you know of any animal that can ask another creature to kill it? Do you know of any animal that can ask to be tortured? Do you think animals can recognize property rights? Do you think animals can own property?
AJ:But if another reason you'd like humans to have (or exercise) rights is because it would satisfy your sense of empathy, if you feel empathy in seeing certain types of animals harmed why not assign them rights as well?
It has nothing to do with empathy. It has to do with the fact that animals cannot bring a dispute to court because they are not sentient. They do not recognize rights, and do not even understand them (not that it seems that most humans understand negative rights either), and they cannot even attempt to communicate what they do or do not consent to (they can only follow their instincts, they cannot go against their instincts).
And again, making laws against animal cruelty are subjective. To be consistent, one would have to argue that it should be illegal for animals to be killed, at all. One would also have to argue that animals have property rights. Both positions are completely ludicrous, as such the argument for animal cruelty laws is a slippery slope.
spideynw:Humans are sentient creatures. As such, they are able to both give consent and withhold consent.
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."
Spideynw: AJ: Spideynw: Did the animal or the animal's owner have a dispute? If not, then no rights were violated. I don't understand this argument. Seems that if the animal didn't want to be harmed, it would have a dispute with anyone trying to harm it. So how are you defining "dispute"? When someone takes someone to court for harming his or her self or his or her property.
AJ: Spideynw: Did the animal or the animal's owner have a dispute? If not, then no rights were violated. I don't understand this argument. Seems that if the animal didn't want to be harmed, it would have a dispute with anyone trying to harm it. So how are you defining "dispute"?
Spideynw: Did the animal or the animal's owner have a dispute? If not, then no rights were violated.
Under what definition of "property" can animals be property? And then, why doesn't that definition apply to humans?
If it's Locke's "mixing one's labor with a resource," how are animals a resource and humans not? Or if they are both defined as resources, then why does mixing one's labor with a dog (i.e., training, feeding and sheltering the dog) make it one's property, while the same does not apply to (captive) humans? [Note: I'm not claiming that humans are property, but I am asking for consistent definitions.]
Spideynw: AJ:And for what purposes do you assign humans with "rights" (or demand that they be exercised)? Humans are sentient creatures. As such, they are able to both give consent and withhold consent. For example, a person can go against his or her instinct to not kill his or her self, and ask someone to kill his or her self. Humans can also, being that we are sentient, recognize the property rights of other sentient creatures.
These are justifications for rights. I'm looking for specifically what you yourself hope to accomplish by adopting (and having others adopt) your system of rights. What benefits will that bring you? - in the very broadest sense of the word "benefits," whether physical, indirect, psychic, religious, or whatever (not in the limited pragmatic or utilitarian/consequentialist sense). Because that's all that matters. All we do is to gain benefit and avoid detriment in that very broad sense.
And then, how would those benefits not accrue to you if animals had rights? Now I think you've answered that question to a degree, but it's more a rhetorical question to every reader, because every reader will have different reasons why certain rights appeal to him or her, and that's the point I hope to drive home.
In particular, an animal rights activist may agree with the concept of natural rights, and may wish to extend it to animals because that would satisfy his or her sense of empathy. For that person, empathy has everything to do with it, and if enough people feel that way and are willing to pay for it, animals will gain some de facto rights in AnCap (or even mini-archy). It may not be practical to enforce such rights in all cases, of course (or even, as you cogently argue, in any cases), but that is at least separate from the "natural rights" philosophical point of contention originally raised.
AJ:These are justifications for rights. I'm looking for specifically what you yourself hope to accomplish by adopting (and having others adopt) your system of rights. What benefits will that bring you?
I am just saying that animals are unable to dispute anything, as such they do not have any rights. Or do you think there is some way to prove that the puppy in this thread did not want to be tortured so as to satisfy its master?
Humans need courts to resolve disputes. Animals never have any disputes, as far as we know.
Juan: spideynw:Humans are sentient creatures. As such, they are able to both give consent and withhold consent. I don't think sentient is the proper word. Higher animals are probably sentient creatures too. What humans are (and animals are not) is rational moral agents.
OK. Fixed.
Spideynw:I am just saying that animals are unable to dispute anything, as such they do not have any rights. Or do you think there is some way to prove that the puppy in this thread did not want to be tortured so as to satisfy its master?
Well by that definition of "rights," of course animals have no rights, because they can't go to court, and even if they did we couldn't understand them. But I think it's pretty clear that people who support animal rights have a different definition in mind. Since definitions of "rights" seem to vary pretty widely, I think we could at least do such people the honor of asking how they define "rights" (and what they hope to achieve by defining "rights" in that way) before dismissing them.
AJ:Well by that definition of "rights," of course animals have no rights, because they can't go to court, and even if they did we couldn't understand them. But I think it's pretty clear that people who support animal rights have a different definition in mind.
Obviously, a definition that is completely arbitrary, meaning inconsistent, and as such, is worthless. Their definition boils down to, "I do not like it, so it should be illegal". Well, what kind of society would one have if everything was illegal that people did not like?
Spideynw: Their definition boils down to, "I do not like it, so it should be illegal".
Did they imply that? Anyway, it depends how you interpret "like" - you like your legal system, don't you? However, if you in fact mean that they have a purely ad hoc legal system, then I agree that's not satisfactory.
banned: And now you're interjecting evidence, when you started off saying that a hypotheses was not a supposition and did demonstrate its premise.
And now you're interjecting evidence, when you started off saying that a hypotheses was not a supposition and did demonstrate its premise.
Usually when people argue about the structure of arguments, it's because they don't have a good way to argue against the initial claim.
banned: It is semantic in the sense that you are making a category mistake in ascribing empathy with a value, when it is regarded within it's category as a process within the realm of cognition. If you meant empathic concern, you should have used that term, just like I don't use banana as a synonym with rationality, because it just doesn't make sense. This is not an argument over meaning meaning, you are making claims that would not be valid with the meaning you're using.
It is semantic in the sense that you are making a category mistake in ascribing empathy with a value, when it is regarded within it's category as a process within the realm of cognition. If you meant empathic concern, you should have used that term, just like I don't use banana as a synonym with rationality, because it just doesn't make sense. This is not an argument over meaning meaning, you are making claims that would not be valid with the meaning you're using.
Except most people don't understand "banana" as having anything to do with rationality.
banned: If you are using empathy and 'animal charity' interchangeably, it's no use trying to convince you that you're misusing the word, and giving it properties it cannot have under your definition. I'm going to retract what I said said about 'empathy' 'animal charity' being necessary to social-humanity because it quite obviously isn't under your definition, nor is it cognitive, it is merely representative of a value.
If you are using empathy and 'animal charity' interchangeably, it's no use trying to convince you that you're misusing the word, and giving it properties it cannot have under your definition. I'm going to retract what I said said about 'empathy' 'animal charity' being necessary to social-humanity because it quite obviously isn't under your definition, nor is it cognitive, it is merely representative of a value.
It isn't animal charity, it's empathy or empathic concern - though most people, like myself, consider both as synonymous.
And no, empathy is not a value, my description that those people who do not possess it would be, but the assertion that one lacks empathy - the ability to feel another creature's pain - is completely descriptive.
banned: Nowhere do I see the equivocation with empathy and empathetic concern. It seems pretty clear it's defined as a process. So 'people like me' likely include most every dictionary company in existence.
Nowhere do I see the equivocation with empathy and empathetic concern. It seems pretty clear it's defined as a process. So 'people like me' likely include most every dictionary company in existence.
So empathy does not mean the capacity to feel the pain of creatures? The Merriam-Webster's definition, which I linked to above and you quoted, seems to believe so in the second paragraph.
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present
banned: No, you weren't. There is a clear distinction between a value and a process. It's not that hard to understand.
No, you weren't. There is a clear distinction between a value and a process. It's not that hard to understand.
Oh, ok.
banned: You were ascribing a value as being necessary for those that wished to live
You were ascribing a value as being necessary for those that wished to live
First, so value and ethnicity are now synonymous?
Second, neither empathy nor empathic concern are values. They are both the state of feeling another creature's pain, with empathic concern being the combination of empathy and sympathy. It's really not that hard to understand.
banned: There is no known way of objectively taking part in another person's consciousness.
There is no known way of objectively taking part in another person's consciousness.
That doesn't have anything to do with the argument.
banned: The kindness to animals you insist on is not empathy, it is a value.
The kindness to animals you insist on is not empathy, it is a value.
It isn't kindness to animals, it's the ability to feel their pain. One would expect that when one feels pain, one would stop the activity or not carry through with it. None of that is a value.
What is a value is that people should have compassion and empathy and that if empathy is lacking, those people should not expect sympathy or deserve defense when they're the subjects of the very torture they inflict upon other creatures.
banned: I'm not, and I didn't.
I'm not, and I didn't.
Certainly comes across that way.
banned: Cool story bro.
Cool story bro.
Well, now that we've had that established we can both return to our quarters. Me to my house and you to your fraternity.
existence is elsewhere
Spideynw: I am just saying that animals are unable to dispute anything, as such they do not have any rights. Or do you think there is some way to prove that the puppy in this thread did not want to be tortured so as to satisfy its master? Humans need courts to resolve disputes. Animals never have any disputes, as far as we know.
So you're asking people to prove a negative - that the puppy didn't want to be tortured?
And also, to your distinction between humans and animals on the basis of being "moral, rational agents," animals of other species also demonstrate rationality and the existence of morality seems to be more a preference for subjective aesthetics than anything else - something animals certainly seem to possess.
wilderness: The mentally retarded person or insane person are "person". They are potentially fully human, but because they aren't actually fully human, if medical science has concluded this to be correct meaning they don't have the ability to participate in a human society individually, then this is why they have guardians to help them decide on issues. Animals are not potentially human they are of a different species and outside of Primates of a different genus. Rights being "of" the individual, first, I don't see animals participating in human society without guardians, and secondly animals are not abstracting these rights "of" themselves and declaring them to us. Thirdly, rights of humans and to apply them to animals is to blur the applicability of rights which is law. The deer would be breaking it all the time, but do I really want to put deer on trial for eating anything in my garden (luckily I put fence up, not because they are criminals but because they are animals which a whole differing biology that includes habits, etc...
The mentally retarded person or insane person are "person". They are potentially fully human, but because they aren't actually fully human, if medical science has concluded this to be correct meaning they don't have the ability to participate in a human society individually, then this is why they have guardians to help them decide on issues.
Animals are not potentially human they are of a different species and outside of Primates of a different genus. Rights being "of" the individual, first, I don't see animals participating in human society without guardians, and secondly animals are not abstracting these rights "of" themselves and declaring them to us. Thirdly, rights of humans and to apply them to animals is to blur the applicability of rights which is law. The deer would be breaking it all the time, but do I really want to put deer on trial for eating anything in my garden (luckily I put fence up, not because they are criminals but because they are animals which a whole differing biology that includes habits, etc...
What does it mean to say that a mentally retarded or insane person isn't "fully human"? I think a lot of people would take great offense to such wording, so there must be a better way to explain this. I think they are fully human, that being a simple biological fact. I have to say I can't believe that the lack of a capacity to learn or differentiate from right and wrong (two things that apply to animals) are prerequisites to being fully human. Or that the simple fact of being biologically human automatically gives you rights for no other reason. Or that learning capacity and distinction from right and wrong are prerequisites to having certain rights. Humans are animals too, the only fundamental differences are the mental capacities--but this doesn't exist in some humans. Yet these humans are given a certain subset of rights--to me this sounds the same as the case with animals.
I agree with the first and second points in the above second paragraph. Not sure about the third. (A deer trial would be a funny comedy skit... ) But coming from my original point, I think an alternate way to explain it is: a society ultimately grants rights to things (again, not saying I know this as fact, it's just a concept I thought of that I still can't dispute).
Society doesn't expect that deer restrain themselves in such a way, so while the deer doesn't realize it (as a mentally retarded human wouldn't), we don't hold the deer responsible. Since we have few (if any) behavioral expectations for the deer, they also have few (if any) rights. Now on the other hand, society does have an expectation that a dog doesn't chew someone's face off. And while they don't go into the US court system should they do so, they do go through the same sort of process. Investigation, trial, they're judged, and sentenced, through a much abridged (and probably better functioning) "animal court system". (lol that has a rather funny sound to it) And the same applies when animals do more minor wrongs, where they get punished or reprimanded.
Maybe it would help to ask the question, where should rights originate from? Is there a clear and indisputable answer to this? My best answer at the moment is that the consensus of moral values and expectations in a society should determine this.
AJ: wilderness:But I don't know if self-defense can be exactly defined as prescribing, thus why I said it in this way, "If there is...". But aren't these rights to be enforced under the law, by PDAs and such, as well as allowing for self-defense?
As the initial "D" stands for in PDA those are for defense.
AJ: I don't understand this argument. Seems that if the animal didn't want to be harmed, it would have a dispute with anyone trying to harm it. So how are you defining "dispute"? And for what purposes do you assign humans with "rights" (or demand that they be exercised)? Do none of those purposes also apply to animals?
I brought this up earlier, but you seemed to shrug it off for more precision, but I was mistaken and you seem to have shrugged off what I said cause you didn't understand it.
(1) Does any animal understand natural rights of humans? (2) Natural rights are of human nature not animal nature. Natural rights are "of" a person, but if you, as a person, apply them to animals that would mean you are trying to (A) apply a right "for" somebody in this case an animal (B) that's a category error of natural rights.
I've made this challenge before. If somebody can come up with an animal right that doesn't violate any natural rights of humans, and that animal right is a right, meaning, it is universal in application without violated any other rights, then let me know.
AJ: Spideynw:I am just saying that animals are unable to dispute anything, as such they do not have any rights. Or do you think there is some way to prove that the puppy in this thread did not want to be tortured so as to satisfy its master? Well by that definition of "rights," of course animals have no rights, because they can't go to court, and even if they did we couldn't understand them. But I think it's pretty clear that people who support animal rights have a different definition in mind. Since definitions of "rights" seem to vary pretty widely, I think we could at least do such people the honor of asking how they define "rights" (and what they hope to achieve by defining "rights" in that way) before dismissing them.
Of course animal rights are absurd cause it perverts the very meaning of rights - they are "of" a person. Yet somebody that says they are for animal rights has already perverted the meaning of a right cause they are stating their preference prescribing a definition "for" an animal. Natural rights of humans are "of", not "for". I don't think you understand the meanings of the words "of" and "for".
Wilmot of Rochester: So you're asking people to prove a negative - that the puppy didn't want to be tortured?
looks good to me...
Wilmot of Rochester: And also, to your distinction between humans and animals on the basis of being "moral, rational agents," animals of other species also demonstrate rationality and the existence of morality seems to be more a preference for subjective aesthetics than anything else - something animals certainly seem to possess.
Animals can't intellectualize. They do not abstract universal principles and definitions such as rights from their very own nature let alone the nature of other objects.
Ansury: What does it mean to say that a mentally retarded or insane person isn't "fully human"?
What does it mean to say that a mentally retarded or insane person isn't "fully human"?
They are not fully human and thus why they are called "retarded" or "insane".
my computer dictionary:
retardverb |riˈtärd| [ trans. ] delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment
insane |inˈsān|adjectivein a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill
----
retard is a delay or held back from what? - complete human development.
insane is a state of mind preventing what? - normal perception, etc... that is human.
Ansury: I have to say I can't believe that the lack of a capacity to learn or differentiate from right and wrong (two things that apply to animals) are prerequisites to being fully human.
I have to say I can't believe that the lack of a capacity to learn or differentiate from right and wrong (two things that apply to animals) are prerequisites to being fully human.
Humans are distinct from animals. Animals are distinct from plants. Plants are distinct from rocks. Ask yourself: In what ways are these distinct?
Ansury: Or that the simple fact of being biologically human automatically gives you rights for no other reason.
Or that the simple fact of being biologically human automatically gives you rights for no other reason.
Humans can intellectually abstract universal definitions - rights - of human nature and if we can know a universal definition, thus, a right of an animal which by universal such a definition can not violate other known universal definitions and principles, then go for it and provide a universal right of an animal. But that universal abstraction that you would do violates the integrity of a "right" in the first place cause you as a human are abstracting a right of another species and genus of animals whereas natural rights of humans are intellectualized by humans, of human nature.
Ansury: Or that learning capacity and distinction from right and wrong are prerequisites to having certain rights. Humans are animals too, the only fundamental differences are the mental capacities--but this doesn't exist in some humans. Yet these humans are given a certain subset of rights--to me this sounds the same as the case with animals.
Or that learning capacity and distinction from right and wrong are prerequisites to having certain rights. Humans are animals too, the only fundamental differences are the mental capacities--but this doesn't exist in some humans. Yet these humans are given a certain subset of rights--to me this sounds the same as the case with animals.
Humans are potentially human if such humans are not fully actualization their existential understanding and thus judgement of right and wrong. Animals are not potentially humans. Since retarded or insane people are potential humans, then their rights are advocated by other humans in a guardianship role. This potentiality of human is discoverable in DNA.
Ansury: I agree with the first and second points in the above second paragraph. Not sure about the third. (A deer trial would be a funny comedy skit... )
I agree with the first and second points in the above second paragraph. Not sure about the third. (A deer trial would be a funny comedy skit... )
Not sure about what in particular in the third.
Ansury: But coming from my original point, I think an alternate way to explain it is: a society ultimately grants rights to things (again, not saying I know this as fact, it's just a concept I thought of that I still can't dispute).
But coming from my original point, I think an alternate way to explain it is: a society ultimately grants rights to things (again, not saying I know this as fact, it's just a concept I thought of that I still can't dispute).
Natural rights are of the individual. The individual(s) profess these rights to each other and that professing and any application can be understood as coming from society.
Ansury: Society doesn't expect that deer restrain themselves in such a way, so while the deer doesn't realize it (as a mentally retarded human wouldn't), we don't hold the deer responsible. Since we have few (if any) behavioral expectations for the deer, they also have few (if any) rights. Now on the other hand, society does have an expectation that a dog doesn't chew someone's face off. And while they don't go into the US court system should they do so, they do go through the same sort of process. Investigation, trial, they're judged, and sentenced, through a much abridged (and probably better functioning) "animal court system". (lol that has a rather funny sound to it) And the same applies when animals do more minor wrongs, where they get punished or reprimanded. Maybe it would help to ask the question, where should rights originate from? Is there a clear and indisputable answer to this? My best answer at the moment is that the consensus of moral values and expectations in a society should determine this.
I've repeated for over a week that rights are "of" and not "for" a person, but I can see, not just you, that the definitions of "of" and "for" are not well understood - no offense.
If animals have rights, then humans could not exists. We could not eat animals and we could not disturb the habitat of any animal. We couldn't clear a small forest to build a farm, we couldn't pick nuts from a tree because the tree already been homesteaded by squirrels, we couldn't walk an inch without making sure that we didn't step on an ant or a spider, we couldn't domestic an animal, and so on. If animal rights exist, then humans cannot exist. We can't make any contracts with the animals since we can't understand each other, and our very existence is a violation of the rights of other animals.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I hate to be picky, but do we need to utilize the term 'retard'? It is a rather insulting term for individuals who did not choose to be born with this 'condition.'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Daniel: If animals have rights, then humans could not exists. We could not eat animals and we could not disturb the habitat of any animal. We couldn't clear a small forest to build a farm, we couldn't pick nuts from a tree because the tree already been homesteaded by squirrels, we couldn't walk an inch without making sure that we didn't step on an ant or a spider, we couldn't domestic an animal, and so on. If animal rights exist, then humans cannot exist. We can't make any contracts with the animals since we can't understand each other, and our very existence is a violation of the rights of other animals.
yeap
Anarchist Cain: I hate to be picky, but do we need to utilize the term 'retard'? It is a rather insulting term for individuals who did not choose to be born with this 'condition.'
What's wrong with the definition and thus concept of retard? I gave a dictionary definition. These are medically notable as well.
wilderness: AJ: I don't understand this argument. Seems that if the animal didn't want to be harmed, it would have a dispute with anyone trying to harm it. So how are you defining "dispute"? And for what purposes do you assign humans with "rights" (or demand that they be exercised)? Do none of those purposes also apply to animals? I brought this up earlier, but you seemed to shrug it off for more precision, but I was mistaken and you seem to have shrugged off what I said cause you didn't understand it. (1) Does any animal understand natural rights of humans? (2) Natural rights are of human nature not animal nature. Natural rights are "of" a person, but if you, as a person, apply them to animals that would mean you are trying to (A) apply a right "for" somebody in this case an animal (B) that's a category error of natural rights. I've made this challenge before. If somebody can come up with an animal right that doesn't violate any natural rights of humans, and that animal right is a right, meaning, it is universal in application without violated any other rights, then let me know.
I am not saying that I have a better conception of rights. In fact I am skeptical that a useful conception of rights (outside the legal sense) exists. I understand what you mean by rights being inherently "of" a person, not being assigned "for" a person, but I wanted to know how you hope to benefit by defining rights in that way.
wilderness:Natural rights of humans are "of", not "for". I don't think you understand the meanings of the words "of" and "for".
I don't think you understand that not everyone defines rights in that way. I don't necessarily object to your definition myself, but many do - and that is my point.
AJ: I am not saying that I have a better conception of rights. In fact I am skeptical that a useful conception of rights (outside the legal sense) exists. I understand what you mean by rights being inherently "of" a person, not being assigned "for" a person, but I wanted to know how you hope to benefit by defining rights in that way.
I often repeat myself here, but that's ok I guess.
Natural rights are of the person and universal in application being an individual based premise of the individual - thus teleologically individual. Natural rights are teleological which simply points out their "ofness". They are unbiased and don't inhibit each person from achieving their just happiness. It's about the potential of being human and how actualizing who each person potentially is, thus, to discover and experience the open-ended journey called life as a human in this universe.
AJ: wilderness:Natural rights of humans are "of", not "for". I don't think you understand the meanings of the words "of" and "for". I don't think you understand that not everyone defines rights in that way. I don't necessarily object to your definition myself, but many do - and that is my point.
Who are these "many"?