Political Theory

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Wilmot of Rochester — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:21:40 GMT

Juan:
The claim is that animals are not moral agents.

At which point I asked why and then it was relayed to me because animals do not possess the same traits of reasoning and rationality as human beings do.

I pointed out that this simply was not true and that though deductive reasoning levels of a dog are not as sophisticated or complex as that of Socrates, it is a matter of degree only.

Now, I'm bored with all of this and I'm not looking to completely derail the topic into matters of objective morality vs. subjective morality or why the concept of natural rights is a fantasy.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Spideynw — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:47:27 GMT

Wilmot of Rochester:
You're right in the sense that my morality is arbitrary.

I should have said your legal philosophy is arbitrary. All morality is subjective. Your world is a world of contradictions.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Juan — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:44:43 GMT

Rochester:
So what was your point of coming on here and saying that, Juan?

Well, I do believe that morality can be argued. So I argue about it. You don't believe it can be argued but you do argue about it anyway.

Do you understand your position is contradictory ? I guess not.

By the way, my point is that the inital reaction that most people have - anger and desire to see their version of justice done to this individual - is a legitimate one based in empathy;

What does 'legitimate' mean ?

it's one that I think they should be ready to act on.

Should ?

It also turned into showing that even by the "natural rights theorist's" standards for what separates the morality of man from beast falls;

I didn't see such a failure. I did see you inability to grasp the difference between humans and animals.

that being the claim that only man possesses the ability to reason.

The claim is that animals are not moral agents.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Juan — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:38:45 GMT

Nir:
so your morality is not morality, its aesthetics.

well then, but you dont have morality

The problem is perhaps that Wilmot joined the wrong forum. He should have joined a forum devoted to Art, not to political philosophy.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Wilmot of Rochester — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:35:36 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

so your morality is not morality, its aesthetics.

well then, but you dont have morality.

I would call it subjective morality.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Wilmot of Rochester — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:34:43 GMT

Juan:
I have no belief that my morals are objective
Of course. The only annoying thing is that you keep on talking as if you had a point to make. You already stated that you are willing to murder people who mistreat their dogs. Fine. Who gives a damn about your opinions or feelings ?

You are only posting your 'preferences' here. You already said what your preferences are. You have nothing else to add I believe ?

So, why do you keep on talking ? I'm assuming you are not, by any means, arguing no ? You are not trying to convince anyone that they can't turn their dogs into cat food if they want ?

So what was your point of coming on here and saying that, Juan?

By the way, my point is that the inital reaction that most people have - anger and desire to see their version of justice done to this individual - is a legitimate one based in empathy; it's one that I think they should be ready to act on. It also turned into showing that even by the "natural rights theorist's" standards for what separates the morality of man from beast falls; that being the claim that only man possesses the ability to reason.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Juan — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:31:26 GMT

I have no belief that my morals are objective

Of course. The only annoying thing is that you keep on talking as if you had a point to make. You already stated that you are willing to murder people who mistreat their dogs. Fine. Who gives a damn about your opinions or feelings ?

You are only posting your 'preferences' here. You already said what your preferences are. You have nothing else to add I believe ?

So, why do you keep on talking ? I'm assuming you are not, by any means, arguing no ? You are not trying to convince anyone that they can't turn their dogs into cat food if they want ?

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

nirgrahamUK — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:29:23 GMT

so your morality is not morality, its aesthetics.

well then, but you dont have morality.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Wilmot of Rochester — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:22:26 GMT

Spideynw:

Your argument, just like most other people on earth, all of whom are dense, is a slippery slope. You say torturing animals is wrong. Well then, so is killing them, having sex with them, or taking their property. But you have completely arbitrary standards, as such, you live in an arbitrary world. You think your morals are objective, when they are in fact completely subjective and without a logical basis.

Well, since you've already admitted to being a broken record, I don't know why I continue, but to clarify,

You're right in the sense that my morality is arbitrary. I know it is, I admit it is, it is based off of emotion, compassion, and empathic concern; I don't base it on any "natural rights theory" or something of the like. It is entirely based on aesthetics; surprised that a guy with the name Wilmot of Rochester bases his actions and beliefs on aesthetics? You shouldn't be.

I have no belief that my morals are objective - I don't have any belief that any morals are objective, much less based on logic. Morality, in the objective, is a fundamentally absurd concept. So though I am a fan of the absurd, I admit that this belief in principled, logical, objective morality has about as much truth to it as anyother surrealist fantasy.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Spideynw — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:18:35 GMT

Wilmot of Rochester:
What are you, a broken record?

Yes, because you obviously cannot grow up and answer the questions.

Wilmot of Rochester:
I've told you time and time again, it doesn't have anything to do with consent;

Is it wrong to kill a person that has consented to be killed? If it is, please explain to me why it is.

Is it wrong to kill person that has not consented to being killed? If it is not, please explain to me why it is not.

Until you can answer these questions, then you are obviously just intellectually lazy.

Wilmot of Rochester:
Are you seriously going to try to prove your argument that animals should be tortured without any objections and defense against the torturing person by saying that because you don't see the proof that animals consent, it must be a proof of absence?

No, my argument is that they do not have the capability of consenting or withholding consent. Not only must one refuse to consent, but one must have the ability to consent in the first place, and then withhold the consent.

Your argument, just like most other people on earth, all of whom are dense, is a slippery slope. You say torturing animals is wrong. Well then, so is killing them, having sex with them, or taking their property. But you have completely arbitrary standards, as such, you live in an arbitrary world. You think your morals are objective, when they are in fact completely subjective and without a logical basis.

And no, I am not holding my breath that the people of the earth will grow a brain and understand logical fallacies. People have been writing about libertarian philosophy for centuries, and look where we are today.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Knight_of_BAAWA — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:59:58 GMT

Wilmot of Rochester:
I've told you time and time again, it doesn't have anything to do with consent

Rather, it has EVERYTHING to do with consent.

Please do note that dogs, cats, etc. are not moral agents.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Wilmot of Rochester — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 06:58:42 GMT

Spideynw:

Will you grow up and answer the questions?

Let me ask some more. If someone kills me, and I wanted them to kill me, has any wrong been committed? If someone has sex with me, and I wanted them to have sex with me, has any wrong been committed? If I sell my property to someone, without coercion, has any wrong been done?

So again, when has an animal ever consented to being killed by a human, having sex with a human, or giving its property to a human? If they do not have the capability to give or withhold consent, then there is no wrong being done by doing whatever we want to them.

What are you, a broken record?

I've told you time and time again, it doesn't have anything to do with consent; that is not the measure of human beings and it isn't at all odd to think of animals consenting - or more approrpriately, not fighting - certain things. Like the dog that doesn't bite when his owner takes his food away.

In either case, your point is a dumb one. Are you seriously going to try to prove your argument that animals should be tortured without any objections and defense against the torturing person by saying that because you don't see the proof that animals consent, it must be a proof of absence? Get real and go to school.

The issue isn't about consent; obviously a dog doesn't consent to being strangled to death when he snaps at the strangler. But even if it isn't obvious to you, there's nothing to say that animals incapable of showing obvious unwillingness should be allowed to be tortured like this puppy.

That's ridiculous and similar to saying that because babies cannot obviously consent, they should be tortured without consequence.

I have a question for you in terms of strategy for making a freer society. Do you really expect to gain majority opinion by walking along this line that most other people consider nothing other than cruel?

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

wilderness — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:22:56 GMT

I'm still waiting Wilmot. What's human deduction mean? What's animal deduction mean? What is human cognition? What is animal cognition? What is estimative? What's intellect mean? What's principle mean? Either you or the monkey, but at least you have the potential to answer these - the monkey doesn't.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Spideynw — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:19:13 GMT

Wilmot of Rochester:

Spideynw:

I will ask again. When has another animal ever consented to having its property taken over by a human? Or when has one ever consented to being killed by a human, tortured by a human, or having sex with a human? When has an animal ever provided, everyday, food for a human to consume? When has an animal ever had an intelligent conversation with a human?

Again, this isn't about how similar human beings and animals are. It's about animals possessing the ability to reason, i.e. animals possessing deductive reasoning. This is an empirical and observable fact. I think Rothbardians need to deal with that and come up with a different reason for why animals should be tortured without consequences to the person doing the torturing.

Will you grow up and answer the questions?

Let me ask some more. If someone kills me, and I wanted them to kill me, has any wrong been committed? If someone has sex with me, and I wanted them to have sex with me, has any wrong been committed? If I sell my property to someone, without coercion, has any wrong been done?

So again, when has an animal ever consented to being killed by a human, having sex with a human, or giving its property to a human? If they do not have the capability to give or withhold consent, then there is no wrong being done by doing whatever we want to them.

Re: I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Wilmot of Rochester — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:44:32 GMT

wilderness:

I'm still waiting Wilmot. What's human deduction mean? What's animal deduction mean? What is human cognition? What is animal cognition? What is estimative? What's intellect mean? What's principle mean? Either you or the monkey, but at least you have the potential to answer these - the monkey doesn't.

Why should I debate with you any further? I've cited respectable journals and made the argument as clear as day. You won't accept it if your own mother were recognized as the greatest ethologist ever for her works showing the rationality of animals. There's no point in telling you that deduction is the same for both but in different degrees because you simply won't let science convince you; you're set in your minority beliefs that. I said you could have the last word. There you go.

Honestly, this is all very basic evolutionary stuff. Charles Darwin believed fully that differences between species were not qualitative but quantitative and that the development of logic within human beings was not an isolated event. There's an entire literature out there that has just recently started to grow; I suggest you read into it.

I am done.