Political Theory

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:33:46 GMT

hashem:
Solution: don't assume.

Bingo.

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

hashem — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:42:00 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

hashem:
We don't just start with ethics and being to argue about things, rather we start at the beginning (as reduced as possible) and build a theory/system from the ground up.

I don't really understand how one is any more or less useless. To assume the capability to start at a meaningful, or actual beginning, is sheer folly.

Solution: don't assume.

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Jackson LaRose — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 06:33:38 GMT

hashem:
We don't just start with ethics and being to argue about things, rather we start at the beginning (as reduced as possible) and build a theory/system from the ground up.

I don't really understand how one is any more or less useless. To assume the capability to start at a meaningful, or actual beginning, is sheer folly.

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Helmuth Hubener — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 05:50:45 GMT

Hey, you've got to fight for your right to brush! Don't let the man tell you what to do! Go outside and play? No!! I'm brushing my teeth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrJaN-OD1ig&feature=youtube_gdata

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

hashem — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:03:19 GMT

Brainpolice:
Something that often gets left out of these discussions is the possibility of holding the view that animals don't have rights, yet it is unethical to arbitrarily inflict harm on them.

Another perspective left out is that perhaps animals may or may not have rights, but that it's absurd for us to attempt to comprehend them. It's then equally ridiculous for us to pretend that we can even attempt to respect rights which we can't even conceive.

Brainpolice:
thus expressing indifference towards psychopathy by reducing everything to rights

I've seen you on other forums, and you always carry this ludicrous (with all due respect) anti-reductionist view. Without writing an entire book about it, I think it's plain on the face of it that reducing things (i.e. ethical concepts) to their core elements is the proper method of learning the hows, whys and wherefores of the world around us and the natures of our interactions. We don't just start with ethics and being to argue about things, rather we start at the beginning (as reduced as possible) and build a theory/system from the ground up.

Also, I don't see why discussing things within the context of rights makes indifference towards various forms of what some people would (and others wouldn't) consider psychopathy necessarily a bad thing.

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Jackson LaRose — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:19:17 GMT

Helmuth Hubener:
My mind boggles. So it's a little creepy that I feel totally justified in brushing my teeth. I suppose I should instead feel just a little bit guilty and uncertain as I undertake my dentrific maintainence. Wow! What a way to live life!

LOL, you know, I don't really think about it when I brush my teeth. I think the fact that there is any kind of moral question in your head at all when you brush your teeth is the creepy part.

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Ansury — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:58:21 GMT

Caley McKibbin:

Ansury:
Something that often gets left out of these discussions is the possibility of holding the view that animals don't have rights, yet it is unethical to arbitrarily inflict harm on them.

Try saying that in the thread about children. Would it be severely disturbing?

Saying what? That children don't have rights? Actually to be precise with the terminology (I should have said "animals don't have all of the same rights as humans"), I'm suggesting children don't have the same rights of adults, but as sentient beings they do possess interests that humans consider to be morally relevant--differentiating them from simply inanimate property with which owners can do whatever they please. I don't want to get hung up on the semantics and vocabulary of words like "rights", or that it's a black and white issue. I think we should consider that there may be distinct categories of "rights" (some of which only apply to humans, some to all sentient beings, due to the differences between the two).

But don't hold me to any of this yet, I'm still hashing it all out and may reverse myself upon further reflection.

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Helmuth Hubener — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:30:40 GMT

The specific actions? Not really. The fact that you feel it is an absolute right (complete justification) to do all those things, well, that's a little creepy.

My mind boggles. So it's a little creepy that I feel totally justified in brushing my teeth. I suppose I should instead feel just a little bit guilty and uncertain as I undertake my dentrific maintainence. Wow! What a way to live life!

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Helmuth Hubener — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:19:38 GMT

As far as I can tell, there is no productive debate to be had with people that want to rationalize lighting a cat on fire on the grounds that cats aren't legal persons. To me, this is just a reductio of thin libertarianism.

To be a bit, no, a good deal, more precise, libertarians want to rationalize failing to kill or cage any persons who may insist on lighting cats on fire. Failing to cage or kill these persons seems like an eminently defendable and reasonable position to take, and one that should resonate with most freedom-lovers, libertarian or not.

One of the tenets of libertarianism is that there are many things you may not like (and you are free to not like them), but only a very few you are free to go waving guns around and inflicting violence in order to eradicate. "Oh, I'd only have a compulsory fine, not violence" is mealy-mouthed nonsense. If the violator refuses to pay, progressively escalating and eventually overtly violent and perhaps deadly measures will have to be taken to force him to pay. That's what compulsion is: force.

A real world example occurred when the son of renown University of Wisconsin football coach Barry Alvarez got drunk and put his cat in the microwave. The Correct, the Civilized, and the Libertarian response would be to leave him alone, violence-wise. I personally realize people do stupid things all the time while drunk and think this was no big deal. The young man felt bad afterward, like a normal person, and I think no less of him for the mistake. If you disagree, boycott the kid, petition the school to fire his dad, or do whatever crazy peaceful thing you want to do to register your displeasure. Do not bring out the thugs and the guns and throw the young man in a cage (which I believe is what happened).

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Bert — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:45:10 GMT

Merlin:

Bert:

The difference is that testing animals in cosmetics has nothing to do with the actual product itself. You can get cosmetics without them being tested on animals. In the meat industry the animal is the product. My personal dislike has to do with the process in which the meat is processed, not the product itself.

Along these lines we could well say that my mahogany bed is highly immoral, as one can easily make a bed without cutting trees.

Or that any non-electronic document is immoral, as one can easily read a book without using paper.

Or what to say about furs? Is the product itself necessary? Or is it moral given that it can be produces synthetically?

What about dairy products? They tot can be produced synthetically.

Where to draw the line (if indeed some lien is to be draw)?

I don't see how your examples are relevant. They are flawed on the premise that I don't have a problem with the product itself (in your case a mahogany bed), but the production in the product. I don't have a problem with cosmetics, but you don't need to test them on animals to make them.

When it comes to fur I can't say much, I wear leather. Real fur seems to be a luxury product. If you have the money to spend on it, so be it.

What about dairy products? Again, I don't have a problem with the product itself, but in the way it's produced. I personally don't drink milk, but I eat cheese and dairy products.

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Caley McKibbin — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:28:04 GMT

Ansury:
Something that often gets left out of these discussions is the possibility of holding the view that animals don't have rights, yet it is unethical to arbitrarily inflict harm on them.

Try saying that in the thread about children. Would it be severely disturbing?

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Merlin — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:17:07 GMT

Bert:

The difference is that testing animals in cosmetics has nothing to do with the actual product itself. You can get cosmetics without them being tested on animals. In the meat industry the animal is the product. My personal dislike has to do with the process in which the meat is processed, not the product itself.

Along these lines we could well say that my mahogany bed is highly immoral, as one can easily make a bed without cutting trees.

Or that any non-electronic document is immoral, as one can easily read a book without using paper.

Or what to say about furs? Is the product itself necessary? Or is it moral given that it can be produces synthetically?

What about dairy products? They tot can be produced synthetically.

Where to draw the line (if indeed some lien is to be draw)?

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

Bert — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:12:05 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

When it comes to the meat industry I find it rather peculiar. Yet, I haven't put much focus on just the idea of breeding for feeding on such a large scale. That's more of a personal dislike of how it's done.

And so it is with cosmetics too.

The difference is that testing animals in cosmetics has nothing to do with the actual product itself. You can get cosmetics without them being tested on animals. In the meat industry the animal is the product. My personal dislike has to do with the process in which the meat is processed, not the product itself.

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

William — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:10:23 GMT

Right, but I think BP went out of his way to say it wasn't legal theory that is being discussed. I wasn't really thinking about legal theory either. When I said "overly dogmatic", I meant more along the lines of using the NAP as one's de facto definer of good / bad and right / wrong.

Re: Sovereignty... for one species only.

assimilateur — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:46:37 GMT

Dondoolee:
To me it intuitively seems like a kind of "aspergery" or at least overly dogmatic approach to things if some one wants to defend lighting the cat on fire.

Some of us are going to be defending lighting cats on fire because having the right to do that sort of shit to your own pet or livestock inevitably follows from unrestricted self-ownership and animals not having rights. I guess that has to be elucidated, because apparently (which was a surprise to me) not all libertarians hold the above axioms (is that even the right word?) of self-ownership and moral agency being a prerequisite for rights to be evident.

Now, that does not mean that I'm in favor of torturing animals, as defending the legitimacy of an act is not necessarily (and in this case, decidedly not) the same as defending its aesthetics or even morality. I merely posit that it goes against the NAP to engage in coercive action (fining, imprisonment, etc) against a person who's defiling their own property, because that property happens to be cute and cuddly.

Boycotting a person for the above reasons, however, is completely legitimate.