Political Theory

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

Ansury — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:29:18 GMT

Well that certainly makes a strong point. I'll have to think about it some more; my thought process is based purely on ethics and that which humans consider morally relevant, but he seems to take an entirely different approach. One problem is that there remains a clear difference between inanimate property and a sentient being but that difference never seems to be addressed.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

Conza88 — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:50:13 GMT

Ansury:

auctionguy10:

Aliens only exist in terms of the probability that the universe is so vast that there has to be some type of intelligent life outside of ours. I really don't see the point in discussing the rights of unknown species as intelligent as ours when currently there are none known to us. Is that the only argument against humans having rights just for being human? That there may be intelligent aliens?

Seriously though, I'd say aliens' rights is a valid thing to ask about because if we're going to justify human rights based on some principle, that principle should be consistently applicable in all circumstances regardless of the specific context. I can't see how a principle could be valid if it would clearly need to be re-evaluated in light of unexpected events. If aliens did get to the planet some day , I'd wager that most people (excluding out-of-control governments) would agree that these sentient, contract-abiding, moral agents would be entitled to the same rights as humans. So "rights are only for humans" doesn't sound like the whole story.

Have any of you bothered to read anything on the subject? The "Rights" of Animals - MNR. As always he preempts the possible counter arguments.

"That the concept of a species ethic is part of the nature of the world may be seen, moreover, by contemplating the activities of other species in nature. It is more than a jest to point out that animals, after all, don't respect the "rights" of other animals; it is the condition of the world, and of all natural species, that they live by eating other species. Inter-species survival is a matter of tooth and claw. It would surely be absurd to say that the wolf is "evil" because he exists by devouring and "aggressing against" lambs, chickens, etc. The wolf is not an evil being who "aggresses against" other species; he is simply following the natural law of his own survival. Similarly for man. It is just as absurd to say that men "aggress against" cows and wolves as to say that wolves "aggress against" sheep. If, furthermore, a wolf attacks a man and the man kills him, it would be absurd to say either that the wolf was an "evil aggressor" or that the wolf was being "punished" for his "crime." And yet such would be the implications of extending a natural-rights ethic to animals. Any concept of rights, of criminality, of aggression, can only apply to actions of one man or group of men against other human beings.

What of the "Martian" problem? If we should ever discover and make contact with beings from other planets, could they be said to have the rights of human beings? It would depend on their nature. If our hypothetical "Martians" were like human beings — conscious, rational, able to communicate with us and participate in the division of labor — then presumably they too would possess the rights now confined to "earthbound" humans.[2]

But suppose, on the other hand, that the Martians also had the characteristics, the nature, of the legendary vampire, and could only exist by feeding on human blood. In that case, regardless of their intelligence, the Martians would be our deadly enemy and we could not consider that they were entitled to the rights of humanity. Deadly enemy, again, not because they were wicked aggressors, but because of the needs and requirements of their nature, which would clash ineluctably with ours.

There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them." The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their "rights" is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings.[3] And if it be protested that babies can't petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not.[4]

[2] Cf. the brief discussion of man and comparable creatures in John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (New York: Collier-Macmillan, 1965), p. 291.

[3] For the close connection between the use of language and the human species, see Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (New York: Macmillan, 1958), vol. 2, pp. xi, 223.

[4] A fundamental error, then, of the advocates of "animal rights" is their failure to identify — or even to attempt to identify — the specific nature of the species man, and hence the differences between human beings and other species. Failing to think in such terms, they fall back on the shifting sands of subjective feelings. See Tibor R. Machan, Human Rights and Human Liberties (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1975), pp. 202–3, 241, 1245ff., 256, 292. For a critique of the confusion between babies and animals by animal-rightists, see R.G. Frey, Interests and Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), pp. 22ff. Frey's book is a welcome recent critique of the animal-rights vogue in philosophy.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

Ansury — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:26:24 GMT

auctionguy10:

Aliens only exist in terms of the probability that the universe is so vast that there has to be some type of intelligent life outside of ours. I really don't see the point in discussing the rights of unknown species as intelligent as ours when currently there are none known to us. Is that the only argument against humans having rights just for being human? That there may be intelligent aliens?

Seriously though, I'd say aliens' rights is a valid thing to ask about because if we're going to justify human rights based on some principle, that principle should be consistently applicable in all circumstances regardless of the specific context. I can't see how a principle could be valid if it would clearly need to be re-evaluated in light of unexpected events. If aliens did get to the planet some day , I'd wager that most people (excluding out-of-control governments) would agree that these sentient, contract-abiding, moral agents would be entitled to the same rights as humans. So "rights are only for humans" doesn't sound like the whole story.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

Ansury — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:56:01 GMT

auctionguy10:

I only apply the claim that a certain species has rights just for being a certain species to humans. Why? Because I'm a human. That's it really.

Bad news. The aliens have landed, and they think the same way.

Even more bad news. Primates have evolved, learned to talk (Planet of the Apes?), and decided only they deserve rights because only they are their own species.

I think something more is needed, such as perhaps a contract-based justification for the "higher order" rights of man, such as freedom (vs "basic" rights of sentient beings), which makes much more sense to me. (Not that this justification would negate the justification for respect of sentient beings that are unable to understand and abide by contracts.) Still hashing this out but I don't feel this is an either/or issue where we simply draw up two categories and say "rights"/"no rights". I think it's much more complicated than that.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

auctionguy10 — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:39:46 GMT

Spideynw:

auctionguy10:
Is that the only argument against humans having rights just for being human?

I never argued that humans do not have rights. You however did assert that only humans have rights.

True.

Spideynw:
auctionguy10:
I really don't see the point in discussing the rights of unknown species as intelligent as ours when currently there are none known to us.

Because just claiming a species has rights for being some species is circular. Why do humans have rights?

I only apply the claim that a certain species has rights just for being a certain species to humans. Why? Because I'm a human. That's it really.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

StrawVince — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:49:49 GMT

Spideynw:
The reason murder is wrong is because murder implies lack of consent. In other words, it is not just a majority of the world's population that thinks it is wrong, it is every single person, by definition. Consent implies ability to reason. Animals cannot reason, as such, they cannot be murdered, just like one cannot murder a plant. For something to be truth, it must be universal, not just a majority opinion.

I disagree with the reasoning on consent. Consent doesn't imply ability to reason. Expressing consent does, because it requires reasoning to find out whether one consent or not.

If someone threathens me with a gun, I will most probably run away, fight or try to convince him not to shoot me. My lack of consent to be shot is obvious, but wasn't found through reasoning. It was more a consequence of an emotional response or survival instinct than of rationnal thinking. I could as well consent to be shot and this would be the result of my reasonning, because I would have figured out whether I consent or not.

My point is that consent or lack of consent can very well be implicit. Applying this to animals, it seems obvious to me that an animal that runs away or attacks in response to a threath lacks consent to endure consequences of this threath. Even some plants developped strategies in order to avoid being harmed (needles, poison, etc.). And so, to some extent, even some plants implicitly lack consent to being harmed or killed.

The Pavlov's experiment showed that dogs are able to refer to past experience to recognize a stimulus that makes him anticipate a future outcome (my understanding of conditioning). The process that makes the dog anticipate a future outcome is most probably not reasoning. Yet the dog anticipates and reacts. This basic combination is implicit consent (or lack of consent, depending on the reaction).

This reasoning would lead to the conclusion that the only "right" way of feeding ourselves would be through bodies which have adopted a survival strategy of being consumed (like some fruits and vegetables which don't have any mechanism of self-protection).

I eat meat...but I don't pretend to be "right". Do we have to act "right" regarding other species? I don't know. What I'm sure is that considering my ethical position on the subject, my action is either hypocritical or utilitarian. This to say that even if we prove that animals have rights, I don't see them being respected as long as the cooperation benefits of our mutual interaction with nature have not been clarified. (Would be much easier to figure out if we had those weird Na'vi connectors in our hairs ^^)

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

Ansury — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:55:40 GMT

Ansury:
Those here who say animals are property and have no rights are basically proposing two distinct "categories":

Human Rights - exclusive club, contract-ability required, human nature only

No Human Rights - animals, trees, inanimate objects, anything non-human (would also include children and those with cognitive disabilities in some ways, such as the inability to engage in contracts)

Correct?

I'm trying to suggest that perhaps it makes more sense to think of three distinct categories:

Human Rights - Considering the nature of man and the human condition, etc, unique to humans

Sentient Rights - Animals who have morally significant interests because we regard pain and suffering as morally relevant

Non-sentient (or we can't confirm sentience?) - physical property, trees, plants, etc.

Sentient rights would be a subset of human rights which does not include concepts such as the NAP (no contracts, only humans can do this), but does include certain core rights. What those core rights would be, I've yet to think about.

I just wanted to point this out again and also add that there isn't any debate here (based off what I've presented) whether humans have more rights than animals or not; we do of course. But the question I'm posing is regarding whether humanity's code of ethics requires that all sentient beings be afforded some type of basic rights, non-inclusive of contract-based human rights.

By the way, the aliens will fit in just fine given the ethics rules presented above, once we figure out what to rename the higher order set of rights.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

meambobbo — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:29:18 GMT

So let's try this. You have my neighbor in a cage in your basement. You've told me so, and you've told me you're holding him against his will. Only, I have no means to communicate with him, and he has not explicitly given me consent to call the police on his behalf. Or maybe you let me see him, but you've cut out his tongue, blinded his eyes, and cut off his hands, and he has no way to communicate with me. Maybe there's even a video of this, but it is edited where he cried out for help. Better yet, it's not my neighbor; it's my cousin, being tortured in your cage.

By your logic, you are not doing anything unethical, as he has not consented that anyone stop you. Or maybe you are, but no one simply has the authority to stop you.

Spideynw:
But you are obviously uninterested in reality.

Realistically, people are quite in favor of humane treatment of animals. And they won't care about any libertarian code or non-aggression axiom if it fails to protect ideals they cherish.

Your idea of 'voluntary society' sounds like legislating strict, basic, libertarian law to me, which seems ironic. The libertarian way is not to legislate or centrally plan, expecting society to conform to your moral pronouncements, but to harmonize possibly conflicting plans non-violently and freely by those whom it concerns. This means that courts discover laws about effective means to resolve disputes.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

Spideynw — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:03:22 GMT

meambobbo:
You don't need a specific right to get a court case.

That was never an issue. The issue is, how does one derive the right to take a case to court on behalf of another? The answer is only by getting consent or having a claim to the other. If your neighbor is not treating his animal like you think he should, how do you derive the right to take your neighbor to court on behalf of the animal? The answer is, you cannot, because the animal is unable to give consent for you to do so, and you have no claim on the animal. All courts would throw out the case, because it obviously violates the property owner's rights. So why would you take it to court in the first place?

But you are obviously uninterested in reality. Just spouting nonsense.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

meambobbo — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 05:43:41 GMT

Your questions were basically moot. That should have been evident by our first exchange.

You don't need a specific right to get a court case. Or I could point to any number of rights, like liberty or property. What does it matter at all?

As for a legal threshold, I said let judges decide for specific cases. As for my own opinion, I listed activities I agreed and disagreed with - anything further I'd have to decide on the specifics of the case. You're free to disagree with me, but I'm just trying to make sure you understand what I'm talking about.

My only assertions were that moral opinions/beliefs are subjective, and that they don't need a methodological backing to exist and function in society. Is that nonsense?

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

Spideynw — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:17:42 GMT

meambobbo,

You did an amazing job at avoiding all of my questions. Your post is full of, well, nonsense.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

Spideynw — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:16:02 GMT

E. R. Olovetto:
You are less of a libertarian than Glenn Beck and you have a serious misunderstanding to get that I am advocating "positive rights". Your signature with an exact percent and a vague concept of resistance is contrary to Austrian economics as well. The only reason I feel the need to respond to your lunacy is that you are a huge embarrassment to our community and I know of no acclaimed libertarian author that is in agreement with you.

You sure like to make a lot of assertions.

E. R. Olovetto:
Even if it were true that sperm and eggs should be considered potential moral agents,

I hope everyone has as good of a laugh at this statement as I. Of course it is true.

E. R. Olovetto:
all we would be considering is the right to ejaculate or menstruate, a "wilding of our reproductive cells".

No, using your logic, we would be considering whether or not ejaculating or menstruation is murder.

E. R. Olovetto:
People can create situations where positive obligations exist. This is the essence of contracts.

Do you have evidence of a contract between parents and children?

E. R. Olovetto:
By claiming guardianship, an adult must care for a child,

Which means a parent can do whatever he or she wants with his or her child. I am glad we finally agree.

E. R. Olovetto:
As is the case with other forms of property, the guardian may not forestall other would be homesteaders, for example by announcing that they relinquish their claim while locking the child in an unknown location.

"Hear ye, hear ye! Let the mad rush begin for taking away these parent's child! The first person to nab the child get's the kid!"

Uh yeah, right.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

Spideynw — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:08:42 GMT

auctionguy10:
Is that the only argument against humans having rights just for being human?

I never argued that humans do not have rights. You however did assert that only humans have rights.

auctionguy10:
I really don't see the point in discussing the rights of unknown species as intelligent as ours when currently there are none known to us.

Because just claiming a species has rights for being some species is circular. Why do humans have rights?

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

E. R. Olovetto — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:13:29 GMT

Spideynw:

auctionguy10:
Well when Aliens show up then we'll figure that out.

I guess we should wait until government disappears before we figure out what rights people have too, right?

There is an essay I pointed out to you before re: aliens. You still strawmanned him.

Spideynw:

E. R. Olovetto:
What I meant to say was that you don't recognize that this means that children have a certain amount of basic, negative rights... Could this not be more clear?

Me denying that children have rights is not the same as me denying that they are potential moral agents.

I clarified what I meant, and all you are doing is repeating yourself and evading the original topic. Your claim that children have no rights undermines everything else you purport to stand for.

Spideynw:

E. R. Olovetto:
A child, given certain basic needs are met and unforeseen accidents averted, will reach adulthood within roughly 1/5th of their lifetime.

So will sperm and eggs. And you are advocating positive rights, which is completely un-libertarian.

You are less of a libertarian than Glenn Beck and you have a serious misunderstanding to get that I am advocating "positive rights". Your signature with an exact percent and a vague concept of resistance is contrary to Austrian economics as well. The only reason I feel the need to respond to your lunacy is that you are a huge embarrassment to our community and I know of no acclaimed libertarian author that is in agreement with you.

Humans are not asexual. Sperm and eggs must be combined to create a zygote. Even if it were true that sperm and eggs should be considered potential moral agents, all we would be considering is the right to ejaculate or menstruate, a "wilding of our reproductive cells". People can create situations where positive obligations exist. This is the essence of contracts. By claiming guardianship, an adult must care for a child, otherwise their claim is invalid. If a parent wants to abandon their claim of guardianship, they must make this known (by whatever convention society adopts, say leaving the child at an orphanage or hospital). As is the case with other forms of property, the guardian may not forestall other would be homesteaders, for example by announcing that they relinquish their claim while locking the child in an unknown location.

Please respond in the relevant thread if you want to here.

Re: Animal rights (is back) - a new type of reasoning?

auctionguy10 — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:53:49 GMT

Spideynw:

auctionguy10:
Well when Aliens show up then we'll figure that out.

I guess we should wait until government disappears before we figure out what rights people have too, right?

Do you really think that's a good comparison? If so then would you mind explaining why? I think I have a vague idea of what you're getting at but I'd appreciate it if you made it more clear.

Aliens only exist in terms of the probability that the universe is so vast that there has to be some type of intelligent life outside of ours. I really don't see the point in discussing the rights of unknown species as intelligent as ours when currently there are none known to us. Is that the only argument against humans having rights just for being human? That there may be intelligent aliens?