Animal Rights

CShirk:

I would say that yes, animals are self-owners (to some extent) and they do have rights

CShirk:

If a person wants to abuse their animal(s), more power to them, if that's how they get their jollies.

That seems contradictory to me.  If you think animals have rights, but their owners can do whatever they want to them, then what rights do the animals have?  A right to fight back?  A right to be unhappy about being tortured?  Those aren't rights as "rights" are usually defined.

What about relationships that don't match up with the predator-prey scenario, like the situation I mentioned in my previous post about killing ants and yellowjackets?  I tortured and killed them for no more reason than "they were bugging me"....pun intended.  I didn't eat them...I probably could have just left them there.  Did I infringe on their rights?

 

 

Can you or someone else explain that one to me? How is it a moral obligation that is also unenforceable? If they have no rights then how is it immoral for me to "torture" them?

You're conflating rights with morality. Rights are what make moral behaviour possible in the first place, i.e. they are metanormative principles. Geoffrey is an Aristotelian, and as such to be moral would be for one to be in possession of such virtues as compassion and the like. These need not be enforceable, just as they are not in the Kantian system (they correspond to "imperfect duties".)

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

Can you or someone else explain that one to me? How is it a moral obligation that is also unenforceable? If they have no rights then how is it immoral for me to "torture" them?

You're conflating rights with morality. Rights are what make moral behaviour possible in the first place, i.e. they are metanormative principles. Geoffrey is an Aristotelian, and as such to be moral would be for one to be in possession of such virtues as compassion and the like. These need not be enforceable, just as they are not in the Kantian system (they correspond to "imperfect duties".)

-Jon

Rights are also interpersonal normative principles such that it is right to respect rights and wrong to violate them (while maintaining the distinction between a right and what is right). But rights are not the be-all and end-all of morality. It's not as if something is only immoral if it is a rights violation while everything else is subjective/relative/fair game. Libertarianism is not concerned with legally enforcing the rest of moraliy, the various virtues like courage, generosity, productiveness, honesty, etc. Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that only beings that are moral agents have rights. Rights are legally enforceable moral claims that moral agents have against other moral agents, but rights-respecting behavior does not exhaust the realm of moral behavior for moral agents. Moral agents still ought to practice virtue and it hardly matters whether the recipient or object of one's actions is a rights-bearer for morality to come into play. The central question of virtue ethics is "what kind of person should I be?" To an Aristotelian libertarian, it is immoral to live a parasitical existence, to lie, to mistreat one's pets, etc., but since such vices do not constitute rights violations (and their prohibition would constitute rights violations) they cannot be prohibited (although they can be discouraged by voluntary means such as moral suasion, boycotting, blacklisting, etc.)

 

 

Jonas:

CShirk:

I would say that yes, animals are self-owners (to some extent) and they do have rights

CShirk:

If a person wants to abuse their animal(s), more power to them, if that's how they get their jollies.

That seems contradictory to me.  If you think animals have rights, but their owners can do whatever they want to them, then what rights do the animals have?  A right to fight back?  A right to be unhappy about being tortured?  Those aren't rights as "rights" are usually defined.

What I'm saying with that is that nobody else has some kind of "social responsibility" to "protect" the animal's rights. They especially do not have any right to attempt to use force on the animal's behalf except that amount necessary to restrain the abuser if they are about to actually kill the animal for any other purpose than getting food. Most certainly they should not use government force by making laws et cetera. From a converse position, they should be allowed - and I would conider them justified - to confont the animal's owner and voice their opinion of the abuse. Further, I also stand against "vicious dog" acts. Many of those serve no further purpose than to protect abusive owners and kids who get their jollies torturing animals from the animals that they hurt and torture. Action and consequence. It's that simple. If abusing animals is how the person gets their jollies, then they had better be prepared to suffer the consequences, be it by the hands of the animal, the owner, or those around who see what's happening and are disgusted by it.

Jonas:

What about relationships that don't match up with the predator-prey scenario, like the situation I mentioned in my previous post about killing ants and yellowjackets?  I tortured and killed them for no more reason than "they were bugging me"....pun intended.  I didn't eat them...I probably could have just left them there.  Did I infringe on their rights?

No, in most cases, they have infringed upon your rights by - in the case of ants - invading your home and stealing/contaminating your food. You are ergo justified fully in killing them in response to their invading your property. In the case of yellowjackets they are foul-tempered insects which very quickly go from harmless to presenting clear and present danger (threat), and again you are justified in killing them as an act of self-defense.

In fact, if you consider it for a moment, most pest-control measures are, indeed, self-defense. The pest in question has invaded your space (or that of the society in which you live) and seeks to either conquer your territory (often the case with wasps and hornets), drink your blood, spread disease, or steal and/or contaminate your food supply. Pest control is therefore not just getting your jollies torturing "helpless bugs", but rather is an act of self-defense. So, in essence, it is still a predator-prey relationship, the prey has simply decided that it will not be prey and the result is a conflict of predators deciding who is really predator and who is really prey.

(And yes, there is a little light-hearted humor intended in all of that.)

CShirk:

If abusing animals is how the person gets their jollies, then they had better be prepared to suffer the consequences, be it by the hands of the animal, the owner, or those around who see what's happening and are disgusted by it.

So you believe that animals have rights, and that other people would be legally justified if they aggressed against me by forcing me to stop torturing a cat that I purchased from a pet store while on my own property?

 

Jonas:

So you believe that animals have rights, and that other people would be legally justified if they aggressed against me by forcing me to stop torturing a cat that I purchased from a pet store while on my own property?

 

I certainly do. I'd give you two in the hat if I had to, and I'd have a good chance of getting excused by a jury for it, too. 

JCFolsom:

I certainly do. I'd give you two in the hat if I had to, and I'd have a good chance of getting excused by a jury for it, too. 

Do you have a line as to how far in the animal kingdom these rights extend?  What if that wasn't a cat I purchased, but a rat?  Or a frog?  Or a gecko?  Do I still get "two in the hat" for pulling the legs off a butterfly?

Jonas:

Do you have a line as to how far in the animal kingdom these rights extend?  What if that wasn't a cat I purchased, but a rat?  Or a frog?  Or a gecko?  Do I still get "two in the hat" for pulling the legs off a butterfly?

 

No, not for a butterfly. I admit  that there is a certain amount of subjectivity. However, creatures like dogs can give clear signs of pain and suffering. If they are giving such signs, I would feel compelled to stop you by whatever means necessary.

Frankly, if you were doing something like taking a blowtorch to a dog in public, you'd be awfully lucky not to be torn apart by a mob. Of course, I use "lucky" loosely, as I'm not sure sociopathic sadists really benefit by their own existence.

JCFolsom:

Jonas:

Do you have a line as to how far in the animal kingdom these rights extend?  What if that wasn't a cat I purchased, but a rat?  Or a frog?  Or a gecko?  Do I still get "two in the hat" for pulling the legs off a butterfly?

 

No, not for a butterfly. I admit  that there is a certain amount of subjectivity. However, creatures like dogs can give clear signs of pain and suffering. If they are giving such signs, I would feel compelled to stop you by whatever means necessary.

This strikes me as arbitrary and no basis for rights or a libertarian legal system.

JCFolsom:

Frankly, if you were doing something like taking a blowtorch to a dog in public, you'd be awfully lucky not to be torn apart by a mob. Of course, I use "lucky" loosely, as I'm not sure sociopathic sadists really benefit by their own existence.

This does next to nothing to establishing that the dog has rights and that the mob was right to use force to intervene (much less tear the torturer apart).

 

 

Don't insects, plants &c. also have the capacity to feel pain? Why on earth restrict rights just to mammals, why not go the whole way and extend them to the entire domain of living entities then? This is a major problem with so broad a criterion. 

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

Don't insects, plants &c. also have the capacity to feel pain? Why on earth restrict rights just to mammals, why not go the whole way and extend them to the entire domain of living entities then? This is a major problem with so broad a criterion. 

-Jon

Exactly. And why stop short at physical pain caused by the threat or use of initiatory force? Why not include pain from hunger, injury, disease, etc., and even emotional pain?

Jon Irenicus:

Don't insects, plants &c. also have the capacity to feel pain? Why on earth restrict rights just to mammals, why not go the whole way and extend them to the entire domain of living entities then? This is a major problem with so broad a criterion.

 

I rather doubt plants feel anything, given that they have no recognized pathways by which to feel anything.

I am not concerned with pain per se, but suffering. Pain is just a signal, an input. However, animals which take their body to be their selves (such as atheists) experience pain as damage to their very selves. Creatures which have the capacity to the emotional state which is suffering, and for whom pain causes that suffering, can often make their suffering known. Most mammals can, indeed, do this, as can some birds.

Let's get real for a minute here, guys. Are you seriously proposing a system where someone would be punished for stopping a dog torturer. You need to take into account, with your proposed systems, that people will act with force out of righteous anger, and that in cases like this, most people will agree that they did the right thing, perhaps even hailing them as a hero. Even in a stateless society, that would be so, and I'd wager dollars to donuts that any group you gathered to capture someone who forcefully stopped the torture of a dog would be met by a far larger group defending that person.

Morals and ethics can be theorized about, but the proof is in the pudding. What you do reveals what you really believe. If you would stand aside while a dog is tortured, you can. You should not be legally obligated to act. Nor am I obligated to consider you other than a coward at best.

JCFolsom:

Let's get real for a minute here, guys. Are you seriously proposing a system where someone would be punished for stopping a dog torturer.

The problem is that you cannot make an arbitrary distinction and use that as a basis for a legal system.  Either animals are property, or they aren't.  Period.  Either I can legally use force to stop that person from torturing a lizard, or I can't.  There are two things to note here:

1) We are talking about a LEGAL system here, not a moral code.  If animals are property then they can be legally tortured by their owner, but that does not mean it is morally acceptable.  The person may very well be shunned by the community.  They may even be "torn apart" by an angry mob.  But while that angry mob might feel that they were morally justified in their actions, it would still be illegal.  If they are willing to accept the punishment for their actions, then fine.

2) You must be very careful how you make the distinction between which animals have rights and which do not.  You say you would kill me to save a dog from torture, but not a butterfly.  What about a squirrel?  Or a rat?  How do you know that a butterfly does not feel the same suffering that a dog feels?  Or a fish?  You end up making some arbitrary decision (dogs are cute, rats are not) and that is no way to create a stable society.

Jonas:

1) We are talking about a LEGAL system here, not a moral code.  If animals are property then they can be legally tortured by their owner, but that does not mean it is morally acceptable.  The person may very well be shunned by the community.  They may even be "torn apart" by an angry mob.  But while that angry mob might feel that they were morally justified in their actions, it would still be illegal.  If they are willing to accept the punishment for their actions, then fine.

I do not consider animals property. Neither are they people. They are something else. What that is is not well defined in our current conceptions, but I consider this issue far from simple.

Jonas:

2) You must be very careful how you make the distinction between which animals have rights and which do not.  You say you would kill me to save a dog from torture, but not a butterfly.  What about a squirrel?  Or a rat?  How do you know that a butterfly does not feel the same suffering that a dog feels?  Or a fish?  You end up making some arbitrary decision (dogs are cute, rats are not) and that is no way to create a stable society.

How about we start our stable society with the proposition that you not go around deliberately torturing living things.