Regarding plants I do recall that they can feel pain, but I forget whereby I came by that tidbit of information. I might have to look it up.
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.
Sure, but how does that prove that one ought to behave that way? It just shows how they act, not how they ought to act.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
Jon Irenicus:Sure, but how does that prove that one ought to behave that way?
Well, now, that's a real question, isn't it? If one isn't convinced by Rothbard's arguments on the nature of man, what other source is there?
I don't recall Rothbard giving much of a proof to begin with. He refers the reader to Henry Veatch and other Aristotelians, who go to greater lengths to do so.
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.
Len Budney:First, a growing conviction that limited government can't be confined within its bounds. And second, the realization that if vice is sometimes virtue, then it's inescapable that vice becomes virtue whenever I want it to be. Now I think about it, those are equivalent. If non-aggression allows exceptions, then (1) I can't trust others not to aggress whenever it benefits them, and (2) I can't trust me not to aggress whenever it benefits me. I and others will both rationalize aggression that benefits ourselves personally as the "virtuous" kind.
Well, now, then, if it be our intent to govern fairly, we must simply change our nature such that these sorts of selfish considerations are not in our calculus. I tend to agree that bureaucracies and democracies such as we have now inevitably grow, because people in general always want more. I am not sure that it is inevitable that enlightened dictatorships grow. The problem with them, of course, is that enlightened bit which is most difficult to ensure, especially with transitions. History is replete with cases where a good king is followed by a steaming pile of stank tyranny.
Len Budney:What prolly makes Geoffrey pull out his hair is that I'm an absolutist precisely because I'm what he'd call a relativist. No moral principle, including nonaggression, can be proven objectively (in the sense of Aristotelian logic) or empirically (because aggression sometimes "works," for any definition you like of "works"). One either adopts it or doesn't. If one adopts it less than absolutely, then the considerations above indicate that eventually one will reject it completely, and aggress whenever one wants to.
I'm not sure that this is true, if you can establish teleology in the origin of our species. That of course, is a whole nuther debate.
Len Budney:Over the years, though, I've become more and more cynical. I still like the fairy-tale of the defender of the defenseless. I even believe in one: Messiah. But so far I've never met or heard of one who turned out to be a genuine altruist. Ron Paul seems to be one so far, and I can't explain him; maybe he's a space alien.
Isn't it wierd? I was stunned that such a man was in government when I first saw him. The Ron Paul Revolution, while ideological differences have since distanced me from it, was what really got me libertarian in the first place.
Len Budney:In the end, anyone who claims that he needs to aggress in order to "defend the defenseless," or another lofty-sounding goal, is virtually guaranteed to be a fraud who will aggress for his own benefit, not for the stated end. So I trust nobody with that authority, much as I love the fairy tales.
Well, now I don't think you can say that there's never been a good ruler or even a good defender. It seems to me that there have been several at least OK rulers, they just tend to be poor fathers, if you take my meaning. It is possible for individual humans to actually be noble and enlightened, even if as yet we can not rely on them being so.
Only beings capable of understanding the concept of rights and recognizing rights can be said to possess rights. Even the more intelligent animals do not grasp the moral concept of rights. A dog will take food off your plate and chew up your best shoes unless he's trained not to, and this has much more to do with conditioning than with comprehension. He obeys because through repetitive training you establish a connection between the dog's unwanted action and an unpleasant consequence, not because he recognizes your ownership of the items in question. It's the same with the dog's expectation of a treat for performing a trick. This isn't a contractual agreement; it's purely a conditioned response to a recognized stimulus.
I'm less familiar with chimps. They obviously have some capacity to reason and to manipulate elements of their environment, but that in itself is not sufficient condition for the recognition of rights. Is there any body of evidence to suggest that they understand the concept of personal property?
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
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".)
Cut me some slack. I no where claimed to be a philosophy student and have made some posts here and elsewhere concerning my intentions and current progress with a more dedicated and in depth self education into the subject. Of course maybe I am deriving a tone of hostility where there is none... it would not be the first time, as i am so used to moderate-extreme hostility on forums.
I suppose the distinction was and is still a bit blurry for me. In the end though, I might think that rights would be what I am most concerned about and perhaps what I currently think of as aesthetic morals like compassion and the like are much less important or completely optional for a libertarian.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Jon Irenicus: Can you or.... You're conflating rights with morality... 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.
Jon Irenicus: Can you or.... You're conflating rights with morality...
Can you or....
You're conflating rights with morality...
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.
This has been mostly my impression for some time actually. That beyond rights, its a free for all. And I am not sure I can see yet how it cannot be.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: 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,
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,
I suppose it is up to me to further discover why rights alone are and not others beyond what I think of as aesthetic morals and neccesary interpersonal morals.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: but rights-respecting behavior does not exhaust the realm of moral behavior for moral agents. Moral agents still ought (Again I guess its up to me to further discover why) 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.)
but rights-respecting behavior does not exhaust the realm of moral behavior for moral agents. Moral agents still ought (Again I guess its up to me to further discover why) 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.)
Hmm. Once again I leave these forums with my thoughts slightly clearer. Thank you Geoffrey and Jon.
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
Almost all animals comprehend the notion of territory. As for property, that's an interesting question, but I wouldn't be too surprised if chimps had a rudimentary understanding of it. A good book on property's deeply biological roots is The Territorial Imperative.
Thor, I did not intend to be hostile. My impersonal style tends to give the impression that I am though.
JCFolsom:Well, now I don't think you can say that there's never been a good ruler or even a good defender.
Sure. In fact Hoppe leans toward monarchy because, he argues, a monarch is much less bad than a democracy. If I have to be under any archy at all, I more or less prefer monarchy myself.
But Orwell probably said it best, referring to Ghandi: a saint should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. If you make a living gambling, you'll starve betting on the benevolence of aggressors.
--Len
Ok, well, I have to concede that animals have no rights, as abhorent as animal "torture" is to me.
"Most voters know nothing about how markets work—or even that they work..." Sheldon Richman
It's clear that animals are not like rocks, or sand or this kind of static material objects men can find in nature.The first clue is this, they ran, when you try to get it, they run away from you, even they defend themselves.
So, to 'use' animal products one has to use force against something that clearly doesn't want to have deals with you, it tries to run or defend.
You do not aquire rights to own animals through comerce or through contracts, because obviously, they were never made.
So, they have to be taken by force, the question is, is this use of force legitimate? by a truly libertarian point of view?
You can not say that humans have rights because they are humans, that's a circular and void argument.
They have someting inside, some innate characteristics. I'm not talking about utilitarism which is void, 'we have rights because it serves us well for now'.
¿Is it that they own their own body and use it to achieve its own goals with the mediums the can manage?
Yes, that is the core, and I'm saying here that animals(specially mammals and birds) own their own bodies and use them as they can to achieve their own goals. That's the real deal.
How big their brains are is irrelevent, how many fingers they posses or how impact they make while achieving their goals is secondary.
They cannot be homestead, because they already have an owner, themselves!
They already show their own preferences, they are constantly making choices, running their lives as they so see fit.
So, the use of force against them is an agression against a sovereign owner. It can only be justified in defense.
You can use orwellian language to excuse your behaviour, hide in the masses, 'they all do it'.
They don't own you anything, they don't have to speak your own language so you can understand, native indians did not speak your languages, neither do chimps, from this point of view they all are groups of self-owners who live their lifes with a language barrier, why you give rights to one tribe and not the other? As far as I know, libertarians believe native tribes of indians have rights, even when they do not write nor even have writen contracts.
Where is the point, this line that separates slaves from owners?
It's not consciousness, lots of animals have been shown to have it. Is it language? Just because we are unable to understand theirs doesn't mean they don't have one, dolphins have their own names. We are falling again to the cuantitative argument, we don't know or can't clearly put a line, but we are clever, which is a wide concept and very difficult to explain, if we define it as the ability to solve problems, the difference is again hard to draw.
Is it the owning of a body and using it for your own benefit? kangaroo have sex alone for pleasure, chimps use tools or other small animals for oral sex.
Bonobos have been discovered even atempting trade and prostitution, sex pleasing for food.
That we are clever does not mean that we are the only ones with rights. If we are clever, good, but how does logic follows that we are the only ones?
We put the rules of the game and then judge who wins? Isn't it partial? A conflict of interest? We should try harder to be neutral and objective. From the point of view of someone who is watching the moment of the capture of an ape inf the jungle, and this person saw how the ape was scared, screaming and trying to run, calling form help in his language and calling for his family, would you consider this act a legitimate use of force? would you accept that this ape had no owner and therefore could be kidnapped, beaten, taken away and later tortured and experimented upon? The reality is that this ape had no human-owner, that's the reality, you are trying to slave those weaker than you and use propaganda like language to excuse it. It doesn't work, animals are their own owners and as long as they do not harm others, they should be left alone.
Then if they are their own owners, they also must face the corollary of responsibility for their actions, and thus be liable for criminal actions on their behalf. There is no escaping this.
Ok, no problem, if a bear attacks you or enters your kitchen to eat from your fridge, you can shoot him.
But how do you justify the massive industrial farms of cows, pigs and chickens?
With whay you have said you can't, if I agree that if they attack you, as I do, you can defend, you agree that they are self-owners and cannot be attacked or kidnaped. And even if they had to face criminal charges, how do you justify jailing a chimp and burning his skin again and again for experimentation? If you bring criminal charges, bring them here! Tell me the process of how the ape ended being tortured because he steal a banana from you. And I'm helping your point and I'm not starting with the most typical scenario of chimps being hunted in the jungle for no reason and before comiting any 'criminal act'. In fact when the crime is against them.
Player: Ok, no problem, if a bear attacks you or enters your kitchen to eat from your fridge, you can shoot him. But how do you justify the massive industrial farms of cows, pigs and chickens? With whay you have said you can't, if I agree that if they attack you, as I do, you can defend, you agree that they are self-owners and cannot be attacked or kidnaped. And even if they had to face criminal charges, how do you justify jailing a chimp and burning his skin again and again for experimentation? If you bring criminal charges, bring them here! Tell me the process of how the ape ended being tortured because he steal a banana from you. And I'm helping your point and I'm not starting with the most typical scenario of chimps being hunted in the jungle for no reason and before comiting any 'criminal act'. In fact when the crime is against them.
Irrelevant. If a dog chews up my lawn chair, can I take it to court seeking restitution? If not, why, if they are self-owners.
Agora! Anarchy! Action!