Animal Cruelty vs Property Rights

Curlz31:

So you're saying that your "objective" theory cannot deduce a way to deal with children so you are going to use common sense instead? You are proving my point.

No.  That is a strawman.

Curlz31:

You assume a difference between homo sapiens and other species, when this difference needs to be proven objectively.

Objectively, we can observe all manner of differences.  Or are you suggesting there is no difference between species?

Curlz31:

liberty student:

Perfect knowledge of the universe is not necessary for a priori deduction.

Exactly. Which is why the specific conclusions drawn in such arguments are not perfectly valid. They are only objective relative to your initial assumption. Once again you've proven my point.

That statement is completely incoherent.  I'm beginning to suspect you don't know what a priori deduction is.

Curlz31:

I answered this above.

You claim a priori deduction is scientifically discredited?

Curlz31:

liberty student:

You have still not explained if animals are ownable or not.

I'm saying it is objectively true that you cannot morally pour gasoline on an orangutan and set it alight. You apply what words you will to that.

Dodge.  Are animals ownable, yes or no?  It's a simple question.  If you can't answer it, then you're in no position to lecture me on animal rights.

You'll have to do better.  Arguing that reason is invalid might make your arguments valid, but that would indeed be a false premise (that A is not equal to A).

TheOrlonater:

You're assuming too much on my position.

I don't know what your position is except empathy for animals.

TheOrlonater:

Essencially you built a false impression that I think your above examples are torture.

No, I am asking you how you define torture of animals.  The same questions I am putting to Curlz and Conza.  Are animals ownable?  If they are, then obviously the owner can dispose of his property as he sees fit as long as it does not aggress against others.  If they are not, then caging a bird must be slavery.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Now the trick is to get the emotional defenders of animals (I love dogs and don't mind cats) to take a position that is consistent with their stated objections to animal treatment.  So far, no one has.  I suspect because the positions have not been thought through with regards to ethics.

liberty student:

TheOrlonater:

You're assuming too much on my position.

I don't know what your position is except empathy for animals.

TheOrlonater:

Essencially you built a false impression that I think your above examples are torture.

No, I am asking you how you define torture of animals.  The same questions I am putting to Curlz and Conza.  Are animals ownable?  If they are, then obviously the owner can dispose of his property as he sees fit as long as it does not aggress against others.  If they are not, then caging a bird must be slavery.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Now the trick is to get the emotional defenders of animals (I love dogs and don't mind cats) to take a position that is consistent with their stated objections to animal treatment.  So far, no one has.  I suspect because the positions have not been thought through with regards to ethics.

 Hanging, extreme beating(like slamming an animal on the wall, setting it on fire, training two animals to rip each other apart), and neglect is what I view as torture. If a human being had this done to him or her then society might retaliate, even if the human were property. Why can't this be the case for animals?

TheOrlonater:

Hanging, extreme beating(like slamming an animal on the wall, setting it on fire, training two animals to rip each other apart), and neglect is what I view as torture.

You're not answering the question.  Are animals ownable or not?  Then proceed from there.

TheOrlonater:

If a human being had this done to him or her then society might retaliate, even if the human were property.

Humans as property? 

TheOrlonater:

Why can't this be the case for animals?

Because humans and animals are not the same?

liberty student:

Objectively, we can observe all manner of differences.  Or are you suggesting there is no difference between species?

That's exactly what i'm not suggesting. I'm saying objectively observe the differences and objectively relate them to what rights are valid.

liberty student:

Dodge.  Are animals ownable, yes or no?  It's a simple question.  If you can't answer it, then you're in no position to lecture me on animal rights.

Again, you are engaging in axiomatic fallacies. Define the word "own" before you accuse me of dodging.

liberty student:

Arguing that reason is invalid might make your arguments valid, but that would indeed be a false premise (that A is not equal to A).

I'm not arguing that reason is invalid. In fact the basis of your own argument is that reason is invalid.

liberty student:

You claim a priori deduction is scientifically discredited?

I'm saying that if a priori allows you to take a subjective assertion that is not true and proclaim to deduce scientifically valid conclusions simply by using logic from that point onward, then yeah, it's absolutely discredited in terms of objective reality.

liberty student:

Seems pretty simple to me.

Because you live in an abstract world where you make up your own axioms and ignore evidence to the contrary.

liberty student:

Because humans and animals are not the same?

Homo sapiens are a species on the evolutionary tree. There is no fundamental difference other than that which you can objectively prove.

The bible doesn't count as objective material.

Curlz31:

Define the word "own" before you accuse me of dodging.

You know you cannot answer the question one way or the other, because either admission invalidates your argument.  So instead we play the game of pretending there are no definitions, and there is no knowledge, and we can't know anything, even though you claim to know a great many things, without defining them or having perfect knowledge.

It is like talking to a child.

You might be quite proud of your word smithing, but all you have done is show that you're insincere in debate.

liberty student:

You know you cannot answer the question one way or the other

Yes I can. I'm asking you to tell me what you think "own" means. If "owning" an orangutan means you are somehow allowed to pour gasoline on it and set it alight, then no, you can't "own" it.

liberty student:

because either admission invalidates your argument

ummmm .... no. Your whole world view seems to have been determined by your worship of certain writers. We are all human. Asking you to define what "own" means is perfectly legitimate. If you can't explain what it means in a real-life scenario then it really has no meaning does it.

liberty student:

instead we play the game of pretending there are no definitions

Nar, that's you playing that game.

liberty student:

without defining them or having perfect knowledge.

I'm not saying a lack of perfect knowledge means there are no objective truths. I'm saying you should always work from the truths which are established and progress from there. You work from your own invalid axioms.

liberty student:

It is like talking to a child.

I know how you feel.

Curlz31:

liberty student:

You know you cannot answer the question one way or the other

Yes I can.

Then do it.  We all know what private ownership means.  Can you own (sole control) of an animal, yes or no?

Curlz31:

ummmm .... no. Your whole world view seems to have been determined by your worship of certain writers.

I've refuted this strawman twice already.  When someone repeats a false claim over and over, it goes from rhetorical device to intentional lying, and that simply won't do here.

 

Conza88:

My 13 or so books I ordered from Mises Store are here and on the shelf! The 10's of thousands of people now learning Austrian Economics because of Ron Paul are going to take the world by storm.

I hadn't heard of Ron Paul until I came here, really. I came here through a very strange route, although I've got to say that I was always in a sense an Austrian economist, I just needed to have it formalised and explained properly. I've got 20ish books from the Mises store, although that include pamphlets, and Economics in One Lesson, and a few others are "on loan" to friends.

Curlz31:

Asking you to define what "own" means is perfectly legitimate. If you can't explain what it means in a real-life scenario then it really has no meaning does it.

I'm pretty sure "own" is a fairly unambiguous term, nevertheless I'll think up some sort of definition.

Ownership = complete legal control and direction over something (i.e. what it does is completely determined, or allowed by the owner)

Is that acceptable? I'm not sure, it's off the top of my head now.

Curlz31:

You've contradicted yourself. You've clamied that your supposedly objective theory cannot deal with children and you then cite it for abortion.

Your problem is that your initial rigid assumption is not based in fact, but is arbitrary, hence your overall theory is not objective in the absolute. It is only objective relative to your initial assumption. Any moral theory must be grounded in facts or else is arbitrary. Hence you always begin with the facts and theory should follow from it. Not the other way round.

Because we do not have perfect knowledge of the universe, any moral theory is going to have gaps and grey areas where common sense needs to be applied. Your problem is that you reject the fact that there is imperfect knowledge of the universe and you try to fill the gaps and grey areas with contrived, arbitrary and indeed scientifically discredited axioms. This is also the downfall of Murray Rothbard and the libertarians who base themselves on him.

For what it is worth, Curlz, I am a libertarian who understands what you are getting at.  I think you understand the bare bones of libertarianism and moral philosophy more than most people. 

I do not believe animals have rights the way humans do but I have no universally objective proof of my belief.  It is just an axiom.  Similarly, the non-aggression principle is just an axiom.  Natural rights boil down to an arbitrary moral axiom. 

 

 

Curlz, 

The discussion of animal rights pops up routinely on anarchist / libertarian discussion boards and it just goes around in circles.  Rest assured, not all libertarians treat natural rights and the non-aggression principle as if they were objectively provable facts.  There are libertarians who understand that all morality is relative and ultimately relies on an axiom.  Other libertarians never see it. 

TheOrlonater:

Hanging, extreme beating(like slamming an animal on the wall, setting it on fire, training two animals to rip each other apart), and neglect is what I view as torture.

liberty student:

You're not answering the question.  Are animals ownable or not?  Then proceed from there.

Yes, but so are human infants.

 

TheOrlonater:

If a human being had this done to him or her then society might retaliate, even if the human were property.

liberty student:

Humans as property?

Infants, young children...? What happens if they are neglected or tortured?

TheOrlonater:

Why can't this be the case for animals?

liberty student:

Because humans and animals are not the same?

Some animals like apes and pigs are similar to us, but agreed not the same. This does not constitute the right to torture, though.

 

TheOrlonater:

liberty student:

You're not answering the question.  Are animals ownable or not?  Then proceed from there.

Yes

Thank you.

TheOrlonater:

This does not constitute the right to torture, though.

No one has proposed a right to torture.  There is the issue of disposing with your property as you see fit.  Whether it is slaughtering a cow for meat, or caging a bird for entertainment.  If animals are sovereign creatures, then we certainly wouldn't be able to eat or domesticate them.

Charles Anthony:

For what it is worth, Curlz, I am a libertarian who understands what you are getting at.

Do you understand the part where he will murder a person who tortures an animal?

TheOrlonater:

Lesser beings such as animals do not have rights? Beings have emotions and senses; harm(torture in its many forms) will inflict upon these emotions and senses. Humans aren't the only ones that have these traits.

And rights are not derived from the fact that one has emotions and senses.

TheOrlonater:

Why not use force against someone who is instituting force against someone else? This would surely be done if a human were neglected.

Which presupposes that non-human animals have rights.  They don't

 

If humans only have rights because they can rationalize then would someone who is comatose with no brain function lose all their rights? Or would it be okay for me to go to the nearest hospital and shoot every person lying in a bed in a coma?

Don't you have to be able to communicate with the target life form to establish rationality? And if you can't are you suggesting you can presume rationality from perceived actions? I don't think you can assume that just because animals aren't as complex as us means they aren't rational.

Aren't rights derived from the values of the people's who create them? If we all decided certain animals had certain rights how could you say they wouldn't?

Charles Anthony:

I do not believe animals have rights the way humans do but I have no universally objective proof of my belief.  It is just an axiom.  Similarly, the non-aggression principle is just an axiom.  Natural rights boil down to an arbitrary moral axiom.

 

Thanks Charles, for trying to understand my position. I don't agree that natural rights are an arbitrary axiom though. I believe they are evident in the very nature of human behaviour and the state of the universe. But of course we don't have perfect knowledge of the universe so often there are grey areas.

I am not a libertarian for the hobby of deriving logical conclusions from certain axioms. I am only interested in the absolute nature of the universe.

liberty student:

No one has proposed a right to torture.

You did. You said it would be acceptable to pour gasoline on a dog and set it alight if the dog was your "property".

The problem is you are thinking in black and white. You think everything needs to be defined in terms of having liberty or not having liberty. You are working from an axiom rather than looking at the universe objectively.

Curlz31:

liberty student:

No one has proposed a right to torture.

    You are working from an axiom rather than looking at the universe objectively.

    This is becoming a pet-peeve of mine, a nit-pick, but you haven't said anything except how you don't like the axiom.  What's your solution?  I've been trying to follow along in this thread and I can't find it.  My nit-pick:  "objectively" is not an answer.  That's like me going up to you and going: Badadoskesalaklze... understand?

 

wilderness:

My nit-pick:  "objectively" is not an answer.  That's like me going up to you and going: Badadoskesalaklze... understand?

 

Yes good point. By "objective" I mean obvious truths within our perception. For example it's an objective truth that the sun will appear in the sky in the morning.

Any philosophy must begin with a statement of the facts of what is currently known of the universe. For example, how the universe began, how the earth wasformed, how cells arose and how evolution proceeded.

If your philosophy proclaims an axiom which is in denial of these things then it is invalid.

Curlz31:

If your philosophy proclaims an axiom which is in denial of these things then it is invalid.

And yet you still have not offered your axiom, or demonstrated clearly how the NAP violates...

Curlz31:

how the universe began, how the earth wasformed, how cells arose and how evolution proceeded.

It's a shame we're not racing dirigibles what with all the hot air being pushed around...

Curlz31:

liberty student:

No one has proposed a right to torture.

You did. You said it would be acceptable to pour gasoline on a dog and set it alight if the dog was your "property".

The problem is you are thinking in black and white. You think everything needs to be defined in terms of having liberty or not having liberty. You are working from an axiom rather than looking at the universe objectively.

I think we have a right to torture things that do not have rights.  I also think we have a right to kill creatures that do not have rights.  And since humans are the only known creatures on earth to have the ability to reason, I think we have a right to torture and kill any other living thing on the earth, that is our property.

Curlz31:

liberty student:

No one has proposed a right to torture.

You did.

No, I did not.

Curlz31:

You said it would be acceptable to pour gasoline on a dog and set it alight if the dog was your "property".

If a dog is your property, then it is not torture.

Curlz31:

The problem is you are thinking in black and white. You think everything needs to be defined in terms of having liberty or not having liberty. You are working from an axiom rather than looking at the universe objectively.

What is the point in continuing to make assertions totally disconnected from the conversation?  We don't advance ideas by this sort of rhetorical dishonesty.

You have not proposed anything axiomatic.  The closest you have come is "if property is burning an oranguatan then animals are not property" which is akin to saying "if an animal doesn't melt in the rain then it must not be made of sugar".

You still have not

• clearly defined if an animal can or cannot be property (choosing instead to play the "what is property?" card)
• what your axiom is
• how specifically the NAP fails with regards to distinguishing between animals and people

Now that others have stopped discussing the topic and have turned to your assertions about knowledge, the burden is on you to offer something substantive to the discussion.  We're waiting.

Charles Anthony:

I do not believe animals have rights the way humans do but I have no universally objective proof of my belief.  It is just an axiom.  Similarly, the non-aggression principle is just an axiom.  Natural rights boil down to an arbitrary moral axiom. 

That's how I see libertarian stuff too.

Because you can never move from "is" to "ought", you have to make an ethical "faith-leap" somewhere.

Thedesolateone:

Because you can never move from "is" to "ought", you have to make an ethical "faith-leap" somewhere.

Amen.  

Yet, every second libertarian thinks he can objectively make that.  That is what I believe is the major weakness in libertarianism -- the false belief in bridging the "is - ought" divide. 

 

 

liberty student:

Charles Anthony:

For what it is worth, Curlz, I am a libertarian who understands what you are getting at.

Do you understand the part where he will murder a person who tortures an animal?

If that is indeed what he does, that is a slightly different discussion. 

 

 

Curlz31:

Charles Anthony:

I do not believe animals have rights the way humans do but I have no universally objective proof of my belief.  It is just an axiom.  Similarly, the non-aggression principle is just an axiom.  Natural rights boil down to an arbitrary moral axiom.

  Thanks Charles, for trying to understand my position. I don't agree that natural rights are an arbitrary axiom though. I believe they are evident in the very nature of human behaviour and the state of the universe. But of course we don't have perfect knowledge of the universe so often there are grey areas.

I guess I gave your posts too much credit.  In any case, you will continue to chase your tail like most philosophers.  Libertarianism has nothing to do with it. 

Curlz31:

I am not a libertarian for the hobby of deriving logical conclusions from certain axioms. I am only interested in the absolute nature of the universe.

In that case, I think you are in the wrong place because the non-aggression principle** is an axiom. 

 

 **N.B.: Just in case it is not obvious, the non-aggression principle is what defines libertarians and virtually everybody here on this whole website fits that label. 

 

 

Charles Anthony:

liberty student:

Charles Anthony:

For what it is worth, Curlz, I am a libertarian who understands what you are getting at.

Do you understand the part where he will murder a person who tortures an animal?

If that is indeed what he does, that is a slightly different discussion. 

Perhaps you did not read the thread?

Curlz31:

And i'll just add that if I saw any of you pouring gas on your dog and setting it alight, I'd pull out my gun and blow your brains out of your skull with a nice big smile on my face.

This has the faint scent of an empiricist/rationalist debate.

liberty student:

Perhaps you did not read the thread?

-- or perhaps I see a difference between what a person does and what acts of retaliation a person believes he can successfully repel.  As such, I find his advocacy uninteresting. 

Spideynw:

I think we have a right to torture things that do not have rights

You don't have any such right, no more than you have a right to eat. At best you can say you have the right to use your property as you wish, and that may include kicking the shit out of your dog anytime you get pissed off. Even then, such an act is morally disgusting.

One more thing, if you're going to want to live in a community, kicking the shit out of your dog in the front yard probably isn't going to be the best idea. See, there's a lot of people out there like Curlz who would only too happily take the dog from you if they saw you doing such a thing.

GilesStratton:

See, there's a lot of people out there like Curlz who would only too happily take the dog from you if they saw you doing such a thing.

But that would be property theft!

 

GilesStratton:

Spideynw:

I think we have a right to torture things that do not have rights

You don't have any such right, no more than you have a right to eat. At best you can say you have the right to use your property as you wish, and that may include kicking the shit out of your dog anytime you get pissed off. Even then, such an act is morally disgusting.

One more thing, if you're going to want to live in a community, kicking the shit out of your dog in the front yard probably isn't going to be the best idea. See, there's a lot of people out there like Curlz who would only too happily take the dog from you if they saw you doing such a thing.

Oops.  I should have written, "I think we should have a right..."

sapSUCKER:

GilesStratton:

See, there's a lot of people out there like Curlz who would only too happily take the dog from you if they saw you doing such a thing.

But that would be property theft!

Yes, well, dog beaters will have to live with some disruptions.

 

Charles Anthony:

liberty student:

Perhaps you did not read the thread?

-- or perhaps I see a difference between what a person does and what acts of retaliation a person believes he can successfully repel.

What does this mean?  99% of the discussions here are not based on what people do, but rather what their ideological positions are.

Charles Anthony:

As such, I find his advocacy uninteresting.

Well it's good you no longer claim to relate to him as a libertarian.  Because there is nothing libertarian about aggression or arbitrary justice.

 

 

GilesStratton:

At best you can say you have the right to use your property as you wish, and that may include kicking the shit out of your dog anytime you get pissed off. Even then, such an act is morally disgusting.

This ^^

GilesStratton:

See, there's a lot of people out there like Curlz who would only too happily take the dog from you if they saw you doing such a thing.

I don't think there are many people who would risk their lives trying to mess with my property.  I can assure everyone that if I am responsible for my own property and security, I will be deadly serious about protecting it.

thomasw78:

If humans only have rights because they can rationalize then would someone who is comatose with no brain function lose all their rights? Or would it be okay for me to go to the nearest hospital and shoot every person lying in a bed in a coma?

Let's assume comatose people are no longer sovereign, and are now property.  Can you go into the hospital and shoot the MRI machine?

thomasw78:

Aren't rights derived from the values of the people's who create them? If we all decided certain animals had certain rights how could you say they wouldn't?

If we decided people had a right to health care, wouldn't they?

liberty student:

I don't think there are many people who would risk their lives trying to mess with my property.  I can assure everyone that if I am responsible for my own property and security, I will be deadly serious about protecting it.

Right, and yet, I don't think members of most communities would be too fond of people kicking their dogs in their front garden. Neither of us can make any sort of scientific prediction here though, so it's not really worth discussing.

GilesStratton:

Right, and yet, I don't think members of most communities would be too fond of people kicking their dogs in their front garden.

I love dogs.  I like all animals.  But kicking a dog, punching a dog, swatting a dog, scolding a dog, chaining a dog, screaming at a dog, doesn't matter.

I've made clear many times, that when it comes to proportionality, I will err on the side of deadly force.

Anyone who eats meat is in no position to lecture me on animal rights.

liberty student:

GilesStratton:

Right, and yet, I don't think members of most communities would be too fond of people kicking their dogs in their front garden.

I love dogs.  I like all animals.  But kicking a dog, punching a dog, swatting a dog, scolding a dog, chaining a dog, screaming at a dog, doesn't matter.

I've made clear many times, that when it comes to proportionality, I will err on the side of deadly force.

Anyone who eats meat is in no position to lecture me on animal rights.

Trust me, there's few things I enjoy more than a nice, medium done steak (with pepper or mushroom sauce). I also despise animal rights protesters with a passion.

That said, I wouldn't take too kindly whatsoever to the next door neighbour who decides to beat his door in front of my (hypothetical) children.