Political Theory

Re: Animal Rights

C.H. Hellstrom — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:40:45 GMT

JCFolsom:
Everyone knows animals have no rights!

But the do have flavour!

Re: Animal Rights

C.H. Hellstrom — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:40:45 GMT

JCFolsom:
Everyone knows animals have no rights!

But the do have flavour!

Re: Animal Rights

Ultima — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 07:16:18 GMT

Spideynw:

Ultima:
The way it is killed matters because in one way, you are killing the creature for food, without causing it undue and unnecessary pain. This lies close to the nature of the world and therefore if there is a "natural law" that is based on the nature of the world and of our universe, killing for food and survival would seem to be acceptable.

Vegetarians would disagree. But it is irrelevant. Animals do not have rights, so it does not matter what we do to them. You have not shown how they have rights. You have just given us your opinion as to what is OK to do to them or not.

If a vegetarian would rather starve to death than kill an animal, that would be his/her choice. Eating for food is not inconsistent with nature or life, however.

Spideynw:

Ultima:
Animals can reason, not as much as humans can, but it is a matter of degree. Chimpanzees and apes have a higher ability to reason than flies, for example. They can all certainly reason more than a rock can.

If a creature has the ability to reason, then it has the ability to consent. Chimpanzees do not have the ability to consent, as such they do not have the ability to reason.

Ultima:
Few living creature ever consent to their own death.

It is irrelevant how many consent. What is relevant is whether they can or not.

Ultima:
No, because we don't care about animal-animal relationships. We only care about human-animal relationships, or the relationship of a species of greater intelligence to those of lesser intelligence.

Animal-animal or human-animal is irrelevant. What is relevant is if animals have rights or not. Otherwise, you cannot make a consistent argument.

We are framing animal rights in the context of a human interpretation of those rights, so it is very relevant. Rights don't exist in a vacuum, as say, the laws of gravity might. It is up to us humans to create and interpret them based on our relationship with each other and with the world.

Spideynw:

Ultima:
How so? What if we create a race of super-humans that are superior to humans in the same proportion as humans are superior to chimpanzees?

It is irrelevant if they are "super-human" or not. We would still have the ability to reason, so these super-humans would have to get permission from us to do things to us, else they would be violating our rights. Since we have the ability to reason, we have the ability to give consent.

Why is it irrelevant? So far, your argument for animals not having rights seems to be because you feel they don't deserve it, on the assumption that they are unable to give consent because they are unable to reason, and the logic for this is stated as they do not belong to the species homo sapiens. You seem to assume that only humans can reason and therefore consent, but have not proven how say, a chimpanzee is unable to reason. It's not a magical ability; we didn't suddenly wake up one day and have this ability. It become stronger as we evolved, and we are not the only species with intelligence. We just happen to have the most of it.

Your argument is logically and functionally the same as my imaginary super species determing that humans have no rights because they are unable to give consent, due to some made-up property that only the super species possess (or they just happen to be the most superior and therefore the most intelligent).

Re: Animal Rights

Spideynw — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:32:15 GMT

Ultima:
The way it is killed matters because in one way, you are killing the creature for food, without causing it undue and unnecessary pain. This lies close to the nature of the world and therefore if there is a "natural law" that is based on the nature of the world and of our universe, killing for food and survival would seem to be acceptable.

Vegetarians would disagree. But it is irrelevant. Animals do not have rights, so it does not matter what we do to them. You have not shown how they have rights. You have just given us your opinion as to what is OK to do to them or not.

Ultima:
Animals can reason, not as much as humans can, but it is a matter of degree. Chimpanzees and apes have a higher ability to reason than flies, for example. They can all certainly reason more than a rock can.

If a creature has the ability to reason, then it has the ability to consent. Chimpanzees do not have the ability to consent, as such they do not have the ability to reason.

Ultima:
Few living creature ever consent to their own death.

It is irrelevant how many consent. What is relevant is whether they can or not.

Ultima:
No, because we don't care about animal-animal relationships. We only care about human-animal relationships, or the relationship of a species of greater intelligence to those of lesser intelligence.

Animal-animal or human-animal is irrelevant. What is relevant is if animals have rights or not. Otherwise, you cannot make a consistent argument.

Ultima:
How so? What if we create a race of super-humans that are superior to humans in the same proportion as humans are superior to chimpanzees?

It is irrelevant if they are "super-human" or not. We would still have the ability to reason, so these super-humans would have to get permission from us to do things to us, else they would be violating our rights. Since we have the ability to reason, we have the ability to give consent.

Re: Animal Rights

Ultima — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:31:39 GMT

Spideynw:

Ultima:
I think someone else already brought up the point that killing a chicken for food (in a manner that would not cause it to suffer unnecessary pain) would be acceptable, while chopping it up while it's alive from the feet up is not acceptable...

So? What is their basis? Why does the way in which it is killed matter?

The way it is killed matters because in one way, you are killing the creature for food, without causing it undue and unnecessary pain. This lies close to the nature of the world and therefore if there is a "natural law" that is based on the nature of the world and of our universe, killing for food and survival would seem to be acceptable. Killing for sport and pleasure, on the other hand, is not necessary for survival, and causing an animal undue and unnecessary suffering has no usefulness in our need to survive and eat. The way it is killed therefore matters, a lot.

Spideynw:

Ultima:
Again, it's not black and white.

Of course it is. Once something has the ability to reason, it has rights.

Animals can reason, not as much as humans can, but it is a matter of degree. Chimpanzees and apes have a higher ability to reason than flies, for example. They can all certainly reason more than a rock can.

Spideynw:

Ultima:
Is killing a human a crime? Not always.

No, but killing someone who has the ability to consent, and did not consent, should be.

Few living creature ever consent to their own death.

Spideynw:

Ultima:
Second point, since I started out by saying that I agree with the viewpoint that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree, then that would mean that punishments arising from cruel and unusual treatment of chickens would be proportionally less than that to say, a chimpanzee.

And if a chimpanzee harmed a chicken, then it would receive a harsher punishment than a chicken harming a chimpanzee?

No, because we don't care about animal-animal relationships. We only care about human-animal relationships, or the relationship of a species of greater intelligence to those of lesser intelligence. Animals don't have the capability to discuss animal-animal relationships on the internet, but that does not mean that they have zero intelligence or that they should not be allowed more rights than those of an inanimate rock. That doesn't mean that we should not grant them some rights in accordance with the same principles that we grant each other rights.

Spideynw:

Ultima:
If you are not willing to make that distinction, then what's to stop us from going the other way? If the cutoff line is abrupt and means homo sapiens has 100% rights while all other species have 0%... what's to stop me arguing that say, black people are a slightly less evolved form of homo sapiens, closer to the animals, and therefore deserve no rights?

Nothing is to stop you from making the argument. But logic stops you from making a valid one.

How so? What if we create a race of super-humans that are superior to humans in the same proportion as humans are superior to chimpanzees? Following the model that animals have no rights because their ability to reason is inferior, the logic would follow that these super-humans would be the new masters of the universe, and all regular humans no longer have any rights because these new super-humans are super-intelligent and have abilities to think in ways we cannot fathom, while we regular humans can only reason within the range of our now comparatively limited intellect.

Re: Animal Rights

Spideynw — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:10:51 GMT

Ultima:
I think someone else already brought up the point that killing a chicken for food (in a manner that would not cause it to suffer unnecessary pain) would be acceptable, while chopping it up while it's alive from the feet up is not acceptable...

So? What is their basis? Why does the way in which it is killed matter?

Ultima:
Again, it's not black and white.

Of course it is. Once something has the ability to reason, it has rights.

Ultima:
Is killing a human a crime? Not always.

No, but killing someone who has the ability to consent, and did not consent, should be.

Ultima:
Second point, since I started out by saying that I agree with the viewpoint that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree, then that would mean that punishments arising from cruel and unusual treatment of chickens would be proportionally less than that to say, a chimpanzee.

And if a chimpanzee harmed a chicken, then it would receive a harsher punishment than a chicken harming a chimpanzee?

Ultima:
What would define this proportion? I would say that the more intelligent the species, the more awareness they have of their environment, then they would come proportionally closer to the rights of a human.

And the harsher the punishment for them if they harmed another? Sounds great. Can they sue for compensation? Who is going to interpret for the chimpanzees and chickens in court?

Ultima:
If you are not willing to make that distinction, then what's to stop us from going the other way? If the cutoff line is abrupt and means homo sapiens has 100% rights while all other species have 0%... what's to stop me arguing that say, black people are a slightly less evolved form of homo sapiens, closer to the animals, and therefore deserve no rights?

Nothing is to stop you from making the argument. But logic stops you from making a valid one.

Re: Animal Rights

Ultima — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:46:16 GMT

Spideynw:

Ultima:
I tend to agree with the viewpoint that humans are animals, too, and that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree.

Really? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. So, should killing an animal be a crime?

I think someone else already brought up the point that killing a chicken for food (in a manner that would not cause it to suffer unnecessary pain) would be acceptable, while chopping it up while it's alive from the feet up is not acceptable...

Again, it's not black and white.

Is killing a human a crime? Not always. Self-defense being the most obvious example here.

Second point, since I started out by saying that I agree with the viewpoint that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree, then that would mean that punishments arising from cruel and unusual treatment of chickens would be proportionally less than that to say, a chimpanzee.

What would define this proportion? I would say that the more intelligent the species, the more awareness they have of their environment, then they would come proportionally closer to the rights of a human.

If you are not willing to make that distinction, then what's to stop us from going the other way? If the cutoff line is abrupt and means homo sapiens has 100% rights while all other species have 0%... what's to stop me arguing that say, black people are a slightly less evolved form of homo sapiens, closer to the animals, and therefore deserve no rights? I don't believe that but many people used to, and some still do today. Why not just extend the cutoff further and say only the intelligent have rights, while everyone else has no rights? It is the black and white cutoff that I disagree with, because the real world does not work that way. Even within the human species itself, we have a large variation in intelligence, capability to feel emotion, and capability to reason. Likewise, in the animal world, there is a huge variation in traits. It is absurd to argue that a chimpanzee should have no more rights than a rock should have.

Re: Animal Rights

AndrewKemendo — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:02:57 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Wow. At least she's consistent...

If you think Vegan is extreme then check out Raw veganism.

Re: Animal Rights

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:26:48 GMT

Wow. At least she's consistent...

Re: Animal Rights

AndrewKemendo — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:33:18 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

BTW, the funny thing is that hardcore vegans ought to consider honey the product of animal exploitation. Indeed, a lot of agriculture comes from "exploiting" insects. Might be immoral to even eat agricultural goods then...

-Jon

They do. If an insect or living being has been forced in the making of the product they wont use it.

In fact my Significant other doesnt use anything with shellac in or on it. To include certain type of vitamin covers.

The only things she uses that are not 100% vegan are roads and infrastructure.

Re: Animal Rights

Spideynw — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:56:35 GMT

Ultima:
I tend to agree with the viewpoint that humans are animals, too, and that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree.

Really? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. So, should killing an animal be a crime?

Re: Animal Rights

Ultima — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:47:02 GMT

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I came here from a link on a newer thread and this thread is quite interesting.

I tend to agree with the viewpoint that humans are animals, too, and that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree.

Couldn't we use a "fuzzy" concept of justice and apply it to this scenario? A concept where skinning an ape alive would lead to some severe penalties, while plucking off a fly's wings probably won't warrant any judicial action, only social ostracism? We can think about these concepts internally, why couldn't we apply them to our legal framework?

Re: Animal Rights

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:09:32 GMT

Nope, only if you assume the truth of legal positivism/an appeal to authority. Anarchism is predicated on the notion that aggressing (i.e. initiating force) against another is a violation of their rights, hence illegitimate. Otherwise you're conflating rights with their enforcement. What you are speaking of is not rights, but power. It is indeed under the state that "Might makes right", where the ruling class can hypocritically deny certain actions to its chattel whilst at the same time engaging in them, simply because it can.

-Jon

Re: Animal Rights

Jonas — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:09:03 GMT

nhaag:
Didn't you just intermix anarchy and statism?

Unless I am very much mistaken, the only "rights" you have in an anarchist society are the ones you can seize and defend. Since when do inherent or natural rights go hand-in-hand with anarchy? Are you saying that in an anarchist society, if I tried to kill you (or a dog to stay OT) you would say I can't because some greater authority says you (or the dog) has an inherent right to life?

I don't think so. In "might makes right" I don't mean "right" as in "I have a right to exist". I mean "right" as in "correct" or "acceptable". If I want to have dog fights in my house, the only way you can stop me is by using force (might). If you stop me, you have used might to make me do what you think is right. Hence, "might makes right".

But all of this is off topic. Regardless of the type of society, each person reading this thread has to make a personal decision on where to draw the line when it comes to "animal rights". Whether you are doing this to create a legal framework in an enlightened dictatorship or just what goes on in your house, it doesn't matter.

For giggles, lets just assume that we are establishing a legal framework for the newly seceeded Libertarian country of New Hampshire. There is a very small central government. Justice is handled by a few large protection agencies and several private judges, who have all agreed to abide by the NAP. However, there is some disagreement as to whether animals are property or have rights. You sit on a panel of judges who are working to codify this sticking point. How do you argue?

Do you say that all creatures not Homo Sapiens are property? Do you say all living things have the same rights as humans? Why?

Or do you get more complicated, and say that only animals that feel suffering should get rights? How do you define this in a non-subjective way? Do you say that only living things that show an ability to respect others rights should get rights of their own?

It's up to you. You are going to set the legal framework for a new society. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO!!! ;)

Re: Animal Rights

nhaag — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:54:21 GMT

Jonas:

Well even anarchy has a system of justice and legal infrastructure...it's called "might makes right". You just better hope that the group of people living down the street aren't more heavily armed than you when you come knocking on their door and tell them to shut down their dog and rooster fighting clubs.

But that's not the point. Even you mention adjudicators to help solve disputes. If two people had a dispute over whether torturing an animal was okay or not, where would you draw the line? Knowing that this might just create a precedent for future disputes?

Didn't you just intermix anarchy and statism?

"Might is right" is the basic slogan of group coercion, not of anarchy. Anarchy is just the opposite, "might makes NO right", rights do not evolve from coercive power but are an inherent possessions of every human being.

So you should not blame something on anarchy which is the basic creed of the enemy and one, if not the fundamental, reason anarchy abhores collectivism and statism.