Animals & Torture

So here's a simple question: If I am the rightful owner of an animal, let's say a cute little puppy or a kitten, is it okay for me to torture that puppy or kitten? Does that puppy or kitten have any rights to not be so abused? Is it against the rational nature of man to so abuse animals?

In my eyes, it would not be a rights violation, but it would be a pretty bad act.  I'm actually sympathetic to Kant's argument in this case; it what the act does to you, not the animal necessarily, that makes it wrong.

Perhaps what you are really asking is: how far could another person or group of people go to prevent you from harming an animal that you owned. Could they kill you? Maim you? Assuming you are a person in your right mind and not suffering from a mental disability or disorder that prevents you from understanding your actions, others could restrain you and / or remove the animal from your control to prevent what they see as an inhumane act (i.e., an action unworthy of a human being). The question of natural rights alone does not cover the full complexity of human behavior. There are obligations that ensue to living within human society. All of this, of course, assumes a certain sensitivity to the pain of others.

kritarchist:

Perhaps what you are really asking is: how far could another person or group of people go to prevent you from harming an animal that you owned. Could they kill you? Maim you? Assuming you are a person in your right mind and not suffering from a mental disability or disorder that prevents you from understanding your actions, others could restrain you and / or remove the animal from your control to prevent what they see as an inhumane act (i.e., an action unworthy of a human being). The question of natural rights alone does not cover the full complexity of human behavior. There are obligations that ensue to living within human society. All of this, of course, assumes a certain sensitivity to the pain of others.

What I'm "really asking" is whether or not it is moral for humans to cause excessive harm to animals according to the ethical system of natural law. That would include whether or not other humans have the right to intervene and prevent some from abusing animals.

wombatron:

In my eyes, it would not be a rights violation, but it would be a pretty bad act.  I'm actually sympathetic to Kant's argument in this case; it what the act does to you, not the animal necessarily, that makes it wrong.

This is what I've been thinking as well, in terms of natural law. It seems to be contrary to man's nature to be cruel and sadistic on unwilling animals. However, if those animals are the property of man, how can some men prevent others from torturing animals?

krazy kaju:

This is what I've been thinking as well, in terms of natural law. It seems to be contrary to man's nature to be cruel and sadistic on unwilling animals. However, if those animals are the property of man, how can some men prevent others from torturing animals?

Non-aggressive actions.  Boycotts, ostracism, perhaps black lists maintained by animal-"rights" groups.

My rephrasing of your original question was my clumsy way of trying to point out something important about the nature of rights. The concept of rights only make sense within the concept of human society. There is no sense in talking about the rights of an isolated individual. A single man on an island whose only company is carnivorous boars has no right to life, only the "right" to try to protect himself. A group of humans employs the concept of rights to civilize, to create an environment in which they can live together in peace. If a group of humans does not have a concept of rights, specifically the right to life, anyone could kill or be killed by anyone else; a brutish situation. Agreeing to honor the rights of life, property, and freedom allow them to become civilized, and diminishes the likelihood of them ruthlessly killing each other at will.

But then culture comes into the picture. Let's say you have a fairly large group of people living in a territory, and these people are members of two different cultural groups, and the people of one cultural group lives interspersed with the members of the other. They both except the natural law right to life, but Culture A defines that in such a way that a person's life is seen as extending from conception to natural death, while Culture B defines the right to life as extending from birth until a person conveys the wish that another assist them in dying (if natural death does not come first).  As we have seen in the United States, this situation creates a bit of tension in human society.

Now consider a similar situation. Culture C believes that animals should not be killed for food or for any other reason. Culture D likes their bacon with breakfast and steak for dinner. Culture E likes to come home from work and finds it very relaxing to take a kitten, spray some lighter fuel on it, and set it ablaze (such a cheery glow). You can imagine that there might be some tension between members of these three cultures, and the tendency to want to keep some space between them.

Do the animals have rights? No. Do the members of Culture C have the right to force members of Cultures D and E to see things their way? No. Tolerance for differences is included in the idea of the right of freedom. That doesn't mean you can't make life uncomfortable for people you disagree with (and vice versa). Just don't expect me to hang around to admire the glow of your cat.

My battles are different. I have no problem with people smoking whatever they like. I just despise those who insist on forcing me to breath their smoke while we share a public space.

kritarchist:

The concept of rights only make sense within the concept of human society. There is no sense in talking about the rights of an isolated individual. A single man on an island whose only company is carnivorous boars has no right to life, only the "right" to try to protect himself. A group of humans employs the concept of rights to civilize, to create an environment in which they can live together in peace. If a group of humans does not have a concept of rights, specifically the right to life, anyone could kill or be killed by anyone else; a brutish situation. Agreeing to honor the rights of life, property, and freedom allow them to become civilized, and diminishes the likelihood of them ruthlessly killing each other at will.

Isn't this a positivistic, relativistic explanation of rights? Aren't rights to self ownership inherent in human nature? Even if no other human exists, don't I have a right to self ownership, no matter what?

I roughly agree with the rest of your post, but your explanation of natural rights seems lacking.

Yes, the rights are always there to be discovered by those who look for them. But they are rights that have effect only in the context of human society. To identify them, accept them, and attempt to work with them rather than against them leads to a more peaceful society, just as an engineer must take the law of gravity into consideration if he wants to create a vehicle that can fly. What does your right to self-ownership mean if you are the only person who exists? I think it is meaningless if there is no one to contend with you for ownership of your person (tries to kill you, for example). Same thing for property rights.

To complete an answer to your original question, a human being is more human if he treats all living beings with compassion. And a compassionate human being will contribute to a peaceful human society. Natural law is not just about rights, what he can or cannot do, but also about what someone should do in the furtherance of harmony within society. So, if the person were alone, and sought to torture an animal, property rights (uncontended in this case) are meaningless, but he would still be less human (less compassionate; more brutish) if he tortures an animal. The laws of nature impel toward a more virtuous humanity, because virtue of every sort leads to greater harmony in society.

And if you are now thinking I might be heading toward some kind of utopic vision of humanity, let me assure you that I understand the human condition well enough to know better. Still, the distortion that all forms of government (territorial monopolies of coercion) bring to human society lead away from virtue, and therefore always lead away from peace and harmony. I have no doubt that the end of government will mean a vast improvement in human society.

You could say on Aristotelian grounds that it demonstrates a weakness of will, an abasement of oneself and a downfall into one's animal (and by this I mean base) nature, since this is merely the gratification of a sadistic urge. So it'd be immoral and vicious, but not necessarily a rights violation.

krazy kaju:

Isn't this a positivistic, relativistic explanation of rights? Aren't rights to self ownership inherent in human nature? Even if no other human exists, don't I have a right to self ownership, no matter what?

I would say that if no other human exists, the reason for rights do not exist either. For, in my opinion, a right ist a rule to prevent or minimize conflicts between human beings. Rights evolved because humans have conflicts with humans and where able to communicate in a way to set up rules. Hoppe uses the example of little childs that, playing with a toy, deny others to play with that toy now by stating "look I had it first, I already play with it". It just makes sense to accept such property rights as it helps us to minimize conflicts between our own kind, Rights are almost like a contract, which implies that both parties a) have the ability to understand its purpose and b) have a way to show that both sides are willing to keep the contract. Regarding animals we can not enter such agreements, at least not on a larger scale -some horse whisperers might achive such a thing with horses other might in single instances achieve it with other species- but we don't have a way to communicate across specy borders in a way that is needed to set rules.

I do also not agree that rights to self-ownership are inherent to human beings. Self determination is inherent, as it is with every living thing. Self determination means that only the living thing can determin what to do, how to act -action in the broadest sense, not action as a rational act.

The idea of self-ownership is already a rule in the sense I said above. It follows out of the fact that each human being is self determined and that it is useful to have rules. From this point of view it is the foundation of rules between humans, but it already is the first part of a specific human thing, which by definition can not cross the borders between species.

So there is no right to life, how so as we all will eventually die, there is a right to not be aggressed against me. That right is the basic contract I have with all other humans and its reason is that I am a self determined entity, as each other human being is too. If we can agree on that primary rule, we can minimize the cases of conflict or, or better, we can minimize the amount of events that can harm me -and you-, hence we increase safety and the probability to survive. That is the foundation of a system of rights as I understand it from a libertarian point of view. All the rest is an extension of this, fundamental, first contract.

A totally different question is moral and ethics. Do I think it to be unethical to be gruel to animals. Of course I do, I belief it is unethical to be cruel against whatever. Yet, this is not the sphere of rights, but the sphere of ethics and morals. Ethics and morals can be used to define how socities "want" to live. They can be used to oust behavior that is despicted, it can never be used to overrule the basic contract between humans, that is the contract to not aggress, the contract that makes every human being a self owner.

Opps that was kind of a long post.

Hope you all don't mind

 

krazy kaju:

So here's a simple question: If I am the rightful owner of an animal, let's say a cute little puppy or a kitten, is it okay for me to torture that puppy or kitten? Does that puppy or kitten have any rights to not be so abused? Is it against the rational nature of man to so abuse animals?

 

 

is it ok?

Legally yes because it's your property.

Morally is another question but while I would not think it desirable to harm an animal for not reason I would not go so far as to say it's strongly immoral or violates 'animal rights'.

 

 

 

krazy kaju:

 

So here's a simple question: If I am the rightful owner of an animal, let's say a cute little puppy or a kitten, is it okay for me to torture that puppy or kitten?

I do not believe ownership and the right to inflict harm on animals are linked in this way. For example imagine a hunter who wounds and immobilises a wild animal in the forest. He does not own this animal jet it is within his rights to then torture the animal instead of quickly finishing it off.

I think this is important to note, because if you keep this in mind then it becomes apparent that it is the case where animals could not be tortured, but for the concept of owning an animal. Instead ownership is the only way that at least some animals can be protected from it.

So your question should really read: If you were to torture an animal not owned by another person, would this mean that somebodies natural rights were being violated?

When the question is put like this I think it leaves no room for uncertainty about the answer.

Do we really ever "own" animals anyway?  Look at dogs, it's ingrained in them that they are apart of a pack - it's more of a family membership than ownership as in owning an iphone... You can throw away your iphone, it's a little difficult to throw away our teenage kids, lol... But in all reality - OWNERSHIP is kind of too strong of a word.  And if it is membership rather than ownership, then abusing an animal would be just as right as abusing a child in your family.

Nikhil Kumra:

Do we really ever "own" animals anyway?  Look at dogs, it's ingrained in them that they are apart of a pack - it's more of a family membership than ownership as in owning an iphone... You can throw away your iphone, it's a little difficult to throw away our teenage kids, lol... But in all reality - OWNERSHIP is kind of too strong of a word.  And if it is membership rather than ownership, then abusing an animal would be just as right as abusing a child in your family.

I agree that we do not own animals in this sense - in the sense of the relationship between the human and the animal. But we own animals in relation to other humans which is all that is important in terms of natural law.

Surely the answer to this, in a market anarchy, is relatively simple: the market will decide.  The market as opposed to "democratic state" legislation.

If the consensus in the market - i.e. the "court of public opinion" expressed through the interactions we all make one with another in a free and uncoerced market - is that torture of animals is wrong, then it will find a suitable way of "punishing" those who are known or discovered to do it, probably at least through ostracism, but perhaps financially, such as through the cost of their insurance premiums in certain areas of their interactions.

The animal torturer may well find a community or an insurance agency for whom such behaviour is acceptable, but it will probably be quite a brutish, if you pardon the pun, community with little interaction with the rest of us.

As an example, as a meat eater, I would probably not wish to buy my meat sourced from farmers who ill-treat their livestock.  For one thing, an excess of adrenaline and other pain hormones in meat is shown to make it tough, but I'd probably just not want to.  So I would expect my butcher to be able to offer guarantees about his sources.

I'll bet it would be swifter and more effective than all the (R)SPCA and so on can currently manage.

Jock

nhaag:

I would say that if no other human exists, the reason for rights do not exist either. For, in my opinion, a right ist a rule to prevent or minimize conflicts between human beings. Rights evolved because humans have conflicts with humans and where able to communicate in a way to set up rules. Hoppe uses the example of little childs that, playing with a toy, deny others to play with that toy now by stating "look I had it first, I already play with it". It just makes sense to accept such property rights as it helps us to minimize conflicts between our own kind, Rights are almost like a contract, which implies that both parties a) have the ability to understand its purpose and b) have a way to show that both sides are willing to keep the contract. Regarding animals we can not enter such agreements, at least not on a larger scale -some horse whisperers might achive such a thing with horses other might in single instances achieve it with other species- but we don't have a way to communicate across specy borders in a way that is needed to set rules.

I do also not agree that rights to self-ownership are inherent to human beings. Self determination is inherent, as it is with every living thing. Self determination means that only the living thing can determin what to do, how to act -action in the broadest sense, not action as a rational act.

The idea of self-ownership is already a rule in the sense I said above. It follows out of the fact that each human being is self determined and that it is useful to have rules. From this point of view it is the foundation of rules between humans, but it already is the first part of a specific human thing, which by definition can not cross the borders between species.

So there is no right to life, how so as we all will eventually die, there is a right to not be aggressed against me. That right is the basic contract I have with all other humans and its reason is that I am a self determined entity, as each other human being is too. If we can agree on that primary rule, we can minimize the cases of conflict or, or better, we can minimize the amount of events that can harm me -and you-, hence we increase safety and the probability to survive. That is the foundation of a system of rights as I understand it from a libertarian point of view. All the rest is an extension of this, fundamental, first contract.

A totally different question is moral and ethics. Do I think it to be unethical to be gruel to animals. Of course I do, I belief it is unethical to be cruel against whatever. Yet, this is not the sphere of rights, but the sphere of ethics and morals. Ethics and morals can be used to define how socities "want" to live. They can be used to oust behavior that is despicted, it can never be used to overrule the basic contract between humans, that is the contract to not aggress, the contract that makes every human being a self owner.

This rings right to me. Anything to read about this way of understanding (other than your older posts)?

 

If I think about it, natural law is not really something that determines what course of action in a give situation is worthy of approval or disapproval, nor it should be. The reason that we often think of it in this way and determine that violation of the NAP is worthy of disapproval is because such a violation is almost always also contrary to morality as per the concept of goodness which is what we go by most of the time.

But to try to put down rules based on this morality would be impossible. Aside from the fact that there is not even a way to show that morality based on goodness has any better claim to form the basis of law than for example morality based on courage - where the more daring the act the more worthy of approval it is, a morality based on spontaneity - where the less premeditated the act the more approval worthy it is, a morality based on rudeness, or on coolness or whatever. Aside from that, there is also no reliable way to pass judgement on things from the perspective of goodness. What makes the natural law theory useful is not that it gives one the ability to pass a moral judgement based on it, but that every dispute can have only one resolution that all people sufficiently skilled in the theory must and will reach or else they can be clearly shown to be in error as per the theory. Such a theory is a necessary foundation stone for a society which hopes to avoid a situation where it is at war at itself.

This is the only sense in which natural law is good. Were the natural law to state things which were from our perspective evil (perhaps because actually we ourselves were evil and therefore thought aggression praiseworthy) we would still have no choice but to put it forth as the foundation of our judiciary, as the only prism through which any one action can ever be totally reliably deemed either sanctionable or unsanctionable, if we wished to avoid warring arbiters of justice and have a society at all. (But being evil, perhaps we wouldn't.)

Hope it is not too much of a tangent...

I do not believe that animals have rights as men do. I believe that you need to be self aware and able to show self awareness through an act of language. This being said man has rights but along with those rights come responsibility. So you must ask yourself is it responsible to abuse an animal? What would be the outcome? Now if it was a work animal you would not get very good work out of it a happy animal works much better. If it is a cat or a dog it just gets mean and they have a tendency to turn on their owners. So I would say if you let the responsibility of your rights dictate your actions you would probably come out OK. But just because you own something does not mean there is any "right" to abuse there is only responsibility to dictate action.

Obviously animals don't have the same rights as people. We kill many of them to eat them, as did our deep ancestors. However, unnecessary cruelty to animals offends our innate sense of morality. But suppose that we don't kill any animals and some of them are successful at breeding ever larger populations until they threaten some human needs. Can we then kill the animals to defend our way of life? This is an issue with innumerable shade of gray.

I would say that if no other human exists, the reason for rights do not exist either. For, in my opinion, a right ist a rule to prevent or minimize conflicts between human beings. Rights evolved because humans have conflicts with humans and where able to communicate in a way to set up rules. Hoppe uses the example of little childs that, playing with a toy, deny others to play with that toy now by stating "look I had it first, I already play with it". It just makes sense to accept such property rights as it helps us to minimize conflicts between our own kind, Rights are almost like a contract, which implies that both parties a) have the ability to understand its purpose and b) have a way to show that both sides are willing to keep the contract. Regarding animals we can not enter such agreements, at least not on a larger scale -some horse whisperers might achive such a thing with horses other might in single instances achieve it with other species- but we don't have a way to communicate across specy borders in a way that is needed to set rules.

I do also not agree that rights to self-ownership are inherent to human beings. Self determination is inherent, as it is with every living thing. Self determination means that only the living thing can determin what to do, how to act -action in the broadest sense, not action as a rational act.

The idea of self-ownership is already a rule in the sense I said above. It follows out of the fact that each human being is self determined and that it is useful to have rules. From this point of view it is the foundation of rules between humans, but it already is the first part of a specific human thing, which by definition can not cross the borders between species.

So there is no right to life, how so as we all will eventually die, there is a right to not be aggressed against me. That right is the basic contract I have with all other humans and its reason is that I am a self determined entity, as each other human being is too. If we can agree on that primary rule, we can minimize the cases of conflict or, or better, we can minimize the amount of events that can harm me -and you-, hence we increase safety and the probability to survive. That is the foundation of a system of rights as I understand it from a libertarian point of view. All the rest is an extension of this, fundamental, first contract.

A totally different question is moral and ethics. Do I think it to be unethical to be gruel to animals. Of course I do, I belief it is unethical to be cruel against whatever. Yet, this is not the sphere of rights, but the sphere of ethics and morals. Ethics and morals can be used to define how socities "want" to live. They can be used to oust behavior that is despicted, it can never be used to overrule the basic contract between humans, that is the contract to not aggress, the contract that makes every human being a self owner.

Opps that was kind of a long post.

Hope you all don't mind

Good post. If I could sum up what I got out of it, it would be that rights exist to facilitate social corropration, which can only exist (or is only relevant) in the presence of two or more sentinet creatures. Rights are distinct from ethics and morals, which govern how we live regardless of the presence of other people.

This discussion reminds me of Lysander Spooner's essay "Vices are not crimes." Under Spooner's definition, torturing animals is a vice but not a crime since the animal has no rights.