Oddly enough, I might say something in line with what Laotzu on here. I say y’all could use a bit Wu Wei, discussed in the Tao Te Ching, in addressing this issue.
You’re superimposing rules on natural design. I say design because it is outside of order, yet we see it in a particular way (hence the design).
It is part of the wolf’s nature to kill and eat sheep. As with all predatory animals, this is natural and to seek to do otherwise would cause harm and dissatisfaction to the wolf. Not saying I would want to be the lamb that’s eaten, but the fact of the matter is that they exist and know their dharma, so to speak.
Predatory animals, like all other animals except for humans, adhere to God’s law, as I believe. There is no deceit in the animal kingdom outside of humanity. How could you hold a wolf accountable for something it is naturally designed for?
Getting to humanity, it is not natural to muder others, but the instinct to protect one’s property, territory and family is very evident. It is best to always trust that instinct.
I suppose that Einstein could have killed the whole lot of us, then, since, as you would say, compared to him, we are “mentally weak and incapable.” Am I stretching it too far? If so, justify your case.
“I suppose that Einstein could have killed the whole lot of us, then, since, as you would say, compared to him, we are “mentally weak and incapable.” Am I stretching it too far? If so, justify your case”
The fact that one individual is more capable, stronger, and smarter than another does not matter after a certain point. If one has shown that one can show reasonable intellect, a rational respect for rights, self restraint, decent logical capabilities, knowledge of himself as opposed to the outside world so on, then one could be infinitely more intelligent than another and receive the same entitlement to rights (yes its still subjective see above, this is just how I arrange my value preferences and I’m giving you a reason why).
Just because one is smarter or more powerful is irrelevant, it is a certain level of intelligence and power that must be reached to then be considered an individual entitled to rights because he can do all of the above examples of true humanity and value, because they have shown that they are sources of value and creators and geniuses in their own right
I find it hard to believe that is anything other than an assumption. Science has barely begun to discover what human nature is, let alone non-human animal nature.
If this is the account of ‘natural’ that you advocate, then I don’t understand what you mean by ‘natural’ anymore. And I pressume that ‘God’s law’ is a figure of speech.
But in reality, the only thing the wolf is actually ‘designed’ to do is procreate. In the words of Dawkins, we are ‘The Gene Machine’; so whatever natural laws you think there are, there is only one: to pass on our genes; which can be further analysised as: to have sex, and create children.
So back to what is ‘natural’ for a human: essentially, whatever leads to us procreating; so if that means killing, then it is natural to kill, if that means raping, then it is natural to rape, if that means stealing, then it is natural to steal; providing all of this leads to procreation.
Obviously, I don’t condone murder, rape or theft, but if we are to take what is natural, then they are natural for humans.
Now we can move on from what is ‘natural’ to what is moral. Sticking with this account of what ‘natural’ is, it is clear that eating animals isn’t natural anymore; purely because it doesn’t lead to our survival anymore, and so it doesn’t lead to the procreation of the species.
Having said all that, I was never a huge fan of the ‘what’s natural’ arguments; but nevertheless, you did bring it up.
P.S. I think Rothbard said it best in his Ethics of Liberty about animal rights. If killing animals is wrong, then killing bacteria and viruses should be wrong too etc. And what we get? A world of absurdity where humans can not step anywhere. But hey, what if some animal kill other animal? Does he get prosecuted? So in the end of the day, animal rights do not/should not exist as such because it is impossible even make a cotnract with them.
However, I would much more happier if there was no need to eat animals (I am excluding now bacteria and other stuff, that is impossible to control).
Also, I hate animal cruelty (when humans abuse their power and kill/torture animals). That could be much more easily prosecuted in Libertopia I love my cat.
Do you think those rare human beings, capable of reason, and of interacting with others out in the world, yet incapable of physical pain sensation, merely because they can’t feel pain are not moral agents?
Like many other people, you are getting entangled in morality as if peaceful interactions are some sort of cosmic rule we must obey or the world will stop turning. They aren’t. They’re simply agreements humans make with each other because in the long term, all humans entering the contract benefit from said peaceful interactions.
As Hoppe has explained, with a high enough time preference, things like rape, slavery and even cannibalism aren’t just not detrimental, they even become beneficial. Peaceful interactions require low time preference, and only human animals are capable of such. Other animals are not. They lack the intelligence to foresee the future enough for it to make sense for them to have a low time preference.
Something similar can be said about young children, but the thing is that young children turn into adults, and as adults they will base their behavior on what they have learned growing up. Thus it makes sense to teach children the ways of peaceful interactions, so that they grow up to become peaceful, productive adults rather than violent, destructive ones.
As Hoppe has explained, with a high enough time preference, things like rape, murder and even cannibalism aren’t just not detrimental, they even >>become beneficial
for the record where did Hoppe explain this? I have read much Hoppe and not come across that particular position.
Yes he does. He talks about how for a man wanting to win over a lady he has to do things like take her out to dinner and buy her flowers, and that takes time, but if he cannot wait then rape makes sense for him, even though the consequences of his actions may be terrible in the future.
In the same way, you can get some economic benefit from a slave in the short term, but in the long term, even if you do come out ahead in economic terms, you would’ve been much better off trading with him. He talks about how societies that lowered their time preference enough, realized that slavery was counterproductive in the longer term.
And the same goes for cannibalism, which he puts as the previous step. Yes you may get a meal right now, but if you enslave that person you will derive more economic benefit (or meals) from them down the line.
OK, yes, I see, you were speaking of detrimental/beneficial from the point of the view of the person who is the (would be) criminal. I can square that away with what I know. Perhaps the first time I read your statement I read you uncharitably.
@liberty student ‘Threads like this make me want to eat the humans who think that animals are their equals. You think a cow is your equal? Yum yum.’
'I just want to say, it is not cannibalism if the person you are eating insists he is a monkey.’
@vaduka 'How would you explain to a lion his rights?’
I’m realling getting sick of these appeals to ridicule, come up with some actual criticisms of my argument or vegetarianism in general. Grow up both of you!
A quote from that article:
‘The untreatable disease also makes Ashlyn incapable of sensing extreme temperatures – hot or cold – disabling her body’s ability to cool itself by sweating. Otherwise, her senses are normal.’
Obviously I don’t think that it would be right to kill and eat anyone who doesn’t feel pain, so I guess I need to expand what I mean by sentient - the ability to feel or percieve things. In that case, if a being is conscious, then killing and eating it is wrong.
Chris, to be fair to your opponents, you may be sick of them but reduction to absurdity is a valid tactic of debate and is not per se juvenile or anti-intellectual if done right.
You may think their criticism are not worthy of response because the criticisms themselves are ridiculous, but that is quite something else from them challenging you to what they extrapolate to be an absurd conclusion of your line of thought and presenting that ridiculous conclusion to you, for you to address (and not dismiss out of hand)
I love my cat.