I agree with you on the whole. However, I do not believe it is possible to talk in terms of “the society as a whole” benefitting, as that requires interpersonal utility comparisons. And I am not sure what you mean by “trading with the slaves rather than the slave owners”. The slaves have nothing to offer you, they own nothing. Only if they flee, it is possible to trade with them, and if they have successfully escaped slavery, then they are no longer slaves. Some would benefit from returning slaves to their master, some would benefit from hiring them instead. One group that would definitely benefit from returning escaped slaves is those hired by the slave owner to recapture slaves. You have to remember that you can never talk about what is profitable “for society”. Society consists of individuals, and things can only be profitable to individuals. Utility theory can only be applied to individuals, and only to specific individuals. You can only make utility judgements when it comes to individuals. If A voluntarily trades with B, then we can say that both A and B are better off after the trade (assuming they evaluated the utility of the goods properly beforehand), or it wouldn’t have taken place. However, you can not make a statement that the trade meant “a psychic profit for society as a whole”, since you have no idea who the trade affected negatively and how much. You can’t compare the utility C would have derived from trading with A if B were unavailable or unwilling to participate, to the utility B derived from the trade. So you can say that (again, assuming no entrepreneurial error) both A and B experienced a net increase in utility, but you cannot say that the trade meant a net increase in utility for A, B and C as a group.
I said a species and not individuals for the exact reasons you stated. Because, at least in our species, there are individuals that are not able to articulate such rights. So by species, I meant “the species is capable of”. So if the species is capable of articulating rights, then those rights should be extend to all members of the species.
@K.C. Farmer
Not at all. As I stated before, rights are not necessarily reciprocal. If you recognize the validity of any form of legal protection of the mentally retarded or children from torture (conducted by their guardians (to get the property rights objection out of the way)), then you realize why the above statement is not necessarily true. Rights are things that individuals grant others, not something which is to be demanded from the subject by the object. It is nothing more than a statement (possibly legally binding) that I will not harm you. Thus you have been granted the right not to be harmed by me. You don’t have the right not to be harmed, period, because C, who has not agreed not to harm you, may still do so. All I am saying when I am arguing in favor of animal rights is that I am willing to sign a legally binding contract that forbids me from torturing animals for fun, and that I wish as many as possible would do so, because I consider it a step in the right direction - an expansion of (non-mutual) non-aggression, i.e. civilization.
I honestly can not conceive of any possible objection to this. It is not “illogical” or “immoral”, it doesn’t harm anyone’s rights, but it improves the welfare of animals. So what’s the problem really?
Could you expand on this a little, because I am not convinced that it is true at all.
Now this is where it gets very interesting. First you claim that the ability to practise methodological individualism as a prerequisite for earning rights (a very strong statement, which does not make much sense to me), and then you employ methodological collectivism to make your argument! The very core of methodological individualism is that only individuals can act, only individuals can think, have preferences or values, etc. Yet, you start talking about “the abilities of the human species”, “inter-species agreements” and “contracts”, or different species “asserting” things.
“The species humans” does not have the ability to practise methodological individualism. A species doesn’t have the ability to practise anything at all. Only individuals can act and thus only some human individuals can practise methodological individualism. Not all humans have this ability. Either, then, you clarify that humans don’t have rights, or that the mentally retarded and young children are not humans. Or you clarify that rights have nothing to do with species whatsoever, as it is exclusively granted by and extended to individuals, on some arbitrary grounds.
Species can’t assert rights. Species can’t make agreements between each other. Only individuals can, and no individual can legitimately enter into agreements or assert rights on behalf of his entire species. This is the lesson of Lysander Spooner.
Yes there is. Me and my friends extend the right not to be tortured for fun by us to a cow, while we extend the right not to be tortured for fun or killed by us to each other. We can then conclude that we have more rights than the cow within our own social context. The cow has the right to not be tortured by us, but not the right not to be killed by us, while we have both those rights. The only objection to this I could come up with is that rights are not social constructs, but something intrinsic in nature. And as you’ve already stated, you don’t believe in such religious ideas.
No, it is not at all equivalent to that. Not even close. In a society where cows have no legal rights, the statement could be argued to be false. But it has nothing to do with methodological individualism or the ability to establish contracts…
And in a stateless society, laws against animal cruelty does not imply forcing people to be nice to animals. Just like France banning animal torture does not restrict the ability of the Spanish to continue their bullfighting. So there is really no conflict here.
@Olinda Spider
And do you realize that this is a very arbitrary form of collectivism? You could just as well extend rights or regulations to all redhaired people, all members of a certain race or nationality, based on the capabilities or characteristics of some of the members of those groups. You might even train one superintelligent cat and grant all cats rights based on the intelligence of that particular cat. Or maybe just cats with the same fur color?
Also, it is important to stress that we are not only humans. We are also mammals. Thus, by your definition of group capabilities, it is not false to state that “mammals are capable of asserting rights and enter into contracts”, and therefore all mammals should have the same rights. Or all carbon based life forms? Cause after all, it is not false to state that “carbon based life forms are capable of solving a Rubik’s cube in less than 30 seconds”.
The lines you draw are completely arbitrary and collectivist.
Jrgen,
Ok, let me break it down then.
Smith owns a bunch of slaves. I own farm land, and you own a factory. Both of us would benefit from being able to hire these slaves, and in fact, if we didn’t consider them to be Smith’s property, we could plan to arrange their escape, while offering to hire them. Slaves most often weren’t kept under lock and key or chains, and they often even went around the town shopping for stuff for their masters. But even a lock can be opened, a chain cut and a guard bribed or killed.
Assuming we have no particular regard for Smith, if it wasn’t because the rest of society would see us as criminals if we aided the slaves escape and then hire them in our respective businesses, we would probably do it.
Actually, most people wouldn’t care since they don’t own slaves anyway and never will, but if The State says it’s a crime, then the masses follow. And they’ll even pay for the enforcement, whether they realize it or not.
But the statement that Smith would benefit from being able to hire his slaves instead of owning them as property is a pretty strong statement, and whether it is true or not of course depends on both Smith’s preferences and other factors. It is not a statement that is always true. It may be true and it may not be true.
I don’t doubt what you say is true. Just out of interest, was it really the case that it was generally illegal to free your own slaves? And if it would be beneficial to do so, wouldn’t it also be beneficial, for the same reason, to raise the wages of the slaves. Cause even if you don’t give your slaves money, you still have to pay them for their work somehow. By supplying food, housing, etc. There is definitely room for improvements there, as incentives, even if you are not allowed to free your slaves.
This is a very interesting topic, but our discussion right now has drifted pretty far from the topic of animal rights. 
I claim it is not arbitrary, and I stated a specific criteria that makes it not arbitrary.
By your argument, if I say that I support gay marriage because we should be able to marry anyone of our species, that that is an abitrary group. It is not, I have a specific criteria that is not arbitrarly chosen.
If there is one cat that is in fact so intelligent that it expresses to me the rights it desires, then I will consider extending those expressed rights to all cats.
But this particular discussion is about species, is it not? Or are you making those claims and want to discuss the merits of them?
I agree.
But why? Why would you extend it to all other cats, and not just to that particular cat? It is this line drawing based on species which I consider to be arbitrary.
No, it is not a discussions about species. It is a discussion about animal rights. And you made the argument that every individual’s rights should be determined by that individual’s group membership. And the only group that is relevant (out of the many different groups we are members of) is species, for some reason. My rights are determined by my being a human, while my cat’s rights are determined by its being a cat. There is no reason whatsoever that this may be so. It is a completely arbitrary decision. It could just as well be based on its genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom or domain. Both me and my cat are members of the kingdom animalia. And it is a true statement, using your language, that “the kingdom animalia is able to articulate and argue in favor if its rights”. Why should our rights then depend on species membership. Why not on (biological) kingdom?
(Thanks for the correct code for quoting other users, btw!)
Perhaps the wordiness of my post has confused the message.
Replace “human species” with “an individual of the human species” and “non-human species” with “an individual of a non-human species”. No intention to insert collectivism.
I strongly disagree that rights are only granted by other individuals. While other individuals may have free will to violate your rights, the source of these rights do not come from them.
Also this constant appeal to emotion such as the use of animals, mentally retarded and children is worn pretty thin and leads to nowhere in a hurry where conversation is concerned. The mentally retarded and children are human. They are individuals. But do they have the capacity to reason? Do they have the capacity for methodological individualism? If they do, then they may assert some degree of rights. If they do not, then they are helpless. Helplessness is not the basis of rights.
Then I have no objections to these parts of your post. You apply the same standard to every being regardless of species, without listing exceptions for either human or animal. If you have “the capacity for methodological individualism”, then you have some rights, period. I do not understand why you chose that particular criterion, but I agree that you apply it consistently. The use of mentally retarded and children in my argumentation is not an appeal to emotion, I do not use examples with these groups to make people admit that “weaker groups should have rights”. I only do it because there is a tendency among people to argue against animal rights but at the same time inconsistently argue for the rights of certain groups of humans which do not pass the criteria for rights which they use to exclude non-humans. And then subsequently they defend this position by referring to “group membership”. This is not the argument you make, so there is no reason to bring the mentally retarded or children into the picture when discussing with you.
Where do they come from then? What is the source of rights according to you? It is not the formulation of such rights of the object of an action (the one the rights are supposed to protect). If that were the case, slaves could very well have rights, such as the right not to be owned by someone else. But what rights are they really, if only the one being aggressed against acknowledges his right not to be aggressed against? If we are the only two people on an island, and every day I punch you in the face. Could you really argue that you have the right not to be punched in the face? Where did this right come from? And is there a limit to what rights an individual can claim?
The actions of an aggressor do not invalidate the rights of individuals.
Okay, but what is the origin of those rights?
Jrgen,
I mention sapience because that is where I draw my line for rights extensions. Any beings we encounter that are sapient I would extend equal rights to. I understand somewhere along the continium of sentience into sapience there would be a gray blurred area, but I don’t believe there are any other speices that even come close at the moment.
Chris_Bacon
Why are you so hung up on sentience?
Okay, but what is the origin of those rights?
Origin of rights: the individual
Rights originate in the individual through reason. They exist at that point. They are applied through action. This falls under the process of methodological individualism.
A man in isolation may not require the need for rights, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
The isolation argument, that rights don’t exist in isolation, would also seem to violate the assertion than non-humans have rights. Does a man on an island with a dog require the use of rights?
It’s through the interaction with other people that a man’s rights become realized. Interactions with animals, plans, insects, etc. do not produce the same results. I will allow for the possibility for expections, but those must be proven.
Rights, originating from the individual, are compared with rights originating from other individuals. When these agree they become the basis for a society. In other words, the rights recognized by a society (a group of individuals) are the subset of individual rights the members agree on. A free society applies only those rights that other voluntarily agree to.
Libertarians, for the most part, have recognized the rights of property and self ownership along with the principle of nonagression. They have also determined that these rights are sufficient for human interaction. That is, there’s no need to assert the right to life as that right is already included. Now we may have disagreement in which specific rights we agree to or disputes as to what constitutes a violation and how that needs to be fixed, hence the need for laws and courts.
If you take the position that the focus of control of rights does not occur at the individual, but only through others then there are significant problems.
First, if you assume God to exist, then all rights come from God. That supports the divine rights argument and leads to tyranny. Rights cease to be a matter of reason and become a matter of faith.
If rights come from the individual, then even if God exists there is no claim to divine rights that supercedes individual rights. God stays in the realm of faith, where he/she/it belongs.
The assumption of rights coming from others, i.e. a group, is collectivist even if the individuals within that group come up with their own reasoning. This makes the source of rights the authority in power, and leads to the state or worse.
Because in getting rid of christian morality we have to look at morality from the perspective of evolution. So why do you think killing and eating a human is wrong, if not because of sentience?
That’s a non sequitur if I’ve ever seen one.
That’s a non sequitur if I’ve ever seen one.
The fact that you could even make any sense what so ever of that statement and define it is a feat of strength in itself. Though I still think it may technically be gibberish (ex: senitience/morality/evolution just don’t link and can’t even form a premise).
"We have to remember that we are aren’t the only life on earth who are currently suffering. What do we say about non-human animal rights?
Personally, I see the killing and eating of non-human animals as morally wrong, so in my ideal society they would have the same rights as humans.
What are your views though?"
I am of the opinion that there are no rights. No one has every shown me a right. No one has ever proven the existence of a right. But I am also of the opinion that I have no business forcing people to believe what I believe. I would argue that if there is anything approaching a right, it is conceptual, coming from the outside in. You can believe you have a right to live, but if, externally, everyone else does not agree and decides to kill you, believing that changes nothing. Even if you are superman and can prevent your death, this does not change that nobody respects your self-subscribed right. But this is not to say that rights are distributed by some father-hand of law and government. This is to say that individuals who believe in the right to live must logically extend this right to others for it to have any bearing. Perhaps there are three people that do not acknowledge such a right and decide to kill you. However, there is another person who agrees with you, and his moral assertion of the right to life could theoretically point his moral compass toward the idea of defending his fellow man. So, respecting his own belief in his right to live and projecting it on others, he sees three men trying to kill you and comes to your rescue. Then there’s the whole fun question of “If I have the right to live, does that mean I have the right to take a life to protect myself or others?”
I make the point that rights are a socially-grown concept. They do not necessarily exist, because if society decides Fred has no right to apples, but Fred starts shooting people who take his apples, the belief that Fred has no right to apples only goes so far as people are willing to get shot to assert their belief or disbelief in a right. In this case, in a sense, Fred has made his right by manipulating the subjective values of people who would rather let him keep the apples than die.
I view the animal rights issue in the same light. I don’t really think I have some magical entitlement to any rights, nor do I believe that the animals do. My own belief provides me with no shame for eating a chicken. But I also don’t go around pouring gasoline on chickens and setting them on fire before I cook and eat them. Does the chicken have a right to not be tortured with fire? Certainly not. But it is my own subjective value that attaches some distaste in the act of torturing my food for fun. I have empathy for the chicken. And such subjective opinions have varying levels. I understand that some chickens may be in torturous conditions before they are cleaned and killed and served to me, but I believe that my eating of the chicken outweighs my desire that this should not happen, and I am also optimistic of the number of people willing to complain about this, and that people who bring me my chicken are worried about their public appearance enough to one day find a way to perform cleaner kills. I do not think chickens need resorts before they are made into food, nor do I think they should suffer until they die. And perhaps they always will and that will never change.
It is no right that I claim to hold this opinion. I make no assertion that my opinion forms a solid ball of self-born rights inherent in my eating of animals, or their clean, or torturous, killing. Others believe animals do have rights. They act on that belief based on their own set of subjective values. They may try to impose rules on me that contradict my own view, so that even if I thought I had a right to a chicken sandwich, I would not be able to exercise it. No magic is going to descend that will solidify my right as it pertains to anything. There are only two ways in which such things can be established. An outside entity imposes one unbreakable rule, calling it perhaps a “right”, and enforces it with the threat of violence and captivity, which is the way of government, or individuals as members of society work at what they believe is best for themselves within the constraints of scarcity, and those beliefs that are most desired by society, though they may fluctuate from time to time, will have a free ground to be shared with everyone else. After all, isn’t it only because so many accept the use of force that governments exist at all?
I may sound a bit off-the-subject, but morals are relative, so it makes it a difficult question to tackle. I do not share the same morals as you, I am sure. This alone adds a thousand fold to the complication. After all, we would have to first establish what rights you believe humans should have before I can say what parts I agree animals should share. Make no mistake. I also believe you are within your right to hold your view. Let the communist, the socialist, the democrat, the republican (I know…a lot of this is getting redundant…), the libertarian, etc., believe what they like. More the better if there isn’t a government preventing our discourse on these subjects, for how else will new ideas spread? But even then, I cannot claim a right to preventing people from forming a government. It is certainly in my interest that it is so, and my personal studies demonstrate clearly to me that we could be better off, but so what? Can I prove that to people outside my own head? And how could I force people into believing, or at least going along with what I suggest without becoming that very thing I am against? No one can show me a right to jobs, as is often suggested by my enemies, but no more can I show any “right” to liberty. I can only suggest that the free man will find better ways.
That is my long-winded view on rights, be it man, chicken, or whatever the hell Nancy Pelosi is…
As the debate has progressed and the silly arguments dismissed (and reductio ad absurdem is not proper debate it is a recognised fallacy in Philosophy) we have the chance of a reasonable debate.
The idea that beings are deserving of protection because they are productive is unreasonable unless there are people here who would honestly eat mentally disabled people or the physically incapable.
It is my belief that beings need protection according to how they suffer. Oysters don’t need protection they appear to have no ability to feel distress so do what you like with them. On the other hand. Pigs,dogs,cats,whales,elephants,monkeys and other higher animals have very advanced liability to suffering and need the highest levels of protection. Between the bicuspis and the higher mammals are various levels that need protection according to that level.
Killing can be done with almost no suffering involved,indeed old animals in the wold suffer generally dreadfull deaths and it would be a kindness to shoot toothless deer if only to leave their carcasses for the scavenger animals.
There is a method of slaughtering fowl where they are suffocated in a chamber where they are fed nitrogen with no oxygen in it.They breath normally withoit problem then just fall unconscious.If the fowl are raised in free range conditions then I see no real issue. The problem is that it is more expensive than factory farming which I find to be an abomination.
I don’t object t such proactices because I find them offensive .I object because animals suffer extreme distress.In china they skinned dogs alive for their fur. I would try and kill anyone who did that without any form of regret.
In practice we should practice benevolent dictatorship over farm animals to maximise their wellbeing and minimise their suffering until vat grown meat becomes cheaper than live meat and teh live meat market collapses.
"The idea that beings are deserving of protection because they are productive is unreasonable unless there are people here who would honestly eat mentally disabled people or the physically incapable.
It is my belief that beings need protection according to how they suffer. Oysters don’t need protection they appear to have no ability to feel distress so do what you like with them."
Whether or not something is deserved cannot be proven. And that’s actually ad reductio ad absurdum, which you just discredited. Not that I have a problem with your use of it, but it directly denounces your next statement that how something suffers determines what it deserves, in your opinion. By the same ad reductio in which you arrived at people eating each other, we can call your own measuring stick unreasonable because it again indicates we can eat people, since some people have no ability to feel pain.
And again, these views all have their merit to the individuals proposing them, but there is simply no way to establish, definitively, that anything has a right or is deserving of anything. It could be said that we can only really look at what benefits us…not just in the material category, but in the mental as well. We act on our values, and perhaps it is a value that enough people will readily acknowledge, giving it some merit. Perhaps someone out there likes to hurt animals before he cooks them. Perhaps this is his personal belief. The reason I suggest that we don’t go around forcing people into acting a certain way is simple. You would torture an animal before using it for food, I assume? Great. But what if everyone else agrees that this should be done? What if they use the threat of force to make you torture your animals before serving them up to the public? You might say that’s crazy, but there are a lot of things that a lot of people think are crazy, and when the government goes around trying to mandate what should or shouldn’t be done, eventually something that you feel strongly about is oppressed as well.
I suggest that there is no way to force your will upon all of society without potentially killing the chance of other good ideas to come about. I’d rather a world full of statists than one in which those same people are forced to preach freedom. And that, too, is just my own world view.
I understand that’s not what you meant…or at least I hope not. But for the sake of debate let’s acknowledge it and suggest that your belief simply has a hole that we should assume as the stipulation “as long as it isn’t a person”.