Animal Rights

Economics Political Theory
181

Juan summarized it very well.

“Well, either human rights are above imaginary ‘animal rights’ or not.”

So, a possitive right to abuse other for your own benefit is a ‘right’, the best and most powerfull one, a ‘natural one’, while the right to not being enslaved, tortured and murdered is ‘an imaginary right’.

You are a socialist, you just use animals instead of citizens, you defend ‘possitive rights’ for 'the well being of x.. in this case ‘humanity’, for the ‘general interest’, because ‘they do not have innate rights, only the ones we give them’. You are a tyrant, you just don’t attack those in your same group, you go after the weaker ones.

So, its bad to tax citizens and kidnapd them for military servitude because that would be an initiation of force, and would stop them for pursuing their own goals, but you can use force to kidnap an ape and experiment against it constantly using force and stoping his own life and his ability to pursue his goals.

182

Look, I asked you a simple question, which you’ve yet to answer. Until such an answer is given, I am not entertaining any further debate. It would be a waste of my time. That you cannot tell a “joke” from a veiled reductio ad absurdum would indicate that much.

-Jon

183

What I am trying to find out is whether you believe that, in order to protect ‘animal’ rights, human rights can be violated. Do you believe that ?

Well, what is more important ? To protect the ‘rights’ of monkeys ? Or the rights of man ?

184

You don’t get it.

You do not have a ‘right’ to harm apes. Because they are not your property, and never will.

You have no right whatsoever to start the use of force against an ape. If you do, you are not exercising a right, but attacking one.

What you are calling is a possitive right, and yes, this rights can and should be violated by the negative ones.

185

That’s just an unfounded assertion of yours.

Let’s say I want to ‘kidnap’ a monkey. Do you think you are entitled to use violence to stop me ?

186

Yes. Of course.

187

Well, then, your appeal to libertarianism is wholly ridiculous (not to mention hypocritical ?) Maybe you don’t ‘get it’ but libertarianism is a political philosophy created by men and meant to be applied to men, not to monkeys. From the point of view of libertarianism, and common sense as well, if you attack people who don’t treat animals the way you dictate, you are a criminal.

188

Maybe it’s you who misunderstood libetarianism.

Maybe it’s you the one who should recheck your way of thinking, maybe libertarianism truly does imply not starting the use of force and you are the ones breaking the rules and abusing of weaker ones who can not defend themselves.

Why am I the criminal? I never start nor justify starting force. It’s you that justify starting it, I only come in self defense, which libertarianism allows.

189

Why are they not my property? Can an ape defend its rights in a court of law? Can it even understand rights?

I would really like to see you answer the question, if animals have a right to life (and no, humans are not animals), then what is supposed to happen to carnivores when they kill another animal?

190

Oh well. I suppose “The Law” was written by a monkey.

Are you that confused ? If I attack you, then you can use force in self-defense. However, if you try to stop me from harming an animal, then you are attacking me and I can use force against you.

By the way, do you have any proof that birds and cows have appointed you as their legal representative ?

191

I don’t get it. If you want to grant dogs rights, why don’t you grant clams rights? Why not bacteria? Shouldn’t eating anything at all be immoral if killing animals is immoral.

BTW, the more I’ve learned about Kant, the more I find myself agreeing with him. I’m mentioning him, because in his “kingdom of ends” you essentially have to be capable of moral deliberation to have the right to be treated as an ends, not a means. Non-human organisms (and a few humans) are not and will not be capable of moral deliberation, hence I find any need to give them any rights puzzling.

192

Player, it may help to actually read something on the issue, from Mr. Libertarian himself.

193

“Why are they not my property? Can an ape defend its rights in a court of law? Can it even understand rights?”

Well, because your property doesn’t run away from you and attack you when you try to ‘use’ it.

They do understand their right to life, and defend it, who are you to stomp on them?

“if animals have a right to life (and no, humans are not animals), then what is supposed to happen to carnivores when they kill another animal?”

I explained before, you can go to africa and ‘adopt’ a gazzelle and protect it if you wish. Is anyone reading here or just asking the typical ‘clever’ evasive quesitons?

Oh well. I suppose “The Law” was written by a monkey

So? It wasn’t written by me, doesn’t it apply to me? or to the inuits living in the artic? I don’t understand your point.. if women never got rights and were still ‘property’ of their fathers or husbands when they were traded, they would have never learned to read or write, so law wouldn’t affect them?

I’m saying, the way you treat animals is wrong and it’s not justified, your ‘theory’ or ‘owning’ animals is flawed, you are breaking your own theory.

You just have to accept that it never follows you can own an ape. You should left them alone and only use force to defend yourself not start to to go hunting or to torture them for pleasure.

And yes, I read rothbard ethics loong ago, and still, his own logic analysis is flawed in his chapter of animals, I guess, maybe out of respect that he never gave the shubject much thoght or maybe he just was to influenced by the traditions to challenge the viewpoint or he never had some critics in this subject.

I’m only trying to make better his work while pointing out flaws.

194

Any valid ethical system places reasoning at its center, not just Kant’s.

-Jon

195

So, as I said, libertarianism is a human creation meant to be applied to humans, not to cows. You’re trying to redefine/hijack libertarianism, like the socialists redefined liberalism.

And of course, you didn’t address this :

196

That is the point that cuts through this whole animal rights are equal to human rights argument. Humans do not even grant the full panopoly of rights to other humans who are incapable of exercising them such as the mentally deficent and children.

Mentally capable humans may disagree with rights but they are at least capable of understanding and comprehending the system of rights. An ape or any other animal cannot understand that. Yes they may defend their right to life but that does not mean they understand the abstract notion of the “Right to life” it merely means they are acting instinctually to protect their genes.

And Player if you respond to this post please read my earlier post about the inherent differences between human reasoning and animal reasoning that goes to our very biology. I do understand that humans are a type of animal but that means nothing. Does the nature of of a wolf mean that it is similar to a bear? No. They have inherent differences. Their only similarity are that they are live and are predators. One is a pack animal to it’s genes and one is not.

Animal rights?
197

Of course.

198

Also this whole comparison of our lack of recognition of human rights to animals is the same as outdated views of sexism and racism is flawed.

We have overwhelming empirical proof that trumps the arguments that women and other ethnicities are incapable of cognition. You cannot take an animal and teach it through it’s own level of communication the abstract notions of Kant or physics or theology. They lack the cortex system we have. This is a scientific fact.

199

^ Exactly. It baffles me how anyone can think that an organism lacking the ability of moral deliberation deserves any rights. Should we imprison carnivorous animals because they kill other animals for food?

200

Indeed I have to say that animals have no rights whatsoever. Rights are property rights and they are set to protect the rightful owner against aggression from other human beings. Unless you make animals responsible for their actions, in some tribes there is a court that sentences a lion to death after he attacked one of the members, animals do not have rights.

What rights would you give animals? On what basis? self-ownership? Well, every living being owns itself because it is the only entity that can decide how to act, it does not matter if that decision is made by what we call instinct or rational behavior - which seem to me to be a special human capability.

Rights do not cross the border between species at all. There is no justice applicable to animals as much as there is no justice applicable to a river that floods your basement. Both can do harm for sure, but you have no way to prevent that harm by stating a right of yours to not be aggressed by a tiger or a river or an earthquake or whatever. Such rights can only be applied between men.

Another question is whether you have an ethical standpoint that tells yo to act against animals in a specific way. The jewish laws (which are religious laws and therefor an ethical view) for example forbid to slaughter an animal in any other way than by cutting its throat with a quick cut from one arterie to the other. And this has to be done by a specialist, with a knife that does not have the slightes carve. We know now, that cutting the cervical arteries will lead to an imediate collaps of the brain and to the fastest dead we know about, much faster than shooting a bull in the head for example.

So, if you have compassion for something living you are free to act alike, because that is freedom. Yet, there is no way to define animal rights using the libertarian approach.