I readily admit that I don’t really have any idea what I’m talking about when it comes to this. Can you answer some of the questions I laid out in my previous post though? At what level of chemical complexity does a consciousness form? Why? Or is it something else?
That gets into the realm of religion (for science certianly has no answer to it). I can go into that with you if you like, but methinks this is perhaps not the best place for it.
I’ll respect the rights of humans when they respect the rights of each other as humans. Which they never do. They don’t have any concern for animals they eat or have to kill; some even kill for fun. I don’t see any problem with eating them. Though it’s bad to be cruel to them (and beyond my interest to do so), I don’t see how eating them or selling their carcass is better than that.
See how easy that works? Or how about this one, for something more reminiscent of an actual attitude those in power have held:
I’ll respect the rights of black people when they respect the rights of each other as black people. Which they never do. They don’t have any concern for animals they eat or have to kill; some even kill for fun. I don’t see any problem with eating them. Though it’s bad to be cruel to them (and beyond my interest to do so), I don’t see how eating them or selling their carcass is better than that.
Let’s expand upon it:
I’ll respect the rights of humans when they respect the rights of each other as humans. Which they never do. All through their history, they have killed great masses of each other over petty differences of opinion and territorial disputes. Their sheer malice towards one another is without precedent. They don’t have any concern for animals they eat or have to kill; some even kill for fun. That latter bit, the killing for fun, even goes for other humans. They’ve even forced people to fight each other in arenas for their amusement. They enslave each other terribly, they bomb people with the barest pretense of a reason, with a full knowledge that many non-targets will be killed, for abstract foreign policy goals. Would that they were like the bonobo, pretty much hanging out, eating plants, being fairly peaceful, screwing all day. I don’t see any problem with eating them. Though it’s bad to be cruel to them (and beyond my interest to do so), I don’t see how eating them or selling their carcass is better than that.
As they say, “If god didn’t mean for us to eat people, why’d he make us out of meat?”
I think rights are reciprocal in nature. And in order to establish any norms of conduct between two parties there must be some form of argumentation.
Now say you come into conflict with a mosquito. I lands on your arm and starts sucking your blood. Does it make sense to start arguing with the mosquito? No, you just swat it.
What if you come into conflict with a gorilla and it wants to eat you? Does it make sense to try argue with it? No, you just pull a strap and blow it away.
Because animals are not capable of argumentation, they are not capable of possessing rights. For a creature to possess rights is must have a rational capacity.
I’m not following you or seeing how you’ve refuted what I’ve said.
Also note, that I would eat a bonobo if I thought it’d taste good and it was reasonably priced.
First off, gorillas are strict herbivores. It seems snarky to bring this up, but unless you at least know something about animals and how they interact with humans and with each other, you will come in ill-equipped to this discussion.
Secondly, both mosquito and gorilla are agressing against you. You would have a right to defend yourself, even if they were human.
Finally, Hellen Keller was not capable of argumentation before someone put in immense efforts to make her capable of communication. Her writings, however, wound up being quite impressive. Toddlers aren’t capable of argumentation, either. Do you suggest we eat them? How about the mentally retarded? How about just really stupid people?
I haven’t. I’ve just pointed out that all of your arguments can be applied as well to humans as they can to animals. If this is indeed your attitude, you are no libertarian but a Hobbesian anarchist, perhaps even a sociopath.
Okilidokily…
Toddlers are a special case. They are capable of developing rationality, so the same rights apply to them. I think retarded people fall into the same category. Even really stupid people have capabilities that the smartest animals don’t. Simple things like the ability to criticize one’s behaviour and establish norms. They can consider whether or not it was a good idea to sleep the day away, or get up and work. Animals don’t have that. And having no ethical norms they have no rights.
I think a good source for this kind of discussion is Hoppe’s “The Nature of Man and the Human Condition” lecture (http://media.mises.org/mp3/hoppe/1.mp3). And also his “Law and Economics” lecture (http://mises.org/mp3/MU2003/MU03-Hoppe-3.mp3).
Really, so a snot-licking near-jawless person with about a mostly fluid-filled skull, no eyes and perfect pitch is more capable of reason than a chimpanzee, eh? Also, some animals have abilities some really stupid people don’t. Again, you’re making distinctions of degree, not category. In a less cosmopolitan world, one could come across an African native that spoke in clicks and hoots and, assuming no ability for argumentation, go ahead and start a barbecue. After all, the sounds they make have no real resemblance to human speech. Right?
And what do you mean by argumentation, anyway? Please define this thing that every human is capable of to a greater degree than animals.
Argumentation requires at the very least posturing and signally a willingness to establish an interpersonal norm. And yes. The snot-licking near-jawless person with about a mostly fluid-filled skull, no eyes and perfect pitch is more capable of reason than a chimpanzee.
JC, I’m not necessarily opposed to what you are saying, but where do you draw the line? Are mice conscious? What about lizards? Roaches? Trees? Why should we assume that other species are conscious? The questions I raised earlier that you said were religious questions are extremely important, especially considering animals and plants may not be conscious.
I think animal rights will continue to be an issue as long as the knowledge of animal’s (including humans) true mental faculties & capacities, remain unknown.
The only consistient answer I can seem to across is that if there is a line, it’s a grey line that is constantly being re-drawn; one hopes not resulting in humans eventually back stepping off a cliff with a bunny laughing over them…
I think a good source for answers to these sorts of questions is Hoppe’s “The Nature of Man and the Human Condition” Lecure (http://media.mises.org/mp3/hoppe/1.mp3).
Here is another issue: animals don’t understand or respect property rights, yet are we supposed to respect theirs?
Hobbesian anarchist… sociopath?
You use a lot of convoluted and usually meaningless rhetoric (not to mention confusing analogies) that goes no where. Though some of the other people have fallen in your trap, sad to say.
Absurd. Mere bigotry. Simplistic religious faith in the categorical difference between human and animal experience. I don’t know what else to say on this. If you would hold such a position, our starting points for viewing reality are clearly too different to continue this avenue of argument.
By the way, you must be a pro-lifer, right? Since your argument for the future abilities of a toddler apply to the unborn as well.
I dunno. Humans burgle, rob, shoplift and otherwise aggress from each other all the time. Meanwhile, animals certainly have a sense of territory, and they often seem to understand very well that they are stealing, or at least that they are likely to face retaliation for their theft. Hell, the vast majority of people don’t understand property in the Austrian sense.
It seems to me that we ought do things what is right because it is right, not because we expect, necessarily, that others will act in kind. Expecting reciprocity for your respect for the property of others is a bit naive, given the influence of socialism in all nations today.