Animal Rights

Economics Political Theory
101

Again, the whole problem with this conversation is the idea that something can only have rights if it is self-aware. This would mean that retards, people in comas, and babies would not have rights.

In an anarchist society, the only ones who would have rights are those that could pay for the protection. Since neither children nor animals could possibly pay for protection of their “rights”, they would not have any. The inherent rights argument is worthless. Therefore, the self-awareness argument is as well.

And in a governed society, rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware. And I think animals should have a right to not be tortured.

102

Whence does it follow that one only has a right if they can enforce it? A right is an enforceable claim, but it does not follow that it must be enforced to be a right. Children are self-owners, but until they’re old enough to be in full possession of their rational capacity, they’re under the custody of their parents. Inherent rights arguments are perfectly appropriate.

-Jon

103

Spidey, I apreciate your political correctness, and your reference to “retards”, I can only asume you are a towering intelectual

(obviously underapreciated by your peers). But your definition of the origin of rights is quite dangerous. By your definition “rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware”. This is the very definition of a statist. All rights become subject to the interpretation of the state. I’m sure you would agree that governments (such as some in the middle east) which have laws that punish the sharing of a faith other than the muslim faith by death. Now I am not saying that any faith is the correct faith, or whether there is even a God. My point is that surely you don’t think that this law does not infringe on anyones “rights”. In the sanctity of your own home, should you not be allowed to express your point of view no matter how preposterous or offensive without facing death because the government (legislators) claim that speaking against the nation faith is breaking the law and punishable by death? The pupose of law is to provide a framework, or “rules of the game” that are consistent for everyone. I won’t comment further because most threads on this message board seem to be posted by and repled to by people who haven’t read any of the basic literature pertaining to the ideology of the host (mises.org). I don’t have any problem with people who are willing to learn, but it seems most people just want to post their opinions and not learn anything new.

104

The government determines until what age they are under the custody of their parents. The government also determines if they even are under the custody of their parents.

105

I have to assume you are being sarcastic. Instead of hiding your real meaning behind words, why not actually say what you think?

I beg to differ. From wikipedia.org

And they are. If you study the history of oil, if someone discovered oil, they had to extract it quickly, because someone else could just drill a few yards away and take it too. It was the government that determined that this was the case instead of it being that whoever discovered oil had full rights to all of the oil underground, regardless of whether or not it was under someone else’s property.

When air waves were discovered, there were all kinds of problems, since anyone could use them. It was not until the government stepped in and started leasing the rights to the airwaves that “rights” were established.

Without the government, there are no “rights” to property. It is a free for all. It is chaos.

Of course I think one should have the right to say whatever they want to say in their own home. But that is because, when it comes down to it, the moral justification for all victimless crimes is that they “ultimately make society better off”. But there is no evidence that this is ever the case. As such, there really is no moral foundation for these crimes.

106

By what right?

Your view is statist, in that you think that laws are made rather than discovered, rather than being independently justified; this is open licence for a government to exist, and the very basis many political philosophers have used to call for a State. But this requires further proof. It’s not some axiomatic revelation.

-Jon

107

In a libertarian anarchic society, custom and customary law will do so. And these are better than legislation.

108

Did you miss my arguments (maybe not in this thread but at least in another thread dealing with animal rights or children)? Children, including babies, do have rights. Retards have rights. People in comas have rights. Why? Because they have the capacity for rational thought, even if this capacity is temporarily diminished for some reason or they are temporarily unable to exercise it for some reason.

So? With regards to children, that’s what parents are for. As for retards, depends on how retarded they are but they aren’t all incapable of taking care of themselves from day to day, and again this is what parents are for. Comas? Family, friends and charities.

Oh, and to echo what Jon said, you have rights whether you can pay for protection or not, whether you can exercise them or not, whether you are exercising them or not, whether they are being violated or not.

Yeah, that’s pretty screwed up. If “rights” are determined by legislators, then they aren’t rights, they’re privileges.

Other animals don’t have the capacity for rational thought. Although if you can prove any of them do, then I’d be happy to recognize that they have rights. But just because they don’t have rights, this doesn’t mean that people don’t have an un-enforceable moral obligation not to torture them.

109

On the contrary, a person in a coma, or a retard, may have a permanently diminished capacity for rational thought. They may never develop it. Indeed, many retards won’t. So, what of them? If a retard has no more capacity than a dog to develop rational thought, do they have the same level of rights?

Given the argument above, based on what? If a retard has a permanent lack of the ability to think rationally, does he still have rights, and if so, whence derived?

110

With regard to the coma, if we know it is permanent then the person is essentially dead. If there is a reasonable chance he’ll wake up, then his rights are intact and a family member, close friend, or whoever he specifies in his will will act as his guardian or trustee, exercising his rights for him. As for the retarded person, what percentage of retarded people have such diminished capacities as to be on the level of a dog’s mental functioning? (Since dogs lack even a diminished rational capacity, not having any rational capacity at all, it is hard to make sense of this analogy.) In any case, just as with children, retarded people who are incapable of living independently (largely on their own) still have rights; it’s just that their capacity to exercise them is limited and their parents or someone else can serve as their guardian or trustee. None of this is new or all that controversial. We’ve been over it before in this forum.

It seems to me you might be conflating rational capacity with how well one exercises what capacity one has. The word ‘ability’ is ambiguous in that sense. I’m not aware of any retarded people completely and permanently lacking any rational capacity whatsoever. Mental retardation is a continuum of diminished capacity. Do any of them really lack even a diminished rational capacity? I don’t now. This is largely an empirical question. Certainly it is no strong objection to rights being based on rational capacity. Basing rights on rational capacity dates back to the beginning of classical liberalism and even to Aristotle (although he wasn’t a classical liberal or libertarian). I have seen nothing else that could serve as the basis for rights.

111

If no one protects those rights, then those rights do not exist.

112

Leading question. The assumption is that they need to have a “right” to do so.

113

Essentially, you are attributing rights to an individual based on what everybody thinks is reasonable. That does not pass the sniff test to me morally nor logically.

It sounds to me like you are offering a circular definition: A person has rights because he has the capacity for rational thought – which in turn is determined or identified by the rational thought of other people. It sort of sounds statist to me.

What if you do not know the coma is permanent? Who really knows that anyway?

What if you do not know the “person” is actually human, either?

Me neither – except for religions which say that man holds dominion over his environment.

114

Ah, but dogs do have some rational capacity. Dogs in the wild can strategize, to some degree, while hunting. Dogs can problem solve to some degree as well. These are rational behaviors. So dogs to not utterly lack rational capacity; indeed, you would need to look fairly hard among mammals to find an one that does. At least some birds and even invertebrates also have some ability to make rational choices. Give me an example of one behavior by which you would decide a creature was rational, and I will either give you an example of a non-human behavoir that does it or an example of a human incapable of it. The attempt to place some sort of line of rational versus irrational between humans and non-humans demonstrably fails.

115

They need a justification. Unless one is forthcoming, my question remains, “why?”

Why, I asked, does a right need to be enforced to exist? I still want the answer to this.

-Jon

116

The justification for government deciding at what age people become adults is simply that if the government does not do it, then no one can.

117

If you define ‘government’ broadly enough to encompass courts functioning on common law, sure.

-Jon

118

I hate to necro a thread but…

Can you or someone else explain that one to me? How is it a moral obligation that is also unenforceable? If they have no rights then how is it immoral for me to “torture” them? If the rock or something similarly not possessive of rights, indeed has no rights, surely its not immoral for me to graffiti it by scratching my name all over it or hitting it with a hammer?

[*-)]confused

119

If animal rightsists want animals to have rights, but people who dont believe in animal rights say they dont, why cant the animal rightsists just find common ground and homestead the animals, blanketing them in their own rights? It’s essentially the same thing.

120

I could be way out of line here, but it seems to me that a living being only has the rights and/or self-ownership that it is 1) capable of recognizing, 2) capable of exercising, and 3) capable of enforcing.

Considering it from that perspective, I would say that yes, animals are self-owners (to some extent) and they do have rights.

Capability of recognition, I think, goes without saying. Animals are still alive, and they do not simply sit and resign themselves to death when a predator comes. This clearly demonstrates that animals are in clear recognition at least of a right to life. (It should be noted that predators - humans included and yes, humans are predators - have a right to live, too. This means that they also have the right to hunt other species to fulfill their need for food. It’s all a part of the balance of life, but that is just my opinion.)

As for exercising their rights, animals do it every day. Whether it is by self-aware recognition or instinct is irrelevent. Animals simply do the things that they, as self-owners, need to continue living.

And as for enforcing, that again is pretty clear. They flee, they fight, they do what they perceive - intelligently or instinctively - as necessary to survival. It’s what they do. Try hunting a boar without a boar spear or a high-power rifle and you’re probably in for it. You go at a wolf or a large cat with your bare hands, and I’m laying my bets on the wolf or the cat.

I would say that animals - no differently from humans - have rights, so to speak. However, I also think our society has grossly misrepresented and misinterpreted the entire concept of rights. As I said, a being only has rights they are willing and able to enforce. The earth is a predator-prey kind of place and the only solution available to human and animal alike is to attempt not to be prey.

The concepts of legal legal and natural rights are bunk. To have legal rights, you must place your self in the hands of a predator entity (government) in the hopes that it will benevolently protect your rights. Doing so, however, negates your self-ownership and by extension actually negates all of your rights, even those the predatory entity claims to protect. To quote a friend at school…the concept of legal rights “is grade-A horse hockey.” Governments do not and cannot protect your rights. The existence of rights is a self-made decision, and that decision includes enforcing them. Nobody can do it for you. You as a human being must stand up and assert them. As for natural rights, history and nature herself both beg strongly to differ with that concept. Where is the gazelle’s right to live when the lion catches it? Or the right to liberty of the deer surrounded by a pack of wolves? Or pursuit of happiness for the millions of animals that starve to death over harsh winters? They had none to begin with except those that they were prepared to assert, even over the objections of others. God (or nature or evolution, whatever) grants us - and animals - only self-ownership…the only real right which includes our ability to decide what our personal rights are and to assert them for ourselves. Personal opinion, concepts of legal and natural rights are both inherently dangerous as they often negate assertion and enforcement by individuals or species. Without assertion and enforcement, rights don’t exist.

Does the animal have a right to live? If it is willing to assert and enforce it, yes. However, so do humans, and like it or not humans are predators. Humans require meat to survive - red meat being the richest natural source of iron, animal fat and dairy being among the best sources of EFAs, and red meat being the only natural source of vitamin B12 (all according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) - and (contrary to the beliefs pushed by animal rights activists and vegans) humans cannot survive on vegetable matter alone for prolonged periods of time. Now, unlike dedicated carnivores we are omnivorous predators, so we also do require a balance of meat and vegetable matter to survive. That, however, does not negate the inherent - and instinctive - predatory nature of humans as animals. In the predator-prey relationship that is life, humans must occasionally continue to live by violating the perceived right to live of the animal. Cold hard fact, sorry.

Perhaps, though, I am way out of line on all of that. That, though, is my current opinion on rights.

Now, taking it a step further into animal abuse:
So long as the animal recognizes you as an owner or leader - “boss” cat, alpha dog, whatever - then you, frankly, can do whatever you want to it. That’s how the pack and the pride work. “Boss” cat and alpha dog get the first pickins, and everyone else gets the scraps. If there’s a disagreement, they fight and might makes right. That’s just how it works, I see it all the time with my two cats. However, there may come a time when a dog perceives weakness or a cat decides to fight back. Again, might makes right as far as the animal is concerned.

If a person wants to abuse their animal(s), more power to them, if that’s how they get their jollies. But if they get bit, mauled, clawed, or killed by the animal they’re abusing, I’ll then assert my right to cheer the animal on. Again, life is predator-prey and if the animal decides not to be prey, well then we have a problem, don’t we? We now have a conflict of predators deciding who is prey. As far as an animal is concerned, might makes right, and the animal is going to be quite certain that he’s the right one. When a human being asserts his or her right(s) over an animal, they can do so only so long as they are prepared to reap the consequences of failure.

Again, perhaps I’m way out of line on that, but that’s just how I’m perceiving things right now.