Animals vs babies

[vive_la_insurrection]

damn, when I clicked on this link I was hoping for a banned really grotesque youtube video.

[magnetic]

I think you are using bad semantics. People don’t have rights not to be aggressed against because they can explain themselves in court, they have these rights because of the non-aggression principle.

By court I do not mean U.S. Federal Court or anything like that. Whatever the form of society is, to the extent that there is a free market in police, courts and so on there will be settlement of disputes according to the preferences of the consumers. And when disputes arise, whatever system of justice there is may be resorted to, or individuals may settle their dispute outside of court. The party who is claiming a right has to show that their property was violated.

Even if a person can’t explain his position to a lawyer it doesn’t invalidate his rights as individual. On what basis does the arbitrator decide who is guilty and who is not if not on the basis of NAP? NAP is a construct which is not related to the capability to present oneself in court. This is a universal construct.

All a person needs to do is participate in the process. Animals and babies can’t participate, except as passive observers or evidence.

[Eugene]

Okay I think we touched several issues here.

1.Do children have rights? My conclusion for now is that this is not an important issue. Naturally small children are never parts of any dispute, its their guardian and other individuals that have the dispute. But what is the dispute about? It is about whether the interaction with the child was justified or not. A set of valid and invalid interactions have to be written somewhere. Such set of interactions can be called a set of childrens rights, and it can be called by using another definition. So this is all semantics, and it doesn’t really matter.

2. Do infants and some animals have equal rights? My current conclusion is that they do. I think it is speciesist to think otherwise since the emotional and intellectual complexity of infants and some animals is quite similar.

3. Can animals have guardians? Currently I believe they cannot since if it is permissible to eat animals or use them for scientific experiments, then how can someone claim to be guardian and eat the animal while beings its guardian? However the exception to this would be a conditional transfer of ownership rights which would include guardianship duties for the animal.

Now one of my conclusion from all of this is that a mother can give birth to a baby and then kill it after a month or two, as long as she does not do it publically in order not to cause excessive emotional distress.

[magnetic]

Okay so let’s assume Bob killed a child, and a random block Jones sues Bob for that. The arbitrator listens to the dispute between Jones and Bob. Jones claims that Bob killed a child and it was not his right to do so. The arbitrator asks Jones why was Bob wrong in killing the child. Jones answers: “Bob was wrong in killing the child because it caused me an emotional distress.” But then the arbitrator asks, “what property was harmed?” What will Jones answer?

Sounds like Jones doesn’t have a case. But most people here are horrified by parents killing their children (not in self-defense), so it would be relatively easy to prevent as well as punish child-killers through market mechanisms, such as ones I suggested above. If creatures unable to engage in rational discourse, to act and plan for themselves are granted rights, we must ask who has granted those rights, and by what process?

[magnetic]

I don’t think the sale constitutes a sale of the child but, rather, a sale of guardianship rights over the child. The parent who sells a child they have given birth to is essentially discharging any duties to care for the child as well as transferring the right to guardianship (excluding unwanted care of the child from others). There was a big thread on this subject some time back, I’ll try to search it up.

But that is precisely my point, that no individual has a duty to another, unless a real (physical, verbal) contract exists. A mother owes her child nothing, at least she cannot be forced to serve it without violation of the NAP.

[ClaytonB]

If creatures unable to engage in rational discourse, to act and plan for themselves are granted rights, we must ask who has granted those rights, and by what process?

The real issue is that granting phantom rights to non-persons is a thinly veiled cover for expanding one’s own rights. “Your poor, oppressed car has a right to be liberated by me!” is hardly a persuasive case for granting human rights to cars.

Clayton -

[Eugene]

^

Well it doesn’t matter how you call it, but obviously no one will find me guilty if I stop a parent from maiming his child, regardless of whether the child has other potential guardians.

[RothbardsDisciple]

@Strawberry Cupcakes

Life should have rights.

Then by definition plants should have rights! Like Autolykos, I am an “unabashed speciesist.” In fact, I have revealed the logical inconsistency of vegan (and “animal rights”) morality on another board with this hypothetical construct, which isn’t unrealistic as humans do have natural predators:

I am going to dive straight into a hypothetical scenario, in an endeavour to explain why I do not view Vegetarians as morally superior to Carnivores or Omnivores.

The Scenario
Two races of intelligent Alien Vampyres emerge upon planet earth. How this occurs is up to your imagination. But these Vampyres have distinctly different attributes: the first race, Vampyre I, is blue skinned; the second race, Vampyre II, has a skin of fluorescent green. Vampyre I is capable of consuming either the humans or animals of earth; by contrast, Vampyre II has historically preyed upon Vampyre I. It is incapable, however, of digesting most animals; yet for some unknown reason, Vampyre II is also capable of preying upon the newly discovered humans. So here, in a simple chart, is how I organize the eating requirements of the rational races of life:

• Humans~ Can consume plants and animals, and often their byproducts.
• Vampyre I~ Can consume human and animal blood.
• Vampyre II~ Can consume the blood of Vampyre I (its historical prey), as well as that of humans.

A Few Other Facts/Restrictions
Neither Vampyre can communicate with each other, or the animals (including humans) of earth. Each Vampyre, however, is extraordinarily intelligent. In fact, Vampyre II is the most intelligent life yet known, with Vampyre I in second place. Both races are notably more intelligent than humans.

Intellectual Hierarchy:
^Vampyre II
^Vampyre I
^Humans
^Animals (arguably)
^Plants (arguably)

Both Vampyres also cannot live on cold blood; that is to say, the Vampyres must consume their blood within five minutes of their prey’s death. Thus, humans, vampyres, and animals cannot come to a peaceful agreement to simply transfer blood without death.

Considering Vampyre Morality
Vampyres have been feeding off humanity for several years now; indeed, the human population is gradually declining. I, however, have been lucky, and nothing unfortunate has befallen me. I begin to wonder: are the Vampyres simply pure evil? But I develop several plausible theories before discarding any.

The Arguments
1- The Morality of Eating is Based upon Intelligence.

Where we can, we should eat the least intelligent form of life possible. Humans should eat plants; Vampyre I should eat animals; and Vampyre II should eat humans! As humans are far from the intelligence of Vampyre I, Vampyre II should indeed solely eat humans. It would be wrong and immoral, based upon the factor of intelligence, to do otherwise.

2- The Morality of Eating is Based Upon Having a Brain

It is wrong to eat any creature in possession of a brain. Vampyres I and II have what is known as a “super-brain”. The knowledge which they, the deep explorers of time and space, can comprehend is far beyond the understanding of humans. Using this argument, plants and herbivores are the most moral life-forms alive! By contrast, in merely existing, carnivores and omnivores are immoral. Well, we can extend one exception: humans. For humans can choose whether to consume animals with a brain. They can choose to dine on other Life, namely plants, with of course supplementary nutrient to boot. Now, if we accept this theory, that eating animals with a brain is intrinsically immoral, then that means Vampyre I and II are immoral in their very nature! Morally, Vampyres I and II are obliged to starve, just like carnivores and omnivores (that consume brainy animals).

3- The Morality of Eating any Life Must be Based Solely on the NAP (Applicable to All Life-Forms)

According to this theory, it is morally wrong to Aggress upon any Form of Life. Plants, detritivores (who consume only dead things), scavengers, and others which eat no Living Organisms, are, of course, the most moral creatures! A human, indeed, can choose only to eat non-living byproducts of his fellow animals/plants (perhaps milk, cheese, etc.), or the dead corpses of his fellow animals (i.e., scavenging). Of course, this diet is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to sustain under these conditions. Vampyres, however, do not even have a chance. Morally, they must consume nothing: for they can eat nothing that is non-Living, since the blood cannot be allowed to cool for any more than five minutes. Practically, they must kill for their meals; waiting for humans to die is essentially impossible.

4- The Morality of Eating is Based Purely upon Necessity
This theory posits that, as these creatures, both humans and Vampyres, are essentially required to kill and eat Living Organisms, they must! Humans, under this theory, can eat both animals or plants without any loss of morality. Vampyre I can equally prey upon humans as animals, with no loss of morality. And Vampyre II, of course, can either choose to dine on its historic prey, Vampyre I, or its new prey, the humans. Necessity due to the nature of Vampyres and humans determines that eating life, regardless of form or species, is necessary for the continuation of existence. And of course, in the natural world, the predator/prey relationship consists of animals hunting plants, animals hunting animals. The prey may try to run or fight, defending itself from being devoured, but prey has no right morally against being eaten.

This is to say nothing of the inter-race relationships of the Intelligent Races (humans, Vampyre I, and Vampyre II). That is an entirely different matter, as the non-aggression principle must be adhered to with members of the same species, if higher intelligence is truly possessed.

If we apply argument 1, that of intellectual hierarchy, then that conflicts with the very nature and interests of man, seeing that he shall be eaten as the sole food source of Vampyre II; moreover, sticking strictly to this argument has the side effect of prejudice against lower intelligence [i.e., It is slightly more morally acceptable for Vampyre II to eat a comatose retard, but not for him to eat the next Einstein; and that humans, being inferior to Vampyre I, are ok for Vampyre II to eat, but not Vampyre I]. If we apply argument 2, Vampyres I and II shall simply starve; both morally and practically, this option does not make any sense, unless Vampyres I and II are a moral evil in themselves, which I cannot accept. Simply, it is not very natural. However, if we apply the NAP to all Life (argument 3), then it conflicts with the very nature of both Man and of Vampyre: neither can feasibly survive. Thus, Argument 4 is the only acceptable, consistent stance, as far as I know.

[MaikU]

@Eugene

^

Well it doesn’t matter how you call it, but obviously no one will find me guilty if I stop a parent from maiming his child, regardless of whether the child has other potential guardians.

wouldn’t be so certain. If you stop him with disproportional violence (force) then you are commiting a crime.

[Eugene]

So in your view child abuse is legal and doesn’t warrant punishment?

[MaikU]

no need to strawman my post and appeal to emotion (oh child abuse, how bad, as if we all weren’t abused in the slightest in our childhood, right?).

[Strawberry_Cupcakes]

Then by definition plants should have rights! Like Autolykos, I am an “unabashed speciesist.” In fact, I have revealed the logical inconsistency of vegan (and “animal rights”) morality on another board with this hypothetical construct, which isn’t unrealistic as humans do have natural predators:

If the means of survival for any species came at the eating and death of another species, it is sad, but not immoral. In this case, it is up to the individual species that must consume another individual of a

different species to survive. If they chose to act in an aggressive and violent self-defense of their own existence by eating another species, I do not believe they are going against the NAP. They have no choice given the circumstance, and are allowed to fight for their own existence. Hopefully, one day the

situation could change, but until then, they have every right to do what it take to survive.

[Strawberry_Cupcakes]

Also, sorry for the way the text is coming out. I am still having trouble figuring out how to use this reply program. It is also hard for me to edit or catch errors with this system.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If parents do not own children, who does? The answer cannot be that the children have self-ownership, because the child cannot engage in rational, deliberative discourse. The child cannot assert its rights, any more than the animal.

I recoginzie rights as things that are unalienable not asserted. Self ownership is unalienable. Claims are asserted.

A child owns itself. A dog owns itself. Any living thing that can think owns itself. If it can think at any capacity you can’t take that away only impair the ability. So far humans can successfully train babies, dogs, dolphins, and apes to do tricks. Is it ability to learn, ability to teach, or a combination of both?

Again since the unalienable right of self ownership can never be taken away, only impaired, the answer can only be children have self ownership.

This is why babies and dogs don’t have rights. Making a claim “on behalf of” implies that the claimant is acting in the same way that the baby or dog would act. But it is not only impossible to know, it is nonsensical to speak of the rational actions of creatures not capable of acting rationally. If my hammer is misused and I sue the person I lent it to, am I making a claim “on behalf of” the hammer? Surely, the hammer would not have wanted to be abused in such a way. The only difference is that the hammer is a non-thinking lump as compared to the pre-rational baby and non-rational though thinking dog. None of the three have the capacity to make a claim.

Babies and dogs do have the unalienable right of self ownership. Perhaps you could cite an example of taking self ownership away from a baby or dog. You can cage the body, kill the body, perform surgery to impair the brain, but you can not take self ownership away. It is unalienable. Because self ownership is unalienable it is a right.

You are conflating the concepts of rights, self defense, claims, and actions. The right of self ownership is different than the right of self defense. Unalienable rights such as self ownership or self defense are different than claims which are asserted via action. While all of this talk about rights is semantics based on people defining rights as things which are unalienable versus asserted it doesn’t matter. The concepts I am conveying are intellectually consistent and absolute.

However, before any dispute can be resolved there must be an agreement of terms or concepts. Presently in order for a claim to have standing and be valid the claimant must be claiming on behalf of themself, something that has been entrusted to them, or something they own. If claiming on behalf of something entrusted or owned the thing entrusted or owned must be incompetent or unable to make claims on its own behalf.

instead of unalienable, I could also consistently define a right as something that can never be in dispute. Self ownership can never be in dispute. Actions are what cause disputes.

As I reflect on this post I think defining a right as something that can never be in dispute is probably a better definition than unalienable. Unalienable is not an everyday word and the right to own oneself which can “never be in dispute” is something that is easily understood by many people.

[Eugene]

Regarding animal rights:

We assign rights to animals in order to avoid conflicts with other people, and conflict avoidance is what property rights are all about. So if for example 10 people and 1 dog are stuck on an island, these 10 people will assign the dog with the right not to be killed or tortured by the people on the island. So in this sense the dog has rights even though it is unaware of them. The rights are not for the dog, they are for the people who might have conflict over the dog.

[ClaytonB]

A child owns itself. A dog owns itself.

It does not make sense to speak of either babies or dogs owning anything because ownership pertains to correct assignment of property rights, a point which neither a baby nor a dog can argue. Babies and dogs have self-possession by virtue of the fact that their central nervous system is naturally controlled only by their own will. However, this should not be confused with ownership. I think this is where both Rothbard’s and Hoppe’s derivation of natural rights goes awry. Self-possession is a brute fact of nature. Self-ownership is derived from verbal argument regarding the correct assignment of property rights.

Clayton -

[magnetic]

I recoginzie rights as things that are unalienable not asserted.

…

Again since the unalienable right of self ownership can never be taken away, only impaired, the answer can only be children have self ownership.

These are bald assertions or opinions.

Babies and dogs do have the unalienable right of self ownership. Perhaps you could cite an example of taking self ownership away from a baby or dog. You can cage the body, kill the body, perform surgery to impair the brain, but you can not take self ownership away. It is unalienable. Because self ownership is unalienable it is a right.

It can’t be taken away because it doesn’t exist to be taken away. You can’t take away that which does not exist in physical reality, you cannot create a condition where the self-ownership no longer is a condition of the living being because it never existed to begin with (for animals and some humans).

You are conflating the concepts of rights, self defense, claims, and actions. The right of self ownership is different than the right of self defense. Unalienable rights such as self ownership or self defense are different than claims which are asserted via action. While all of this talk about rights is semantics based on people defining rights as things which are unalienable versus asserted it doesn’t matter. The concepts I am conveying are intellectually consistent and absolute.

No, I am saying that rights without claims (real human action) is senseless. You are implying that rights are handed down by some divine authority or exist in the ether.

As I reflect on this post I think defining a right as something that can never be in dispute is probably a better definition than unalienable. Unalienable is not an everyday word and the right to own oneself which can “never be in dispute” is something that is easily understood by many people.

This is better, I agree. I cannot dispute that I own myself, because to deny that I own myself would be contradictory. I would be arguing that I am not the owner or bearer of the argument I am making.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

These are bald assertions or opinions.

The rebutal or reubutting evidence is lacking boldness.

It can’t be taken away because it doesn’t exist to be taken away. You can’t take away that which does not exist in physical reality, you cannot create a condition where the self-ownership no longer is a condition of the living being because it never existed to begin with (for animals and some humans).

It can’t be taken away because it can’t be measured (yet, which may or may not ever happen). It is obviously something in physical reality, unless of course human beings aren’t real or all aspects of humanity are not real, or the universe is not exclusively comprised of the things physics asserts such as time, distance, mass, light, etc…

No, I am saying that rights without claims (real human action) is senseless. You are implying that rights are handed down by some divine authority or exist in the ether.

I don’t think it matters whether the right of self ownership comes from divine authority, mere existence, or aliens. I am not comprehending what you are conveying in the first sentance, perhaps you could rephrase or elaborate to help offset my lack of comprehension.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

It does not make sense to speak of either babies or dogs owning anything because ownership pertains to correct assignment of property rights, a point which neither a baby nor a dog can argue

If babies do not own themselves, and as I agreed with you earlier, parents do not own babies… who owns babies?

I don’t subscribe to property rights. I previously stated I only subscribe to rights that are unalienable or unable to be disputed. What are property rights? Property rights correctly labeled are property privileges…

And not only is property privileges a correct intellectual label, it is a correct free market label because the privilege of enjoying property absent threat is dependent upon non aggressive interaction with society.

[RothbardsDisciple]

@Strawberry Cupcakes

If the means of survival for any species came at the eating and death of another species, it is sad, but not immoral.

Yes, but as I pointed out in argument #3 of my hypothetical construct, humans indeed have to eat other species, whether plants or animals. That is, unless you claim to live solely on byproducts and dead carcuses. Our situation, without doubt, is essentially the same as the two races of Vampyres.

So my argument is not misinterpreted as heartless: I am personally opposed to excessive, unnecessary violence against both animals and plants. (For instance, a man killing a kitten for no reason whatever, or a Vampyre killing a human without putting him to use). But, of course, I am not opposed to good uses for which mankind can put plants and animals.

To summarize my argument:

• Relationships with animals/plants are not determined by intellectual disparities (i.e., it is no more wrong to eat a gorilla than a squirrel).
• Relationships with animals/plants are not determined by “having a brain,” as I have heard some vegans claim.
• Relationships with other Life are not determined by the non-aggression principle, or we could essentially not survive. (Of course, relationships inside a rational species are determined by the NAP).
• Relationships between different species are determined solely by need.