I am biased like every other human being. I have empathy and I have beliefs. I’ll act according to those.
And you can say that justice is unbiased, that is until you factor in who is doing the justice.
Not when you commit coercion upon another due to animal rights, that is not law, unless, as I asked you previously, you can suggest a law of animal rights that is unbiased.
Somebody “doing” natural rights is unbiased.
Maybe it’s important to understand the emotional impact and how people think and react in general. In order to win the battle of ideas you need to understand the “enemy”, so to speak. If you don’t want the statists to win, then explain how animal cruelty could and would still be punished in a free society, instead of trying to defend the position that the monkey had no rights. Taking the latter course will not win you any friends nor will it influence people, other than to repel them from libertarianism and anarchism in general. The view that animals have rights or no rights is subjective and fuzzy, anyways, and therefore there should be room for both viewpoints in the free market of ideas.
There is room for both viewpoints, that’s not the point. Rights are synonymous with law in light of a liberty oriented person. Natural rights of human nature are not viewpoints in this context.
(1) So to declare an “animal law” without stating what that animal law is, is deceptive or irrational in the first place. This animal law would need to be judged unbiasedly as such is the virtue of justice. So what is this animal law that is unbiased?
(2) Thus to conflate the meaning of natural rights of human nature (human law) with a law of animal nature is to judge poorly on what rights mean in the first place in light of - natural rights of human nature.
It’s an emotional confusion by animal lovers to get so hung up on a dog meanwhile Rome is burning and in the meantime no animal law has even been suggested as we try to put out this fire.
My challenge: declare an animal law, meaning, it is to be unbiased and the integrity of justice for humans as well as the animals are to be kept intact.
I’ve never met a libertarian who is for animal cruelty. That being said, what do you propose we do to someone who is harming an animal while continuing to respect their property?
The alternatives to violence are many.
Off the top of my head. a) Offer to purchase the abused dog. b) Boycott the abusees c) Include an animal abuse stipulation into developers contracts d) Public humiliation
Take your pick. What I will not stand for is the cop out answer- e) make it a law/throw them in jail.
This is a fallacy that most people commit. It is just like saying without religion, people will go and commit crimes. If you go and take away this dog from the owner, then the owner might come and destroy something on your property as payback. Which is why people would seek a neutral court to decide on the dispute, instead of taking things into their own hands, to avoid continued retaliation.
A right to health care is moral?
The OP might not want to see what they do to puppies in China.
Or you could just ostracize him.
If it was up to me, I’d propose that there shouldn’t be animal cruelty in general. But that’s only my opinion; it’s not based on a universal truth and I wouldn’t seek to impose it on the whole world. In a world that respects property rights in general, A, B, C, and D are already acceptable alternatives to violence. I believe that E is also acceptable if tied with C. This might not be the Libertarian answer, but it’s my answer.
How would you create an “unbiased” animal law? The mere act of creating a law that sets limits on what one can or can’t do with animals is biased, , the bias depending on your subjective value judgements. Either you value performing experiments on monkeys as to be higher value than protecting their freedom and liberty, or you don’t. Maybe you value it in certain conditions, such as research for an important cancer cure. It’s not absolute, is it? Therefore it cannot be unbiased, either.
That’s why I say it’s subjective. I believe if you submit it to the free market of ideas and let free competition reign amongst the ideas, you will see there’s room for differing viewpoints, and in general, most communities would likely frown upon certain types of animal abuse and could make it a contractual clause that to live here or do business with us, you shouldn’t commit these certain abuses against animals. I think this is where a market of laws would be an improvement upon today’s policy of one law for the land.
Yeah, the big concept here is that, by definition, words like “rights” imply a purpose. The trick is that the implied purpose is usually unstated, often because the speaker expects others to agree on it. On this forum, there is much disagreement about what the implied purposes are, yet the purposes are still unstated, hence the frequent misunderstandings.
I also make no claims that a “right” is a useful concept. It may have been at one time, but now it seems more confusing that illuminating. If you want my suggestion, it would be to do away with all the terms that have implied purposes, so that the purpose would always have to be explicitly stated. We obviously don’t agree on the purposes, particularly if we can’t even agree that general prosperity is beneficial for society, so we’d better keep the purposes explicit, not implicit.
Really ? Well you could say that any word “implies a purpose” - so frankly I don’t see what point you are making.
Also I find your assertions about what is “good for society” to be pretty meaningless…
?
Not really sure what you are talking about …
Well, maybe it’s confusing for you. Giving your comments about things being “good for society”, I’m not surprised.
What could that mean ?
Because there is no law but the law of the gun. And if I get to the cruel, little guy first after taking the puppy and moving him safely, well that’s right enough for me.
And natural rights is as biased as any other construct for what makes “right.” I don’t know if you want to hash up this old debate about how morality works.
I’m fine with continued retaliation, though. If the guy got pissy because I stepped in while he was beating an animal like it was a rag-doll, I’d just be tickled pink about that.
Then I’d shoot him.
I guess my argument, if I were to assume rights for human beings, would be that this is not a human being, but a violent creature within a human beings’ body. Human beings possess something called empathy and compassion. This “human being” obviously does not and so has no property to respect.
It’s easiest to see with the word “should.” Sometimes we say things like, “You should have that mole looked at,” and the purpose is clear - to make sure the mole is not a skin cancer. Other times someone may say, “You shouldn’t steal,” and the purpose is not necessarily clear. Is it to avoid harming others? To avoid incurring people’s anger? To avoid trouble with the police? To stay on God’s good side? To stay on the speaker’s good side? To avoid giving others license or encouragement to do the same? To maintain order in society? The person who flatly states, “You shouldn’t steal,” with no explanation speaks as if the purpose is clear, but often it is not. My point is that “should” implies one or more unstated purposes, and “rights” - meaning something that should not be infringed - therefore imply unstated purpose(s) as well.
Yeah, I’m just saying that something being “good for society” (however the speaker defines that) is often one of the unstated purposes the speaker means to imply. What I personally think is good for society is not central to the point; I just mentioned it because I thought it would clarify my explanation. My point is only about definitions and word usage.
I think it’s clear. “You should not do X” states the fact that X is morally wrong.
Precisely.
What about people like me who enjoy the fine art of hunting? I kill animals for fun. I stalk and shoot unsuspecting animals. Sometimes the animals die quickly, and sometimes they don’t. I don’t eat the animals or anything, I kill them for no purpose other than enjoyment.
Would you shoot me as well?
Presumably no. If he doesn’t have an negative emotional reaction to hunting (which is a predominantly socially accepted practice) he won’t act on it. But if it does displease him emotionally, you’ll become his prey.
Very childish. I doubt he’d live long going around killing people that he didn’t like. But to each their own. I suppose not everyone prefers social peace.