I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

[wilderness]

@AJ

I’d like to see Rothbard’s full context on that one. I haven’t read his conception of ethics yet (getting around to it), but that quote in your sig did surprise me.

I really don’t know why you would be surprised, but you said you were. Good and bad are hugely explanatory that anybody from a scientist to a child can understand and use them and convey great meaning. Here’s a larger quote from that article of Rothbards:

"The concept of “good” (and therefore of “bad”) is only relevant to living entities. Since stones or molecules have no goals or purposes, any idea of what might be “good” for a molecule or stone would properly be considered bizarre. But what might be “good” for an elm tree or a dog makes a great deal of sense: specifically, “the good” is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The “bad” is whatever injures such an entity’s life or prosperity. Thus, it is possible to develop an “elm tree ethics” by discovering the best conditions: soil, sunshine, climate, etc., for the growth and sustenance of elm trees; and by trying to avoid conditions deemed “bad” for elm trees: elm blight, excessive drought, etc. A similar set of ethical properties can be worked out for various breeds of animals.

Thus, natural law sees ethics as living-entity- (or species-) relative. What is good for cabbages will differ from what is good for rabbits, which in turn will differ from what is good or bad for man. The ethic for each species will differ according to their respective natures.

Man is the only species which can — and indeed must — carve out an ethic for himself. Plants lack consciousness, and therefore cannot choose or act."

@wilderness

Morals is a principle of good or bad. What that even might mean for any particular instance varies but since morality is abstracted about any particular instance is why it is an intellectual principle aka a universal principle. Not that anybody might want to talk in terms of good or bad, but there is a judgment that happens in each person’s actions from what kind of statement a person wants to make with their clothes, to what kind of healthy lifestyle they desire to experience, and/or if they want to not give a person a chance to pursue their happiness or not. Since what is moral is personal, unless we are talking about natural rights, then a near infinite number of moral wiggle room is available.

@AJ

Yeah, I think we’re agreeing here.

As for natural rights, they seem most clearly to me to be that very limited set of rights that most(?) people can agree must be defended in order to satisfy some fairly universal moral sense in our psyches, as well as to ensure a peaceful and wealthy society, and a few other time-tested reasons. They are so self-evident that they are called “natural” (even though some people remain blinded to them).

They are self-evident and natural, meaning, they are “of” a person, not prescribed for them, but “of” each individual naturally. If there is any prescribing it is simply justice providing equality for each person to pursue their just end.

@AJ

I take no exception to the notions of right to life, liberty, and property, but think each person would do well to make the intended benefits of enforcing these rights clear, or else no one can argue as to whether that particular conception of rights is the best for achieving those particular benefits. Since someone else may look to rights to provide a different set of benefits that aligns more closely with what they think will maximize their happiness.

Yes various benefits, near infinite, are potential when each person is given the potential to actualize without injust interference.

[chrisgeorge]

@banned

Utilitarian calculus applies only to percievable consequences. Obviously the guy didn’t percieve he was going to get caught, else he wouldn’t have done it

the ex post not nullify the ex ante.

@banned

@Chris George

No it isn’t. utilitarian evaluation is a psychic process. It’s based on conjecture, not evaluation. Evaluation determines whether the conjecture was correct.

Well, a process is a series of actions.

By evaluation, I am not referring to evaluating the action based on it’s consequences. I am referring to evaluating the action within utilitarian calculus.

thought is not action. thought stimulates action

@banned

Actually, action is determined by marginal utility, which is not conventionally synonymous with “maximum pleasure”.

this is a semantic argument. you know what i mean. and actually, maximizing marginal utility is maximizing pleasure

@banned

@Chris George

you’re neglecting psychic utility. these people may not feel physical pain, but they do feel psychic pain. And their loved ones surely have psychic value from their well being.

Perhaps. But not necessarily. Some people cannot experience depressive emotions, and some people are hermits.

in that case the loss of utility of the loved ones who hear of their demise would need to be considered.

There are three considerations in utilitarian evaluation: the physical pain and pleasure of the participants (dog and guy), the psychic pain and pleasure of the participants (dog and guy), the psychic pain and pleasure of the bystanders. the action that results in the attainment of the largest gain in net pleasure is the most moral one.

[chrisgeorge]

@wilderness

"The concept of “good” (and therefore of “bad”) is only relevant to living entities. Since stones or molecules have no goals or purposes, any idea of what might be “good” for a molecule or stone would properly be considered bizarre. But what might be “good” for an elm tree or a dog makes a great deal of sense: specifically, “the good” is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The “bad” is whatever injures such an entity’s life or prosperity. Thus, it is possible to develop an “elm tree ethics” by discovering the best conditions: soil, sunshine, climate, etc., for the growth and sustenance of elm trees; and by trying to avoid conditions deemed “bad” for elm trees: elm blight, excessive drought, etc. A similar set of ethical properties can be worked out for various breeds of animals.

if this is the case, then rothbard was an amoralist (at least from a social perspective). It is impossible to derive an ought from this definition. He can only say that it is rational to accept these rules. But he cannot say that it is ethical or moral to adopt these rules because he would then be saying that one ought to accept these rules. rationality applies to real things. morality is a metaphysical concept.

[wilderness]

@Chris George

Its outcome (utilitarianism)? Ends/results are the only way of figuring out right and wrong (that is if there is such a thing as right and wrong).

Utilitarianism isn’t the only sect of philosophy that uses teleology. Utilitarianism is only a 19th century development and teleology was used by various philosophers back to Aristotle and potentially even before him.

[wilderness]

@Chris George

if this is the case, then rothbard was an amoralist (at least from a social perspective). It is impossible to derive an ought from this definition.

I suggest reading either Aristotle’s Ethics, Aquinas’ “On Human Nature”, and Rothbards “Ethics of Liberty”.

@Chris George

He can only say that it is rational to accept these rules.

Why wouldn’t it be rational? Also, it’s not only “it is rational”, it is also that they are rationalized/intellectualized.

@Chris George

But he cannot say that it is ethical or moral to adopt these rules because he would then be saying that one ought to accept these rules.

What rules?

@Chris George

rationality applies to real things. morality is a metaphysical concept.

A) People can rationalize that fairies exist. To use this specific definition from my computers dictionary:

rationalize |ˈra sh ənlˌīz; ˈra sh nəˌlīz|verb [ trans. ]1 attempt to explain or justify (one’s own or another’s behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate : she couldn’t rationalize her urge to return to the cottage. See note at lie.

B) And morality is an ethical concept. I’m not sure how morality would be conceptualized metaphysically. And metaphysics is about “real things”, but I admit I have more to learn in the metaphysics department, so to speak, before I can go into any details, yet I believe I can generalize upon this.

[Amanojack]

@Chris George

Although, you appear to be stating an amoralist perspective. There is of course a possibility of some action being inherently wrong by decree of God or whatever.

Sure, that’s why I wouldn’t exactly say it’s amoralist, but that people tend to define morals in not-so-useful ways.

@Chris George

The question is "is there really inherently wrong actions/thoughts?

Right/wrong for what purpose? If by “inherently” you mean without any purpose at all (whether physical, emotional, psychic, religious, or metaphysical), then we are confronted with the question, “What is right and wrong?” If there are no purposes, “right” and “wrong” are simply arbitrary words, no different than if I walked up to you and said, “Hey, stop being flumple!” and then tried to convince everyone that we shouldn’t allow people to do certain actions because they are “flumple.” I know what I’m saying may seem pretty dramatic, but I am seriously claiming that most conceptions of “ethics”/“morals”/“natural rights”/“natural law” are based on, as far as I can tell, failure to see the how tricky words are.

Words are the world’s biggest tricksters. They play centuries-long practical jokes.

Anyway, every action we perform and even every single thought we think has some kind of a purpose that we perceive, so we can hardly go far with any kind of moral concept that ignores purposes. It seems clear enough from this vantage point in this thread that a purpose-free moral conception leads to a dead-end.

Without purpose, right and wrong can mean nothing. So right and wrong can only be useful words if they have some (any!) purpose attached. The purpose could even be, “Because having arbitrary notions of right and wrong makes people conform better!” With clearly stated purposes, right and wrong become potentially useful as

1. Legal concepts referring to whether an action is to be restricted or not
2. Personal and interpersonal concepts for determining the most beneficial way to conduct oneself and treat other people (incl. parenting, etc.)

@Chris George

and if so what determines the wrongness of an action?

From above,

1. Legal right and wrong would be determined in AnCap by whatever people were willing to pay for, which we theorize would turn out to be whatever laws perform the functions that people find most beneficial
2. In personal interactions, right and wrong would be whatever each individual deems beneficial/detrimental to him or herself in such interactions.

@Chris George

Its outcome (utilitarianism)?

Legally, if people care more about outcomes, enforcement will be based more on outcomes. Interpersonally, the same; except “enforcement” will be through social, rather than coercive, means (same below).

@Chris George

Its intent (Deontology)?

If people care more about intent, enforcement will be based more on intent.

@Chris George

Or the content of the character of the actor (Virtue ethics)?

If people care more about content of character of the actor, enforcement will be based more on content of character of the actor.

@Chris George

I content that if the “means” were the determinate feature of morality, then we would never be able to figure out what was moral and it would be impossible to be moral and therefore it can’t be moral.

Surely that may be true.

@Chris George

Ends/results are the only way of figuring out right and wrong (that is if there is such a thing as right and wrong).

Certainly seems practical, but then again it’s not just you paying for the law. Not trying to be snide, just trying to point out that our current view of the law is terribly distorted by this monopoly-of-force situation we are in. Now we are getting the laws that special interests pay for, but in AnCap we will hopefully get the laws that we pay for, i.e., consumer preferences will be better reflected.

[Amanojack]

Thanks for the full quote.

@wilderness

Man is the only species which can — and indeed must — carve out an ethic for himself.

Yes, a set of guidelines for what is beneficial and detrimental for his own self, at least.

@wilderness

They are self-evident and natural, meaning, they are “of” a person, not prescribed for them, but “of” each individual naturally.

I see that as a good way of phrasing to convince people, but not the clearest conception for theoretical purposes. I think it clearer for our purposes to leave it at the fact they are self-evident, since the concept of rights has no usefulness outside the context of whether they should be defended or not, and defense of rights under the law necessarily entails prescribing (assigning) them to the people under adjudication.

[mbarnett]

Sorry, dude, but while that is sick and disgusting to me, the idea that it should be a crime is absurd.

[wilderness]

@AJ

@wilderness

They are self-evident and natural, meaning, they are “of” a person, not prescribed for them, but “of” each individual naturally.

I see that as a good way of phrasing to convince people, but not the clearest conception for theoretical purposes. I think it clearer for our purposes to leave it at the fact they are self-evident, since the concept of rights has no usefulness outside the context of whether they should be defended or not, and defense of rights under the law necessarily entails prescribing (assigning) them to the people under adjudication.

That’s why the rest of what I wrote stated: “If there is any prescribing it is simply justice providing equality for each person to pursue their just end.”

But I don’t know if self-defense can be exactly defined as prescribing, thus why I said it in this way, “If there is…”.

[Spideynw]

The only purpose of animal cruelty laws is behavior control. There is no wronged party. In essence, it becomes a victimless crime. Being that it is a victimless crime, it becomes next to impossible to prove and the effectiveness of the law becomes questionable. In other words, given that the stated purpose of animal cruelty laws is to reduce certain behavior, it is impossible to know if the laws are “working”. Not only that, but to catch law breakers, you have to have undercover agents go in and get people to cause the crime in the first place. Take the example provided in this thread. How is anyone going to prove who actually was “cruel” to this puppy without going undercover and convincing the owner to do it to another puppy? In other words, to punish the crime, the state has to get someone to do the crime!

Anyone who is for animal cruelty laws does not understand that the only way the law can be just is if the law is only used to resolve disputes between rational creatures.

[Harry_Felker]

@Spideynw

In other words, to punish the crime, the state has to get someone to do the crime!

THANK YOU!!!

@Spideynw

Anyone who is for animal cruelty laws does not understand that the only way the law can be just is if the law is only used to resolve disputes between sentient creatures.

AND AGAIN!!!

[Torsten]

@mbarnett

Sorry, dude, but while that is sick and disgusting to me, the idea that it should be a crime is absurd.

Why? “Animals have Rights!” Why should the idea of “animal rights” be more absurd then the idea of “Human rights” (or natural rights then)?

[mbarnett]

I’m looking for where I wrote anything about “rights”, whatever those are, and I can’t find it. Oh, wait, were trying to pigeonhole me into an argument I didn’t make so that you could play debate games? Sorry, I was on the wrestling team not the debate team in high school 20+ years ago.

[Spideynw]

@Torsten

@mbarnett

Sorry, dude, but while that is sick and disgusting to me, the idea that it should be a crime is absurd.

Why? “Animals have Rights!” Why should the idea of “animal rights” be more absurd then the idea of “Human rights” (or natural rights then)?

Did the animal or the animal’s owner have a dispute? If not, then no rights were violated.

[Amanojack]

@wilderness

But I don’t know if self-defense can be exactly defined as prescribing, thus why I said it in this way, “If there is…”.

But aren’t these rights to be enforced under the law, by PDAs and such, as well as allowing for self-defense?

[Amanojack]

@Spideynw

@Torsten

“Animals have Rights!” Why should the idea of “animal rights” be more absurd then the idea of “Human rights” (or natural rights then)?

Did the animal or the animal’s owner have a dispute? If not, then no rights were violated.

I don’t understand this argument. Seems that if the animal didn’t want to be harmed, it would have a dispute with anyone trying to harm it. So how are you defining “dispute”? And for what purposes do you assign humans with “rights” (or demand that they be exercised)? Do none of those purposes also apply to animals?

If, for instance, one of the reasons you would like to assign humans with “rights” (or demand that inherent rights be exercised/enforced under the law) is that society will run smoother that way, you could argue that that reason doesn’t apply to animals.

But if another reason you’d like humans to have (or exercise) rights is because it would satisfy your sense of empathy, if you feel empathy in seeing certain types of animals harmed why not assign them rights as well? If, contrarily, one’s sense of empathy is not to be regarded as a valid reason to support assignment (or exercise) of rights, then what, precisely, are the valid reasons?

[Spideynw]

@AJ

@Spideynw

@Torsten

“Animals have Rights!” Why should the idea of “animal rights” be more absurd then the idea of “Human rights” (or natural rights then)?

Did the animal or the animal’s owner have a dispute? If not, then no rights were violated.

I don’t understand this argument. Seems that if the animal didn’t want to be harmed, it would have a dispute with anyone trying to harm it. So how are you defining “dispute”?

When someone takes someone to court for harming his or her self or his or her property.

@AJ

And for what purposes do you assign humans with “rights” (or demand that they be exercised)?

Humans are sentient creatures. As such, they are able to both give consent and withhold consent. For example, a person can go against his or her instinct to not kill his or her self, and ask someone to kill his or her self. Humans can also, being that we are sentient, recognize the property rights of other sentient creatures.

@AJ

Do none of those purposes also apply to animals?

Do you know of any animal that can ask another creature to kill it? Do you know of any animal that can ask to be tortured? Do you think animals can recognize property rights? Do you think animals can own property?

@AJ

But if another reason you’d like humans to have (or exercise) rights is because it would satisfy your sense of empathy, if you feel empathy in seeing certain types of animals harmed why not assign them rights as well?

It has nothing to do with empathy. It has to do with the fact that animals cannot bring a dispute to court because they are not sentient. They do not recognize rights, and do not even understand them (not that it seems that most humans understand negative rights either), and they cannot even attempt to communicate what they do or do not consent to (they can only follow their instincts, they cannot go against their instincts).

And again, making laws against animal cruelty are subjective. To be consistent, one would have to argue that it should be illegal for animals to be killed, at all. One would also have to argue that animals have property rights. Both positions are completely ludicrous, as such the argument for animal cruelty laws is a slippery slope.

[Juan]

@spideynw

Humans are sentient creatures. As such, they are able to both give consent and withhold consent.

I don’t think sentient is the proper word. Higher animals are probably sentient creatures too. What humans are (and animals are not) is rational moral agents.

Well at least some humans are rational…

[Amanojack]

@Spideynw

@AJ

@Spideynw

Did the animal or the animal’s owner have a dispute? If not, then no rights were violated.

I don’t understand this argument. Seems that if the animal didn’t want to be harmed, it would have a dispute with anyone trying to harm it. So how are you defining “dispute”?

When someone takes someone to court for harming his or her self or his or her property.

Under what definition of “property” can animals be property? And then, why doesn’t that definition apply to humans?

If it’s Locke’s “mixing one’s labor with a resource,” how are animals a resource and humans not? Or if they are both defined as resources, then why does mixing one’s labor with a dog (i.e., training, feeding and sheltering the dog) make it one’s property, while the same does not apply to (captive) humans? [Note: I’m not claiming that humans are property, but I am asking for consistent definitions.]

@Spideynw

@AJ

And for what purposes do you assign humans with “rights” (or demand that they be exercised)?

Humans are sentient creatures. As such, they are able to both give consent and withhold consent. For example, a person can go against his or her instinct to not kill his or her self, and ask someone to kill his or her self. Humans can also, being that we are sentient, recognize the property rights of other sentient creatures.

These are justifications for rights. I’m looking for specifically what you yourself hope to accomplish by adopting (and having others adopt) your system of rights. What benefits will that bring you? - in the very broadest sense of the word “benefits,” whether physical, indirect, psychic, religious, or whatever (not in the limited pragmatic or utilitarian/consequentialist sense). Because that’s all that matters. All we do is to gain benefit and avoid detriment in that very broad sense.

And then, how would those benefits not accrue to you if animals had rights? Now I think you’ve answered that question to a degree, but it’s more a rhetorical question to every reader, because every reader will have different reasons why certain rights appeal to him or her, and that’s the point I hope to drive home.

In particular, an animal rights activist may agree with the concept of natural rights, and may wish to extend it to animals because that would satisfy his or her sense of empathy. For that person, empathy has everything to do with it, and if enough people feel that way and are willing to pay for it, animals will gain some de facto rights in AnCap (or even mini-archy). It may not be practical to enforce such rights in all cases, of course (or even, as you cogently argue, in any cases), but that is at least separate from the “natural rights” philosophical point of contention originally raised.

[Spideynw]

@AJ

These are justifications for rights. I’m looking for specifically what you yourself hope to accomplish by adopting (and having others adopt) your system of rights. What benefits will that bring you?

I am just saying that animals are unable to dispute anything, as such they do not have any rights. Or do you think there is some way to prove that the puppy in this thread did not want to be tortured so as to satisfy its master?

Humans need courts to resolve disputes. Animals never have any disputes, as far as we know.