how am i driving?
And here goes your bloomer once again. You could use the subjectivity of ‘threat’ to justify a totalitarian state.
True. I don’t mean to sound arrogant because I know the people here are good folks and well meaning. I just like arguing my position.
I think most of you, if you saw a guy with a hacksaw in the street cutting a dogs tail off, would at least do something, even if its just calling the police.
only if you are a moron. libertarianism is not for morons for this reason. i daresay no political or moral ideology is suitable for morons.
as Walter Block would say, “Do you know the difference between a bathroom and a living room? No? Well, then don’t come to my house.”
No i’m not venting. My argument has been made.
Animals and humans evolved in the same manner, hence you cannot assume differences. You must assume similarities and prove the differences.
sigh Can you not see your contradiction here ?
You are proclaiming common practical sense as your support while rejecting it elswhere.
Please try and see this.
I do this. you dont.
now lets be honest, for i will abandon this discussion with you if it is you venting, wheras i will engage if it is to be a rational argument.
are moral facts possible? is it possible I and you might come to agree on them?
is logical deduction over such facts possible?
finally and to start our rational argument on moralities contents and dictates…
acknowledging you may have a vast array of unsorted and uncategorized and unsystematized moral beliefs, are there any root ones, from which the vast hordes of others are derived, or do you not distinguish between your smorgasbord of moral beliefs on these ground? (or any grounds?)
A person without any logic could do such an action.
I’d ask him what he is doing. If he says sawing my dogs tail off then I would say ‘Can I buy that dog from you?’
you are failing to distinguish between pure and applied.
an engineer uses idealized rigourous standards of systemic understanding to design his bridge. to conceive it, in its glorious bridgitude.
and when he is out in the real world making decisions he must rely on common sense, (i.e. if only to tell apart his labourers from passers-by.)
Facts are possible. Morality derives from facts only.
On facts? Sure, why not.
Yes. It is fact that the healthy adult human individual is a distict biological unit. Such a fact forms part of the support for the market economy.
It’s not random at all. I look at reality. From reality I get to liberty. I also get to what you might call for simplicity ‘animal welfare’.
It’s 11:50pm here in Melbourne folks. So we’ll have to continue this tommorow.
Nice chatting with everybody.
Now you are saying you have a systemic approach?
I’ll just answer this before i go off.
When an engineer designs a bridge he takes the realities of gravity, forces, material strength into account. He doesn’t design it in abstraction.
great, NAP believers so too rely on reality. that there really is such a thing as aggression, that there really is such a thing as private property, that there really is such a thing. as moral agency.
Um, I am sorry, do you have some sort of issue with reason? Should we shed all clothing move about on all fours sniffing each other’s asses?
How so, I understand and appreciate the abstract world of “words and definitions”?
Where am I doing this?
Never said he is better than me, He just has done things I have not…
By the way, self ownership is older than Murray…
I am sorry but if you do not understand that Man stands alone in nature as the one that is capable of reasoning and transforming his environment, you are nothing more than a moral relativist…
Because Libertarians are looking to take personal preferences and make a public policy out of them (what statists do)…
It is proper for them to do, they are arguing the nature of their shackles, you are arguing for shackles in the house of the unshackled…
This also does not take away that you seem to think if others do it, we should too
Banishment works quite well, especiallly combined with notifying other private police agencies.
Non sequitur. It’s quite clear that there are differences. Look at cats vs dogs. Dogs have owners; cats have staff.
To the original poster,
Nothing personal, but you’re invoking emotivism in an argument in which emotions couldn’t apply. In terms of what happened to the puppy does piss me off as a person, but if we’re considering the nature of law among humans, then it must deal only with what humans do to other humans (and not to other species, unless they are the rightful property of another human).
To expand legal and ethical obligations to non-humans, in which no one can validate as being rational (which means they can take on rights and the responsibilities that come from rights), then one is daring to deconstruct the entire basis of civil society. If you think what happened to that puppy is bad, often certain breeds of dogs have their ears and tails clipped all the time and no one bothers the breeders that do this as it’s considered perfectly normal for such breeds (and thus perfectly legal due to the errors of legal positivism, imho…).So, sauce for the goose and all that it entails.
In my personal opinion, if this crap became fashionable, I would probably make it my best effort to recruit individuals to ostracize anyone who bought, sold, or provided services for such individuals that like to see animals with hacked off bits, but that’s just me.
Oh really? How have you derived your moral code from facts of nature?
I think one can, but that it cannot be said that they will be universal for cases within same or similar agents. A classic example would be the lifeboat situation. No one operates in everyday life as if it were a lifeboat, but that doesn’t negate the nature of it. It simply means what happened (or will happen) on the lifeboat stays there (to steal a phrase from the Vegas vacation adverts). Similarly, whatever happens in terms of humans stays with humans, unless someone from another planet comes to visit Earth and happens to understand the same ethical dilemmas as we do. Any other assertions of transspecies ethics would be pure speculation at best (and pure sophistry at worse).
I do disagree with your statement, because natural rights cannot be a subjective preference. They are attributed to something inherent in man, stemming from his creation/existence.
My point is, utilitarianism is just another value preference. Some people want more cake, some people want more pie. Some people derive utility from torturing dogs, some people derive utility from caring for dogs, and some people derive utility from foregoing interaction with dogs at all. It is completely subjective and shouldn’t be confused with objectivity.
I’m not interested in a natural rights/utilitarianism debate. I want to tease Curlz about how he wants to elevate some animals and not others to the same level as man, and how he sees man on animal crime as being worthy of restitution, but would have to admit that animals themselves are incapable of devising restitution for animal on animal crime, and thus it is difficult to assign them rights that they do not acknowledge within their own species.