Rights are principles (axiomatic). They are intellectually apprehended. The apprehension is key. A dog can’t intellectually apprehend a right, but humans potentially can (are capable of). You like animals, want to save them, ok, fine, but don’t mix up natural rights of human nature with animal rights. That would be a categorical error like calling a snake a mammal. Come up with animal rights that don’t violate natural rights of human nature. I have yet to see this happen.
By the way, when you state “interests” that is indefinite as a qualifier, not definite
I doubt we’re even using the same word. You seem to be meaning “excusing”, whereas I am referring to proving that slavery is morally justified - and it doesn’t follow from the fact that a justification for rights is forthcoming that one for slavery is automatically available, no.
The sophists lead this charge in ancient times and became known as the skeptics who embraced this statement without the “maybe”. It’s completely on the other side of the spectrum of (neo-)Aristotelian logic and science. The Jains in India took this idea to the extreme curious enough sweeping bugs out of the way as they walked, ok fine and dandy. Eventually they didn’t merely talk and think about this illusion but lived it, embraced it - taking to heart that all is an illusion way past the beginning pacifists stage towards sitting doing nothing, only eating what would come their way (eventually rejecting this), and slowly dying as they completely rejected this world in total and let themselves simply die.
I doubt children at the age of 2 are able to apprehend the right not to be spanked. Does this mean spanking children is ok?
I have already denied that rights are natural. You seem to beiieve it’s your right to treat animals as you see fit just because you’re more rational than they are, but the animals’ suffering doesn’t depend on their intelligence. Just like a rape victim doesn’t suffer because she apprehends that her rights are being violated, but rather because of fear and pain.
i must doubt that jains beleive the world ‘illusory’, if they did, they would have no grounds to be non violent (i.e. to avoid hurting beings t**hat dont exist)
Before even getting into “denying” it would be helpful for you to understand the concepts you use. It’s not that natural rights theory happened over night. This is a centuries long tradition with finer and grander debates within it’s own science.
Natural in natural rights theory (NR) means a number of things depending on it’s usage, but this does nothing to the integrity of it’s definition. Some of it’s defining points for instance are:
1 - nature means what is. The nature of a rock is it is hard. In this sense nature is a quality of what is (specifically or universally, but these are details that necessitate further understanding that isn’t within the scope of this post so I digress). The effort of science is to discover what is of various substances in the universe (the nature of a rock (geology), the nature of oceans (oceanography), etc…)
2 - nature also means intellect (reason, rational, practical reason).
This is a skimming of what is available in the literature from over the centuries. Generally there is no quibbling about these terms in NR. So when you say you reject “natural” in NR it sounds very odd to me for what you have said is you reject not only the intellect but you reject that rocks, oceans, planets, etc… are knowable. But you did mention a probability that all is an illusion which would definitely fit your assertion if of course that’s what you meant unless you didn’t understand this term which is quite possible.
As to the animal. I said this has nothing to do with “protecting rationality” thus some kind of brute dominance of human beings upon the world. It’s the need to intellectually apprehend what natural rights are. I can explain them philosophically and encounter greater depths of understanding, but natural rights are not complicated concepts. They are knowable by each person, and discovered in the very acts people naturally do - same as the free market. Each person naturally will defend themselves which is a reaction based on protecting their natural rights. A pacifist restrains their own effort to defend themselves, but this doesn’t mean a pacifist can’t know what is property, life, and liberty. It actually shows they do - for they intentionally restrain themselves from protecting property, life, and liberty. They know what they are not defending. A criminal even knows what property, liberty, and life is as they target these in their actions. A child is human and can potentially realize these rights. An animal doesn’t and can’t realize these rights. It’s not in their nature to do so. It’s not that animals can’t be protected, but if you are going to arbitrarily define legalities on how animals are going to be treated (even without the consent of the animals themselves), then you will find it difficult to sustain liberty.
It all comes down to do you want to coerce or act non-aggressively? It’s your call.
keep in mind they believe in a very complex system that involves karma. so to harm anything here in this illusion disrupts their detachment process. it’s about not clinging to the world cause it is an illusion and to harm something in this world is to create a violent turbulence in their karma that they will have to let go of. Violence, anger, sadness, etc… these sufferings are what they find to be more essential to letting go of. They see the world not only as physical but deeply emotional and it’s these emotional clingings that can be the more difficult to let go of. And their whole purpose is to “let go” - detach from the world including detaching from these violent emotions. So to add onto what they want to detach from, especially these more difficult detachments of a violent making, counters their whole effort. As they die they have long given up on love, peace, etc… too. They are being peaceful by doing nothing, but in their own mind-set this too must be detached from. They embrace nothingness in the “extreme”. For them to hold onto even love would be better than hate, for the latter is a more difficult trial to detach from, but to hold onto anything is to hold onto what they would deem still an illusion even if that is love in this world.
Now that’s Jainism, but other ways in India that adhere to other forms of illusion performed their understandings in other ways. For instance the famous encounter of Alexander the Great with Indian gurus that had themselves burned in front of him. Or the story of Arjuna in which he questions if we are all brothers and sisters then how can he battle and kill the enemy in war, but “the gods” discussed with him how killing with honor in battle is merely his role and duty in life and since its an illusion in this world anyways then dying in battle as a warrior is adhering to this way. For they aren’t “truly” being killed because what is “truly” real for them is not this world. So some kings and warriors in India would follow this message. India is full of numerous ways, for instance, Buddhism was a kind of rejection of this “extreme” illusionary perception. Buddha had gone along with the Jains during his time but pointed the focus back into this life to be participated with and lived though it still adhered to different slant on letting go of this world. Then the caste system placed the gods participating in this life and was on the other extreme end of objectifying what is behind the mask called this world. These were the Brahmins, similar to the pharoahs of Egypt and having genetic and more similar culture roots with the Greeks according to current understandings that trace this ancestral separation of the Brahmins and Greeks in the Ural Mountain region, in which they believe(d) in making “heaven” a reality to be lived on this earth.
No. It means you don’t apprehend them - but actually you do even in the simplest sense so it’s unavoidable. I measure this due to your rational capability to type on a computer, write out sentences, etc… That takes a rational skill. You have property (you are property in NR), you have liberty (free-will), and you are alive (life). To deny these you have to use these NR to deny these - so it’s axiomatic.
I don’t know if you’re thinking this through. Does a deer obey/recognize your property (of course if a fence is up probably which adheres to the topic)? Will a bear reason with you as you talk about how you are simply trying to fish in this spot and do not wish to harm the bear. They don’t understand. Again this is a category error on your part. It isn’t rational to cross pollinate, so to speak, the understandings that come with natural rights. NR in a particular realistic way is in accord with the Linnaeus system.
Okay, so what’s your point exactly? You asked if Islamic economics is compatible with Austrian economics; it’s not. Clearly you have your own agenda; you don’t believe in natural rights, what now?