I think the point is that the actor has to be able to understand the concept of rights. Animals—even the most intelligent of them—aren’t quite at this stage yet, from what we know. In the desert island example, the man is still quite capable of understanding what rights are, even if he’s never needed to apply that understanding. And yes, the conclusion to be drawn from that is that babies and the handicapped and Obama are not granted full rights, although many argue that babies have at least some rights because they will eventually grow up and thus be capable of understanding them.
I’ve come to believe there can be no justification for why humans have rights and no other entity does. It must be taken as an a priori assumption. Utilitarian efforts typically disregard handicapped humans who will never gain an understanding of rights.
Here is my question to you: What are the purposes of rights?
Don’t forget countless reparations we would have to pay to all trillions and zillions of insects, birds, mamals, reptiles, single cell organisms and electrons we have interfered with.
[;)]
I am waiting for someone to justify animal rights by using argumentation ethics & parrots as a proof.
Ok… GO!
[:D]
Haha that was very witty yet thought provoking. Can a parrot engage in argumentation ethics? And dolphins and primates can communicate through sign language, is sign language apart of argumentation ethics? Perhaps you have just unknowingly discovered an argument for animals rights through argumentation ethics. DA DA DAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Can parrots argue?
Unfortunately not, but if they could - that would be cool. Alas, they can only mimic. But this clearly brings up the issue of intellectual property.
This bird is being exploited, he has the profound talent of being able to beat box and yet he is a slave to his owners desire. He is locked in a cage and told to ‘lay down a phat beat’ at the drop of a hat. Its terrible, he should have a record deal already. Or appear on American Idol. But how does he sign contracts? That’s a good point. I believe he could use his beak? Or urinate on the dotted line? Maybe a woodpecker could produce a pencil and charge him two worms for the transaction.
Alternatively! Squirrels can water ski…
Love & repetition. Repetition. Repetition. They are trained in patterns, that’s all they learn. They cannot develop their own. Personally, I think the squirrel violated the non aggression axiom at the end of the video there. Unless the human consented to being groped. But certainly if the squirrel is held against its will, it is justified in using self defense. Another thought, did the Squirrel homestead that waterboat? Is the human a tyrannical oppressor?
To be frank, I think it’s a question worth asking. Consider exhibit A: this cat has clearly been imprisoned.
In our ideal situation (no monopoliies), it doesn’t matter what we think. It matters how many people want to support animal rights and how many resources they are willing to devote to the cause.
“It matters how many people want to support animal rights and how many resources they are willing to devote to the cause.”
Couldn’t we say the same thing about human rights? How much we are willing to spend on private security etc etc… I agree with this interpretation, though it conflicts with the libertarian tradition.
Yes, I would say the same about human rights. Rights enforcement is a service. On the free market it makes no difference what services should be provided or what the prices should be; we will simply get the services that there is demand for, at prices that reflect that demand.
The problem I think you’re noticing is that libertarianism was until recently mainly a monopoly Statist (minarchist) position. In a Statist context - even a minimal one - these concepts (rights, property, natural law, ABCT, etc.) take on a completely different meaning and/or import, as compared with a non-Statist, non-monopoly context. It’s not surprising that many people are having trouble adjusting all the old libertarian concepts to the paradigm shift from monopoly to non-monopoly.
I suggest looking at the State (monopoly on force) as a disease condition, and at most libertarian theories and observations as diagnoses of the disease, its symptoms, and its mechanisms of harm, its mechanisms of fooling immune cells not to fight it, and likely paths to a cure. For a less controversial example, the ABCT has no import outside a monopoly (diseased) context; it’s just a diagnosis of symptoms (of monopoly control over a particular aspect of power: money creation) and mechanisms of harm. The only role it would have in a non-monopoly context would be as a warning about some of the hazards of allowing a monopoly to form.
When I think of the term “purpose”, it implies for me some sort of future end which is subjectively preferred to the status quo. Thus, I think the purposes of rights are dependent on the values of the individual demanding them. In my case, I think the primary purpose of rights is to increase cooperation and decrease aggression in social interactions by defining specific, justified claims on person and property.
Personally, I believe rights come from the ability to be rational. No animal has full rationality, thus they do not have full rights. However, I would argue that they have partial rights, like the right to not be tortured. But that’s me…
This thread is making me hungry. I’m going home to eat some chicken and salad.
So very young children and/or mentally disabled people have no rights?
See, that’s where I’m iffy. Obviously, they have rights, but then where do rights come from?
Arbitrarily from being human. Or perhaps non-arbitrarily if theistic propositions are considered.
LOL. Great example of how amoralists confuse libertarianism with might-makes-right and mob rule.
And that’s an ‘ideal’ situation!!..I wouldn’t like to imagine what the non-ideal situations would look like…
I don’t think he’s doing that Juan. I believe he is only admitting the reality of the situation.
That is, if just assume libertarian natural law theorists are correct in their philosophizing, that doesn’t necessarily result in humanity following said reasoning, and therefore in order that people support and respect animal rights, not only must they do so in their “hearts & minds” but there must also be people willing to pay for said enforcement rules, and/or a majority of insurance companies, PDA’s, enforce said rights.
Don’t forget the king of beers
How do I rotate the pics?
Have enough of that beer, mate, and you’ll be horizontal, and the pic will look vertical.