Do any of you own a pet? How would you react if they ran away? Would you put up a fence in response?
Do you eat factory-raised meat? Does it matter to you how an animal is raised before it reaches your mouth?
Does the species of an organism determine whether they deserve sovereignty?
A dog is man’s best friend.
I don’t eat meat (vegetarian; I’d be vegan if I didn’t like cheese so much), and it’s mainly due to my problems with the meat industry (chemicals, handling of animals, etc etc) and other things, but eating meat is natural. I have no problem if someone hunts for their meat or prefers free-range cattel.
It depends, and this can vary culture to culture. One should respect all animals, but there’s a difference in shooting a deer because it was on your property one morning, and trying to get rid of pesky rats in your house.
As I understand it,Libertarian philosophy does distinguish what deserves rights, and what doesn’t, using the meter of whether of not the individual is capable of willful action. It seems to depend on personal interpretation where that defining line is placed.
Animals are property. That is my understanding. Being property, the owners may do whatever they wish with them.
If my pet ran away, putting up a fence would no longer make sense. Would I put up my fence to keep my dog from running away? Yes. Am I a tyrant for doing so? To the dog, yes. I won’t pretend to know your angle, but my assumption is that you extend many of the common views held by people visiting these forums to how they are interpreted across species. The thing is, when men are given freedom, they can improve their lot and the lot of others, far better than under the hand of tyranny. When the dog is given freedom, it eats, craps, and runs around until it gets hit by a car. This is a situation that no dog can improve for itself, nor for any other dog.
Not exactly. I believe ethics comes into play. You may own your animals, but you couldn’t mistreat them or kill them without a just cause. To do whatever you wish is a big assertion.
Well said. If animals want rights, let them take up arms and take them from us.
When people talk about “animal rights”, they mostly think of dogs, cows and other cuddly creatures with sad, big eyes. But what about ants, flies, ticks or mosquitos? Do these also have habeas corpus when they’re starting to mess with me?
Jains got it figured out.
I’m well aware this is the usual tagline - but I think the problem is that there’s an obvious difference between an animal and say, a rock.
If animals are propery, you can do what you want with them, period.
If you can’t, then they aren’t property.
Yes, there is. What’s your point?
I still think it would work itself in odd moral situations with bacteria, virus (if you consider that life), micro organisms, and plants that you will inevitably kill (trampling over grass). There seems to be an empathy with humans (in general) in relation to the way we classify things in taxonomy, and the way an animal has traditionally served us.
Ex: We tend to sympathize more with vertabraes over non vertabraes, animals over non animals, mammals over other vertebrate phyla, etc.
Of course it is all none sense and is just one way to demonstrate that morality is nothing more than a justification of ones empathy and aesthetic. The fact is we are heterotrophs, designed killaz..
Yes. Animals have absolutely no rights.
Sh!! Stop questioning things!
Nothing deserves sovereignty. We have the sovereignty that we claim.
What about that monkey that knows sign language? Gotta hook em’ up with some rights.
Hm, “rights” is a misleading word. Let us be clearer: A monkey knows sighn language. Do you kill a guy who shots the monkey? That would mean to have “rights".
Let’s say animals don’t have rights, and the animals you own are your property. Is it ethically and morally correct to harm them? Do they deserve to be harmed or mistreated?
If you know someone (a neighbor for example) who beats and starves their dog, would you allow it?
If you know people who are involved with dog fighting, what would your reaction be to this?
Libertarianism does not proscribe what is ethical, rather what could be punishable. In this case, I wouldn’t advocate punishing the neighbor, though of course I myself would not be very fond of that guy.
I’m sure there has to be a line that when crossed would drastically bring into question the animal’s welfare. I know this is an exaggerated example, but what if instead of beating his dog, he’s butchering dogs in his backyard on a weekly basis?