Well, there are a number of ways in which something not inherently punishable could be punished under anarchy. The easiest way is for the guy who owns the block you live in (rent) to set up rules against what he considers excessive animal cruelty.
An other would be for those who feel like you to ostracize that neighbor, stop talking to him and the like. That is a very, very powerful tool, trust me (I’m very fond of it in my personal life[6]).
Yet another would be for an arbiter to actually hold animal cruelty to be punishable. If he can get any clients at all, than this rule will come to be used in at leas some occasions.
Is it ethically and morally correct to harm animals? Sure. Smile in the mirror some time. What are those four pointy teeth for?
The question ‘do they deserve to be harmed?’ doesn’t make sense to me. Does a field “deserve” to be plowed? Does a bird “deserve” to fly? “Deserve” doesn’t seem to have any rational application in the animal realm.
Definitely I would “allow” my neighbor to beat and starve his dog – it’s none of my business!
Dog fighting, cock fighting, horse and greyhound racing, circus animal whipping, cosmetics testing, harming or killing animals in the course of producing a motion picture, and meat production are all perfectly legitimate uses of animals. I have no more objection to dog butchery than to cattle or turkey butchery, neither morally nor even aesthetically. But then I am not a pet person. If some dog-loving anthropomorphizer does have an aesthetic problem with using dogs for meat production, he might try counter-measures such as the first two of the three solutions Merlin suggests (the third, actually punishing, would be aggression and illegitimate).
The humans themselves consider it. The other species do not consider that, nor anything else. Believe me, if some super-ape or -dolphin arose and started acting sapient, I would want to be right beside him in the trenches fighting for the porpoise liberation front.
I’m sympathetic to the view that humans are deserving of rights because they are uniquely rational, though admittedly I’m not sure how strong of an argument that really is. But as has been mentioned already, if animals deserve rights, where do we draw the line?
And considering that animals routinely commit violence against each other, why must humans be held to some sort of higher standard? Surely the fact that crimes are committed (even among humans) doesn’t make them just, but I still think it’s a rather tricky argument to make.
Jackson, does your own criterium for rights-possession, willful action, imply self-awareness / self-consciousness? That is, do you require the capacity for rationality and other higher forms of thought which are unique to homo sapiens, or is “willful action” something broader in your mind, including some of the more advanced animal species?
Rather than extend “rights-possession” to all life, I tend to not believe in “rights-possession” at all.
I would also contend that humans are the only executors of willful action, with all other species of animals mere genetic automatons responding to stimulus. Perhaps humans may be the only species capable of contemplation of their actions, but they aren’t the only species out there making choices between certain actions to achieve ends.
LOL, you made me think if an “animal tribunal” where wolves that ate sheeps would be tried and hanged, in the King’s name. Or viruses that harmed bacteria. There would be a billion cases for every common flu one catches!
Or, to carry on, why would we consider the whole animal/human/plant as a living being, and not its cells? Humans would only be a Joint Stock Corporation made up of individual cells. It would be very, very funny indeed.
On a lighter note, one could certainly think of scenarios where our line between “property” and “sentient” would be put to the test…
But I believe individual arbiters would take care of such cases very well.
“I would also contend that humans are the only executors of willful action, with all other species of animals mere genetic automatons responding to stimulus”
LOL. Genetic automatons love to comfort themselves with thoughts like that.
Edit: If viruses and bacteria have rights, what about a rock? A rock has some similarities to an animal. A rock is a mineral automaton that responds to external stimulus. For example, it will crack if I strike it with a hammer. It will deform when heat is applied.
What about a computer virus - does it have rights? Is it criminal kidnapping when I have my virus scanner place the virus in a quarantine vault? Is deleting the virus murder?
While I support your idea of ridiculing “animal rights”, I think you should think of better examples than the quote above. I mean, even if malware had rights, deleting it would merely be defending your property.
That ridiculing is on the same line of “how many vegetables died for your salad?” type of insult. It’s just a pathetic attack.
There’s an obvious difference in a rock and a computer virus, and something that actually lives, thinks, and has emotion. There’s also a difference in killing animals for food than killing them without a legitimate reason.
Asking if they deserve unjustified harm does make sense, because it brings no progress and is destructive towards life to harm and kill animals without reason. Should an animal be killed for food? Yes, that’s the course of nature. Should an animal be killed for the hell of it? No, why should it be?
“…circus animal whipping, cosmetics testing, harming or killing animals in the course of producing a motion picture…” - I’d like to think that’s a joke, but I’m sure you’re serious.
“And considering that animals routinely commit violence against each other…” - What happens in the animal kingdom in the wild is most likely the natural course of nature; I don’t believe torturing animals for “progress” or for our own entertainment is natural.
I agree that torturing animals (dogfighting, animal cruelty, etc.) is detestable. As long as we pledge to use non-coercive methods of punishment for those who commit those acts, I’m on board. If you want to boycott those people who promote things like dogfighting, more power to you.
You can make subjective classifications to your heart’s content to catagorize and classify things to help you understand the way the environment works around you. The fact of the matter is though, it is all 100% value free and subjective. “Life vs non life” , “animal vs plant”, “rational vs non rational” etc. Things don’t have to be catagorized as such, it is all subjective. When you make an arbitrary moral division and call it law, you are inviting a controversy that can not be objectively settled. It is impossible.
Do you really think all organisms besides Homo Sapiens lack free will and conscience? My dog wags it tail and jumps all over me whenever I enter my house and it sticks its head in between my arm and my torso whenever we lay together. I feel safe to say that my dog understands the concept of affection and the concept of suffering. If I were to strike my dog, it would react with fear and sadness.
As a side note, I choose not to eat meat from factory farms because it reminds me of the Holocaust too much.
The point was that simply saying “animals are property” and that’s it (same as a rock), ignores the obvious differences between the two. It’s more complicated than that. Are animals property? I don’t know, maybe, but I’m not sure. Is a newborn human property?
Something that often gets left out of these discussions is the possibility of holding the view that animals don’t have rights, yet it is unethical to arbitrarily inflict harm on them. If some dude randomly beats a dog, they’re simply a psychopath, regardless of whether or not the dog can be said to have rights. While political philosophy or libertarianism might not have something to say about it, more general ethics and psychology most certainly can, and I definitely don’t think that libertarianism logically binds anyone to be indifferent towards psychopathy.
Unfortunately, the common trend in these discussions is an animal rights activist on one hand, and a libertarian on the other hand that fallaciously concludes that there’s no ethical question because animals aren’t subject to political philosophy (thus expressing indifference towards psychopathy by reducing everything to rights). And that’s just a symptom of the more general issue of reductionism-of-ethics-to-politics that often pops up in libertarian circles.