Along these lines we could well say that my mahogany bed is highly immoral, as one can easily make a bed without cutting trees.
Or that any non-electronic document is immoral, as one can easily read a book without using paper.
Or what to say about furs? Is the product itself necessary? Or is it moral given that it can be produces synthetically?
What about dairy products? They tot can be produced synthetically.
Where to draw the line (if indeed some lien is to be draw)?
Try saying that in the thread about children. Would it be severely disturbing?
I don’t see how your examples are relevant. They are flawed on the premise that I don’t have a problem with the product itself (in your case a mahogany bed), but the production in the product. I don’t have a problem with cosmetics, but you don’t need to test them on animals to make them.
When it comes to fur I can’t say much, I wear leather. Real fur seems to be a luxury product. If you have the money to spend on it, so be it.
What about dairy products? Again, I don’t have a problem with the product itself, but in the way it’s produced. I personally don’t drink milk, but I eat cheese and dairy products.
As far as I can tell, there is no productive debate to be had with people that want to rationalize lighting a cat on fire on the grounds that cats aren’t legal persons. To me, this is just a reductio of thin libertarianism.
To be a bit, no, a good deal, more precise, libertarians want to rationalize failing to kill or cage any persons who may insist on lighting cats on fire. Failing to cage or kill these persons seems like an eminently defendable and reasonable position to take, and one that should resonate with most freedom-lovers, libertarian or not.
One of the tenets of libertarianism is that there are many things you may not like (and you are free to not like them), but only a very few you are free to go waving guns around and inflicting violence in order to eradicate. “Oh, I’d only have a compulsory fine, not violence” is mealy-mouthed nonsense. If the violator refuses to pay, progressively escalating and eventually overtly violent and perhaps deadly measures will have to be taken to force him to pay. That’s what compulsion is: force.
A real world example occurred when the son of renown University of Wisconsin football coach Barry Alvarez got drunk and put his cat in the microwave. The Correct, the Civilized, and the Libertarian response would be to leave him alone, violence-wise. I personally realize people do stupid things all the time while drunk and think this was no big deal. The young man felt bad afterward, like a normal person, and I think no less of him for the mistake. If you disagree, boycott the kid, petition the school to fire his dad, or do whatever crazy peaceful thing you want to do to register your displeasure. Do not bring out the thugs and the guns and throw the young man in a cage (which I believe is what happened).
The specific actions? Not really. The fact that you feel it is an absolute right (complete justification) to do all those things, well, that’s a little creepy.
My mind boggles. So it’s a little creepy that I feel totally justified in brushing my teeth. I suppose I should instead feel just a little bit guilty and uncertain as I undertake my dentrific maintainence. Wow! What a way to live life!
Saying what? That children don’t have rights? Actually to be precise with the terminology (I should have said “animals don’t have all of the same rights as humans”), I’m suggesting children don’t have the same rights of adults, but as sentient beings they do possess interests that humans consider to be morally relevant–differentiating them from simply inanimate property with which owners can do whatever they please. I don’t want to get hung up on the semantics and vocabulary of words like “rights”, or that it’s a black and white issue. I think we should consider that there may be distinct categories of “rights” (some of which only apply to humans, some to all sentient beings, due to the differences between the two).
But don’t hold me to any of this yet, I’m still hashing it all out and may reverse myself upon further reflection. [:)]
LOL, you know, I don’t really think about it when I brush my teeth. I think the fact that there is any kind of moral question in your head at all when you brush your teeth is the creepy part.
Another perspective left out is that perhaps animals may or may not have rights, but that it’s absurd for us to attempt to comprehend them. It’s then equally ridiculous for us to pretend that we can even attempt to respect rights which we can’t even conceive.
I’ve seen you on other forums, and you always carry this ludicrous (with all due respect) anti-reductionist view. Without writing an entire book about it, I think it’s plain on the face of it that reducing things (i.e. ethical concepts) to their core elements is the proper method of learning the hows, whys and wherefores of the world around us and the natures of our interactions. We don’t just start with ethics and being to argue about things, rather we start at the beginning (as reduced as possible) and build a theory/system from the ground up.
Also, I don’t see why discussing things within the context of rights makes indifference towards various forms of what some people would (and others wouldn’t) consider psychopathy necessarily a bad thing.
Hey, you’ve got to fight for your right to brush! Don’t let the man tell you what to do! Go outside and play? No!! I’m brushing my teeth!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrJaN-OD1ig&feature=youtube_gdata
I don’t really understand how one is any more or less useless. To assume the capability to start at a meaningful, or actual beginning, is sheer folly.
Solution: don’t assume.
Bingo.