Maybe a stupid question, but why is it ok to kill and enslave animals?
Who said it was ok?
Its a good question why animals do not have rights in a Rothbardian framework for animals have control over their bodies, so would it not follow that they own themselves, and that we need to apply the non-aggression axiom in our relations with them?
Non-rational, non-reflective animals which are little more than hedonistic beings cannot (I assert) be rightly considered conscious actors and therefore may be taken as property. Whether you will be ostracized by society as a result is a different matter entirely.
They have control over their bodies though, so by the action of owning them you violate their property rights. Rationality, and reflecitveness are just excuses for your tyranny.
Right, rationality and reflection seem like arbitrary exceptions for a system that is logically derived from “self-ownership”. Of course, one can accept these as axiomatic and thus unjustified, but that would destroy any semblance of natural morality that exists.
What is control without conscious, reflective action. Does it extend to the humble rhinovirus or to fungus, is a form of this control found in the motion of planets?
Simple, animals control their bodies: they respond to stimuli, what is control other than that basic criterion?
How about the criterion I established above: response to stimuli?
Animals will have rights when they start to claim them.
Still an arbitrary distinction. Of course, assuming the distinction is accurate, you would be incorrect to state the other creatures are purely reflective, unconscious beings. There is ample evidence that some degree of consciousness is to be found in many species; consciousness is not binary.
Water reacts to stimuli in the form of heat, does water exhibit control?
I am not disputing this.
I believe George Orwell gave the best answer in this very subject.
Water reacts to water in a simple mechanistic form - even the most primitive of animals display non-mechanistic reactions to stimuli. You can calculate water’s reaction to a certain quantity of calories, you cannot do the same for when I kick a dog.
But if it’s Chuck Norris kicking the dog you an calculate that the energy liberated will be the dog’s mass multiplied by c².
Is this due to the physics involved or your imperfect knowledge of the physics involved?
Animals do not have “rights”, because a “right” is a legal “claim”, and animals cannot make a legal claim. Now, of course, neither can a dead person, but a dead persons family sure can.
In other words, in the real world, if you kill, say, a cat, can the cat’s “family” come after you? No. If you overrun a cat’s property, can the cat get retribution? No. So, it is all about dispute resolution. An animal, cannot have a dispute, and therefore, cannot make any legal claims.
Not only that, but the whole idea is completely inconsistent. Do we have to kill all carnivores and omnivores that eat any meat? Do all herbivores have more rights, simply because they do not need to eat meat?
Lastly, in a free society, who is going to enforce supposed animal rights?
I could say the same thing about humans.
This is obviously not the usage of “right” we are interested in.
The same materialist argument can be made about human “reactions”.
Edit: It seems that someone got to the argument before I did.