Why don't animals have rights?

[zefreak]

@laminustacitus

@The Morning Star

@laminustacitus

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.

Is this due to the physics involved or your imperfect knowledge of the physics involved?

The same materialist argument can be made about human “reactions”.

Haha, exactly what I said. Only I don’t think you are a materialist [:P]

[laminustacitus]

@zefreak

Haha, exactly what I said. Only I don’t think you are a materialist

I don’t necessarily believe anything I argued in this entire thread. [:P]

[liberty_student]

@laminustacitus

I don’t necessarily believe anything I argued in this entire thread.

What else is new? lol

[zefreak]

@laminustacitus

@zefreak

Haha, exactly what I said. Only I don’t think you are a materialist

I don’t necessarily believe anything I argued in this entire thread.

Yeah, just to be clear I am a market anarchist who draws heavily from Rothbard and Block, especially with regards to legal theory. I’m also a Humean skeptic (here’s some ammunition, Juan!) who disapproves of using equivocation and fallacious, albeit persuasive, reasoning to ground ethics in nature.

[laminustacitus]

@liberty student

@laminustacitus

I don’t necessarily believe anything I argued in this entire thread.

What else is new? lol

Sub sole nihil novi est.

[Spideynw]

@zefreak

@Spideynw

@alimentarius

Maybe a stupid question, but why is it ok to kill and enslave animals?

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?

This is obviously not the usage of “right” we are interested in.

?

[bgladish]

Neither animals nor humans have natural rights. That was von Mises’s position, and I support it. If one believes humans have natural rights and rejects the concept for animals they are being at least anthropocentric and possibly mystic. Anthropocentrism has not had a great deal of success in the scientific realm - we aren’t God’s chosen species. Rights are a human invention that facilitates cooperation. Property rights have evolved because they have worked and produced wealthier societies than could have been achieved without them.

[wilderness]

@zefreak

This is obviously not the usage of “right” we are interested in.

Whoever “we” are - the borg? The natural rights interest is in the way Spideynw put this. of course as a skeptic you’ll not be able to affirm any knowledge either way - whether you or I is right or wrong. you’ll contradict yourself by trying to apply any conviction of knowledge on this subject.

@zefreak

I’m… who disapproves reasoning to ground ethics in nature.

In natural law, until you learn this, this is exactly what you said which only self-affirms your own skepticism: “…[you] disapprove reasoning to ground ethics in intellect and world”. In natural law “nature” means - intellect and world. In a natural law framework using these concepts in accord to natural law theory: 1) you are saying you disapprove of ethics in a person’s intellect and world ( no truth nor semblance of truth); 2) you also said you disapprove of “reasoning to ground ethics in [intellect/world]”. So if you will not reason it. You will not know nor be able to judge anything about ethics deliberately or not.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@laminustacitus

They have control over their bodies though, so by the action of owning them you violate their property rights.

Ok, now demonstrate that such correct. Please note that your superficial strawman grasp of the argument behind self-ownership just won’t do.

[E_R_Olovetto]

This whole series of lectures by Höppe is excellent, and the first one answers this question in detail. mp3

[alimentarius]

So if I found a baby in the forest, I could smash it dead?

[alimentarius]

@Esuric

Animals will have rights when they start to claim them.

You mean, claiming them using English language?

[E_R_Olovetto]

@alimentarius

So if I found a baby in the forest, I could smash it dead?

Baby human or squirrel? Baby humans are potential moral agents and their negative rights are on par with your own. Not being able to assert these rights at that very moment is irrelevant.

[alimentarius]

Potential, so what? Are you anti-abortion? Are you anti-condom? Condon users deny potential moral agents coming into existence.

[wilderness]

@alimentarius

Potential, so what?

They are human. And animals can’t claim. Can’t petition. Can’t recognize rights. They are learned. Of course custom may also instill what rights are as when I was in kindergarden I was taught what “mine and thine” is. Animals can’t rationalize what “mine and thine” is. It’s the difference between bruteness and reasonableness. And potential isn’t a “so what”.

[alimentarius]

Babies can’t claim rights.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@alimentarius

Potential, so what? Are you anti-abortion? Are you anti-condom? Condon users deny potential moral agents coming into existence.

I am pro eviction (“abortion”) rights and not anti-condom in the least. Condoms are ethically “good” in my opinion, but they have nothing strictly to do with morality.

I have some interesting text for your question of “so what?”, but it is rather difficult and takes some background understanding. Also, it is not online, so I would have to type it all out.

As a shortcut, you should ask, “So what if not?” One obvious flaw stemming from ignoring potentiality is that threats would not be punishable. Critical thinking is your friend.

@wilderness

@alimentarius

Potential, so what?

They are human. And animals can’t claim. Can’t petition. Can’t recognize rights. They are learned. Of course custom may also instill what rights are as when I was in kindergarden I was taught what “mine and thine” is. Animals can’t rationalize what “mine and thine” is. It’s the difference between bruteness and reasonableness. And potential isn’t “so what”.

Again, the ability to petition or rationalize at one instant is irrelevant. The child must rely upon other moral agents who value the nature of things, otherwise we are left to spideynw’s perverse theory of human rights.

[wilderness]

They are human and can potentially. It’s biological. It’s within the capacity of humans to realize rights cause rights are logical and can be discovered without custom and/or imitation. Find a way for a person to think and a person will discover what is. Rights are axiomatic.

[alimentarius]

@wilderness

And potential isn’t a “so what”.

Of course it is. Are you anti stem cell research? Anti abortion? Anti condom? Anti everything exept having sex?

[wilderness]

@E. R. Olovetto

Again, the ability to petition or rationalize at one instant is irrelevant.

When they are realized it’s true. I understand what you’re saying. It’s upon the realization that I was speaking about here. I completely understand the potentiality argument. It follows the Linnaeus system, etc… being species oriented as to understanding Homo sapiens.

@E. R. Olovetto

The child must rely upon other moral agents who value the nature of things, otherwise we are left to spideynw’s perverse theory of human rights.

I agree. I wasn’t talking about his delineation. I completely agree with what you are saying.