Hi,
(My apologies for not making this shorter, I had to explain where this is coming from.)
I have been debating with someone about voluntaryism again and one thing of value that he made me consider is the issue of animal rights.
I pointed out that rights are inalienable to a being. It corresponds to what a given being by nature is. If it's in its nature to live and desire living then it has a right to life. If it needs to have property in order to exist as a full being of its species then it has to have property rights and so on. I've explained how this applies to humans here: http://www.memeverse.com/2008/10/25/right-to-life-liberty-and-property-equals-human-being/
So basically, without rights to life, liberty and property a human being cannot BE a human being. This, however, extends to certain animals then because it can be said that a certain animal cannot exist as such without also needing certain rights. But humans eat them, consider themselves and their territory (if they want one) as human property.
My debater concluded with an amazingly negative theory, that since humans cannot live without killing or taking their rights and those same animals did the same to those existing prior to them, the theft and murder are the defaults of our world and thus rights cannot be inalienable, but are dependent on might, might of majority or might of major fire power. Thus according to him rights are given to me by others and I shouldn't complain if others then think it's OK for some of them to steal from me (via a government). He says, therefore, that humans have a choice between death and this sort of "corruption" where the only way you can choose to live and not feel guilt at the same time is to turn that negative into a positive (I guess try to forget why are you feeling guilty).
As you can imagine I can't for the love of universe accept that paradigm. It totally ignores even every attempt to try and cease violating animal rights, it is a complete regression even for humans because inalienable human rights are denied.
So instead of accepting the above theory I would like to discuss animal rights with you. Those who've read The Probability Broach (http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn) can notice that in a free society described chimpanzees and dolphins are given equal rights to humans. It's a first example of interspecies voluntaryism that I've seen in fiction. :)
So.. what do you think?
i'd never heard of twitter...big thank you to the army for clueing more of us in!
DadaOrwell, I think that was meant for this topic (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=15850.0), not here. :)
Hey,
You bring up an interesting discussion. I'll give you my take on a few of your comments below.
Quote from: gu3st on October 27, 2008, 08:51 AM NHFTI pointed out that rights are inalienable to a being. It corresponds to what a given being by nature is. If it's in its nature to live and desire living then it has a right to life.
Rights, to my understanding, have nothing to do with desires. Millions of people desire free health care, does that mean they have a right to it? No one has a right to life, they have a right to THEIR life. Rights derive from property, not the other way around.
QuoteIf it needs to have property in order to exist as a full being of its species then it has to have property rights and so on.
So rights need to be guaranteed so that man can reach his full potential; exist as a "full being"? I am not too sure what you mean by this, but I can tell that it is a teleological argument of some kind, so I object to it on the basis of its nihilism ("valuelessness")
In other words, you and I do not have rights FOR something; the justification of rights does not come from their usage as a TOOL; a MEANS to reach some other end - or what you call a "full being." Rights, again, derive from property, and NOT from the fact that we for some reason need to achieve this "full being" status you speak of.
QuoteSo basically, without rights to life, liberty and property a human being cannot BE a human being.
This is an odd sort of Sartrean "existence precedes essence" argument. I agree that man creates himself, his value, his life, and that he must mold himself through his own radical freedom as a human being, but I don't see how you can conclude that, morally, rights need to be guaranteed because, otherwise, man can not BE man. I am confused on that. Perhaps you could explicate? What does this "full being" consist of? How do you define it? And in what way can such teleology ("goal seeking") be used to justify rights?
QuoteThis, however, extends to certain animals then because it can be said that a certain animal cannot exist as such without also needing certain rights. But humans eat them, consider themselves and their territory (if they want one) as human property.
Humans never would have existed if they hadn't treated animals as property. By your logic that means it is man's RIGHT to treat animals as property because it is necessary for his existence; for him to BE who he is.
QuoteMy debater concluded with an amazingly negative theory, that since humans cannot live without killing or taking their rights and those same animals did the same to those existing prior to them, the theft and murder are the defaults of our world and thus rights cannot be inalienable, but are dependent on might, might of majority or might of major fire power.
They are. Rights derive from property, but if I can't protect my property then I lose my rights. Hence the danger of this huge governmental, non-consensual authority parading around violating people's rights and robbing them of their means to defend those rights.
QuoteThus according to him rights are given to me by others
Well we both agree that this is a flawed conclusion on his part. It is not a matter of "You have the rights that [external force X] lets you have"; it is a matter of "You have the rights that [external force X] hasn't, yet, taken from you."
This is not true because you or I view it to be so, or because this is how we, personally, justify the existence of rights and the moral recognition thereof; this is true because it is the way things are; because, put simply, if you are DEAD because someone killed you, then you no longer have rights. Morally, you and I may agree said action is disgusting and wrong, but some people will violate your rights because they view things differently, so at the end of the day your rights are only worth the power you can put behind them. Many human beings are too weak to defend their own rights; too weak to put any power behind the protection of their own rights - and so they will usually stand aside and voluntarily (yes, VOLUNTARILY) let some external force protect their rights through means which they may, personally, find abhorrent. But they psychologically convince themselves that the ends justify the means (another teleological argument, hence the moral, nihilistic void that follows it) and allow said external force to exercise its power in awful ways.
I would like to think that Rights do exist, but I am more and more convinced that the word Right is a verbal shorthand for a more complex situation. To whit:
Imagine a world with only vegetable matter on it, do rights exist? I would say no. Only the darwinistic concept of survival exists. (This does not require you to believe in evolution only the concept of survival of the fittest [both in the meaning of those who have reproduced, and those who are strong])
Add to this world insects, fish, birds, small mammals, and all other animals, asking yourself "do rights exist because of the existence of X?" If you run across a case where you say yes, set it aside for the next portion.
Add to this world Men, apes, cetaceans, and "intelligent" machinery. What rights exist external of these beings? Rights are conceptual in nature and wholly dependent on the existence of the being in question who claims that it has rights.
We (humans) are predators and force is the only way to defend ourselves. We have only what we can keep a hold on. In order to prevent the other predators from attacking us, we have adopted a "society" wherein none attacks any other. This respect for the person (and by extension property) of another is what we call "Rights".
As to the rights of the animals, only you can decide, for yourself, what animals to respect the "Rights" of. You can try to convince others by any means, save initiated force, to accept your list of animals as worthy of respect.
My own take on "animal rights" is that any animal that can show volitional behavior have rights. The remainder can be considered property, natural resources, or similar. In reality, volitional behavior seems to be constrained to humans, but I leave open the possibility that other animals such as dolphins or the higher apes, and of course "sapient/sentient" space aliens, should any ever be discovered, could fall into this category.
I'm not a big fan of Jeremy Bentham of utilitarianism as a philosophy, but his way of posing the 'rights' issue was not to ask if animals have emotions and such but whether they can suffer. If they can, it is plausible that a living organism which can suffer should be excused from suffering as much as possible...whether this becomes a right, I'm not sure, because the very concept of rights is not applicable to an organism which can't choose. I think someone is an a-hole who tortures animals, but until I see further evidence I would not claim animals have rights.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 28, 2008, 11:01 AM NHFT
My own take on "animal rights" is that any animal that can show volitional behavior have rights. The remainder can be considered property, natural resources, or similar. In reality, volitional behavior seems to be constrained to humans, but I leave open the possibility that other animals such as dolphins or the higher apes, and of course "sapient/sentient" space aliens, should any ever be discovered, could fall into this category.
Do you not believe that machines at some point may become sentient?
I'm not willing to make a "rule". To me, killing isn't a logical reaction because I know it is a violations of rights. It's a moral imperative - the idea of killing makes me cringe on the inside. For me, that's really all that matters.
Just as I, as a single human individual, recognize a right to own property, I hold open the idea of a sentient, telepathic race of aliens. This race, because they do NOT think as a single individual, may NOT have a right to own property but really, it's all intellectual masturbation to me. I've not experienced another race or species that evokes the same kind of emotional imperative that humans do, so it's moot for me. :)
Quote from: sandm000 on October 28, 2008, 01:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 28, 2008, 11:01 AM NHFT
My own take on "animal rights" is that any animal that can show volitional behavior have rights. The remainder can be considered property, natural resources, or similar. In reality, volitional behavior seems to be constrained to humans, but I leave open the possibility that other animals such as dolphins or the higher apes, and of course "sapient/sentient" space aliens, should any ever be discovered, could fall into this category.
Do you not believe that machines at some point may become sentient?
Perhaps. And if they do, they'd be deserving of rights protection, also.
Hi,
I've since writing the original post discussed on chat and also thought more about it and wrote another blog entry (http://www.memeverse.com/2008/10/27/exploring-animal-rights/) about it. In a nutshell I ended up bringing it down to whether one is capable of demanding AND decides to demand rights. How can I be expected or obliged to respect the rights of someone or something if it doesn't ask so, and ask in a way that I can actually understand. If that doesn't happen then there's doubt whether the being in question is even capable of recognizing its own existence as such let alone capable of demanding that others recognize and respect it.
My debater brought up the issue of black slaves, but in that case they clearly did demand rights and were not granted them for too long. That's what made it so bad. He also mentioned beings demanding rights in a language I can't understand... well I don't really have much to say to that. I have to understand the demand as such or else it's moot. Nothing happens. The message has to clearly get through.
And if someone doesn't demand, it's really up to me what to do, but my obligation of recognition and respect doesn't exist.
Quote from: JACMillions of people desire free health care, does that mean they have a right to it? No one has a right to life, they have a right to THEIR life. Rights derive from property, not the other way around.
So without self-ownership there is no right to life. Makes sense. Also considering that self-ownership also requires self-recognition which is basically self-awareness, we get back to the usual delimiter for whether a being can or can't have rights (which is self-awareness).
Quote from: JACSo rights need to be guaranteed so that man can reach his full potential; exist as a "full being"?
Not necessarily even his "full" potential, but just to be what he is tending to be. I guess that's the same as saying "full potential" since only he can decide what his limits are.
I suppose I base the idea of "rights" on "capabilities". If you by nature are capable of doing something it means you can do it. But if someone comes along and says "no you can't" he is denying you that capability and since that capability is a part of what makes you "you", he is denying your nature. You can still choose to exercise your capability because you yourself recognize it and thus believe you have a right to it, but depending on how much force is the denier willing to put behind his denial you are likely to do it with fear or even choose not to do it at all, at which point you cease to exercise your nature.
In a sense rights are nothing but recognitions. This also fits with the issue of demand above as if an animal isn't capable of self-recognition it then isn't capable of having rights. So where exactly do rights come into existence? The moment anyone, including the being in question, recognizes itself (becomes self aware). Then it has rights.
But if it doesn't demand them nobody else will know it has rights and so those rights will be violated. It is however, I would guess, natural for someone who recognizes his rights, to also demand that others recognize them too, until someone gets the message. :)
But I could be wrong. Maybe the rights begin with the demand instead of with self-recognition?
Quote from: JACI agree that man creates himself, his value, his life, and that he must mold himself through his own radical freedom as a human being, but I don't see how you can conclude that, morally, rights need to be guaranteed because, otherwise, man can not BE man. I am confused on that. Perhaps you could explicate? What does this "full being" consist of? How do you define it? And in what way can such teleology ("goal seeking") be used to justify rights?
I suppose because without someone's recognition of those rights he could be denied to continue building himself and being himself. "Full being" is just whatever he would be if he kept choosing for himself instead of being forced (or scared) into choosing otherwise - full self-empowerment. Maybe that and the above helps explain what I mean.
I wouldn't throw out the possibility that I'm confused as well though. :blush:
Quote from: JAC
By your logic that means it is man's RIGHT to treat animals as property because it is necessary for his existence; for him to BE who he is.
Well that may be where the dilemma is coming from...(if animals too have property rights then we're in conflict). It's what would challenge the voluntaryist paradigm and give way to my debaters theory, that we're all in constant violation. I still refused to accept it because I was thinking I'd rather take a chance that it's possible at this point in time to find a way to respect both the property of animals and that of our own, hence so called "interspecies voluntaryism" - treat them as equal.
But I guess so long as any non-humans don't demand rights.. we aren't going to reach that point.
Quote from: JACThey are. Rights derive from property, but if I can't protect my property then I lose my rights. Hence the danger of this huge governmental, non-consensual authority parading around violating people's rights and robbing them of their means to defend those rights.
I think that's a little different than saying might makes right, at least in that the might here is limited only to your own might, or ability to defend yourself. Another way of saying "might makes right" is to say that whoever has the most guns can not only deny the existence of someone's rights, but also MAKE them into existent or non-existent. Basically, government would be equated with some sort of a god that decides who and what you are and can be.
I don't think "might makes right" in that sense. Instead I think "my might makes my right but your might cannot make my right".
Quote from: JACIt is not a matter of "You have the rights that [external force X] lets you have"; it is a matter of "You have the rights that [external force X] hasn't, yet, taken from you."
Well I think we agree. The way I'd put is perhaps only semantically different; that you have rights always, but they're of no use to you if someone other than you doesn't recognize them and instead denies them and acts on that denial to steal from you, coerce you to do or don't do something or kill you. I'd say the biggest reason why I tend to insist I have rights regardless of whether someone else agrees or not is because to say otherwise feels like a slippery slope towards essentially throwing myself to the mercy of others. So I'd rather say I always have rights, even when they're violated, than to say that I have rights only so long as they're not violated.
In the interest of not making this reply any longer I'll reply to other posts separately. :)
Quote from: sandm000Add to this world Men, apes, cetaceans, and "intelligent" machinery. What rights exist external of these beings? Rights are conceptual in nature and wholly dependent on the existence of the being in question who claims that it has rights.
Exactly. That's largely consistent with what I mean. No being no right, to start simple. Going further, if the being exists, but doesn't actually know it exists, still no right because it's not even capable of conceptualizing a "right". But if it IS self aware it becomes capable of self-recognition and therefore it becomes more possible that it will conceptualize its rights too and begin demanding others to recognize it as well.
It somehow seems illogical or unintuitive then to say that rights exist depending on what an entity external to the one in question believes or says or does.
Quote from: sandm000As to the rights of the animals, only you can decide, for yourself, what animals to respect the "Rights" of. You can try to convince others by any means, save initiated force, to accept your list of animals as worthy of respect.
Agreed. I've pretty much decided that I can't expect myself to try so hard to respect a right of an animal before I actually see it demand it of myself. But personally, regardless, I very much dislike torturing animals or killing for no good reason and would likely ostracise people who do that.
Quote from: sandm000Do you not believe that machines at some point may become sentient?
I definitely do and I think it's closer than many might expect. I'm not sure what will happen to rapid technological progress we've been seeing in the last decades due to this ongoing economic crisis, but if the world's economies remain sufficiently free to innovate I'm pretty convinced strong AI (involving eventually self-aware artificial intelligence) could emerge sooner or later. It's practically a matter of duplicating a human brain processes. See Blue Brain Project (http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/) for example.
And yes, if they exhibit self-awareness and start to demand rights, I think voluntaryism must be extended to them.
There is a population of Timber Rattlesnakes in New Hampshire. There is only one population (as far as I know).
Does the land owner have the "Right" to exterminate this population, thus causing its extinction in the state (as happened in Maine)?
Animal rights are an issue I have some internal conflict over as it relates to libertarianism and voluntaryism, and I would be very interested in other peoples' thoughts on the matter.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Crotalus_horridus_(1).jpg)
And as a side note, snakes are incredibly amazing animals.
So stop hating them. :)
Quote from: JoshDoes the land owner have the "Right" to exterminate this population, thus causing its extinction in the state (as happened in Maine)?
In principle I suppose yes, but if this is a big enough concern by those other than the owner there is a possibility of buying the property of him to someone who would make a better use of it (like for tourism). The higher an offer the higher the chances that he'd sell. And if you don't have enough money you can organize a compaign to pool money for it (donations by people who care to save those snakes too and trust that you wont exterminate them).
So this is one way in which one can act on behalf of animals without violating the rights of the human.
As for hating snakes.. I wouldn't say I really hate them, but I'd be very uneasy near them. :P Nevertheless, if someone did a mentioned campaign and really shown to care about the issue, and I had some extra money I would consider donating for such a cause too, if anything then to show how nicely a free market can work in such issues. :)
The land can not be purchased. Unfortunately. But everything is fine, and looks like it will continue to be so in the future. This is just the real world scenario I wanted to bring up for the purposes of the discussion.
I think it would be wrong to intrude on the land owner's rights to benefit the snakes, but the snake population is also incredibly fragile.
As it stands now, snakes and land owner are coexisting admirably :snake:
Animals don't have rights. People do.
An animal becomes a "person" when it is able to engage in reason. A reasoning being, for example, does not violate the self-ownership of others.
The real trouble comes from the fact that a given species may contain both animals and people as members. Such is the case with homo sapiens. Given that there are these creatures, some of whom are persons with rights, and others of whom are animals without rights, but all of whom look roughly similar, the non-aggression principle was developed.
In any species which contains a mix of people and animals (and exempting telepathic ability), you cannot know which is which, and must wait until a given individual demonstrates animal behavior before force can be used. A species which is all people would be a non-issue, because they would never initiate force against others. A species which is all animals can be treated as such. The only issue occurs when there is a mix within a given species, and we must give potential animals the benefit of the doubt, because wrongfully using force against a person would be a terrible thing.
On a slight tangent, this is why restitution, rather than punishment, is the only source of justice. You can punish an animal, but punishing an animal is about controlling its behavior, not seeking justice - justice doesn't apply to non-persons. If an individual makes restitution (or offers to do so) for a harm caused to another being, then s/he is demonstrating personhood. Once that individual has made the choice to be a person, s/he must be accorded all the rights of a person, and keeping that individual locked in a cage is fresh aggression against that person.
Joe
So does a person who cannot reason have no rights?
I believe they do.
Quote from: Giggan on October 29, 2008, 01:34 PM NHFTSo does a person who cannot reason have no rights?
I believe they do.
An individual who currently cannot reason, or an individual who is utterly incapable?
Someone who was injured (for example) might regain his ability to reason. If, on the other hand, you were decapitated and some miracle of medical technology kept your body alive, it would not be a person, because it would be utterly incapable of ever attaining reason.
Joe
One thing I love about the liberty philosophy is the abundance of objectivity. Emotion rarely plays a role in knowing what is right and wrong.
However, I make a significant portion of my living working with animals, and in that sense I am a leftist commie pinko. (PETA aside. Screw those bastards.)
I believe it is immoral to, say, extirpate the only population of timber rattlesnakes in the state. I believe there should be some way to guarantee this won't happen. However, I also strongly believe in property rights.
This is my great dilemma.
The money is not available to preserve the population, it is voluntary on the part of the current land owner. I am thrilled that they are so cooperative.
Perhaps some sort of plan or "dibs on the property" should be worked out in the event that it is made available for sale? But that doesn't do anything in solving this dilemma in other areas where the land may be owned by someone less willing to preserve the habitat.
Argh.
Quote from: Josh on October 29, 2008, 05:11 PM NHFT
The money is not available to preserve the population, it is voluntary on the part of the current land owner. I am thrilled that they are so cooperative.
Perhaps some sort of plan or "dibs on the property" should be worked out in the event that it is made available for sale?
If he's inclined to protect them while he owns the property, perhaps he'd be willing to put that into the deed if he ever sells it—that the future landowner
must (as a matter of contractual agreement) continue to protect them, and furthermore must pass on such restriction to any other future owners, in perpetuity.
Since such a deed restriction would no doubt lower the value of the property, perhaps concerned individuals such as yourself and others could offer to pay him enough money to make up the difference.
Perfect. I'm not sure if he'd be willing, but given that it's a commercial property used for the resources of the property, I don't see it having much value after the company is done with it.
This is sort of what I meant by 'dibs', or some sort of arrangement for when the company is done with the property.
You all rock :)
Quote from: Josh on October 29, 2008, 05:25 PM NHFT
Perfect. I'm not sure if he'd be willing, but given that it's a commercial property used for the resources of the property, I don't see it having much value after the company is done with it.
This is sort of what I meant by 'dibs', or some sort of arrangement for when the company is done with the property.
You all rock :)
The concept of a "deed restriction" is a fairly common practice, especially for conservation purposes.
New Hampshire also has what they call "current use," which a property owner can elect to apply to a portion (or all) of his property, which places restrictions on what can be done with it (basically, no development), which severely reduces one's property taxes, too.
That's awesome. I hadn't even thought to look into this.
Thanks!
Quote from: MaineShark on October 29, 2008, 03:05 PM NHFT
An individual who currently cannot reason, or an individual who is utterly incapable?
Someone who was injured (for example) might regain his ability to reason. If, on the other hand, you were decapitated and some miracle of medical technology kept your body alive, it would not be a person, because it would be utterly incapable of ever attaining reason.
Joe
Decapitated guy makes sense...if he has lost the ability to reason and it is incapable of being regained, I'd say they've lost their humanity. I guess the injured guy would fall into the same category as children, too small to logically determine realities, yet capable of doing so in te future. They certainly have most negative liberty, and with children I'd say there's a certain level of positive liberty they have as well (needs for survival, I would not include education as a duty owed by the parents, though I recommend it). I'm still undecided on this, the animal rights thing. I believe they should be protected from suffering, I just can't think of a non-coercive way of asserting this.
EDIT: Besides ostracizing people who do torture animals. Simple free-market solution.
Quote from: Josh on October 29, 2008, 05:11 PM NHFTI believe it is immoral to, say, extirpate the only population of timber rattlesnakes in the state. I believe there should be some way to guarantee this won't happen. However, I also strongly believe in property rights.
J'raxis addressed the practical way to handle such a situation (or attempt to, anyway).
On a philosophical level, though, it's not possible for an animal to have rights. Animals are not moral actors. That's a double-edged sword, as well: just as no good or evil can be done to an animal, an animal cannot be good or evil. If a rattlesnake bites you, it has not done wrong, because it is outside the realm of right and wrong.
Quote from: Giggan on October 29, 2008, 06:46 PM NHFTI'm still undecided on this, the animal rights thing. I believe they should be protected from suffering, I just can't think of a non-coercive way of asserting this.
EDIT: Besides ostracizing people who do torture animals. Simple free-market solution.
That is the only solution for aesthetically-displeasing, yet moral behavior. Like you and Josh and many others, I find those who
abuse animals to be disgusting, and I want nothing to do with them. My personal disgust for such behavior does not rise to the level of morality, though.
For example, if it were necessary to do some extremely-painful experiment on an animal in order to save a child's life, I would not blink at doing so, although I would certainly wish there had been some other way. On the other hand, there cannot exist a situation in which I would put a child in that animal's place. Not to save another child, or ten, or a million, or a billion. Violating that child's self-ownership would be immoral, regardless of the stakes. Hurting an animal is aesthetically displeasing, so I would seek to avoid doing it, but if the stakes outweighed my displeasure, I would do so without hesitation.
Joe