Non-Aggression Principle and Animals

[Amelius]

Does the Non-aggression principle apply to non-human animals?

[Magenta]

Stef on animal rights:

 

 

My notes on the video:

 

The NAP requires an understanding or the potential for understanding the NAP. You cannot be bound by something that you do not understand. That’s why a person with an I.Q. of 30 is not criminally responsible for aggressive actions.

 

Animals cannot understand philosophy or NAP, so they are not covered by morality. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be as kind to them as possible. The best way to ensure that people are kind to animals is to treat people well as children. It is well known that child abuse is heavily associated with cruelty to animals. But we are so ridiculously short of compassion towards children, prisoners, victims of war, kids in public schools, intergenerational state debt … we are so short of compassion for our fellow human beings who are bound by the NAP that to overleap the need for compassion to other human beings and hope to achieve it somehow vis-a-vis animals before human beings is to put the cart before the horse. Compassion towards children will flow into compassion towards others will flow into compassion towards animals. The sequence has to be children -> adults -> animals. Trying to overleap this will not work.

[Pepin]

Ethics can only apply to objects with particular properties. A rock cannot be considered evil if it falls from a cliff and crushes your guitar as the rock has no free will. A bear that attacks you is not a moral agent because it has no rational capacity of understanding ethics.

 

It might help to think about it in terms of the capacity of understanding and acting on the scientific method. A rock cannot be a scientist for obvious reason. A bear lacks the neurological structure. I say it might be helpful because UPB is essentially based on the scientific method in its approach to validating or invalidating claims.

[A.I.]

Ethics applies to all living creatures with free will. Morality applies to all creatures with free will. The animal didn't choose you. I can't say much about the paradox of owning animals and being moral simultaneously, as I own a bird that my mom was otherwise going to abandon about 3 years ago. After this bird dies, I will never own another animal. It is analogous to slavery.

[Pepin]

After this bird dies, I will never own another animal. It is analogous to slavery.

 

Can you expand upon this? I don't quite understand the connection to slavery.

[A.I.]

When a person owns another person who has free will, that's slavery. Animal's have free will too. I'm just applying the rule universally. It took me a long time, so I don't think it's very evident.

[Pepin]

How does an animal free will? What is your definition of the concept? Also, how does the concept of ownership apply in the sense of slavery, as opposed to the sense of taking care of child? There are certainly specific examples that could be provided where the comparison could be rather effective such as the use of oxen and horses, but I am more interested in the case of the common house cat. What would a voluntary relationship consistent of with animals?

 

Sorry if these questions are annoying, but I'm interested in the reasoning.

[A.I.]

How does an animal free will? What is your definition of the concept? Also, how does the concept of ownership apply in the sense of slavery, as opposed to the sense of taking care of child? There are certainly specific examples that could be provided where the comparison could be rather effective such as the use of oxen and horses, but I am more interested in the case of the common house cat. What would a voluntary relationship consistent of with animals?

 

Sorry if these questions are annoying, but I'm interested in the reasoning.

They're not annoying at all. Thank you for asking me to clarify. It will help others as well as you if, indeed, you do find it helpful. An animal gets hungry, it chooses to eat. If it's tired, it chooses to sleep. If you attempt to steal it's food or rouse it from slumber, it will voluntarily attack you in some way. I hope I'm not begging the question by using the word "choice."

 

Children are slaves, even if they like their parents, they cannot leave. They are totally dependent and have no choice in the matter, but they still have free will. ask any mother of a three year old.

 

I think a voluntary relationship would be letting an animal free. We can't do that today because, mostly of the government sponsored roads. It would be murder to just let all the animals go, but that doesn't mean that trapping an animal is moral. Philosophy is about prevention, not cure. It's too late for the animals. It's sad to say. Sad, but true. The best we can do now is minimize their suffering.

[Hannibal]

They're not annoying at all. Thank you for asking me to clarify. It will help others as well as you if, indeed, you do find it helpful. An animal gets hungry, it chooses to eat. If it's tired, it chooses to sleep. If you attempt to steal it's food or rouse it from slumber, it will voluntarily attack you in some way. I hope I'm not begging the question by using the word "choice."

 

Children are slaves, even if they like their parents, they cannot leave. They are totally dependent and have no choice in the matter, but they still have free will. ask any mother of a three year old.

 

I think a voluntary relationship would be letting an animal free. We can't do that today because, mostly of the government sponsored roads. It would be murder to just let all the animals go, but that doesn't mean that trapping an animal is moral. Philosophy is about prevention, not cure. It's too late for the animals. It's sad to say. Sad, but true. The best we can do now is minimize their suffering.

 

This is a mistake.

The science of ethics is a man-made concept and exists to aid us in making choices, with regards to behaviour & values, which yield the greatest benefit to us, with the ultimate goal being happiness. This means that keeping a cow as a "slave" cannot be be immoral in and of itself, because a slave cow is no less useful to us than a free one, and a slave cow may actually be very beneficial to us.

 

It might make sense to say using force against a cow is immoral because it displeases you, and that's the reason I think fox hunting is immoral - because I don't think it's healthy for the human psychology to get pleasure from killing/destroying.

 

This is very different to supposing that the NAP applies to cows or foxes, though. Animals have no rights whatsoever, as the source of rights is reciprocity. We recognise that being free from coercion is good for us all, without contradiction, so we establish the NAP as a right (i.e. to live according to it). This is strengthened by the knowledge that men free from coercion are more productive, and that men create value for other men in the process.

 

Rights, like the NAP, apply in 2 directions. Cows and sheep are incapable of even understanding the concept, so they cannot hold any rights. The idea of giving (clue is in the word 'giving') rights to animals makes no sense - it happens because it pleases us, but they aren't real rights; they are really entitlements, just like 'rights' to education, etc.

Ethics applies to all living creatures with free will...

 

I think this is the problem. I don't think you have a proper understanding of what the science of ethics is.

 

The science of ethics is, as I named it, a science. It requires the ability to reason, and as such animals can't participate. Assuming that you meant that it applies the other way around, i.e. human ethics regarding the treatment of animals, then I still think there is a problem because ethics, in that sense, also applies to creatures without free will, dead creatures, trees, lakes, beer and cake. How we interact with all of these things affects our ability to live the best way we can. I understand that we are typically concerned with interactions with other beings, because those are the kinds of interactions that we want to police, but to me your indication that free will is the source of rights, or ethical consideration, points to the root of the mistake.

[A.I.]

Hannibal, your approach to respect, or lack thereof, concerns me. That's just my feeling; not proof that I'm correct. 

 

Do you accept that animals can feel pain?

 

Also, my understanding of "rights" is granted just by virtue of being alive and sentient. I don't consider "law" to be a valid moral construct. What do you mean by "rights?"

 

I apologize for my frequent use of quotation marks.

[PatrickC]

AI.. what's been your experience of how animals have been treated throughout your life?

[A.I.]

AI.. what's been your experience of how animals have been treated throughout your life?

My aunt claims she likes animals more than she does people and I love animals a little bit less than people (still more than most people like animals). I don't see how it's relevant. My feelings are of no consequence regarding the morality and NAP in regards to animal ownership. I accept it as truth.

 

I used to love animals more than people thanks to my aunt's attempt at brainwashing, but I've done a lot of self work and I fully understand the impact of my aunt's actions and other traumas on my childhood. Did I answer your question somewhere in there?

[Hannibal]

Hannibal, your approach to respect, or lack thereof, concerns me. That's just my feeling; not proof that I'm correct. 

 

Do you accept that animals can feel pain?

 

Also, my understanding of "rights" is granted just by virtue of being alive and sentient. I don't consider "law" to be a valid moral construct. What do you mean by "rights?"

 

I apologize for my frequent use of quotation marks.

 

"Do you accept that animals can feel pain?"

Sure.

 

"Also, my understanding of "rights" is granted just by virtue of being alive and sentient.

Why? What is the difference between alive/dead, or sentient/dumb that suddenly makes rights important and worth having? There is no such difference because the real source of rights (and the only thing which gives the concept any meaning) comes from values & reciprocity, as i mention below.

 

"I don't consider "law" to be a valid moral construct."

I certainly do. Law is the manifestation of men observing each other's rights. Rights are a product of ethics, and morality is a set of shortcuts to ethical principles. Therefore objectively valid law, that exists to protect men's rights, is morality in action.

 

"What do you mean by "rights?""

There is only 1 real right (to live free from aggression ie. NAP), and all others are logical consequences of that.

As men our only tools for survival are our rational minds. The only thing that can stop us from using (or at least being able to choose to use) our minds to pursue a happy and prosperous life, is force.  Therefore when we take morality into a social context we agree that no man may use force against another, as we value life and must be free in order to pursue it. The concept of a right makes no sense without the expectation of reciprocity in its provision, and consequently animals cannot have rights when they are incapable of grasping the concept, let alone observing those rights.

[A.I.]

"Do you accept that animals can feel pain?"

Sure.

Agreed

 

"Also, my understanding of "rights" is granted just by virtue of being alive and sentient.

Why? What is the difference between alive/dead, or sentient/dumb that suddenly makes rights important and worth having? There is no such difference because the real source of rights (and the only thing which gives the concept any meaning) comes from values & reciprocity, as i mention below.

I think we have a different understanding of "Sentient." I mean "alive and able to feel pain."

 

"I don't consider "law" to be a valid moral construct."

I certainly do. Law is the manifestation of men observing each other's rights. Rights are a product of ethics, and morality is a set of shortcuts to ethical principles. Therefore objectively valid law, that exists to protect men's rights, is morality in action.

Are you proposing a system enforced by the threat or initiation of the use of force?

 

"What do you mean by "rights?""

There is only 1 real right (to live free from aggression ie. NAP), and all others are logical consequences of that.

As men our only tools for survival are our rational minds. The only thing that can stop us from using (or at least being able to choose to use) our minds to pursue a happy and prosperous life, is force.  Therefore when we take morality into a social context we agree that no man may use force against another, as we value life and must be free in order to pursue it. The concept of a right makes no sense without the expectation of reciprocity in its provision, and consequently animals cannot have rights when they are incapable of grasping the concept, let alone observing those rights.

We are in agreement about rights toward people, but I might add "property rights" to that definition. An infant cannot cognitively grasp the laws of morality, but you must still treat the child as if he does. I don't mean animals have to obey morality, but to maintain universality, we must treat them as such. The NAP extends to every sentient creature. "Thou shalt not initiate the use of force." If you violate that, your subconscious will make you suffer in one way or another, it's gonna get you. It's gonna getcha, getcha, getcha. Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Wesley]

Sentience does not mean capable of morality. For instance a wild tiger who is loose in the city we can assume would attack people. not because it is wrong, but because that is the nature of a predator. In an environment of antelope and lions, a lion who hunts and kills an antelope is not wrong, but it is a part of the animal's nature. If a wild tiger could attack anyone at any time, then it would seem reasonable to have people go out and either incarcerate and deport the animal, or if necessary kill it to prevent it from harming someone. Both of these would technically violate the NAP if it were extended to animals, however it also seems to say that animals are not capable of moral thinking at any point in their lives or existence and thus in some way make them less than human.

 

A child will eventually gain moral thinking and thus this would not apply to them. I also go not keep monkeys or dolphins as pets or food (even though moral thinking is questionable) I could see an argument for the NAP applying to these animals as they would be more likely to have moral thinking.

 

I am not necessarily saying i have clinched anything, but there seems to be a difference between animals capable of moral thinking and reason and those who are not, just as there is a difference between animals capable of feeling pain and those who are not.

 

I would not want myself or my family to be around undomesticated animals who are not capable of moral thinking or reason for the potential of harm or death.

 

Besides this, there are some who define sentience as feeling pain and others who confine it more to realizing that they exist, which it is a much higher brain function to be able to achieve consciousness as as compared to feeling of pain.

[A.I.]

Sentience does not mean capable of morality. For instance a wild tiger who is loose in the city we can assume would attack people. not because it is wrong, but because that is the nature of a predator. In an environment of antelope and lions, a lion who hunts and kills an antelope is not wrong, but it is a part of the animal's nature. If a wild tiger could attack anyone at any time, then it would seem reasonable to have people go out and either incarcerate and deport the animal, or if necessary kill it to prevent it from harming someone. Both of these would technically violate the NAP if it were extended to animals, however it also seems to say that animals are not capable of moral thinking at any point in their lives or existence and thus in some way make them less than human.

 

A child will eventually gain moral thinking and thus this would not apply to them. I also go not keep monkeys or dolphins as pets or food (even though moral thinking is questionable) I could see an argument for the NAP applying to these animals as they would be more likely to have moral thinking.

 

I am not necessarily saying i have clinched anything, but there seems to be a difference between animals capable of moral thinking and reason and those who are not, just as there is a difference between animals capable of feeling pain and those who are not.

 

I would not want myself or my family to be around undomesticated animals who are not capable of moral thinking or reason for the potential of harm or death.

 

Besides this, there are some who define sentience as feeling pain and others who confine it more to realizing that they exist, which it is a much higher brain function to be able to achieve consciousness as as compared to feeling of pain.

Would you describe a patient in a coma to be non sentient?

 

If so, would that non sentience justify using force against him/her?

[Wesley]

No. I consider that when one member of a species achieves reason and moral thinking that the species is capable of it and thus it becomes a goal of education for the species where the NAP could extend. This is why I am somewhat wary of borderline animals where moral reasoning may be on the cusp of development and would not aggress against them. However, I also conceded that I have not completely reasoned it out, so it is easily possible that I am missing something. Only that it seems apparent that moral reasoning abilities is another line like feeling pain is a line.

[Hannibal]

I think we have a different understanding of "Sentient." I mean "alive and able to feel pain."

 

 

 

I don't think the necessarily have a different meaning. Your definition is good enough for me right now, I just don;t think sentience directly has anything to do with the argument at hand.

 

 

Are you proposing a system enforced by the threat or initiation of the use of force?

 

 

 

I have no idea how you can get to this conclusion... If i suggest that the law exists to protect men's rights, which i also said is the right to live free from coercion (NAP), then the question doesn't make sense. How can one enforce the single right that men have, by violating the single right that men have.

 

 

We are in agreement about rights toward people, but I might add "property rights" to that definition.

 

 

 

Sure, it's the same thing. If men must be free to use their minds to live and prosper, then the product of their minds must also fall under the same protection. Taking another man's food, which is a product of his free and reasoned actions, ends in the same result as preventing him from freely harvesting that food in the first place. Freedom of the mind is meaningless without the freedom to act on it, and therefore nullification of the free action is the same as nullification of the free thought.

 

An infant cannot cognitively grasp the laws of morality, but you must still treat the child as if he does.

 

 

 

No you mustn't. An infant is not a moral agent, and so he is not treated as a moral agent. This is why children aren't legally responsible for their actions (at least where I live). Children are/should be afforded as many of the same right as men are, because they will one day become a moral agent, just as a comatose man will (hopefully) one day awaken to become once again a moral agent. We expect & hope one day to trade freely with this grown-up child, and we expect a mutual observation of the NAP, so it is in our interest to afford the proto-man as many of the rights that a grown man has as we can, while considering the child's safety. 

 

I don't mean animals have to obey morality, but to maintain universality, we must treat them as such.

 

 

 

No. You are choosing an arbitrary delimiter (sentience) when it comes to measuring universality. How did you arrive at the conclusion that this was the correct distinction? 

 

The NAP extends to every sentient creature.

 

 

 

Why?  You need to lay out the reasoning which leads you to this conclusion. Otherwise it;s no better than saying "because God wills it".

 

 

 This is why I am somewhat wary of borderline animals where moral reasoning may be on the cusp of development and would not aggress against them. However, I also conceded that I have not completely reasoned it out, so it is easily possible that I am missing something. Only that it seems apparent that moral reasoning abilities is another line like feeling pain is a line.

 

This is why you need to first ask yourself why we even need morality in the first place? Only when you understand what purpose it serves can you then decide what is moral, and when and to whom it applies.

 

Rights are the result of the application of moral principles in a social context. Those border line animals play no role in a human social context, which is why it makes no sense to grant them rights. It could, of course, still be immoral to mistreat them; but this is immorality in a personal context, and rights only make sense in a social context.

 

Ayn Rand's explanations, which i;m paraphrasing, are very compelling and are the only ones which are objectively provable (hence the name Objectivism). There are articles and things on objectivist organisation websites which talk about things like animal rights. I'm not sure if Rand ever explicitly explained why animals do not have individual rights. It's implicit in her explanations of why men do.

[A.I.]

No. I consider that when one member of a species achieves reason and moral thinking that the species is capable of it and thus it becomes a goal of education for the species where the NAP could extend. This is why I am somewhat wary of borderline animals where moral reasoning may be on the cusp of development and would not aggress against them. However, I also conceded that I have not completely reasoned it out, so it is easily possible that I am missing something. Only that it seems apparent that moral reasoning abilities is another line like feeling pain is a line.

Do you consider yourself speciest? 

 

I don't think the necessarily have a different meaning. Your definition is good enough for me right now, I just don;t think sentience directly has anything to do with the argument at hand.

 

 

 

 

I have no idea how you can get to this conclusion... If i suggest that the law exists to protect men's rights, which i also said is the right to live free from coercion (NAP), then the question doesn't make sense. How can one enforce the single right that men have, by violating the single right that men have.

 

 

 

 

Sure, it's the same thing. If men must be free to use their minds to live and prosper, then the product of their minds must also fall under the same protection. Taking another man's food, which is a product of his free and reasoned actions, ends in the same result as preventing him from freely harvesting that food in the first place. Freedom of the mind is meaningless without the freedom to act on it, and therefore nullification of the free action is the same as nullification of the free thought.

 

 

 

No you mustn't. An infant is not a moral agent, and so he is not treated as a moral agent. This is why children aren't legally responsible for their actions (at least where I live). Children are/should be afforded as many of the same right as men are, because they will one day become a moral agent, just as a comatose man will (hopefully) one day awaken to become once again a moral agent. We expect & hope one day to trade freely with this grown-up child, and we expect a mutual observation of the NAP, so it is in our interest to afford the proto-man as many of the rights that a grown man has as we can, while considering the child's safety. 

 

 

 

No. You are choosing an arbitrary delimiter (sentience) when it comes to measuring universality. How did you arrive at the conclusion that this was the correct distinction? 

 

 

 

Why?  You need to lay out the reasoning which leads you to this conclusion. Otherwise it;s no better than saying "because God wills it".

 

 

 

This is why you need to first ask yourself why we even need morality in the first place? Only when you understand what purpose it serves can you then decide what is moral, and when and to whom it applies.

 

Rights are the result of the application of moral principles in a social context. Those border line animals play no role in a human social context, which is why it makes no sense to grant them rights. It could, of course, still be immoral to mistreat them; but this is immorality in a personal context, and rights only make sense in a social context.

 

Ayn Rand's explanations, which i;m paraphrasing, are very compelling and are the only ones which are objectively provable (hence the name Objectivism). There are articles and things on objectivist organisation websites which talk about things like animal rights. I'm not sure if Rand ever explicitly explained why animals do not have individual rights. It's implicit in her explanations of why men do.

 

Do you consider yourself speciest, Hannibal? By "speciest," I mean human supremacist?

[Wesley]

Do you consider yourself speciest?

You claim yourself that humans are above animals and that the reverse was propaganda by your aunt. Also, it is not "...ist" if it is based on fact, logic, and evidence. For instance saying that human men tend to be stronger than human women is not sexist because it can be proven. You have seemed to dodge the argument I put forward. If there is a problem with the argument, then I may have a block of some sort. If it makes sense, then it supports my claim.

[Hannibal]

 

Do you consider yourself speciest, Hannibal? By "speciest," I mean human supremacist?

 

It's not really something that's especially of interest to me, like asking me whether i think red is better than blue, if you get my meaning.

What is of interest to me is value, and I am my own highest value. All morality stems from that, as it should stem from yourself as your own highest value. Where the moral values of all men, who choose to live as men, overlap, we have rights. Animals may value food over rocks, but they aren't capable of holding moral values. Without those moral values there is no overlap, there is no free exchange of values between men and animal, and therefore no animal rights. Some humans may not possess any values which we wish to trade, but they have the capacity to and in the interest of consistency and non-contradiction they are still afforded the same rights. Man is considered man because of his nature as a man, despite the degree to which that humanity is realised. Animals do not possess the attributes of humanity that give rise to human rights, and therefore should not be afforded such legal rights.

[fridolutin]

I do not consent and I waive the benefits

This sentence has great implication when a non anthropocentric vision is applied. We as humans have neglected the other living species in our analysis of the situation. We take for granted the fact that we act on nature and non human creatures the exact and same way we condemn our leaders doing so. Those creatures are slaves which lives are confined and repressed so we humans can benefit from privileges far from normal. The same attention should therefore be applied in their direction as the one consented for human beings. 

I waive the benefit is then extended to the privileges human beings got since they adopted modern technology for their own development in contradiction with the basic needs of living creatures, regardless of gender and species. 

The first step toward liberation from enslavement is to abandon dependancies from the modern world, the one who claims loud words like freedom and democracy but acts in a completely opposite way. 

So are those who speak of freedom not including all lives as part of life.

[Hannibal]

I do not consent and I waive the benefits

 

This sentence has great implication when a non anthropocentric vision is applied. We as humans have neglected the other living species in our analysis of the situation. We take for granted the fact that we act on nature and non human creatures the exact and same way we condemn our leaders doing so. Those creatures are slaves which lives are confined and repressed so we humans can benefit from privileges far from normal. The same attention should therefore be applied in their direction as the one consented for human beings. 

 

I waive the benefit is then extended to the privileges human beings got since they adopted modern technology for their own development in contradiction with the basic needs of living creatures, regardless of gender and species. 

 

The first step toward liberation from enslavement is to abandon dependancies from the modern world, the one who claims loud words like freedom and democracy but acts in a completely opposite way. 

 

So are those who speak of freedom not including all lives as part of life.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges, and saying that they are the same because they are both fruit. The source of rights and morality comes from the nature of apples, not from the nature of fruit.

 

You need to provide some reasoning to back up your case before you can reasonably expect anyone to give it serious consideration. You need to explain why you believe that morality and rights come from fruit, rather than apples.

[A.I.]

You claim yourself that humans are above animals and that the reverse was propaganda by your aunt. Also, it is not "...ist" if it is based on fact, logic, and evidence. For instance saying that human men tend to be stronger than human women is not sexist because it can be proven. You have seemed to dodge the argument I put forward. If there is a problem with the argument, then I may have a block of some sort. If it makes sense, then it supports my claim.

Speciest means one species over the rest of them. Strength has nothing to do with it. Large mammals and invertebrates are stronger than humans, but I still consider them equal. My parents were stronger than I was when I was young, but now I'm stronger than them. Are you insinuating that the ability to dominate is innate in "value?" I'm just trying to get to the crux of the issue because we seem to be going in circles.

It's not really something that's especially of interest to me, like asking me whether i think red is better than blue, if you get my meaning.

What is of interest to me is value, and I am my own highest value. All morality stems from that, as it should stem from yourself as your own highest value. Where the moral values of all men, who choose to live as men, overlap, we have rights. Animals may value food over rocks, but they aren't capable of holding moral values. Without those moral values there is no overlap, there is no free exchange of values between men and animal, and therefore no animal rights. Some humans may not possess any values which we wish to trade, but they have the capacity to and in the interest of consistency and non-contradiction they are still afforded the same rights. Man is considered man because of his nature as a man, despite the degree to which that humanity is realised. Animals do not possess the attributes of humanity that give rise to human rights, and therefore should not be afforded such legal rights.

I have never asserted or implied that animals possess morality or the ability of moral agency. That would be like expecting a toddler to expertly knit women's undergarments. No, wait. That's been done in a few Asian countries I believe. LOL

[Wesley]

Speciest means one species over the rest of them. Strength has nothing to do with it. Large mammals and invertebrates are stronger than humans, but I still consider them equal. My parents were stronger than I was when I was young, but now I'm stronger than them. Are you insinuating that the ability to dominate is innate in "value?" I'm just trying to get to the crux of the issue because we seem to be going in circles.

I am sorry that my analogy was not clear. Strength has nothing to do with "speciest". I was saying that qualities that are true descriptions are not racist, sexist, or any other ...ist.

 

It seems impossible to apply morals to an animal that does not have moral reasoning, as it could easily attack you or harm you and would not be wrong, but would just be an animal. Animals that do not have the ability to reason morally as a species do not seem to be capable of applying morality to them.

 

I also do not consider invertebrates equal to humans. If I had a choice of killing a worm or killing a human, I do not think the choice would be difficult.

[Hannibal]

I have never asserted or implied that animals possess morality or the ability of moral agency...

 

And I never implied that you had. I'm simply explaining the origins of rights, and how those origins mean that they cannot apply to animals. You keep clinging tightly to an assertion with regards to animals possessing rights, but make no attempt to support your assertion with any kind of logic. This is why I'm outright stating that you don't understand what you;re talking about, because you don;t seem to be able to provide any reasoning, let alone sound reasoning.

 

Please don;t take that the wrong way if it sounds aggressive - It's just that we've used up pages of dialogue and you've declined to provide any kind of reasoning at all.

[A.I.]

And I never implied that you had. I'm simply explaining the origins of rights, and how those origins mean that they cannot apply to animals. You keep clinging tightly to an assertion with regards to animals possessing rights, but make no attempt to support your assertion with any kind of logic. This is why I'm outright stating that you don't understand what you;re talking about, because you don;t seem to be able to provide any reasoning, let alone sound reasoning.

 

Please don;t take that the wrong way if it sounds aggressive - It's just that we've used up pages of dialogue and you've declined to provide any kind of reasoning at all.

I'm sorry. I've been thinking about it and I just don't see a big difference between humans and animals. Humans are just highly evolved animals with the capacity to reason. I don't understand what the ability to reason has to do with morality. A person with an I.Q. of 20 might not be able to reason. Would you treat that person like "an animal?" It also doesn't pass the coma test. A person in a coma is no different from a sleeping animal in that they both do not possess the ability to fight back. I'm trying to get to the point of violence and self defense. If it doesn't attack you, you cannot use force against it or throw it in a cage for the rest of its' life. Your argument seems to me like its' roots lie in racism. Blacks used to be "treated like animals" and viewed as inhuman. I'm not saying animals are human, but as the species evolves, we are gaining more and more humanity and empathy.

 

People don't care what happens to animals because they can't use weapons like guns and nuclear weapons and they are virtually powerless, like children.

[LovePrevails]

 

Stef on animal rights:

 

 

My notes on the video:

 

The NAP requires an understanding or the potential for understanding the NAP. You cannot be bound by something that you do not understand. That’s why a person with an I.Q. of 30 is not criminally responsible for aggressive actions.

 

Animals cannot understand philosophy or NAP, so they are not covered by morality. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be as kind to them as possible. The best way to ensure that people are kind to animals is to treat people well as children. It is well known that child abuse is heavily associated with cruelty to animals. But we are so ridiculously short of compassion towards children, prisoners, victims of war, kids in public schools, intergenerational state debt … we are so short of compassion for our fellow human beings who are bound by the NAP that to overleap the need for compassion to other human beings and hope to achieve it somehow vis-a-vis animals before human beings is to put the cart before the horse. Compassion towards children will flow into compassion towards others will flow into compassion towards animals. The sequence has to be children -> adults -> animals. Trying to overleap this will not work.

 

 

 

"The non-aggression principle requires and understanding of the non-aggression principle, which is why someone with an IQ of 30 is not criminally responsible for aggressive actions and so you can't be bound by something you do not understand."

 

This is a truly crap argument.

 

All that follows from your reasoning is the conclusion that animals are not bound by the non-aggression principle.

You continue: "Animals cannot understand philosophy... and therefore they are not covered by morality." 

 

What follows from your reasoning is that someone with an IQ of 30 is fair game to be kept in a small cage for his or her entire life, selectively bred, farmed, slaughtered and eaten.

[fridolutin]

You need to provide some reasoning to back up your case before you can reasonably expect anyone to give it serious consideration. You need to explain why you believe that morality and rights come from fruit, rather than apples.

 

I’m trying to say that our analysis is wrong from the beginning when we look at it downstream instead of upstream at the source.

 

Who is putting mankind ahead and on top of other creatures ? Man.. That is an assertion based on the premise he thinks he’s superior. 

 

Instead, lets place other living species at the upper place and man below.  

 

This could bring a different view considering the superiority of the other living creatures is reflected by the fact they don’t destroy or pollute their environment like humankind does., which is not a sign of intelligence.

[LovePrevails]

I love how two people thumbs downed my post but didn't care to point out how my reasoning was innaccurate, that's maturity for you.

I'm sorry. I've been thinking about it and I just don't see a big difference between humans and animals. Humans are just highly evolved animals with the capacity to reason. I don't understand what the ability to reason has to do with morality. A person with an I.Q. of 20 might not be able to reason. Would you treat that person like "an animal?" It also doesn't pass the coma test. A person in a coma is no different from a sleeping animal in that they both do not possess the ability to fight back. I'm trying to get to the point of violence and self defense.

 

This is correct.

 

In logic there is something called an argument by analogy, it goes like this

 

you eat, animals eat

you shit, animals shit

you procreate and have sex, animals procreate and have sex,

you take care of your kids, animals take care of their kids

you have sensations, animals have sensations

you see pleasure and avoid pain, animals seek pleasure and avoid pain

and on and on we go

 

animals do have some limited capacity to reason, for example a dog can follow a scent up to a fork in a road and deduce that because it doesn't go up one way it must go the other

 

but that is clearly irrelevant, because it is not one of the factors that comes into the act of killing

 

it's not like "Is it ethical to commit fraud on a cow?"  -- it's irrelevant to commit fraud on a cow! a cow can't reason!

 

a cow can however suffer, feel pain, wants to live and doesn't want to die, it has preferences

 

those are relevant factors, not whether it can reason or not. I'm ringing up with this on Sunday perhaps because it's such a dull argument.

 

I don't mean dull as in boring, I mean dull as in poorly reasoned.

[Wesley]

I'm ringing up with this on Sunday perhaps because it's such a dull argument.

I may be wrong, but I believe Jeffrey Tucker is on this Sunday and they are trying to keep content somewhat geared to questions that he knows about/is expert in/ etc. Though I would be very interested to hear the conversation when it occurs.

[PatrickC]

This topic is really about reciprocity primarily, which animals are not capable of like human to human... Having said that, being cruel to animals certainly opens up a chasm lack of self knowledge, that is certainly worth exploring.

[A.I.]

I think this conversation isn't about "reason" anymore. I think it's now about a lack of empathy.

 

 

This is a truly crap argument.

 

That's why it got thumbed down. You used an ad homonym argument to "refute" a hypothesis.

[Hannibal]

I'm sorry. I've been thinking about it and I just don't see a big difference between humans and animals. Humans are just highly evolved animals with the capacity to reason. I don't understand what the ability to reason has to do with morality. A person with an I.Q. of 20 might not be able to reason. Would you treat that person like "an animal?" It also doesn't pass the coma test. A person in a coma is no different from a sleeping animal in that they both do not possess the ability to fight back. I'm trying to get to the point of violence and self defense. If it doesn't attack you, you cannot use force against it or throw it in a cage for the rest of its' life. Your argument seems to me like its' roots lie in racism. Blacks used to be "treated like animals" and viewed as inhuman. I'm not saying animals are human, but as the species evolves, we are gaining more and more humanity and empathy.

 

I feel like we are fiddling while rome burns. People don't care what happens to animals because they can't use weapons like guns and nuclear weapons and they are virtually powerless, like children.

 

Can I ask you, how was your childhood? feel free to PM me.

 

My childhood was pretty good. Great compared to lots. I was smacked very occasionally, and mollycoddled a little too much for my liking (when a person enjoys freedom, too much attention can feel more like being smothered).

 

And to pick one single problem in your response - a man in a coma IS VERY different to a sleeping animal. When the man wakes up from his coma he will be capable of moral agency once again. An animal will NEVER be a moral agent, by definition. 

 

The problem I have is that you persist in insisting that the ability to reason has nothing to do with morality, yet will not provide any kind of reasoning behind your alternative idea of what morality is. I ask again, why do we need a concept of morality?  baby steps - lets just answer this question first.

I think this conversation isn't about "reason" anymore. I think it's now about a lack of empathy.

That's why it got thumbed down. You used an ad homonym argument to "refute" a hypothesis.

 That's not an ad homonym.

This topic is really about reciprocity primarily, which animals are not capable of like human to human... Having said that, being cruel to animals certainly opens up a chasm lack of self knowledge, that is certainly worth exploring.

 

Exactly. The concept of a right is reciprocal by definition. Cruelty to animal is still immoral, on a personal level (i think at least), but rights are entirely different.

 

You need to provide some reasoning to back up your case before you can reasonably expect anyone to give it serious consideration. You need to explain why you believe that morality and rights come from fruit, rather than apples.

 

I’m trying to say that our analysis is wrong from the beginning when we look at it downstream instead of upstream at the source.

 

Who is putting mankind ahead and on top of other creatures ? Man.. That is an assertion based on the premise he thinks he’s superior. 

 

Instead, lets place other living species at the upper place and man below.  

 

This could bring a different view considering the superiority of the other living creatures is reflected by the fact they don’t destroy or pollute their environment like humankind does., which is not a sign of intelligence.

 

 

Lets not put any species at all on top. Lets instead look at the genesis of rights, and reasoning behind moral principles, from which we derive rights, to start with.

I think this conversation isn't about "reason" anymore. I think it's now about a lack of empathy.

 

 

It's not about reason because you don;t see to be interested in reason. Empathy has nothing to do with rights. You are making the mistake of substituting empathy for reason when analysing the application of individual rights. Empathy is a personal thing. Rights are a social thing.

How do I create a new post per reply? Instead of packing all of my replies to other posts into one single reply?

[PatrickC]

Yea, I'm attempting to filter out the parts I have little or no control over (for now).. Of course this doesn't mean that maybe we can reach a world whereby we can involve animals at their lower IQ of course.

 

I just don't wish to be distracted by it for now.. Given the current situation, I am more interested in how we treat our fellow humans (little people), children and adults even,. Which often seems to be at odds with each other.