Stefan I would love to get your opinion on this.

[Voluntaryancap]

Having recently read Rothbards The Ethics of Liberty.  I find myself hung up on one part of it.  It seems that people of the Rothbard line, such as Walter Block,  hold that animals have no rights since they aren't human.  I understand their point.  But my question is a serious one.  What makes us Human?  I've struggled with this for quite some time.  What about us as humans makes us deserving of certain 'inalienable' rights?  Is it because we demonstrate free will and an ability to reason above base instinct?  Certain animals can do that.  Is it because we demonstrate problem solving techniques? Well various animals demonstrate that.  The way I see it,  if our humanity is based on the fact that we are able to vocalize it, could we not then reserve the right of humanity to humans that speak the same language as us?  If we do not extend our rights to animals because they can not vocalize their will to us,  that puts them, at least in my mind, in the same category as any human that speaks a different language.

 

I would love your thoughts on this.  What makes us 'Human'?

[Wesley]

Having recently read Rothbards The Ethics of Liberty.  I find myself hung up on one part of it.  It seems that people of the Rothbard line, such as Walter Block,  hold that animals have no rights since they aren't human.  I understand their point.  But my question is a serious one.  What makes us Human?  I've struggled with this for quite some time.  What about us as humans makes us deserving of certain 'inalienable' rights?  Is it because we demonstrate free will and an ability to reason above base instinct?  Certain animals can do that.  Is it because we demonstrate problem solving techniques? Well various animals demonstrate that.  The way I see it,  if our humanity is based on the fact that we are able to vocalize it, could we not then reserve the right of humanity to humans that speak the same language as us?  If we do not extend our rights to animals because they can not vocalize their will to us,  that puts them, at least in my mind, in the same category as any human that speaks a different language.

 

I would love your thoughts on this.  What makes us 'Human'?

What has been expressed before as what makes someone "human" is the ability to have moral reasoning.

 

Moral reasoning is the ability to compare an individual situation or instance to an abstract moral principle.

 

As far as I know, humans are the only ones capable of doing this, however I don't particularly aggress against animals that may be able to like monkeys or dolphins.

 

Any animal who demonstrates the ability to have moral reasoning becomes a moral agent and ethics can be applied to them.

 

It is somewhat of an imperfect idea, and there are gray edges that I am not sure exactly what to do with, but it is nearly impossible to draw hard lines when it comes to biology and ethics (which this question is a bit of both). This doesn't necessarily invalidate the principles, however.

 

Did I answer this question to your satisfaction? Why is this question so important to you?

[Kevin Beal]

Well it's the capacity for principled reasoning, isn't it? The measuring of a prefered state against some ideal.

 

This reasoning is thought to only be possible thanks to language giving us a meta cognition. A dog may think to itself "I'm going to go chase that cat", but AFAIK it's only humans who reflect on themselves behaving in particular ways, as if outside of themselves. That's why we can threaten a person with future punishments, but can only inflict fear on an animal in the moment. Animals very likely do not experience angst, for example.

 

It seems to me to be the case that animals can't reasonably be held responsible for murdering other animals, and us killing another animal isn't murder, but neither does that make it neutral. I think it would fall somewhere within the realm of aesthetics. Which is why we might resent someone who tortures frogs, but shooting the guy in the leg to help the frog escape would be seen as,... extreme let's say, haha.

[dsayers]

When considering such things, I think precise language is important. What makes us human is our biological classification. You're exploring what makes us people, not humans. If such a day comes that we're exposed to another species that can reason, they will be people too.

 

I too have wondered this. I don't put too much thought into simply because we are omnivores. However, our ability to reason will likely lead to a day when we choose more efficient sustenance. It's more efficient to eat the things we feed to animals to be able to eat them. It's unfortunate that most people that think this way operate from a morally superior standpoint, which would turn off people they might otherwise be able to convince.

 

Most of the reason I spend any thought on it is because of government subsidies.

[Voluntaryancap]

If the classification comes from our ability to reason or our moral reasoning, my question still stands.  How do we KNOW that animals are incapable of moral reasoning? I've seen animals demonstrate empathy, pity, sadness, angst, etc… If we simply are unable to know this due to our inability to communicate with animals, how are they then different from a person that speaks a different language? Or a brain-dead individual?  Personally I eat meat, and am not an animal rights activist or anything.  This question just came from a conversation I had a while ago and it has never really been answered to my satisfaction.

[Kevin Beal]

I've seen animals demonstrate empathy, pity, sadness, angst

You have? Like sorrow, contempt and angst and these complex emotions? Where? I'd love to see it.

 

And I don't know that animals are completely incapable. I'm simply reporting what I've heard and makes sense to me. I could be wrong, of course. If you can show me angst in animals, then it certainly would poke a pretty big hole in what I said.

[Andrew79]

If you gave animals the same rights as humans, would the animals acknowledge this?

 

Would the lion stop eating the gazelle? Would the spider stop eating the fly? Would cats and dogs live in harmony?

 

I don't believe they would because they're not moral agents - they're not capable of making that decision, of differentiating between right and wrong.

[Nerburg]

 

If the classification comes from our ability to reason or our moral reasoning, my question still stands.  How do we KNOW that animals are incapable of moral reasoning? I've seen animals demonstrate empathy, pity, sadness, angst, etc… If we simply are unable to know this due to our inability to communicate with animals, how are they then different from a person that speaks a different language? Or a brain-dead individual?  Personally I eat meat, and am not an animal rights activist or anything.  This question just came from a conversation I had a while ago and it has never really been answered to my satisfaction.

This, all of the this.

 

You have? Like sorrow, contempt and angst and these complex emotions? Where? I'd love to see it.

 

And I don't know that animals are completely incapable. I'm simply reporting what I've heard and makes sense to me. I could be wrong, of course. If you can show me angst in animals, then it certainly would poke a pretty big hole in what I said.

Can you describe the difference between sorrow, contempt, and angst as opposed observable(without verbalization) emotions like sadness/dejection, dislike, and melancholy? The issue with regards to non-human animals, seems to boil down to language barrier.

 

Have you owned a pet for yourself before? My cats have asked me for things, rejected things with disdain as opposed to general un-interest, shown sadness upon someone leaving the house or general melancholy if they don't get to go outside on a nice day. Once you understand the body language of an animal, there can be some inter-species communication regardless of the language barrier. Plus, when each of the six cats I've had have entirely different personalities, it seems reasonable to assume that there are individuals in those little meat-machines, since they display unique motivation, preference, and emotion towards the same scenarios/events.

 

Would the lion stop eating the gazelle? Would the spider stop eating the fly? Would cats and dogs live in harmony?

Who knows? Go to youtube and search for videos of animals who are naturally thought to be opposed (dogs/cats, cats/mice, etc.), and you'll find lots of odd friendships that avoid the natural predator/prey dichotomy.

 

Interesting tangent related to this topic: in 10 years we might have computer translators for the verbal language of prairie dogs, which is much more complex than you'd expect. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/prairie-dogs-language-decoded-by-scientists-1.1322230

[Andrew79]

Who knows? Go to youtube and search for videos of animals who are naturally thought to be opposed (dogs/cats, cats/mice, etc.), and you'll find lots of odd friendships that avoid the natural predator/prey dichotomy.

 

Seriously?

 

"Hey Mr. Shark, you're being given the same rights as humans. But so is ever other animal, which means you can't eat them anymore. Now I know that's possible because I've seen a video on Youtube with animals getting on just fine. And to help you, here's a copy of Finding Nemo. Remember, fish are friends!"

[Nerburg]

Seriously?"Hey Mr. Shark, you're being given the same rights as humans. But so is ever other animal, which means you can't eat them anymore. Now I know that's possible because I've seen a video on Youtube with animals getting on just fine. And to help you, here's a copy of Finding Nemo. Remember, fish are friends!"

If you want to misconstrue what I said and my meaning to such a degree, go ahead, but be aware of it.

[Kevin Beal]

Can you describe the difference between sorrow, contempt, and angst as opposed observable(without verbalization) emotions like sadness/dejection, dislike, and melancholy? The issue with regards to non-human animals, seems to boil down to language barrier.

Sure. These complex emotions require reference to principle or complex abstract reasoning. They are considered complex emotions that even some humans lack (sociopathy for example).

 

We don't feel contempt for mistakes, accidents or honestly repentant people. Rather it is an acknowledgment of the immorality or base corruption that a person knowingly acts out.

 

Angst is an overwhelm about a person's entire life, a discomfort projected far into the future.

 

 

 

Have you owned a pet for yourself before? My cats have asked me for things, rejected things with disdain as opposed to general un-interest, shown sadness upon someone leaving the house or general melancholy if they don't get to go outside on a nice day. Once you understand the body language of an animal, there can be some inter-species communication regardless of the language barrier. Plus, when each of the six cats I've had have entirely different personalities, it seems reasonable to assume that there are individuals in those little meat-machines, since they display unique motivation, preference, and emotion towards the same scenarios/events.

I have stewarded many pets, including dogs, cats and birds.

 

I completely and totally accept that animals are conscious creatures with a very wide range of subjective and even emotional experiences. There are animals that can count and understand shapes as concepts and learn from simple observation and all of that amazing stuff.

 

I don't know what your subjective experience of consciousness is like and you're human. I'm not likely to ever know what animals experience beyond the expressiveness of their body language and tone.

 

However, there are things that we can do that are completely self evidently simple and obvious, that animals cannot learn no matter how much we try to teach it. Cats do not understand pointing. They don't get that our extended finger is meant to bring attention to the thing it is directed at. A dog hit often enough with a broom attacks the broom as if it were the attacker. These things do not require language to communicate or learn.

 

I'm inclined to think that the composition of the brain and it's infinite variety, even if they all produce consciousness, create very different conscious states.

 

Even between men and women's brains in humans, women have a larger Corpus Callosum and a higher percentage of white matter. Their neurons are packed tighter together allowing for quicker passing of electrical and chemical signals. Men have larger brains (even after controlling for proportionate size) and have both hemispheres working separately, not communicating together as readily. At the risk of sounding misogynistic, this may explain why there is an apparently greater potential for analytical and artistic thinking in men.

 

I don't know what it's like to have a woman's brain and maybe it's more similar in psychology than I'm suggesting, but the idea that psychology is not affected much or at all by brain composition seems to me (a layman) to be absolutely insane. And that difference in brains is nothing compared to the difference between our brains and the brain of a chimpanzee, which again is light years different than a cat's brain. The idea that we all got the same emotional apparatus would be profoundly counterintuitive, to put it mildly.

 

The scientific debate around intelligence and emotionality in animals is not nearly over, and my research is just the result of some articles, documentaries and anecdotal experience. I could find myself eating my words, but I'm going to say that animals do not experience complex emotions, if any emotions at all (depending obviously on what animal we're talking about) for the reason I stated above: they require complex reasoning.

 

[Nerburg]

Sure. These complex emotions require reference to principle or complex abstract reasoning. They are considered complex emotions that even some humans lack (sociopathy for example).Angst is an overwhelm about a person's entire life, a discomfort projected far into the future.

Exchanged complex abstract reasoning seems to require a shared language, and I think it's well within the realm of possibility that an animal forcibly kept indoors could have discomfort on contemplating the lack of freedom (indoor cats who try to escape outside?), so I think the language barriers between species still applies here.

I have stewarded many pets, including dogs, cats and birds.I completely and totally accept that animals are conscious creatures with a very wide range of subjective and even emotional experiences. There are animals that can count and understand shapes as concepts and learn from simple observation and all of that amazing stuff.I don't know what your subjective experience of consciousness is like and you're human. I'm not likely to ever know what animals experience beyond the expressiveness of their body language and tone.However, there are things that we can do that are completely self evidently simple and obvious, that animals cannot learn no matter how much we try to teach it. Cats do not understand pointing. They don't get that our extended finger is meant to bring attention to the thing it is directed at. A dog hit often enough with a broom attacks the broom as if it were the attacker. These things do not require language to communicate or learn.

Totally true, but I also think we might not understand certain body language of other animals in general (such as the pointing example). If I don't see the greater truth brought out by this fact, please let me know.

I'm inclined to think that the composition of the brain and it's infinite variety, even if they all produce consciousness, create very different conscious states.Even between men and women's brains in humans, women have a larger Corpus Callosum and a higher percentage of white matter. Their neurons are packed tighter together allowing for quicker passing of electrical and chemical signals. Men have larger brains (even after controlling for proportionate size) and have both hemispheres working separately, not communicating together as readily. At the risk of sounding misogynistic, this may explain why there is an apparently greater potential for analytical and artistic thinking in men.I don't know what it's like to have a woman's brain and maybe it's more similar in psychology than I'm suggesting, but the idea that psychology is not affected much or at all by brain composition seems to me (a layman) to be absolutely insane. And that difference in brains is nothing compared to the difference between our brains and the brain of a chimpanzee, which again is light years different than a cat's brain. The idea that we all got the same emotional apparatus would be profoundly counterintuitive, to put it mildly.

(Emphasis added). I absolutely agree, but again, I don't think I see how this affects the larger picture. If I'm missing something, I'd be grateful if you pointed it out.

The scientific debate around intelligence and emotionality in animals is not nearly over, and my research is just the result of some articles, documentaries and anecdotal experience. I could find myself eating my words, but I'm going to say that animals do not experience complex emotions, if any emotions at all (depending obviously on what animal we're talking about) for the reason I stated above: they require complex reasoning.

I just dont quite see how this conclusion comes necessarily from the discussion so far.P.S. I know this isn't necessarily the place, but I really appreciate the way you communicate on this forum Kevin, but as someone who lurks more than I post, I just wanted to compliment you on the well thought out perspective you bring to most, if not all, of the threads you post in.

[James Dean]

Or a brain-dead individual?

 

This is what keeps me up all night thinking. This is what i usually come to, wondering what you guys think of it.

 

Human beings with mental retardation that exempts them from the category of moral agents are the creation of human beings who where/are moral agents. This makes them, like all children, the responsibility of those who created them. They understood that there was a chance of this eventuality, and must now face the consequences of taking that gamble. We also offer them the protection of ethics, that we do not extend to other non-agents, because we understand that they are a deviation on the scale of moral agency. Just because someone is born without a leg, doesn't mean that they are no longer a human because part of the definition of human includes 'bipedal.'

 

 

What has been expressed before as what makes someone "human" is the ability to have moral reasoning.

 

Moral reasoning is the ability to compare an individual situation or instance to an abstract moral principle.

 

As far as I know, humans are the only ones capable of doing this, however I don't particularly aggress against animals that may be able to like monkeys or dolphins.

 

Any animal who demonstrates the ability to have moral reasoning becomes a moral agent and ethics can be applied to them.

 

It is somewhat of an imperfect idea, and there are gray edges that I am not sure exactly what to do with, but it is nearly impossible to draw hard lines when it comes to biology and ethics (which this question is a bit of both). This doesn't necessarily invalidate the principles, however.

 

Did I answer this question to your satisfaction? Why is this question so important to you?

 

The science, as my understanding goes, corroborates with this. I have not seen evidence that any animal can reason in the abstract at all, let alone moral abstraction. It's perfectly fine to say that aesthetically it's preferable to not agress against animals, but being put in the category of aesthetics, you cannot legitimately initiate the use of force to prevent the effects of those actions. The same way being on time is universally preferable to being late, but only in an aesthetic sense... I can't use force against my  friend for being 3 hours late to my birthday party (no matter how much I want to.)

 

Totally true, but I also think we might not understand certain body language of other animals in general (such as the pointing example). If I don't see the greater truth brought out by this fact, please let me know.

 

I think what he was trying to say was that the pointing is a way of abstract reasoning. Animals have a hard time understanding that your extended finger means anything that does not have to do with my finger. I could be wrong but this is what I get from it. A dog understands that a hand raised in anger will strike him on the nose, he see's the hand (the implement which is about to strike him) as an object. A dog understands a closed fist can mean they get a treat! but only because the treat is in your hand. they can't separate the concept from the object, they can't universalize or abstract. They can connect stimuli with other stimuli (pavlov's dog) but they can't be prompted to a concept. When a dog see's another dog being punished for something, they don't conceptualize that thing as 'bad' even from a negative reinforcement standpoint.

 

That was kinda rambling and might make no sense, but I hope it helps.

 

[Kevin Beal]

Firstly, thank you for the kind words

 

Second, I'm not sure if you are missing something. I wasn't terribly clear. My only real point was that it's (for all I know) impossible to know for sure whether or not animals are capable of complex emotions.

 

I just think that if I can see an ant as having nothing really going on up there (or a jellyfish with it's 800 neurons if an ant isn't dumb enough for you), then at least some animals do not have emotions. The mere existence of a brain isn't sufficient, so it must be something about the particular brains of humans and cats allows for emotions.

 

Emotions like anxiety, depression and excitement don't really require any thoughtful evaluation of a situation in order to be elicited. They are very basic emotions. And I totally grant that some non-human animals have these emotions.

 

A more complex emotion like remorse, or shame or angst requires a bit more brain juice in order to be processed. Likewise, some concept formation must be necessary for my cat to understand that this new tin contains wet food like the last tin did, but there is a whole magnitude higher abstraction to understand mathematics, or epistemology or ethics.

 

One way that we know animals are not capable of math (for example) is that we've taught animals to count. A horse stomps it's foot a certain number of times to get a carrot. The highest any horse has ever gotten is 6, I believe.

 

There is a language barrier humans to animals, but I'm not so sure that barrier goes the other way. At least I would very much doubt it. Two human societies that don't speak each other's language, even if they don't share cultural references, can still communicate beyond mere body language. Anthropologists have gone into the amazon rainforest to meet primitive tribes and they were able to eventually get some shared language worked out enough to communicate the way you and I can.

 

I can reproduce the sounds my cat makes, but it doesn't add up to a syntax, much less any meaning.

 

I would just be careful not to project your own experience onto your pets.

 

The cat is actually my roommate's and I hear her talking to the cat constantly making up a story about what the cat is thinking and saying with it's meowing. And she comes up with some very elaborate things that are definitely not what the cat is thinking. She is so used to relating to the cat in that way that she doesn't even really realize she's making anything up. She's essentially talking to herself, projecting her own irritation on the cat, who for all we know doesn't have a clue what it's meowing about. It just feels like meowing.

 

Emphasis on "for all we know"

 

Hopefully that's a little clearer.

[LanceD]

Kevin to pick out one little point you made. Elephants have been proven to be able to count. Experiments have been done where food items were poured into buckets in front of elephants. Over 80% of the time the elephants grabbed the bucket with the most food, which actually out performed humans.

 

Not that this has any actual relevance to the over all topic, I just thought it was interesting!

 

I think this discussion is complicated by the wildly different levels of intelligence present in animals. I'll continue with elephants as an example. They have been observed experiencing many complex emotions, grief, anxiety and even PTSD. They are also the only animal that regularly performs rituals for their dead, often covering their bodies with leaves and dirt as well as recovering removed remains and bringing them back to spot the elephant died.

 

These examples along with many more show that elephants are a step above most other animals. So I don't think this topic can be properly discussed without sorting animals into smaller groups and no longer talking about them like they are all the same.

 

Mammals are obviously capable of emotion, to a greater or lesser degree based on species. So I could understand and potentially agree with arguments supporting the idea of giving them some or all protections afforded to people. I've already done this on a species by species basis, with everything we have learned about the intelligence, language and social structure of dolphins and orcas I personally have a hard time seeing the difference between them and ancient humans.

 

On the flip side I don't think any argument can be made for any non mammal. Some of them are smarter then others but only so far as being better capable of acquiring food. So I think the debate is clouded when animals are discussed as a group.

Kevin to pick out one little point you made. Elephants have been proven to be able to count. Experiments have been done where food items were poured into buckets in front of elephants. Over 80% of the time the elephants grabbed the bucket with the most food, which actually out performed humans.

 

Not that this has any actual relevance to the over all topic, I just thought it was interesting!

 

I think this discussion is complicated by the wildly different levels of intelligence present in animals. I'll continue with elephants as an example. They have been observed experiencing many complex emotions, grief, anxiety and even PTSD. They are also the only animal that regularly performs rituals for their dead, often covering their bodies with leaves and dirt as well as recovering removed remains and bringing them back to spot the elephant died.

 

These examples along with many more show that elephants are a step above most other animals. So I don't think this topic can be properly discussed without sorting animals into smaller groups and no longer talking about them like they are all the same.

 

Mammals are obviously capable of emotion, to a greater or lesser degree based on species. So I could understand and potentially agree with arguments supporting the idea of giving them some or all protections afforded to people. I've already done this on a species by species basis, with everything we have learned about the intelligence, language and social structure of dolphins and orcas I personally have a hard time seeing the difference between them and ancient humans.

 

On the flip side I don't think any argument can be made for any non mammal. Some of them are smarter then others but only so far as being better capable of acquiring food. So I think the debate is clouded when animals are discussed as a group.

[dsayers]

They are also the only animal that regularly performs rituals for their dead, often covering their bodies with leaves and dirt as well as recovering removed remains and bringing them back to spot the elephant died.

 

What is the implication here? Also, I don't see how "chooses more food" in the context of "requires food to survive" is evidence of counting.

[LanceD]

The elephants displayed the ability to quickly count the amount of food as it entered the containers. Then pick the container that contained more. Regardless elephants being able to count has very little to do with the topic and I simply mentioned it because of something Kevin said and I thought he or others posting here may find it interesting.

 

As far as my implications when describing other observed behaviors is that some animals are capable of very complex emotions. I think if people are going to decide how we should treat animals understanding that some are capable of experiencing sadness when a member of their social group dies is important.

[dsayers]

I'm certainly in no position to say those conclusions are wrong. However, I don't think they were logically arrived upon. Being able to see that 8 of something is more than 6 of it is not the same as counting. Especially in the realm of food. If you set out a container with 2 teddy bears, one beside it with 3 teddy bears and then an empty container, and the elephant was able to put 4 (counting), 5 (adding), or 6 (multiplying) teddy bears into it, and then repeated the test with varying numbers to combat against chance, I don't see how "can count" can be concluded from "chooses more food." For all you know, the quickly filled containers might've been chosen by a more predominant aroma.

 

Also, I don't know that you can call what you say an elephant does with their dead as an expression of sadness or otherwise apply human meaning to it. Especially when you consider how irrational what humans do in regards to their dead actually is. Again, not saying you're wrong, but I do see several steps missing in the information you're sharing.

[Kevin Beal]

I should maybe also mention that I'm invested emotionally in my position being that I eat meat. I would rather not think that pigs and cows are doing moral calculations.

 

And that's really interesting about elephants, and I know that dolphins can understand shapes and play complex games.

 

I think that higher intelligence is one reason I wouldn't ever want to eat a dolphin or an elephant or Coco the gorilla. A fish by contrast, I feel no ambivalence about eating. I'm not convinced they are reasoned enough to hold accountable for crimes. Elephants and dolphins kill other animals that they don't plan on eating, but certainly I would feel conflicted if I saw it on a menu.

[Wesley]

I think that higher intelligence is one reason I wouldn't ever want to eat a dolphin or an elephant or Coco the gorilla. A fish by contrast, I feel no ambivalence about eating. I'm not convinced they are reasoned enough to hold accountable for crimes. Elephants and dolphins kill other animals that they don't plan on eating, but certainly I would feel conflicted if I saw it on a menu.

This is some of the gray area that I was talking about. Some animals may show elementary signs of complex or moral reasoning where some humans may be mentally retarded or otherwise unable to have the same reasoning level that is generally the standard.

 

As a safety measure, I do not eat anything that could be close. This generally includes things like elephants, dolphins, monkeys, dogs, cats etc.

 

Even if they were culturally-accepted options and available for eating, which they are not where I live, I certainly have some ambiguity at those edges which make it difficult to draw a clear line.

 

Stef used an argument before that I found helpful in determining things. Morality has to do with the use of force. If someone is going to shoot me, then I can use force to defend myself. If someone is trying to steal from me, I can use force to defend my property. If someone is about to eat a cheeseburger, would you use force against them to stop them from eating the burger? I couldn't think of justifying that and I would consider it immoral to use such force.

 

Would you consider using force against someone who was about to eat a gorilla or dolphin or elephant? What about a human that has less mental capacity than that same dolphin, gorilla, or elephant?

 

I would certainly defend the human. I am not sure about the highly intelligent animal. That could be my error in reasoning, but it certainly complicates things.

 

It gets tricky.

[aeonicentity]

Who knows? Go to youtube and search for videos of animals who are naturally thought to be opposed (dogs/cats, cats/mice, etc.), and you'll find lots of odd friendships that avoid the natural predator/prey dichotomy.

 

Interesting tangent related to this topic: in 10 years we might have computer translators for the verbal language of prairie dogs, which is much more complex than you'd expect. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/prairie-dogs-language-decoded-by-scientists-1.1322230

Fundamentally, we enslave pets. Looking to creatures which are functionally our slaves for examples of 'normal' and non-socially enforced behavior is ridiculous. Many animals become friends because in the screwed up world in which they live they're forced to live in a house against their will with other animals they would have otherwise eaten if they didn't think their masters would be upset at them for it. They often live socially isolated from other animals of their species, cooped up indoors for entire days on end (if not their entire lives) and only rarely get to procreate and have their own children. And then we castrate them for our convenience.

 

IF such a dog develops emotional responses to say, a cat, its probably for the same reason the Castaway made friends with Wilson: Circumstantial necessity. To mistake this for 'complex natural relationships' or the ability of your pet to reason out the realities of inter-racial relations is childish and naive.

[Wesley]

Fundamentally, we enslave pets. Looking to creatures which are functionally our slaves for examples of 'normal' and non-socially enforced behavior is ridiculous. Many animals become friends because in the screwed up world in which they live they're forced to live in a house against their will with other animals they would have otherwise eaten if they didn't think their masters would be upset at them for it. They often live socially isolated from other animals of their species, cooped up indoors for entire days on end (if not their entire lives) and only rarely get to procreate and have their own children. And then we castrate them for our convenience.

 

IF such a dog develops emotional responses to say, a cat, its probably for the same reason the Castaway made friends with Wilson: Circumstantial necessity. To mistake this for 'complex natural relationships' or the ability of your pet to reason out the realities of inter-racial relations is childish and naive.

I am not sure what dogs and cats you have been around. I know far more about dogs, so I will speak more about them.

 

I do not have a wolf. I have a dog. Almost all of what is termed a "dog" are domesticated animals that were specifically bred for human companionship or to work with or for humans. They are very happy to be able to do this.

 

These animals would often not survive or otherwise do well in the wild. They also would not like being without human companionship as they were bred to have it.

 

Also, you can train a dog without using force or threats and it generally leads to happier, healthier, and smarter dog.

 

I only leash my dog because the state requires me to. In the same way that I need to carry state ID around with me.

 

I also negotiate with my dog. If he chews, I need to come up with something he can chew that he likes and that I am ok with him chewing. If he barks, then I train him to bark on command and reward that and he is much less likely to bark otherwise.

 

He also is well socialized with people and pets. We visit the dog park on occasion, go to the pet store with him if he hasn't seen anyone in a while, have a few friends with dogs (including the person with the apartment above us who is about his age), and he sees some of the same dogs when he is on walks.

 

There are ways to have dogs where they are happy, force is not used except what is required by law, and if given the choice they would choose your house over any other available option- similar to the way that Stef parents where if Isabella were to have a choice, she would choose him over anyone else.

 

There are people who abuse animals (and it may be the majority who hit and yell at their pets just like a majority hit and yell at their kids), but calling all pet ownership as slavery and abuse sounds like projection of past experiences with animals or past childhood experiences projected onto pet ownership as a whole.

 

Dogs as we known them are meant to live humans and be pets and are only happy when filling their job.

[dsayers]

Fundamentally, we enslave pets.

 

Do you mean capture? Using the word "enslave" begs the question of animals as moral actors. It also has a labor component when in fact keeping a pet is a financial loss.

 

Would you say that all parents enslave their children by bringing them into a world where they're held captive for at least a few years?

[aeonicentity]

Wesley, Just calling it like it is. I'm not saying owning pets is immoral, actually quite the opposite. Lets be honest with ourselves, if they were moral actors, we'd all be deep into shit right about now.

 

Your dog is socialized because you enforced that structure onto him. He would not be that way if you didn't train him to be so. It sounds like you've done a good job training him, but training doesn't make you a moral actor, any more than programming a computer makes it a moral actor.

 

Perhaps you have both mis-read my statement. I'm pointing out that 'animal empathy' is not likely a result of their natural instincts showing through, but a reflection of the life we teach them to lead through force and training rather than through reason.

 

All I'm saying is this: they're surely NOT moral actors.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

We also offer them the protection of ethics, that we do not extend to other non-agents, because we understand that they are a deviation on the scale of moral agency. Just because someone is born without a leg, doesn't mean that they are no longer a human because part of the definition of human includes 'bipedal.'

 

 

There is no moral category called human being, it is all about capability. What kinda moral capabilities a creature has to possess to execute self ownership and be an e. g. 45% moral agent? Childs are sub-moral agents, otherwise you could kill or eat them at will and would have no obligations to raise them.

[Kevin Beal]

Also, what would it mean to reason about something without a language having a syntax?

 

By language here, I mean specifically any content of thought expressed through a consistent, syntactical and semantic form (written, verbal or private).

 

My first person experience of thought—and I would assume by extension all of yours as well—is content expressed through language, as if I'm a separate person conversing with myself.

 

I literally think "that guy who came into the office today was a real jerk" or "did I leave the stove on?". And, I sometimes I will even correct my own grammar even though I had never actually spoken anything out loud.

 

You might, in contrast, point out an experience that I've too had: I may think with some anticipation about how the sentence parts will end arriving at the meaning before they are said "in loud" (compare to "out loud"). The same way I will get someone else's meaning before they actually finish their sentence.

 

This may seem like an argument against the necessity of language for reasoning, but if that were the case, then I challenge you to reproduce it without the aid of this internal talking. I don't think it's possible.

 

Animals almost completely lack a true language, with some notable exceptions (Coco the gorilla, Alex the grey parrot for example). The criteria for how we might determine whether or not an animal has language I'm going to borrow from wikipedia:

 

 

 

Animal communication may be considered complex enough to be called a form of language if: the inventory of signs is large, the signs are relatively arbitrary, and the animals produce them with a degree of volition (as opposed to conditioned instincts).

 

Simple communication like presenting your engorged genitals to hopefully get some monkey sex if to be considered language has equally the same basis as releasing pheromones to attract a mate (which some animals can do of their own volition). We couldn't count out plants either since they give off scents, turn pretty colors etc.

 

There are some animals that may actually be said to have a true language (interesting examples here). It's controversial, though. Interestingly, the same counter argument I provided about learning to communicate with primitive and isolated tribes in the amazon is (apparently) not an original gangsta on my part.

 

Someone apparently tried to get all the clicking sounds down for dolphins to reproduce their language and play it back to them to have an actual dialog, and it failed entirely.

 

Along the same lines, it would be pretty strange to imagine that groups of dolphins in this part of the world would share the same language as dolphins on the other side of the world who never came in contact with each other for tens of thousands of years. And yet those are the kinds of terms we talk about animals having language: that it is something instinctual, buried deep within it's biology.

 

Therefore, I'm concluding that if animals lack the kind of private language, the internal talking, necessary for us to reason about things, then they cannot reason about things. And since they cannot reason about things, they are not moral agents.

[Wesley]

Wesley, Just calling it like it is. I'm not saying owning pets is immoral, actually quite the opposite. Lets be honest with ourselves, if they were moral actors, we'd all be deep into shit right about now.

 

Your dog is socialized because you enforced that structure onto him. He would not be that way if you didn't train him to be so. It sounds like you've done a good job training him, but training doesn't make you a moral actor, any more than programming a computer makes it a moral actor.

 

Perhaps you have both mis-read my statement. I'm pointing out that 'animal empathy' is not likely a result of their natural instincts showing through, but a reflection of the life we teach them to lead through force and training rather than through reason.

 

All I'm saying is this: they're surely NOT moral actors.

Then they cannot be slaves.

 

Taking an entity where morality does not apply and calling it a slave is like calling my computer a slave or my dresser a slave, which does not make sense.

 

I do not equate an animal with these and hold myself to certain standards with animals, but you saying that "they are not moral actors" and "they are slaves" does not make sense.

 

I also did not enforce that structure on my dog. He loves meeting new people and dogs and gets very excited to do so. I didn't train him on this, but just gave him circumstances where he was able to meet people and when he liked doing it, I kept doing it.

 

Training is also distinctly different from force. The conflation is quite irritating.

 

Also, after years of training empathetic dogs and dogs being bred for that purpose, I would not be surprised if it was instinctual at this point. Originally it wasn't, but many, many generations down the line with selective breeding practices it is easily possible.

[aeonicentity]

The point is wesley is that if they were agents what we would be doing would be as immoral as slavery. The fact that they are not, is what makes all of the things we do to our pets NOT immoral.

 

And how is force breeding specific character traits into animals, then reinforcing it through training NOT utilization of force?

 

If I took a population of humans captive, paired off acceptable couples to breed, and either euthanized, or sterilized the 'unacceptable ones' you'd call me a monster on par with Hitler. What makes this OK in the world of dogs is that they're not agents. And while you personally sound like a wonderful dog owner (and I'm sure your dog enjoys being owned by you) fundamentally the relationship is NOT voluntary, at the very least at its outset, since Dogs generally do not get to choose their owners.

[Wesley]

The point is wesley is that if they were agents what we would be doing would be as immoral as slavery. The fact that they are not, is what makes all of the things we do to our pets NOT immoral.

 

And how is force breeding specific character traits into animals, then reinforcing it through training NOT utilization of force?

 

If I took a population of humans captive, paired off acceptable couples to breed, and either euthanized, or sterilized the 'unacceptable ones' you'd call me a monster on par with Hitler. What makes this OK in the world of dogs is that they're not agents. And while you personally sound like a wonderful dog owner (and I'm sure your dog enjoys being owned by you) fundamentally the relationship is NOT voluntary, at the very least at its outset, since Dogs generally do not get to choose their owners.

The difference is that I did not do any selective breeding or culling. That all happened in the past.

 

I do not use force or violence in training. I ignore things that I do not like and I reward things that I do like. Generally, he tends to do things that I reward over things that I ignore and over time those behaviors become the norm.

 

I got my dog from a shelter and interacted with him before we went home. So, as much as a dog can, he had to at least be happy with me and want to spend more time with me.

 

Finally, I am a bit confused as to why "we own pets, and if they were moral agents it would be really bad for human morality" is an argument against the moral agency of animals. There are other arguments, but for instance for a lot of human history people owned other people and the argument that "we own people and if they were moral agents then human morality would be terrible" also wouldn't be a good argument for slavery. So I still have issue with the argument/analogy.

[aeonicentity]

Maybe I haven't communicated that very well, but I find my argument particularly effective against people who believe that animals are moral actors because if they do believe that, they must also obviously consider the trade of animal freedom for their own satisfaction, and enjoyment just as attrocious as the trade of human freedom for other's satisfactions.

 

The idea that you personally didn't do any of those things and therefore it isn't bad is just like a slave owner saying "It's ok I own slaves, because some one else did the enslaving and brought them over from Africa!". Simillarly the idea that its OK that you own another moral actor because you treat them well is no different than a slave owner saying that "its ok I own slaves, I treat them well!"

 

So this is why I find this a pertanant point to bring up, because if someone truely believes animals are Moral actors, but thinks its OK to keep pets, they obviously don't believe what they're saying, or at least haven't considered the moral implications of what they're saying.

[dsayers]

The point is wesley is that if they were agents what we would be doing would be as immoral as slavery. The fact that they are not, is what makes all of the things we do to our pets NOT immoral.

 

And how is force breeding specific character traits into animals, then reinforcing it through training NOT utilization of force?

 

Is it just me, or is this an acknowledgement that we're not talking about moral agents and continuing as if the acknowledgement wasn't made and is in fact the opposite of the truth?

[Kevin Beal]

If an animal rights person says that we should treat animals with the same moral considerations as we do humans, and we would never castrate a human and limit their autonomy to our own judgments, then that's totally hypocritical of an animal rights person, is it not? The implication is that they themselves hold animals in a separate moral category, and thus have no basis for criticizing others for doing the same.

 

We don't have to demonstrate how animals don't have moral agency when the person who's arguing that they do is implicitly accepting the premise already that they don't. That's not likely to lead anywhere productive.

 

It's like arguing against determinism without ever pointing out the performative contradiction that determinists employ in order to make the argument. Or arguing against moral relativism without pointing out the implicit acceptance of UPB.

 

The person advancing the case has the onus on them to demonstrate the point. Otherwise, what are we arguing against?