Jot Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Any living being owns itself because it is the only entity that can make its body function. Animals don't have the capacity for reason so they are not subject to morality (nor do babies). Now dsayers would say that though babies don't have the capacity for reason they do have the potential for acquiring that capacity. The problem is that for most of our history we did not have this capacity but because of evolution we had the potential for becoming reasoning creatures, how do we know that this is not the case with the rest of the species?
TheFreeMarketIsAnarchy Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Any living being owns itself because it is the only entity that can make its body function. Animals don't have the capacity for reason so they are not subject to morality (nor do babies). Now dsayers would say that though babies don't have the capacity for reason they do have the potential for acquiring that capacity. The problem is that for most of our history we did not have this capacity but because of evolution we had the potential for becoming reasoning creatures, how do we know that this is not the case with the rest of the species? Of course it could be possible for other species to evolve to be reasoning creatures so that in that possible world they would be subject to morality. However this does not mean that this is relevant to how we view non-human species currently. Because babies have the capacity to acquire reason within the life-span of an individual member of the species then this is ethically relevant. Evolution is a long process. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your concerns? I find the concept of non-reasoning animals having self-ownership to be strange. If a given species isn't a candidate for morality then to say it has self-ownership is arbitrary, because the logical consequences of self-ownership in humans are the capacity for property ownership and moral concepts just as privileged access that property based on consent. If we concede it is not logical to ascribe these consequences of self-ownership to a given non-human animal then I just don't see what insight can be gained by assigning them self-ownership.
PatrickC Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 Until other species start communicating with us in a rational and mutually reciprocal manner. Probably best we just leave it to Interstellar! (as in the movie, for the future)
shirgall Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 Any living being owns itself because it is the only entity that can make its body function. This is not enough for ownership. Ownership is a legal claim of possession. Minimum requirements for possession are knowledge of the thing and access to the thing. In order to build the legal claim, you either had the thing's title transferred to you, or you improved something that was previously claimless and was granted title as a result. The only animals that have title on anything get them from transfers, not from improvement, and they never have title to themselves, because they generally have assigns with powers of agency in order to keep them alive. My cat may be alive, but my cat is entirely beholden on me for support. I am his guardian. He has no title to himself, nor could he do anything with it if I were to transfer it to him. If my cat kills a chicken in the neighbor's barn will he be charged with murder and trespass? Or with the farmer scan his RFID chip and return him to me if he's feeling generous? Or will he try to get recompense for the chicken from me (and not the cat)? 1
MrCapitalism Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 Any living being owns itself because it is the only entity that can make its body function. Animals don't have the capacity for reason so they are not subject to morality (nor do babies). Now dsayers would say that though babies don't have the capacity for reason they do have the potential for acquiring that capacity. The problem is that for most of our history we did not have this capacity but because of evolution we had the potential for becoming reasoning creatures, how do we know that this is not the case with the rest of the species? Does this argument apply to plants? 1
J. D. Stembal Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 Any living being owns itself because it is the only entity that can make its body function. Animals don't have the capacity for reason so they are not subject to morality (nor do babies). Now dsayers would say that though babies don't have the capacity for reason they do have the potential for acquiring that capacity. The problem is that for most of our history we did not have this capacity but because of evolution we had the potential for becoming reasoning creatures, how do we know that this is not the case with the rest of the species? Do you acknowledge that all animals, including humans, kill and eat each other, usually without remorse? You cannot qualify as an owner of property (i.e. your own body) if you can't abide by the non-aggression principle.
WasatchMan Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 UPB, by definition, only applies to the behavior entities with the ability to abstract universally preferable behavior.
BaylorPRSer Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 As I understand, there are plenty of animals that don't kill and eat each other
J. D. Stembal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 As I understand, there are plenty of animals that don't kill and eat each other I believe those are known as herbivores. They eat plants/fungi/bacteria instead, but they may still wander onto your property and eat out of your garden without dispensing compensation apart from their feces.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Any living being owns itself because it is the only entity that can make its body function. Animals don't have the capacity for reason so they are not subject to morality (nor do babies). Now dsayers would say that though babies don't have the capacity for reason they do have the potential for acquiring that capacity. The problem is that for most of our history we did not have this capacity but because of evolution we had the potential for becoming reasoning creatures, how do we know that this is not the case with the rest of the species? You conflated the capacity for a baby to reason with the capacity for a species to reason.
BaylorPRSer Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 I believe those are known as herbivores. They eat plants/fungi/bacteria instead, but they may still wander onto your property and eat out of your garden without dispensing compensation apart from their feces. Plenty of animals that eat meat don't eat each other as well. I've never heard of a cat eating another cat or a dog eating another dog. Actually, a better question is, what animals DO eat each other?
J. D. Stembal Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Plenty of animals that eat meat don't eat each other as well. I've never heard of a cat eating another cat or a dog eating another dog. Actually, a better question is, what animals DO eat each other? Humans most definitely eat other humans. It's probably not as common in the last two centuries, but it happens. Unless someone gives you permission to eat them post mortem, I could qualify this as a moral action. A quick Google search reveals in the first hit: http://www.themost10.com/most-cannibalistic-animals/. Cats do eat other cats. This is besides my point. In the animal kingdom, there are a lot of species eating each other, including humans, so for humans to also participate in the animal kingdom by eating other animals is a trivial matter in the scope of things. Non-human animals do not operate by the non-aggression principle and do not respect property rights, including the rights of humans. Therefore, it is not a moral or immoral action to eat them as a human. They are "beneath" universally preferable behavior.
BaylorPRSer Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Humans most definitely eat other humans. It's probably not as common in the last two centuries, but it happens. Unless someone gives you permission to eat them post mortem, I could qualify this as a moral action. A quick Google search reveals in the first hit: http://www.themost10.com/most-cannibalistic-animals/. Cats do eat other cats. This is besides my point. In the animal kingdom, there are a lot of species eating each other, including humans, so for humans to also participate in the animal kingdom by eating other animals is a trivial matter in the scope of things. Non-human animals do not operate by the non-aggression principle and do not respect property rights, including the rights of humans. Therefore, it is not a moral or immoral action to eat them as a human. They are "beneath" universally preferable behavior. Okay, I accept this.
dsayers Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Humans most definitely eat other humans. It's probably not as common in the last two centuries, but it happens. Unless someone gives you permission to eat them post mortem, I could qualify this as a moral action. How did you arrive at that conclusion? I disagree, but I'm interested in how somebody gets there. I ask because my bias is that people are far too obsessed with corpses. I went to my first open casket a few years ago and was horrified that so many people think that such a thing is normal or meaningful. We recently got hired to track down an indirect relative to exhume the body of a shared relative in order to creamate them and scatter the ashes somewhere. I can't help but think that if we got past the (what I'm guessing is) the religion-based idea that corpses hold sentimental value, we can begin to approach them for the value they do have.
J. D. Stembal Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 How did you arrive at that conclusion? I disagree, but I'm interested in how somebody gets there. I ask because my bias is that people are far too obsessed with corpses. I went to my first open casket a few years ago and was horrified that so many people think that such a thing is normal or meaningful. We recently got hired to track down an indirect relative to exhume the body of a shared relative in order to creamate them and scatter the ashes somewhere. I can't help but think that if we got past the (what I'm guessing is) the religion-based idea that corpses hold sentimental value, we can begin to approach them for the value they do have. I meant to writing "immoral action" but I think you got my meaning. In a free society, people could agree to deals where their family is compensated for the medical or nutritional value of their body after death. The problem is cellular breakdown starts happening immediately upon death so refrigeration is required. Refrigeration is a relatively new technology in human history. The stigma around corpses probably stems from the fact that we want to get the decaying body into the ground or out of sight as soon as humanly possible. I'm not well versed on historical cannibalism, but if Origins of War in Child Abuse is any indication, the most prominent examples of cannibalism are mothers eating their infant offspring. This custom explains the common tribal philosophy that children are not considered to be human until they can survive on their own, which is typically age five or six. By this time, they would have passed the risky phase of development where mothers were prone to kill them as a form of birth control. This also provides an explanation (but not a moral justification!) for modern child abuse, and why many people are resistant to apply the non-aggression principle to children. I'm all for peaceful parenting, but there is something buried in our baser natures which tempts us to look down on babies and children as we would lower animals. I don't believe religion, the state, and the traditional family unit has done children any ethical favors. The church, which is the origin and foundation of marriage and the traditional family, would allow the murder of any child as long as they were not baptized, so bastard children were not offered moral protections from aggression.
dsayers Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 I meant to writing "immoral action" but I think you got my meaning. Well, my poorly made point was that a corpse is not a moral actor. Nothing you could do to a corpse could be described as moral or immoral as I understand it.
EricBaker.Linux Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 If we were to apply morality to animals, not only would we need to refrain from initiating the use of coercion against them, but also we would then expect that they not initiate force against us or other animals. This is irrational since we cannot expect a wild animal to behave in any sort of moral manner. When we apply morality to human babies as you brought up, we not only regard the initiation of force against them as unacceptable, but also we expect them to behave morally to other people when they grow up. We expect that they will do this since every parent will tell you that they want their children to "be good" etc... Is it clear what I mean by this, and is this reasoning valid do you guys think? 3
J. D. Stembal Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Well, my poorly made point was that a corpse is not a moral actor. Nothing you could do to a corpse could be described as moral or immoral as I understand it. Oh, I got it. I was assuming that if a human would be eating another human, there would be foul play involved because 1) How many will voluntarily choose to be eaten, assuming they have the capacity to give consent, (See the Restaurant at the End of the Universe for the bovine that is bred to give consent to be eaten.) and 2) If someone voluntarily chooses to be eaten and arranges a contract beforehand to voluntarily sell their corpse upon their unexpected demise as a medical teaching cadaver, organ donator or dinner, you have to be able to refrigerate the corpse immediately to carry out these agreements. Therefore, it is not practical to enter into agreements like this unless you can control the environment under which death occurs (assisted suicide). Then, we are getting into the territory of some pretty dark subject matter, even if it is entirely voluntary, so it is much simpler to imply that cannibalism connotes murder or unplanned death where the person could not consent to cannibalism prior to death (like the survivors of the 1972 plane crash in the Andes mountains). The corpse cannot be a moral actor after death, but I would be willing to argue that the dead person still has a right over how their body is used when they die. This is why people leave wills. They want to arbitrate the fate of their property after death, which includes the their corpse. I'm getting a little creeped out, so this will be my last post on the subject. I'm sorry if anyone is also feeling uncomfortable. We should get back to talking about animals not being moral actors.
Recommended Posts