Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Animal rights

Rate this topic


Ragnar

Recommended Posts

The nature of man is a predator. - I'm not persuaded.
Man is a predator is a fact of nature. - Restating it does not persuade me any more.
Man is preyed on (by man and, to a much lessor extent, beast). - True enough.

 

Morality is the code of values developed by and implemented by a process of thinking.
Animals living instinctually have no need for such a code of values.
Extrapolating morality to amoral creatures, as if they are endowed with it, obfuscates the issue.

 

The fact that all life, with the possible exception of plants, require the consumption of living entities. This fact alone does not make man a predator. In fact, due to the increase of population, efficacious stewardship of the most commonly consumed animals is required to meet this need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nature of man is a predator. - I'm not persuaded.

Man is a predator is a fact of nature. - Restating it does not persuade me any more.

Man is preyed on (by man and, to a much lessor extent, beast). - True enough.

...

 

Here, chew on this, while I do some more research...

 

"Man had emerged from the anthropoid background for one reason only: because he was a killer. Long ago, perhaps many millions of years ago, a line of killer apes branched off from the non- aggressive primate background. For reasons of environmental necessity, the line adopted the predatory way. For reasons of predatory necessity the line advanced. We learned to stand erect in the first place as a necessity of the hunting life. We learned to run in our pursuit of game across the yellowing African savannah. Our hands freed for the mauling and the hauling, we had no further use for a snout; and so it retreated. And lacking fighting teeth or claws, we took recourse by necessity to the weapon. A rock, a stick, a heavy bone-to our ancestral killer ape it meant the margin of survival. But the use of the weapon meant new and multiplying demands on the nervous system for the co-ordination of muscle and touch and sight. And so at last came the enlarged brain; so at last came man." ~ Robert Ardrey

http://www.users.muohio.edu/erlichrd/vms_site/afric.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first thing that jumps out at me when querying "evidence for African genesis" is "DNA evidence debunks the 'Out of Africa' theory of evolution".

 

I read Darwin's "Origin of the Species" some time back. It was suggested reading material for examining the use of the method of induction. If recollection serves me, Darwin was not quite as brash in his claims as Mr. Ardrey appears to be from the excerpts referred to in your link.

 

Identifying man's nature, would be to discover the essential characteristics which distinguish him from all other living species, not to seek all the attributes he may incidentally or correlatively have in common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entity:

 

"1.  I am alive.

2.  Life of a thing goes out of existence when that thing dies.  The matter which was animate becomes inanimate.

 

I did not cause my existence.  I maintain my life and determne its continual existence and direction.

 

You have not explained this concept you have of "right".  What in reality are you talking about?  Absent showing me what it is in reality it seems like a fiction to me. As though it originates in a feeling or an intuition or a revelation."

 

end of entity comments... entity very confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first thing that jumps out at me when querying "evidence for African genesis" is "DNA evidence debunks the 'Out of Africa' theory of evolution".

 

I read Darwin's "Origin of the Species" some time back. It was suggested reading material for examining the use of the method of induction. If recollection serves me, Darwin was not quite as brash in his claims as Mr. Ardrey appears to be from the excerpts referred to in your link.

 

Identifying man's nature, would be to discover the essential characteristics which distinguish him from all other living species, not to seek all the attributes he may incidentally or correlatively have in common.

 

Now see?  That right there is what I'm talking about.  What is that essential characteristic which distinguishes a human right to life from any other living creatures right to life?  We can readily see what it is not...

 

It isn't that humans aren't animals, or that animals value their lives less than humans, or that animals aren't capable of providing services for goods, or that animals don't form social networks for security as humans do, or that animals aren't intelligent enought to see to their own needs...  In fact the issue of intelligence is somewhat ironic if the net result of "superior" human intelligence only leads to an appreciation of what "lower" animals take for granted; that being alive is an end in itself.

 

The nature of man is a predator. - I'm not persuaded.

Man is a predator is a fact of nature. - Restating it does not persuade me any more.

Man is preyed on (by man and, to a much lessor extent, beast). - True enough.

 

Morality is the code of values developed by and implemented by a process of thinking.

Animals living instinctually have no need for such a code of values.

Extrapolating morality to amoral creatures, as if they are endowed with it, obfuscates the issue.

 

The fact that all life, with the possible exception of plants, require the consumption of living entities. This fact alone does not make man a predator. In fact, due to the increase of population, efficacious stewardship of the most commonly consumed animals is required to meet this need.

 

So you aren't persuaded that man is a predator, yet you note correctly that life consumes life as a consequence of living; and let's not forget venus fly traps and pitcher plants.  This fact, combined with your acknowledgement that man is preyed on by man, posits man as a predator, and the circumstance that you hunt in a grocery store instead of on the veld makes you no less lethal than any other animal predator.  In fact, if it is true that man is morally unique, the onus is on you as a moral preditor to intentionally limit the pain and suffering you inflict on less formidable prey...

 

... and there's the paradox, or if not a paradox, perhaps a moral hazard.  And the key to resolving it is to recognize that man, for all his brains, isn't morally unique in having a right to life.

 

Edit:  "... efficacious stewardship of the most commonly consumed animals is required to meet this need..." of being a "rational" predator.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entity:

 

"1.  I am alive.

2.  Life of a thing goes out of existence when that thing dies.  The matter which was animate becomes inanimate.

 

I did not cause my existence.  I maintain my life and determne its continual existence and direction.

 

You have not explained this concept you have of "right".  What in reality are you talking about?  Absent showing me what it is in reality it seems like a fiction to me. As though it originates in a feeling or an intuition or a revelation."

 

end of entity comments... entity very confused

 

1) Pleased to meetcha

2) Yes, this is a consequence of causing death.  Do you want to remain alive and if so, can you prove that other animals don't?

3) It is true that you didn't cause your existence, which means that you were born/hatched/budded from a living entity that did cause your existence.  That you were taught how to maintain your life only underscores how truely helpless you were... and yet you believe you have a right to life that is morally unique from every other helpless babe in the woods?

 

The right of which I speak is the very same as the specific form of correctness you acknowledged earlier.  Even the lowliest lizard creeping out from under a rock to stretch out in the sun because it wants to be warm; because it feels good and preserves its life; demonstrates the same preference for living according to its nature as do you according to your nature.  And don't talk to me about "revelation"; you're the one whose trying to rationalize Genesis 1:26.

 

I just want to hang around munching on your grass and enjoying my life without harming anyone...

 

Moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entity:

 

I will grant a lizard behaves in ways which preserve its life, and if it were rational enough to form a morality with principles and a code of action you could define "right" as an evaluation of the action the lizard takes which furthers its life.  As a form of correctness ethically "right" behaviour of the lizard is tied to the consequences of the lizard's action to its life.

 

I also can take actions which can be evaluated against my ethical code of action based on the consequences of that action to my life.

 

In summary the Lizard acts and its acts can ethically be evaluated based on long term consequences to its life.  I act and my actions are evaluated based on long term consequences on my life.  What do you think follows from this? 

 

 

Although my proponent SL had mentioned the general form of "rights" as he saw it related to correctness, there was no explicit definition on your part (or his, nor any agreed to) as to what exactly you take rights to be in reality.

 

SL has a concept of what rights are in his mind, Objectivism has a concept of what they are, what do you identify them in reality to be ?"

 

end entity comments

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

In summary the Lizard acts and its acts can ethically be evaluated based on long term consequences to its life.  I act and my actions are evaluated based on long term consequences on my life.  What do you think follows from this? 

...

 

What follows is the observation of each others behavior to determine if "the other" presents clear and present danger to oneself.  Beginning with a state of moral neutrality, and proceeding to a ethical code that promotes non-aggressive interaction and self-defense, the blank to be filled in is, what is the real threat to myself if I allow another the freedom to "pursue their happiness".  If the answer is none (or extremely unlikely), then an appropriate respect for life as an ethical code, ought to be "leven en laten leven".

 

...

Although my proponent SL had mentioned the general form of "rights" as he saw it related to correctness, there was no explicit definition on your part (or his, nor any agreed to) as to what exactly you take rights to be in reality.

 

SL has a concept of what rights are in his mind, Objectivism has a concept of what they are, what do you identify them in reality to be ?"

...

 

I think we can agree that rights of interaction are primarily agreements of non-interference.  If I, as a human, identify some personal benefit to be had by interacting with a animal, e.g., food, medicine, clothing, etc., then I, as a moral trader, ought to recognize some obligation not to steal the product of its labor, or at least not to intentionally cause it pain and suffering as consequence of getting what I want from it.  In this respect, ethical correctness specifically prohibits me from constructing a unilateral right to life as a means of taking something I haven't earned from others.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rational virus??

 

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure." ~ Agent Smith, The Matrix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now see?  That right there is what I'm talking about.  What is that essential characteristic which distinguishes a human right to life from any other living creatures right to life?  We can readily see what it is not...

 

It isn't that humans aren't animals, or that animals value their lives less than humans, or that animals aren't capable of providing services for goods, or that animals don't form social networks for security as humans do, or that animals aren't intelligent enought to see to their own needs...  In fact the issue of intelligence is somewhat ironic if the net result of "superior" human intelligence only leads to an appreciation of what "lower" animals take for granted; that being alive is an end in itself.

 

 

So you aren't persuaded that man is a predator, yet you note correctly that life consumes life as a consequence of living; and let's not forget venus fly traps and pitcher plants.  This fact, combined with your acknowledgement that man is preyed on by man, posits man as a predator, and the circumstance that you hunt in a grocery store instead of on the veld makes you no less lethal than any other animal predator.  In fact, if it is true that man is morally unique, the onus is on you as a moral preditor to intentionally limit the pain and suffering you inflict on less formidable prey...

 

... and there's the paradox, or if not a paradox, perhaps a moral hazard.  And the key to resolving it is to recognize that man, for all his brains, isn't morally unique in having a right to life.

 

Edit:  "... efficacious stewardship of the most commonly consumed animals is required to meet this need..." of being a "rational" predator.

There is a caveat here that bears noting. There is an equivocation on predator.

Man as a predator seeking to put food on the table can be used in a similar context to other animals as a predator seeking to eat their prey.

Man as a predator seeking to murder other men is hardly the same context.

 

Yes, the venus fly traps, pitcher plants and a few other plants, do take insects and small mammals as nutrition.

 

This still sidesteps what distinguishes man from the rest of the animals, which also makes a code of morality necessary to his survival, whereas the rest of the animals manage to survive without it. Aristotle keyed in on it all those many years ago. Man is the rational animal. Ayn Rand keyed in on the role rationality plays in morality. An animal which lives by instinct does not require a code of morality.

 

Although, what happens when the vegetarian farmer that rears the livestock sells it to the vegetarian slaughterhouse owner who staffed his organization with vegetarians selling exclusively to vegetarian owned resale houses staffed in a similar manner? Are the shrews and moles struck by the additional plowshares required for this scenario granted consequential immunity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a caveat here that bears noting. There is an equivocation on predator.

Man as a predator seeking to put food on the table can be used in a similar context to other animals as a predator seeking to eat their prey.

Man as a predator seeking to murder other men is hardly the same context.

...

 

Fair enough, but it seems as though a similar equivocation regularly occurs with the word right, particularily when paired with, to life.  I frankly can't believe that a rational person wouldn't recognize a moral right to self-determination as anything other than self-evident.  The process has to go something like this...

 

1) Oh hey, I'm alive, and I seem to be in control of my body...

2) Ouch, that hurts, keep it away from me...

3) Hey, I've got a right to live on my own... (a parent's graduation ceremony)

 

I mean, what's lost in seeing an equivalent right of all creatures to be (whatever they are).  Are we more vunerable?  We all know what to do with transgressors.

 

...

This still sidesteps what distinguishes man from the rest of the animals, which also makes a code of morality necessary to his survival, whereas the rest of the animals manage to survive without it. Aristotle keyed in on it all those many years ago. Man is the rational animal. Ayn Rand keyed in on the role rationality plays in morality. An animal which lives by instinct does not require a code of morality.

...

 

That's why I keep missing the point.  It's suppose to be about life, and about promoting the value of it.  If it were just about high-fiving a human ego, that would be one thing.  But the easy step to excusing pain and suffering of animals because they have no right to object is appauling.

 

Kudos to Aristotle and Ayn Rand, but we didn't begin to deal with recognizing people as property in themselves until last century... At any rate, one can hope that someday animals will be regularily treated as something other than disposable property.

 

"An animal which lives by instinct does not require a code of morality."

Perhaps not, but that doesn't cut much ice when an animal falls into human hands.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA

 

You completely miss the basis upon which Objectivist ethics is built, the choice to live and the nature of reality (which includes man), and you miss the fact that "society" and "rights" according to Objectivism are built on that ethics and the nature of reality and not built on anything intrinsic to the universe like some set of commandments written in space time.

 

You deny that you are conceiving of an intrinsic or mystical "right" and "wrong" and yet you refer to them in almost every post you make.  You appeal to feelings, sympathy, empathy, intuition, a sense of right and wrong etc. as though those were determinative in ANY WAY of what "right" and "wrong" and "rights" are according to Objectivism.  According to Objectivism rational analysis of reality and ourselves in combination with the choice to live are what determines those things, and once integrated we may have emotions and a sense of justice, but that "sense of moral life" arise from the discovery of morality and its acceptance ,, but do not form morality's origin.
 

Ethics and ethical rights are not about altruism, not about "respect" for other things in the Christian sense.  I don't disrespect your deep beliefs and convictions, I was once a Christian myself.  however, an Objectivist is an Atheist who rejects emotion, intuition , feeling, revelation, etc as sources of knowledge, and rejects them also as a guides to action or insight into anything.

 

 

You clearly have strong convictions and I do not want to change your feelings and beliefs. but it would have been nice if you understood our thinking.

 

I don't believe what you believe, but I accept and understand that you believe it.  All this talk and you still do not or will not SEE what it is we think...

 

It is sad.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights is freedom of action in social context.

 

 

 We have in principle an agreed well established conceptual and abstract definition of rights...

 

We do not have a well established concept of rights. "Rights is freedom of action in a social context," is certainly not a definition of rights. If that is all that is meant, why are governments justified by Objectivists as necessary  for rights. Doesn't the notion of rights alway include some notion of a guarantee of such "freedom of action."

 

The question is not whether there are animal rights, but whether the concept of rights in the political sense has any meaning at all. Rights are always used as a justification for a claim on something: life, freedom, even happiness, for example; but there is no ethical basis for a claim by any living creature on what that individual has not produced or earned by their own effort or acquired by exchanging what they have produced with other producers.

 

Nothing is born into this world with a claim on anything: food, water, education, health-care, or freedom, without producing, earning, or acquiring it by their own choice and effort.

 

The concept "rights" is a baseless concept that has simply been accepted for so long, no one ever questions it. It is similar to the baseless concept, God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ StrictlyLogical,

 

I see right and wrong reflected by living actions; not Divine ones.  My argument doesn't rely on faith; it relies on self-evidence and behavioral observation.  When you say, "...we may have emotions and a sense of justice, but that 'sense of moral life' arise from the discovery of morality and its acceptance, but do not form morality's origin...",  the only difference I see in our postitons is, I see morality's origin formed in the volitional actions of living beings; actions that other beings can witness and recognize as their own.

 

It is self-evident that one is literally in possession of their body, i.e., ones body is ones property, and that ones mind controls the intentional actions of ones body.  One recognizes ones own ability as a result of nature (because rational intelligence is the result obeying nature in order to command it), to be self-governing.  And it isn't a leap of faith to recognize, by behavioral observation, the same ability in others.  In my mind, that is "the discovery of morality and its acceptance".  This is not to assert that every intentional action one makes, or one observes others make, has moral content.  Only those actions that assert self-governance have moral content as being good or bad for that individual, and by extension for those individuals one interacts with.

 

I prefer to remain alive, and acting on my preference, i.e., doing what is good for me, is right.  Ethical consistency implies giving others the benefit of the doubt until their intentional actions demonstrate a threat to my life.  I believe this is the moral truth that lies at the heart of Objectivist ethics, and I believe this is consistent with Ayn Rand noting Hickman's statement, "I am like the state: what is good for me is right", as being "the best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard."

 

I see what you think and draw a different conclusion, but one I think better reflects objective reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not have a well established concept of rights. "Rights is freedom of action in a social context," is certainly not a definition of rights. If that is all that is meant, why are governments justified by Objectivists as necessary  for rights. Doesn't the notion of rights alway include some notion of a guarantee of such "freedom of action."

 

The question is not whether there are animal rights, but whether the concept of rights in the political sense has any meaning at all. Rights are always used as a justification for a claim on something: life, freedom, even happiness, for example; but there is no ethical basis for a claim by any living creature on what that individual has not produced or earned by their own effort or acquired by exchanging what they have produced with other producers.

 

Nothing is born into this world with a claim on anything: food, water, education, health-care, or freedom, without producing, earning, or acquiring it by their own choice and effort.

 

The concept "rights" is a baseless concept that has simply been accepted for so long, no one ever questions it. It is similar to the baseless concept, God.

 

Welcome to this forum.  I particularily agree with the portion of your comments I highlighted.  Well stated, and I believe this speaks to my primary objection regarding inconsistent and unilateral formation of a "right to life" used expressly for the purpose of "rationally" excusing oneself from ethical trade with "inferiors".

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this speaks to my primary objection regarding inconsistent and unilateral formation of a "right to life" used expressly for the purpose of "rationally" excusing oneself from ethical trade with "inferiors".

Ethically for you or "ethically" for... what? The way you talk about ethics here sounds once again like it's a given in the universe, as opposed to a set of human actions meant to guide a human life to its betterment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way you talk about ethics here sounds once again like it's a given in the universe, as opposed to a set of human actions ...

The principles of ethics, like all principles, are determined by the nature of reality, specifically the nature of human beings, the world they live in, and the requirements of those natures.

 

Like all principles, no one decides or dictates them, (or invents them by some human, "actions"). They are discovered, rationally and objectively. They are immutable and absolute and independent of any human's knowledge or understanding of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...ok. Ethics is still about human action.

It's "about" choice, which might be to act or not to act, which I suppose can be subsumed under the broader category, "action," and of course only pertains to human action which is consciously chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethically for you or "ethically" for... what? The way you talk about ethics here sounds once again like it's a given in the universe, as opposed to a set of human actions meant to guide a human life to its betterment.

 

Morally for me and ethically for who/whatever I trade with.  No one/thing wills/earns themselves into existence, period.  Ergo the personal ownership of ones life necessarily recognizes the fact that it began as a gift from another living source.  It is also a fact that all life consumes/depends on biodiversity to exist.  The recognition of these two facts calls to question the credibility of anyone having a unilateral right to life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not purposefully cause undue pain to a creature that I recognized as capable of experiencing pain. So your dog is safe from me ,and lucky just like the second slowest impala in a herd.

 

My dog thanks you for your consideration :thumbsup:

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...ok. Ethics is still about human action.

 

But not exclusively human action in the context of getting something of value from a animal.  Ethical consistency implies something like a trader principle is practiced, else the principle being practiced is one of predation, i.e., of highly questionable ethical content when the harm and suffering of ones prey is dismissed entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but it seems as though a similar equivocation regularly occurs with the word right, particularily when paired with, to life.  I frankly can't believe that a rational person wouldn't recognize a moral right to self-determination as anything other than self-evident.  The process has to go something like this...

 

1) Oh hey, I'm alive, and I seem to be in control of my body...

2) Ouch, that hurts, keep it away from me...

3) Hey, I've got a right to live on my own... (a parent's graduation ceremony)

 

I mean, what's lost in seeing an equivalent right of all creatures to be (whatever they are).  Are we more vunerable?  We all know what to do with transgressors.

I presume you mean venerable, as vulnerable does not really make sense here.

 

That's why I keep missing the point.  It's suppose to be about life, and about promoting the value of it.  If it were just about high-fiving a human ego, that would be one thing.  But the easy step to excusing pain and suffering of animals because they have no right to object is appauling.

 

Kudos to Aristotle and Ayn Rand, but we didn't begin to deal with recognizing people as property in themselves until last century... At any rate, one can hope that someday animals will be regularily treated as something other than disposable property.

 

"An animal which lives by instinct does not require a code of morality."

Perhaps not, but that doesn't cut much ice when an animal falls into human hands.

While morality's standard is life, it's suppose to be about your life. To go more broadly seems tainted to me of altruism. First we extend it to other human beings, then to the animal kingdom in general? The proper way is by recognizing how it applies to us as thinking beings, it applies equally to other thinking beings.

 

Here's a question to consider. Many people own cat's or dog's as pets. Do they inflict pain and suffering on their pets?

 

Here's one more pertinent however. How do animals not harvested for food by human beings part with their lives? Is it all painless and void of suffering? I'm getting the sense that because we are human, we are, in some unexplained way thus far, responsible for all the pain and suffering that transpires here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...