Animal rights

[StrictlyLogical]

If I may point out.. an Objectivist who would "impose" (read force) others to act based on moral judgement would be no Objectivist.  Objectivists would of course attempt to persuade and teach others about what actually IS moral.

 

"And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to  return to morality -- you who have never known any -- but to  discover it." -Ayn Rand through the Character of John Galt

[Devil's Advocate]

DA

 

No response?

... 

 

I've given several, but if you're referring to post #93, there wasn't anything you stated that I disagree with.  I don't make too much of a "dichotomy" between morality and correctness.  I offered the definition of right I'm working with, and I've verified with administration that it's compatible with Objectivism (post #92).  As to your repeated reference to some Divine endorsement of animal rights, the suggestion is laughable from the POV of the animals in question.  I can only refer you once again to Genesis 1:26;  which is hardly an endorsement.  Once again, my argument isn't being forwarded as a matter of faith.

 

When you are prepared to consider an animal's ethical right to live as something other than a mystical claim (or a legal one) we can move forward...

[Devil's Advocate]

Sure, but using "ethical" here is really saying that it is ethical for other people to let the person do whatever it is. Nevertheless, the person might be doing something un-ethical. So, the right itself is ethical (i.e. allowing him to have the right is moral), even if the act itself is not. In other words, it is morally correct to allow someone to do all sorts of immoral things.

 

Here I entirely agree, and would only add that covers free-will, the ethics of dissent, and the virtue of heresy.

[tadmjones]

reciprocity, perhaps?

[Devil's Advocate]

When a cat or a dog does a correct/right action or an incorrect/wrong action - the code of values it is being evaluated by... is the human ethic.

...

 

True in the context of a human observer, but an animal's actions have ethical content according to how they effect an animal's life as well, i.e., an ethical right doesn't depend on human or Divine endorsement;  the behavior is what it is as a real action that enhances or degrades the life of the animal in question.

 

...

It's not "bad dog", except that the action the dog took was the wrong action per the human point of view. Yes the dog can be trained to act in certain ways, and eventually may associate the sounds of good dog/bad dog - but the dog merely acts in accordance with it's nature (including its ability to be trained.) The ethical action you appear to be judging is that of the human. How does the human treat the animal. At this point, it is the human ethic in question, not the 'ethical rights' of another species.

 

And this is true where animals interact with humans from a human POV.  How the human treats the animal is as relavent as how the animal treats the human in terms of interaction between living beings.  Let's be clear we're (or at least I am) not trying to assert Mr. Ed's right to sue Wilbur.

--

"Fine! Do with me what you want, Wilbur. Just remember this. If I fall, there will be another horse to pick up the torch and carry on the fight for the preservation of horsely dignity. I thank you." ~ Mr. Ed

[JASKN]

And this is true where animals interact with humans from a human POV. How the human treats the animal is as relavent as how the animal treats the human in terms of interaction between living beings.

Why? It's as relevant to whom?

[Devil's Advocate]

reciprocity, perhaps?

 

More like the Dutch proverb, "leven en laten leven" (live and let live), from 1622 G. De Malynes Ancient Law-Merchant i. xlv.  Then, as now, trade favored human interaction, but the idea was primarily to allow the artisan to live by value of his own labor.  But I appreciate your reference to another ethical standard I value

 

As an aside, this proverb forms a foundation for intellectual property and posits early Dutch merchants (with whom I share heritage) as Objectivists before Objectivists discovered themselves

[Devil's Advocate]

Why? It's as relevant to whom?

 

... living beings...

[JASKN]

... living beings...

This would be that appeal to a greater good, or god, or whatever, that was brought up earlier in the thread.

[Devil's Advocate]

Edit: What was that phrase softwareNerd used in post #66??

 

This would be that appeal to a greater good, or god, or whatever, that was brought up earlier in the thread.

 

Not by me.  It is simply the observation (by all parties) of behavioral interaction in an ethical context, specifically those actions that enhance or degrade ones chances of survival... very real... as real as it gets...

 

But you are correct to point out the repetitive reference by others to some kind of mystical necessity to dismiss animal rights, which I dismiss in turn...

Edited January 29, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[JASKN]

Edit: What was that phrase softwareNerd used in post #66??

[...]

Not by me.  It is simply the observation (by all parties) of behavioral interaction in an ethical context, specifically those actions that enhance or degrade ones chances of survival... very real... as real as it gets...

I asked, "For whom?" You said, "Living things." It's as broad as it gets, so we're not talking about individuals. If you meant it regularly, it would be interpreted as "the greater good of all living things." But since I know you are a "man of faith," I included a god, too. I didn't extrapolate meaning, so it's not "words in mouth."

So again, why is the animal's treatment of me as relevant as my treatment of it?

[StrictlyLogical]

The onus of proof is on the one who asserts the positive.

 

Entities exist, and so does mental content.  They are distinguishable. 

 

To say animal rights "exist" is to attribute metaphysical reality to mental content which is to resort to intrinsicism, mysticism, or rationalism (platonic idealism).  To identify certain principles or codes of action upon which agreement in society would lead to the selfish interest of an individual is the identification of something in reality.  This is the way Objectivists distil rights, as something OTHER than mystical, intrinsic, or supernatural. 

 

If one creates a society, includes rights in that society according to Oist Morality, then the proper beneficiary of morality (and thus ethics, politics etc.) the individual will selfishly benefit.  THAT is why it is correct for the individual to create societies with rights, and is the ONLY reason (selfish ones based on life as the standard and the self as beneficiary) it is correct to do so. 

 

I may be misreading your feel for what "rights" are... but I do not see yet how what you speak of are real... only that you assert they are.

 

Can you fill in the missing pieces with the substance you seem insulted I do not see?

 

NOTE:  According to objectivist ethics, what is moral, what is right, what is ethical IS based on the self-interest of the individual.  It is based upon selfishness.  IF you wanted to convince an Objectivist that it was "ethical" to do or refrain from doing something you would need to show how it would be of selfish interests of the Objectivist.  Only this sort of argument could prove that recognizing animals "rights" in a sort of super society of men and animals (which I do not think makes any sense) was necessary and correct.  Notwithstanding my not believing you would succeed in the end, you would likely at least need to start there or go nowhere at all...

 

start with Objectivist ethics.

Edited January 29, 2014 by StrictlyLogical

[Devil's Advocate]

Again, my argument is not forwarded on faith, so if you belive I'm lying don't respond by suggesting I mean something other than what I've actually said; take me literally. When I reiterated living beings it can be presumed I'm referring to individual living beings who interact... nothing more - nothing less.  Individual humans interact with individual animals; their behavior is obvious to each other.

[JASKN]

"Their behavior is obvious to each other."

What's your point?

Edited January 29, 2014 by JASKN

[Devil's Advocate]

"Their behavior is obvious to each other."

What's your point?

 

My point is animals, like their human counterparts, struggle to survive according to their own abilities.  Their behavior, like ours, is obvious by observation, not just by humans but by animals, and can be evaluated by either party according to whether it enhances or degrades their life.  Specifically, all animals exhibit how they value their own life in an objective manner.  I'm not arguing that humans don't survive by their wits, thus earning their ethical right to life; I'm arguing that animals ought not be dismissed an ethical right to life simply because they aren't human, or act human, or kiss a human arse.

 

The statement, "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action" stands on its own without delimiting it to human-only behavior.  If it doesn't, where is the objective evidence in terms of human longevity, or the ethical superiority of marginal humans?  The presumption that an ethical right to life delimited to humans only makes that kind of comparison necessary, and the results are hardly conclusive as proof.

 

Put another way, if an animal's right to live depends on the sanction of human observer, or human language, or human courts of law, why bother to make the evaluation in the first place.  Why not simply declare human might makes humans right, and remain at war with every other form of animal life?  Or if the continuing existence of animals by their own means isn't strong enough evidence they ought to be allowed to continue to exist by their own means, why are we not working harder to act consistently on a premise that points to their extinction?

Edited January 29, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[StrictlyLogical]

You are beginning to argue outside of Objectivist ethics.  You also are presupposing in your reasoning/argument existence of that which you are attempting to prove, namely "animal rights".

 

You state "earning their ethical right to life".  This begs the question, from WHOM or WHAT is an "ethical" right EARNED?

 

You state animals "ought not be dismissed".  By what standard, i.e. on what morality and to whose benefit, is the assessment of "ought"?  Whose morality are you invoking here and what is its basis/standard?

 

You state that "the statement" - you say something about what life is and what a right to life provides - stands "on its own".  What does it mean for a statement to "stand on its own"?  I concede here of course statements are true or false in the context of reality.

 

You state "ought to be allowed to exist" - By what standard does this "ought" impose itself, what is its moral source?

 

 

You state you are arguing from reality, but your "oughts" come from I know not where.

[Devil's Advocate]

....

You state you are arguing from reality, but your "oughts" come from I know not where.

 

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 'is' and 'ought.'" ~ ARL, "Is"-"Ought" Dichotomy

 

I'm not trying to short change you in my response.  Suffice it to say that I am trying to establish a common frame of reference in language and ethical consideration of what a right to life is as an ultimate value.  There's more for me to prove, and I recognize the onus is on me to prove it, but I needs must attend to my day job as well.  I'll try to respond to you more fully later...

[StrictlyLogical]

As do I!  I have to arrive a little early to work tomorrow to make up my time balance !

 

 

The quote you have referred to is exactly correct.  Beware its interpretation.  Rand is pointing out there is an alternative kind of "ought", an objective one, i.e. if you wish to live, what you need to do to achieve it depends upon your nature (and in fact the nature of all of reality) ..so what you are, determines (leaves only a subset of all possible actions as successful in your choice to live) what you ought to do (to achieve life).  This principle is applied individually to each beneficiary of his own morality.

 

So the argument you need to present is why "ought" I (or any other Objectivist) form a society with animals and grant them rights?

[dream_weaver]

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 'is' and 'ought.'" ~ ARL, "Is"-"Ought" Dichotomy

 

Your selection side steps the automatic/volitional element.

 

"A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

 

I see no ethics on the part of the plant.

 

"An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

 

Where is the ethics in animals, per this?

 

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.

PWNI & AS

 

Ethics presupposes choice. The fuller passage this comes from Miss Rand cites as one of her most concise validations of the case for morality.

Edited January 29, 2014 by dream_weaver

[tadmjones]

I'm no janist, I'd never harm a flea, I'd kill them all dead and good riddance.

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm no janist, I'd never harm a flea, I'd kill them all dead and good riddance.

 

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated." ~ Jainism. Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

 

... and ...

 

 

"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts." ~ Yoruba Proverb (Nigeria)

 

... and no, I'm not veering off into reciprocity again.  I just thought tadmjones might appreciate this, since he brought it up earlier

 

[freestyle]

Depends what you mean by a "moral right"? I don't use the term. How would you describe it.

 

Rights say that a man has freedom to do a whole range of unspecified actions... and that other men should not stop him. He has the right to do all immoral acts that do not infringe on someone else's rights. So, he has the right to torture an animal -- not owned by someone else -- even if doing so is depraved. The action may be immoral, but the right is just a right.

 

Well... I'm working through this thought, so bare with me...  

 

According to Rand:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

 

 

So this is a moral principle we're talking about.  The only right is the right to one's own life (to self-sustain and self-generated action for the furtherance, fulfillment and enjoyment of one's own life).

 

I don't see a way to draw a corollary to just "anything".  If your rights are a moral principle as defined above, I don't know that I can agree that there is an inherent "right" to do anything.    I think I'm quibbling with the idea of saying you have a right to dog torture... as opposed to saying that no one has a right to stop you from dog torture.  It is a choice (a bad choice), but I don't think it falls into the Objectivist concept of a "right".  

 

I've searched and I've never seen Rand say that you have a "right" to harm animals for no rational reason.     Does anyone know if she's ever been asked a similar type of question about whether one has a "right" to literally anything they want (so long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights).

 

I wonder how she'd word her response.     For instance, I remember reading (or hearing) Rand make the distinction between a constitutional RIGHT to bear arms and it being conceivably being legitimate for a government to require registration (i'm searching...).

 

I guess it comes down to whether or not your ability to choose to do something (anything) is always, legitimately termed a "right" to do it.  

[theestevearnold]

There are laws against cruelty to animals, and nobody I know of is lobbying for their repeal.

Don't confuse the issue.

[dream_weaver]

Here's an interesting aside from a neurological perspective:

 

You say lateral frontal pole, I say that little devil/angel that whispers in my ear

Scientists at Oxford University have made a startling discovery: they’ve found a region of the brain that makes you wonder if you’ve done something wrong, and whether you’d have been well advised to do something better.

 

There are several things that you should know about this region, which is inside your head, and the head of the lady sitting beside you on the Tube, and the heads of David Cameron and Lady Gaga and Rouge Dragon Pursuivant of the Royal College of Heralds. One, it's called the lateral frontal pole. Two, it's unique to humans - they ran tests on monkeys in the course of the research at Oxford and, nope, they don't have it. Three, it's the size of "a large Brussels sprout". And four, it's a leap beyond current scientific knowledge into realms that can only be described as spooky.

 

If animals do not have this region, and if it is relevant to moral choice, the implications seem clear.

 

Hang on. This isn't some minor breakthrough of cognitive neuroscience. This is about good and bad, right and wrong. This is about the brain's connection to morality. This means that the Oxford scientists, without apparently realising what they've done, have located the conscience. 

[Devil's Advocate]

@ dream_weaver,

 

We can agree that ethics presupposes choice.

 

The findings of the Oxford scientists presents a double edged sword to the degree that this guilt node influences social behavior, i.e., to what degree is ones choice the result of biological firmware.  If you believe animal choice is volitionally narrow, this finding narrows human volition too.

 

This could also be looked at as a kind of biological justification for behaving altruistically.

 

I believe it's better to proceed with the conviction of one who is capable of choice, rather than that of a puppet with delusions of grandeur.