[Veganism under Objectivism]

@human_murda please quote it. It wasn't clear to me.

[Veganism under Objectivism]

Again, you have failed to (and have avoided) defining what you mean by 'nature'. 

Turtles and humans are not the same species. A thief and a hero are. Creatures of the same species have the same natures, that is in part how species are defined. A rapist and a businessman are not two subspecies of human, they are the exact same species. Rather than comparing a 6 and 7 it's like comparing a 6 and a 6 but one is writen with blue ink and ine with black ink, the two have the same nature.

You seem not to understand the meaning of the terms you use. A 'goal' is, by it's  definition, a conscious and desired outcome. Without conscious intent no outcome can be a goal. Yes, subconscious character trains can and do lead to outcomes but, these are not goals.

So again, no, your initial assertion that the thief's goal is death and/or some form of suffering is false (at least for the vast majority of thieves).

That may be the outcome of their actions but, not their desired or intended outcome i.e., their goal.

You are warping what you said so as  to be "right" rather than true by avoiding concrete definitions and appending 'conscious' to your statements. You are avoiding taking a stance and defending it with an inconsistent argument (still don't get the turtle-human-thief thing). 

That trait will be harmful in your future pursuits.

 

[Veganism under Objectivism]

@human_murda No, I absolutely disagree. You have made the assumption that all human beings have a rational view of existence and think about actions and consequences with the same foundation in objectivist philosophy that you posses, that isn't true. 

A thief may believe that they needs to steal to survive (note: in some situations this may be true i.e, in a society where human rights are not protected). This thief may genuinely want to live to a ripe old age--that may be their goal but, through poor (or a complete lack) of reasoning, may decide on the wrong course of action. 

Their actions may not be consistent with the laws of reality but, it is unture to say 'their goal isn't to survive'. Having a goal doesn't automatically give you the objective guidelines on how to achieve them. That's why philosophers dedicate that their lives to that science and developing a consistent framework. 

If having a goal was enough to know the correct course of action there would be no need of philosophy (or any school of any kind). Ayn Rand or any Greg off the street could've codified Objectivist philosophy in one weekend.

The goal of many people is to live happy and fulfilling lives but, lacking an objective philosophy to guide them they live as spiritualists or naturalists. They want to be happy--that is their goal but, they do not have the knowledge you have and so they take the wrong actions and yes, misery and death are the result.

Before you found Objectivist philosophy, did you not have some goals but, go about them in the wrong way? Was it true to say that at that point your goals where to suffer and rush to your death?

Your assertion would mean that everyone with a goal has some innate knowledge and cchooses to act against it.

It is possible (and likely commonplace) for a thiefs goal to be living a long and happy life but, to then decide that taking the material possessions of others is the way to go about it. 

I agree that thoseose actions will not lead to the desired goal but, your assertion that the goal of a thief cannot be happiness is false, at least in most cases. 

[Veganism under Objectivism]

@human_murda In order to continue this discussion, you need to define and stand behind one definition of nature. I understand that you are replying to multiple points within different contexts but, you are shifting between 3 definitions of the word 'nature': (i)nature as one's set of chosen values-- synonymous with character, (ii) nature as the laws that govern all existence (ii) as human nature--the subset of all natural laws that apply specifically  to homo sapiens.

While these may be interconnected, they are distinct but, you use them interchangeabley and that makes it difficult to have a thorough focussed discussion on it.

So as a starting point, please clarify what you mean when you say 'nature'.

When I have used nature, I have been refering to 'human' nature i.e., the existential retirements of humans acting in accordance with their identies as the mammal homo sapien not the choices individuals make within that identity i.e., to be or not to be a thief. So murderers, rapists, heros, vegans, and hotdog vendors all have the same 'nature' because they are all the same species of animal.

[Veganism under Objectivism]

@human_murda Thank you for your clarification on the source of human rights. You have helped me grasp the edge of  a deeper understanding of the principles involved.

I will note that you have shifted the frame of reference of the discussion and that has somewhat warped your answer. 

If you speak of thieves as having their own nature i.e., as a seperate class of creature requiring different actions for their survival, then it would follow that thieves would have their own set of rights. They are humans. As humans they must produce to consume. Any other form of survival is to exist at a sub-human level i.e ., as a parasite a scavenger and/or a predator. 

All humans have the same nature (nature as in-'the requirements necessary to sustain their existence, not --their self-made character) so the nature of a thing does give a pretty full basis for the rights it should posses. As Ayn Rand said-

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do" ["The Objectivist Ethics", 17, The Virtue of Selfishness].

It is not skipping many steps in logic to say "this is what humans ought to do; these are the rights that let them do so."

[Veganism under Objectivism]

First off, thank you for posting such an interesting topic. It got me thinking and I'd like to share my thoughts.I disagree with you, animals are not capable of reason and so do not have rights.

Your definition of 'reason' is lacking. There is no doubt that animals are sentient but, sentience is not a synonym for reason. You have butchered the (already somewhat questionable) wiki definition of sentience (I try to use reputable online dictionaries because wikis can warp definitions sometimes). Sentience is not defined as 'subjective reality' it is the capacity to feel or perceive (some aspects of reality). If you did, in fact, use the wiki definition (ill-advised) the very next sentence goes on to say-

Quote

 

Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience)

 

Reason is the ability to form abstractions and concepts. Animals have automatic knowledge, hardwired automatic responses to stimuli that they cannot choose to go against. If a lion had reason, some could choose to live as scavengers despite being able to hunt injured, weak or old animals. It could choose to hunt old animals nearing the end of their natural lifespan rather than young inexperienced foals. Lions. like any other animal, have no choice but, to follow their compulsions--this does not mean that they cannot learn but, to equate such rudimental thinking to reasoning is like equating Parrots mimicking to humans learning a language.

As for animals learning to solve puzzles you would have to link the experiments so that I can verify if these actions qualify as abstraction and concept formation.

For the rest of my argument, I'll post D. Moskovitz response to a similar question on Atlas Society
 

Quote

 

Question: Do animals have rights? What is the Objectivist position on animal cruelty? What is the Objectivist position on vegetarianism?

Answer: Many believe that animals have the right to be free from harm by people. In particular, they believe that animals should not be harmed in food production, clothing production, or medical research. This belief is the product of a misunderstanding of the nature of rights. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that rights are derived from the capacity to experience pain, and since animals can experience pain just as people can, animals also have the right to be free from harm. However, rights are derived from the capacity to reason, and thus people have rights and animals do not.

Both people and animals seek values such as food and shelter to sustain their lives. However, they do so by different means. Animals pursue values in their environment automatically. For example, an animal scavenges and finds food around it. People, on the other hand, use their faculties of reason to produce values volitionally. For example, a person can choose to study how plants grow and choose to plant and grow his own food. Moreover, people trade values with each other. For example, if one person grows vegetables and another person weaves clothing, the former can give the latter vegetables in exchange for clothing to their mutual benefit.
People survive by producing for themselves without interference from others and by trading freely with other people. However, if others (either people or animals) use physical force against a person to stop him from producing and trading, his ability to use his reason to survive is impaired. Rights protect this ability. “A right,” according to Ayn Rand , “is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a person's freedom of action in a social context” (“Man's Rights,” Virtue of Selfishness [New York: Penguin, 1964], 130). The rights to life, liberty, and property leave each person free to pursue his own self-interest through production and trade. Moreover, it is in a person's self-interest to respect the rights of other people so that they can freely use their own faculties of reason to produce values for which he can trade.

Rights are derived from the capacity to reason, and thus people have rights and animals do not.

The value a person receives from other people depends on their freedom from physical force. However, the value a person receives from animals depends on their lack of freedom from physical force. While a person receives food, clothing, and medical knowledge from other people by allowing other people to freely produce these things and trade them, a person receives food, clothing, and medical knowledge (through research) from animals only through force. Moreover, disputes with animals cannot be resolved with discussion or the threat of legal sanction, as they can be with other people. So to prevent animals such as lions, rats, and cockroaches from attacking a person or invading a his property, one’s only option is to initiate force against them. This is why a person should refrain from initiating physical force against other people but not against animals, and this is why people have rights and animals don't.

The issues of gratuitous cruelty to animals and of vegetarianism are not fundamental philosophical issues. Nonetheless, Objectivist principles can be extended to provide a framework in which individuals can consider these issues themselves. Legally, since people have rights and animals don't, no form of force initiated against animals should be outlawed, even if it is gratuitously cruel or if it is used to produce food that is not necessary for a person's survival. Morally, however, gratuitous cruelty should be condemned because it reinforces the immoral habit of destroying others’ lives rather than promoting one's own life. Moreover, such cruelty can be the product only of gross irrationality, for it is natural for a person to empathize with another living being to the extent that the two resemble each other. While such cruelty is emotionally offensive to many people and rightly so, this is not grounds for government intervention because the sole purpose of the government is to protect rights, and animals don't have rights.
Legally, vegetarianism should not be enforced by the government for the same reason. Morally, however, vegetarianism is a complex issue. The standard by which a person should decide whether to eat meat is the survival and flourishing of his own life. The first factor to weigh in evaluating whether the eating of meat supports life is, obviously, its physiological effects. Centuries ago, given the state of food processing technology, a person had to eat meat to get adequate nutrition. With modern advances in food processing technology, however, a person can be just as healthy (or even healthier) by eating no meat. Secondary factors to weigh in evaluating whether or not to eat meat are taste and empathy. Pleasurable sensations fuel a person's mind just as healthy foods fuel a person's body, and are thus necessary for a person's survival. It may be pleasurable to taste a choice cut of filet mignon,but it may be unpleasurable to think of the suffering a cow went through to produce that choice cut. How to balance the costs and benefits of health, taste, and empathy is not a philosophical issue, and thus Objectivism has nothing to say about it beyond the fact that people are not morally obligated, in principle, not to eat meat; rather, it is up to each person to balance the costs and benefits of eating meat according to the standard of his own life.
 

 

5