Legal protection for non-humans

[Capitalism Forever]

I'm opposed because there are literally thousands of other ways to be amused and entertained that do not involve torturing an innocent animal.

Some people might argue that you could then just as well be opposed to watching television because there are literally thousands of other ways to be amused and entertained that do not involve consuming electricity and thereby "increasing your carbon footprint." Why do you think torturing "innocent" animals (can animals be guilty?) is inherently wrong? What standard of evaluation are you using?

[D'kian]

Some people might argue that you could then just as well be opposed to watching television because there are literally thousands of other ways to be amused and entertained that do not involve consuming electricity and thereby "increasing your carbon footprint." Why do you think torturing "innocent" animals (can animals be guilty?) is inherently wrong? What standard of evaluation are you using?

By "innocent animal" I mean one that isn't causing people any harm or bothering them in any way.

Animals are amoral, of course, since they are not capable of reason. But they are capable fo feelings and emotions. That means the bull does feel pain and anger. Because of that, and because of the benefits we derive from animals, we owe them a measure of compassion. That means not making them suffer needlessly.

[Greebo]

Ok, I've been giving this a lot of thought and I think its starting to gel.

In OPAR, its stated that different animals have different levels of consciousness, all the way up to at least the precept level. This suggests that the development of volitional consciousness capable of reason is a gradual process. Now, I own some very bright dogs - well no I own 1 bright one and 2 that are dumb as soup - but the bright one can do some problem solving that is more than instinctive - it had to be learned. There's still a lot of instinct, don't misunderstand me - there's certainly no fully developed sense of reason. But the glimmerings of crude reason can be seen in several other higher order species, not just my Sheltie.

Now a right is a social contract engaged between rational beings - but if reason evolves, and since there seem to be lower orders of reason, then I think this would imply a similarly lower order of "right". I'm in no way proposing "animal rights" - animals can't engage in social contracts - but in my readings, I have never seen anything by Rand or in OPAR discussing treatment of lower order animals other than mentioning our mastery, so I think she never really gave it an awful lot of thought beyond dismissing the ludicrous idea that animals should be treated *as* human.

An animal acts for its survival largely instinctively. Fight or flight is automatic. But man can force an animal into a situation where neither fight NOR flight are possible in response to a threat. In essence, we've removed all its available options. In such a circumstance, since the animal has no option to deal with us in reason, and since we can remove its ability to deal with us instinctively, it seems to me that we then owe it to a captured/domesticated animal not to trigger that fight or flight response in a way that prevents the animal from acting on it. Otherwise, we force the animal into a contradiction - an epistemological nightmare to a creature who can have no contradictions and survive. If we do that, we fail to deal with the animal in the only way the animal itself can cope with, just as if we force our will on another human, we remove the other humans ability to deal with us rationally. This is a moral evil.

Torture of an animal - causing it distress - that amounts to triggering the fight or flight response but denying its ability to use the response - thus denying its means of survival. This to me seems just as evil as forcing a human to live in bondage and denying Man's means of survival - his mind.

Does this mean we can't raise cattle, and slaughter them for meat? Certainly not - a cow that is well fed, well tended, and then slaughtered humanely as painlessly as possible isn't being made to suffer - its living a normal, stress free (as in distress free) life. Fight or flight isn't necessary, its healthy, its ... well not happy but...content...and then it feeds us. "Fair trade", so to speak. We maintain mastery over the animal, but we also then treat the animal as fairly as its limited consciousness can comprehend (ie: it isn't scared all the time, it isn't hungry, etc)

And that to me suggests that, just as Government can intervene when one man infringes upon another man's liberty, Government should also be able to intervene when man treats an animal cruelly, and that the owner of such an animal surrenders his right to the property in question because that property *is* a living thing, and as such, should not be treated in ways that create epistemological crises for the animal.

Edited October 31, 2008 by Greebo

[DavidOdden]

and since there seem to be lower orders of reason

You should stop here, back up, and defend this claim. What is "reason", and what are its units of measurement? The ability to learn is not the same as the faculty of reason.

[RationalBiker]

This;

I'm in no way proposing "animal rights" - animals can't engage in social contracts

does not mesh with this;

Government should also be able to intervene when man treats an animal cruelly

You are saying that animals have a right not to be treated cruelly. If you say in one breath you are not proposing 'animal rights', you cannot in another breath grant them a right.

[Greebo]

This;

does not mesh with this;

You are saying that animals have a right not to be treated cruelly. If you say in one breath you are not proposing 'animal rights', you cannot in another breath grant them a right.

The quotes were deliberate - I was referring to animal rights in the sense that they are referred to in OPAR - as the claim that animals have a right to be treated the same way that man has a right to be treated.

DavidOdden - I will work on that.

[Jake_Ellison]

I'm opposed because there are literally thousands of other ways to be amused and entertained that do not involve torturing an innocent animal. On the other hand, there is no other way to obtain animal protein other than to kill an animal and cut it up, nor of learning some aspects of biology or medicine without experimenting on animals.

Sure there is: milk and eggs contain everything you could ever need. In fact plants contain everything you need too, and vegetarians can be perfectly healthy if they pay a little attention to make sure they eat the right things.

We want stake because it brings us pleasure, not because it has such a soothing effect on our heart and cholesterol levels.

You are right about the medicine part, but that does not justify slaughterhouses: I don't see how those are justified, but bullfighting somehow bothers you.

If you want to judge entertainment for pleasure, you should judge eating meat for pleasure by the same measure.

I would argue that by your standards, killing for food is actually worse, especially since animals are killed every day in your city, while bullfighting is something you can avoid by pressing a button on your remote.

[RationalBiker]

The quotes were deliberate - I was referring to animal rights in the sense that they are referred to in OPAR - as the claim that animals have a right to be treated the same way that man has a right to be treated.

Deliberate perhaps, but still contradictory.

[Jake_Ellison]

Ok, I've been giving this a lot of thought and I think its starting to gel.

(1)An animal acts for its survival largely instinctively. ..........

(2)........Fight or flight is automatic.............since the animal has no option to deal with us in reason, and since we can remove its ability to deal with us instinctively....................

(3).....If we do that, we fail to deal with the animal in the only way the animal itself can cope with, just as if we force our will on another human, we remove the other humans ability to deal with us rationally. This is a moral evil.

..............

Torture of an animal - causing it distress - that amounts to triggering the fight or flight response but denying its ability to use the response - thus denying its means of survival. This to me seems just as evil as forcing a human to live in bondage and denying Man's means of survival - his mind.

There are a lot of contradictions in your argument, enough in fact that I personally cannot consider it or respond to it with arguments of my own until they are cleared up.

Of course there is the lower orders of reason thing David pointed out, I'm not gonna go into that.(I'll wait for the definition of the concept)

I want to point out another contradiction-I numbered 3 statements you made in a single paragraph:

Number (1) is an ambiguous statement: animals are "largely", but not exclusively instinctive.

Nr. (2) animals cannot act rationally, in fact their decision-making is "fight or flight" , which is exclusively instinctive.(according to your own statement, which I highlighted)

Nr. (3) Our interactions with animals are the same("just as") as our interactions with humans: "we remove their ability to act rationally. Meaning of course that animals are quite rational.

Then, in the next paragraph, you say that these two things are morally equivalent:

1. restricting an animal from acting instinctively (by your own admission, "fight or flight" is automatic=instinctive)

2. restricting a man from acting rationally.

The contradiction here is in the fact that you previously introduced the concepts of degrees of reason and degrees of rights, but then you make no moral distinction between violating 0 degrees of reason("fight or flight" instinct) and violating 100 degrees of reason (man's mind). Where does the "lower order of rights" come in, if you make no moral distinctions in the two cases?

[Greebo]

There are a lot of contradictions in your argument, enough in fact that I personally cannot consider it or respond to it with arguments of my own until they are cleared up.

Of course there is the lower orders of reason thing David pointed out, I'm not gonna go into that.(I'll wait for the definition of the concept)

I want to point out another contradiction-I numbered 3 statements you made in a single paragraph:

Number (1) is an ambiguous statement: animals are "largely", but not exclusively instinctive.

Nr. (2) animals cannot act rationally, in fact their decision-making is "fight or flight" , which is exclusively instinctive.(according to your own statement, which I highlighted)

Nr. (3) Our interactions with animals are the same("just as") as our interactions with humans: "we remove their ability to act rationally. Meaning of course that animals are quite rational.

Then, in the next paragraph, you say that these two things are morally equivalent:

1. restricting an animal from acting instinctively (by your own admission, "fight or flight" is automatic=instinctive)

2. restricting a man from acting rationally.

The contradiction here is in the fact that you previously introduced the concepts of degrees of reason and degrees of rights, but then you make no moral distinction between violating 0 degrees of reason("fight or flight" instinct) and violating 100 degrees of reason (man's mind). Where does the "lower order of rights" come in, if you make no moral distinctions in the two cases?

Ok - on #1 and #2 being contradictory, you do have a point. I need to work on that. Meanwhile, I will proceed without reference to any concept of "degrees of rights"

#3, however, you have wrong:

" If we do that, we fail to deal with the animal in the only way the animal itself can cope with, just as if we force our will on another human, we remove the other humans ability to deal with us rationally. This is a moral evil."

"That" (word 4) refers to the prior described activity. Restated what I am saying is:

When we impose our will on another man, we remove the man's ability to use his reason, which is his means of survival. When we remove the ability of an animal to respond with fight or flight, we are removing ITS means of survival. The animal survives the torture, but cannot fight back, and cannot flee. Its ability to survive is negated.

With regard to Objectivist Ethics, Rand wrote: "Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil."

Man's reason is its basic means of survival.

That which negates man's reason is evil.

That which negates man's basic means of survival is evil.

Man is a living being.

Therefore:

The negation of a living being's means of survival is evil.

With regard to life as value, she further wrote: "It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil."

An animals instincts are its basics means of survival.

Torture negates an animal's basic means of survival.

Therefore, animal torture is evil.

Hence, I submit that with regard to non rational beings, man's negation of an animals basic means of survival also qualifies as evil. Man being capable of rationality where an animal is not, only man as a rational being is equipped to deal with a man who chooses irrationality. When a man is evil only to himself, no intervention is justified, but when a man is evil to another living creature, the creature cannot defend itself in the face of our ability to reason, so it falls to Man as a rational being to respond to an evil committed by an individual.

[RationalBiker]

Man is a living being.

But that is not why man has a 'right' to his method of survival, not simply because he is a living being. If you are going to try to use Objectivism to establish your case, you cannot leave out the untidy bits that work against it.

[Greebo]

But that is not why man has a 'right' to his method of survival, not simply because he is a living being. If you are going to try to use Objectivism to establish your case, you cannot leave out the untidy bits that work against it.

And you can't take a single line from a logical argument and use something irrelevant to the argument to disprove it. I wasn't talking about rights in that argument, I was proving the evil.

Man's reason is its basic means of survival.

That which negates man's reason is evil.

That which negates man's basic means of survival is evil.

Man is a living being.

Therefore:

The negation of a living being's means of survival is evil.

The line you quoted was introducing justification for a substitution.

If That which negates man's basic means of survival is evil, and man is a living being, then that which negates a living being's means of survival is evil.

Unfortunately, you're ultimately right - but for the wrong reason, because what I just did there was argue that "all dogs have fur, all dogs are animals, this is an animal, therefore it has fur"

[Jake_Ellison]

With regard to Objectivist Ethics, Rand wrote: "Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil."

Man's reason is its basic means of survival.

That which negates man's reason is evil.

That which negates man's basic means of survival is evil.

Man is a living being.

Therefore:

The negation of a living being's means of survival is evil.

With regard to life as value, she further wrote: "It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil."

An animals instincts are its basics means of survival.

Torture negates an animal's basic means of survival.

Therefore, animal torture is evil.

Does puting a serial killer in jail or to death constitute evil? I believe answering that question, and answering why it is not evil will negate your argument in the post I quoted.

Let's look at it this way: when Ayn Rand set out to define an ideal society, I would think she was searching for a system in which participants in that system(citizens) would be able to live together in such a manner that as long as they all were trying to survive as "rational human beings" the use of force would not be needed. In a laissez-faire capitalist system, where the only rights are to life, liberty and property, such a life is possible for every participant who understands everyone's rights and respects them. Government is of course necessary to keep in line those few who don't--these people automatically go to jail or get the infamous "blue liquid"-they no longer have rights. If, after a while, a judge (who represents society) decides they have learned their lesson and will from now on probably conform, they get their rights back.

One thing, however, as a rational society, we cannot do, is to give rights to those who don't understand the concept, and are therefore not going to respect people's rights. That would make our ideal society imperfect, since the only criteria by wich citizens get their rights: the objective expectation that they will respect everyone else's, goes out the window.

So even if your conclusion were true, and animal torture were immoral in all cases for the reasons you mentioned, animals could still not be given rights, and government could therefore still not jump in and protect them. So we are still at the same impass: just because a citizen is doing something evil, they should not be stopped unless they are violating other citizen's rights.

If a dog were able to understand the concept of rights and respect them, that dog could become a citizen, with rights. There are no such dogs, but we do have in America creatures who in fact do fit this criteria: they are called illegal immigrants, and once they are properly punished for ilegally crossing the border they should be given the same rights everyone else has, long before we even consider giving rights to animals, no matter how close they are to becoming rational. Why do I bring this up? Because our legal and political system is already having trouble processing these newcomers (who often have trouble understanding or respecting rights themselves), can you imagine having a court sending your dog to jail, because you swore that he's really smart and he deserves rights, and two hours later he crapped on my driveway?

[Greebo]

Does puting a serial killer in jail or to death constitute evil? I believe answering that question, and answering why it is not evil will negate your argument in the post I quoted.

I disagree.

A serial killer has the choice to respect the rights of others or not. When he chooses not to, the serial killer voids his own right to his own means of survival. The serial killer does the evil, not the jailer.

The animal has no choice - the animal can not abandon its means of survival. The animal, acting for its survival, can not engage in evil, but man, in removing an animals ability to exercise its survival instinct, can.

So even if your conclusion were true, and animal torture were immoral in all cases for the reasons you mentioned, animals could still not be given rights, and government could therefore still not jump in and protect them. So we are still at the same impass: just because a citizen is doing something evil, they should not be stopped unless they are violating other citizen's rights.

Yes, I do get that. I just don't like it, and I still think --- no I *feel* --- Objectivism falls short in certain areas. (BTW: as I recall OPAR admits this - it indicates our epistemology is incomplete). So I'm laboring to prove it rationally.

[RationalBiker]

I wasn't talking about rights in that argument, I was proving the evil.

Fair enough. However, forgive me if I'm confused about your argument then because your bouncing around between the concepts "evil", "rights", and "legal protection".

[Capitalism Forever]

Because of that, and because of the benefits we derive from animals, we owe them a measure of compassion.

Says who?

[Capitalism Forever]

That which negates man's basic means of survival is evil.

Man is a living being.

Therefore:

The negation of a living being's means of survival is evil.

"He who lives in California is a Californian.

"California is an American state.

"Therefore:

"He who lives in an American state is a Californian."

[Greebo]

Fair enough. However, forgive me if I'm confused about your argument then because your bouncing around between the concepts "evil", "rights", and "legal protection".

So am I...believe me.

Its very difficult for me to accept the idea that in a truly objectivist based society, if an irrational person expressed his irrationality by torturing animals, but never infringed upon another person's freedom, that there would be no justification for me as an individual or for the Government to intervene on behalf of the animal.

I feel very deeply that this must be wrong - that there must be something Rand missed - and the fact that her epistemology focuses almost exclusively on man reinforces that belief to me.

Maybe I search in vain, but I feel there must be a rational way to incorporate a certain responsibility to animals on the part of man in a non contradictory way with Objectivist ethics, and I'm not ready to give up yet.

Responsibility...hmm...ok here's a question:

If a person has a certain right, does that right also come with an equivalent responsibility?

Man's right to freedom qua man carries with it the responsibility to respect other men's right to freedom qua man, yes? If one fails in that responsibility, one loses the right, do they not?

If man has the right to master the earth and the non-rational species therein, then what is the implicit responsibility that comes with that right?

"He who lives in California is a Californian.

"California is an American state.

"Therefore:

"He who lives in an American state is a Californian."

Yes, I already recognized that error, thank you.

[D'kian]

Says who?

I just did. Weren't you paying attention?

[thepipesmoker]

Animals don't have rights. Only humans do.

Edited November 1, 2008 by thepipesmoker

[RationalBiker]

Its very difficult for me to accept the idea that in a truly objectivist based society, if an irrational person expressed his irrationality by torturing animals, but never infringed upon another person's freedom, that there would be no justification for me as an individual or for the Government to intervene on behalf of the animal.

But an Objectivist based society would not be in the business of forcing irrational people to behave rationally. Objectivism as a philosophy doesn't even do that. What it does is set forth a framework of explaining why one should behave rationally.

I feel very deeply that this must be wrong

I suspect you already know this, but Objectivism holds that emotions are not tools of cognition. I'm sure that is why, as you said, you are trying to make a rational case against animal cruelty. Not as a reflection of you, but most of the sad state of governmental affairs today is based on people 'feeling' that certain things should be done without linking those things to facts of reality or man's nature.

From a moral perspective, you may be able to make the case that in most instances animal cruelty is immoral, keeping in mind that immoral in the Objectivist sense of the word refers to destroying one's own life, not necessarily destroying or harming another person's (or animal's) life. However, I do not see a way that you can use Objectivism to establish a basis for the legal protection against animal cruelty because an Objectivist code system would only concern itself with protecting the rights of rational beings with man being the only rights holders. At best, the protection of animals would hinge on property issues if the animals were owned.

While it would not be possible to prevent ALL cruelty to animals, I'm not sure anything could, I would imagine that Objectivists (or people living in an Objectivist society) who value preventing cruelty to animals would approach the issue in a number of ways;

1) Either through ownership themselves or through various organizations and land owners, they would support the establishment of protected private lands and animals through funding and promotional campaigns.

2) Educate people by trying to make a case as to how animal cruelty is not in their rational self-interest.

3) Boycott businesses (or people) who support or participate in acts of animal cruelty.

There are probably many other legal methods as well. But an Objectivist legal system would not punish people solely based on their irrational acts.

[Capitalism Forever]

I just did. Weren't you paying attention?

Yes, but why should I agree with you? It is not clear what fact of reality you are basing that statement on.

[D'kian]

Yes, but why should I agree with you? It is not clear what fact of reality you are basing that statement on.

Which fact are you disputing? That we benefit from our use of animals, or that animals have feelings and emotions?

[Jake_Ellison]

Because of that, and because of the benefits we derive from animals, we owe them a measure of compassion.

Wow, is that a new right you came up with? I didn't even know that I "owed" humans anything other than to not take away their life, liberty or property.

The right to compassion, isn't that "the right to have your basic needs satisfied"?

Is a homeless person being "owed" a house, too?

Animals are not members of society: they have no rights and we don't trade with them, so we don't owe them anything. We do not derive stuff from domestic animals, we produce animals, and eat them. I don't understand where this debt of ours would be coming from.

[D'kian]

Wow, is that a new right you came up with?

No, compassion is a feeling of sympathy for those stricken with missfortune. Animals are capable of feeling and emotion, but not consciousness. When they suffer they are aware that theya re suffering, but not of why and, usually, not what they can do about it. That's why it's cruel to torture animals for something like amusement or entertainment; especially animals that are of benefit to us.

The right to compassion, isn't that "the right to have your basic needs satisfied"?

As I said, it's a feeling, not a right.

Animals are not members of society:

I'd dispute that in the case of dogs and cats. Dogs in particular are often treated as family, or better than family.

they have no rights and we don't trade with them, so we don't owe them anything.

Not legally. Except as far as they are property and, as such, enjoy the same legal protections your car or house would.

We do not derive stuff from domestic animals, we produce animals, and eat them.

Animals produce each other. We make considtions for breeding better than those in nature (and help them along and direct them), we also guide their growth to suit our needs and tastes. Not to mention we keep them safe from disease and predators as far as possible. But we don't make them. Over time we've learned to do more with an animal's carcass than merely eat it. No single bit of cow is wasted. What's not eaten by people is used for animal feed. The skin is used for leather, the bones for a variety of products, even the hooves are used to make Jell-O.

I'm not saying it should be illegal for anyone to torture an animal. Nor am I saying spectacles like bull fighting should be legally banned. For all the law ought to care, you can tether a black bear in a cage and set dogs upon it until they kill it or you run out of dogs, if you like that kind of thing.

But it's not morally right to create suffering for amusement for the reasons I outlined above.