RationalBiker Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 The concept murder does not apply to animals. To murder means to kill a thing against its rights; animals do not have rights, and so cannot be murdered. Actually, at the beginning of this thread I pointed out that murder has a more specific definition than this one. To clarify one thing: murder has a specific (legal) definition. The unlawful killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought. Therefore, one cannot murder animals. VES The important distinction here is what other "things" besides humans have "rights"? No other "things" have rights. VES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Until animals start acting like a part of our society, by paying taxes, creating wealth, and voting (for example), then I refuse to extend to them rights which they have yet to earn for themselves.... But do you eat children? If one gets really sick, would you have it put to sleep? Maybe the problem is thinking that rights are derived from fulfilling certain social obligations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 You beat me to it, David! I was going to ask; so can we solve the welfare problem by eating the poor and unemployed? We could eat criminals too ... I think this idea has a lot of potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 While I have no difficulty with the idea of killing animals, I am adverse to the idea of them suffering. If an animal is being tortured I respond with anger, much as I would if it were a human, only to a lesser degree. If animals are merely organic robots with no awareness, is it even valid to feel this way? And are animals merely organic robots with no awareness? If you spend even a few minutes with a cat or dog and maybe step on a paw by accident, it should be pretty obvious that they are conscious (aware) and can feel pain. Vertebrates at least are not just "organic robots" (although as I have argued elsewhere I think insects likely are.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsalt Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 I might give a thought to the animal "rights" people if they gave a single nano-second of thought to human beings with the same verve they give to animals. Think for a moment what it would mean if every human being on the earth was a vegetarian. What, pray tell, would happen to the soil if we depended solely on plant material to feed us? Every spare acre not holding a man standing would have to be cultivated to feed the billions now living. We couldn't afford to allow a single animal to live. We couldn't handle the competition and we couldn't spare the space. How long would we survive? (And how long would Thoyd remain gainfully employed ) PETA's goal obviously isn't life, human or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Think for a moment what it would mean if every human being on the earth was a vegetarian. What, pray tell, would happen to the soil if we depended solely on plant material to feed us? Every spare acre not holding a man standing would have to be cultivated to feed the billions now living. We couldn't afford to allow a single animal to live. We couldn't handle the competition and we couldn't spare the space. How long would we survive? Many less crops would need to be grown since animals use an inefficient digestive process, compared to the use of energy by a plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tortured one Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 something I was reflecting on when I was reading this thread. Please excuse this abstraction and deviance from reality (no. it's not a lifeboat situation ) I was just thinking about two specific ideas of fiction which calls into question animal rights, or non-human rights for that matter. Like I said, these are purely hypothetical situations -in Heinlein's "Starship Trooper" he mentions teams comprising of a man and a genetically engineered dog, who was designed to have a hyper-powerful intellegence compared to other dogs. It isn't rediculously intellegent, he compares them to low intellegence humans, but they still have enough sentience to reason and communicate. would the rights of humans apply to the animals in this example? -In the Animatrix (prelude to the movie "the matrix") it gives the case of the first robot to rebel against humans. The robot had enough sentience to be able to reason that it was concious and was capable of protecting it's own right to life. This Also comes up in Asimov's I, Robot. would sentient robots (as far out as it seems, the level of progression in the fields of robotics is astounding, this may be an issue in the next 50 to 60 years) have rights, due to it's ability to rely on reason rather then instincts or programming? or would the owners retain the rights to the robot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deedlebee Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 You beat me to it, David! I was going to ask; so can we solve the welfare problem by eating the poor and unemployed? We could eat criminals too ... I think this idea has a lot of potential. Bring on the Cajun spices! This is an excellent plan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 'Tis but a modest proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 You beat me to it, David! I was going to ask; so can we solve the welfare problem by eating the poor and unemployed? We could eat criminals too ... I think this idea has a lot of potential. Dont think they would taste good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Tommy: They would have to be held in pens for a while and fed some sort of special diet to improve the taste. y_feldblum: Nice Swift reference! -in Heinlein's "Starship Trooper" he mentions teams comprising of a man and a genetically engineered dog, who was designed to have a hyper-powerful intellegence compared to other dogs. It isn't rediculously intellegent, he compares them to low intellegence humans, but they still have enough sentience to reason and communicate. would the rights of humans apply to the animals in this example? -In the Animatrix (prelude to the movie "the matrix") it gives the case of the first robot to rebel against humans. The robot had enough sentience to be able to reason that it was concious and was capable of protecting it's own right to life. This Also comes up in Asimov's I, Robot. would sentient robots (as far out as it seems, the level of progression in the fields of robotics is astounding, this may be an issue in the next 50 to 60 years) have rights, due to it's ability to rely on reason rather then instincts or programming? or would the owners retain the rights to the robot? I don't think there is enough information in any of these stories to really decide. I do think there is a general problem of borderline cases. Being able to reason is not a strict yes/no type of thing, as will be obvious to anyone who has raised children. In kids it develops gradually; they are not just unable to reason one day and able to reason the next. There are people who claim that some primates, and maybe even some cetaceans and birds, have some ability to reason. IMO even if they can reason a bit it is not enough to give them rights, but one can at least imagine more borderline cases like those you give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Well in the case of a robot, if they are not programmed, and instead are reason based AI, then yes they will get rights, but their rights will be slightly different. It will be determined by their nature to survive. If they in any way are required to aggress us by their nature, then we have the right to self-defense. As for the dog, NO it does not have rights until it has the mental capacity to respect rights. And low mental capacity humans dont have rights either. Like a child for instance, their parents have all the rights and the child only gets the rights that it can respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowzer Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 And low mental capacity humans dont have rights either. Like a child for instance, their parents have all the rights and the child only gets the rights that it can respect. I just want to make this clear for people unfamiliar with the Objectivist view of rights, this is not the Objectivist view of rights. Please take care to differentiate your personal opinions from the philosophy of Objectivism. If you are unsure of the Objectivist position then you should ask first to determine if your understanding is insufficient or if you are in disagreement with Objectivism. People might rightly assume that a poster is speaking for Objectivism unless stated otherwise since that is the premise of this BBS. Rarely do I see people back their statements about Objectivism with references. I'm not saying that "if Miss Rand wrote it, it's true." What I am saying is that if you claim to speak for Objectivism then you should give references as a matter of justice to the originator of the idea and as good writing etiquette. (I'm not trying to pick on the above poster since this seems to be a rather common practice. This one, in particular, stood out in my mind.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 I just want to make this clear for people unfamiliar with the Objectivist view of rights, this is not the Objectivist view of rights. I was just going to say that. In my opinion (I'm not sure what the Objectivist approach is): all people, to include babies and Alzheimer's patients, possess the faculty of reason in some form, whether mature, undeveloped, crippled; and it is this faculty of reason which is their means of survival (survival, life, eudaimonia, etc. are to be taken as synonymous). The ability to use one's faculty of reason exists only when one is free to use it; ergo, a person is able to survive to the extent that he is free. Rights are the only moral protection of freedom. A person is able to survive to the extent that his rights protect his freedoms. The purpose of ethics is life, so ethics must define rights for everybody and everything that meets the standard of requiring them: possession of the faculty of reason, and the status of reason as the person's means of survival. Children and Alzheimer's patients meet this standard; however, since they are not able to exercise their rights, their guardians do so for their benefit. (Obviously, this theory is based on Rand, Smith, etc. But it's not gospel.) This is, in its present form, a bit complicated and more convoluted than necessary. For that I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward j williamson Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Inquisitor, RationalCop - You should try butcher shops, the meat is fresher and often better quality. Absolutely, of course the butcher shop is the next best thing to hunting fresh meat. I just got back from a hunt, along with tasty fresh venison, I also have a nice trophy - can't get that from a butcher shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 I was just going to say that. In my opinion (I'm not sure what the Objectivist approach is): all people, to include babies and Alzheimer's patients, possess the faculty of reason in some form, whether mature, undeveloped, crippled; and it is this faculty of reason which is their means of survival (survival, life, eudaimonia, etc. are to be taken as synonymous). The ability to use one's faculty of reason exists only when one is free to use it; ergo, a person is able to survive to the extent that he is free. Rights are the only moral protection of freedom. A person is able to survive to the extent that his rights protect his freedoms. The purpose of ethics is life, so ethics must define rights for everybody and everything that meets the standard of requiring them: possession of the faculty of reason, and the status of reason as the person's means of survival. Children and Alzheimer's patients meet this standard; however, since they are not able to exercise their rights, their guardians do so for their benefit. (Obviously, this theory is based on Rand, Smith, etc. But it's not gospel.) This is, in its present form, a bit complicated and more convoluted than necessary. For that I apologize. How so? Since when do children have the same rights as adults? If so, they would not be treated as property. When a child doesnt want to go to the grocery store, can the mother throw the child in the car and take him against his or her will? Yes. Because the child does not have the same rights as a fully rational adult. Can you sign a mentally handicapped person into a institution if you are the gaurdian, against the person's will? Yes, because they do not have the same rights a FULLY rational adult. Do you see how rights stem from rationality? You only have as many rights as your rational capacity allows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowzer Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 If readers want the Objectivist view of rights and children, listen to Dr. Andrew Bernstein on the Peter Mac Show here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 By the way, please do critique my theory. Nimble, On my theory, children have the same rights as adults because they have the same faculty of reason as adults. But they don't have the ability to exercise their rights to the fullest extent, because they don't have the ability to use their faculty of reason fully as adults do. Naturally, the solution of guardianship arises. To some extent, which shrinks as the child ages, the guardian can force the child to do certain things, because it is the guardian who is exercising some of the child's rights, not the child himself. Children have all the same rights, but are unable at this time currently to exercise some of those rights themselves - and so they delegate this job to their guardian. An analogy is that in free countries we delegate the right of self-defense to the government. People always have had and always will have the right to self-defense; but at certain times, they themselves will be unable to exercise that right, but their delegated government will. Bowzer, Does Dr. Bernstein address the philosophical basis of rights as they apply to children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowzer Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Bowzer, Does Dr. Bernstein address the philosophical basis of rights as they apply to children? Yep! It's a lively and interactive discussion of the issues surrounding children, their rights as human beings, and the responsibilities of parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 By the way, please do critique my theory. Nimble, On my theory, children have the same rights as adults because they have the same faculty of reason as adults. But they don't have the ability to exercise their rights to the fullest extent, because they don't have the ability to use their faculty of reason fully as adults do. Naturally, the solution of guardianship arises. To some extent, which shrinks as the child ages, the guardian can force the child to do certain things, because it is the guardian who is exercising some of the child's rights, not the child himself. Children have all the same rights, but are unable at this time currently to exercise some of those rights themselves - and so they delegate this job to their guardian. An analogy is that in free countries we delegate the right of self-defense to the government. People always have had and always will have the right to self-defense; but at certain times, they themselves will be unable to exercise that right, but their delegated government will. Bowzer, Does Dr. Bernstein address the philosophical basis of rights as they apply to children? Okay that makes sense. I'm still a little caught up on the idea that a child can make the decision to delegate its rights to the parent. We delegate our rights to the government through volition, the child does not. But what you said did make some sense. So keep going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Nimble, Firstly, remember that this is my theory, and not Miss Rand's. Citizens do not choose to delegate their right to self-defense to the government. Imagine corporations taking that right into their own hands and hiring mafia hitmen with tanks a year after they discover an employee stole a pencil! The child does not know enough to delegate his rights consciously. As his mind develops, he begins to exercise on his own the rights that he can grasp. Part of the nature of bringing a child into the world, or of adopting one, is committing oneself to exercising his rights for him until he is able to exercise them on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 How so? Since when do children have the same rights as adults? If so, they would not be treated as property. Children are NOT property. Children have the same rights as a adult and, like many disabled adults who cannot exercise their rights without assistance, have another person act as a TRUSTEE of those rights. When a child doesnt want to go to the grocery store, can the mother throw the child in the car and take him against his or her will? Yes. Because the child does not have the same rights as a fully rational adult. Can you sign a mentally handicapped person into a institution if you are the gaurdian, against the person's will? Yes, because they do not have the same rights a FULLY rational adult. Do you see how rights stem from rationality? You only have as many rights as your rational capacity allows. No, you EXERCISE as many rights as you can and, when you can't, someone else does it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Nimble, Firstly, remember that this is my theory, and not Miss Rand's. Citizens do not choose to delegate their right to self-defense to the government. Imagine corporations taking that right into their own hands and hiring mafia hitmen with tanks a year after they discover an employee stole a pencil! I dont think that would happen, that isnt very economically efficient. However firing the employee might be more effective. Okay, would you like to tell me Miss Rand's theory, or at least direct me to a book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Nimble, I don't know Miss Rand's theory. I don't specifically recall her having written about this particular issue in detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowzer Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 I don't know Miss Rand's theory. I don't specifically recall her having written about this particular issue in detail. I'll give you a hint and I'm not trying to be snide here: when Miss Rand titled her article, "Man's Rights," she wasn't just writing about healthy adult male human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts