Systematic Slaughter Of Animals

[iouswuoibev]

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?

[GoodOrigamiMan]

Life is a value, but I'm guessing the argument will be that life alone, is not a value within itself.  It is only valuable when .....?

Objectivism is a philosophy that recognizes no intrinsic value. Valuable is, good for your life. You are studying philosophy… are you doing that for your sake or are you worried about the other people around you? I do not recognize other people’s rights for their sake at the expense of mine, in a context where my rights are not being violated it is in my rational self-interest to give people freedom of action with absolutely no exception.

The best place for a buffalo is on my plate; the best place for other people is a capitalist society. I would not be better off with all the people in the world on my plate and all the buffalo running around free (although I would be well feed - I wouldn’t have medicine, the Internet, anime, electricity, cars, hot showers or even Objectivism ). That being said, it is in my rational self-interest to recognize human rights and it is my rational self-interest to eat tasty animals that don’t have rights.

There is nothing good about needlessly torturing animals. There is something good about efficient processes for raising and killing large numbers of them to feed people. I have no desire to go back to day in time when I can’t buy the meat I need in a supermarket.

[tommyedison]

Salutations everyone.

I'm very new here, and somewhat new to Objectivism as well.  My inquiry into the philosophy is quite serious, so I would like to posit the same question, though hopefully with more substance.  The idea of "animal rights" is one of a few hang-ups I have (or would like to overcome) before accepting Objectivism as my full-fledged standard.  Growing up in the 80's, I was subject to more than my fair share of trendy environmentalism.  I even had a "save the dolphins" necklace at one point.  I've been trying to understand the philosophy with the help of a friend, and so far, I can soundly say that I do believe that animals should be considered property.

What I can't seem to disassociate myself with, is the intrinsic value of living creatures, specifically those with higher brain functions.  (Most large mammals, domesticated cats and dogs, dolphins, chimps, rats, octopi... etc)  I do believe that it is right to use animals to further scientific research, and I do believe it is morally acceptable to own an animal, as a pet or in a zoo.. whatever.  I read the article posted by stonebudda, and it made some very good points.

Our ability to reason does indeed set us apart from the rest of our "neighbours".  From the article "Whenever environmentalists want to curtail freedom they remind us that man is part of nature, but they forget this at all other times. The fact is that human action is just one among the myriad factors, right along with those floods and droughts and comets, that determine who succeeds in the struggle for life."  Humans, I do not think, are subject to the forces of nature to the same degree as other living things.  We can protect ourselves, predict outcomes and easily relocate in cases of major disaster.  We also do not interact with our environment in the same way that snails, rabbits or bacteria do.  Our impact is on a scale that simply cannot be equaled or leveled-out by a small natural disaster.

I am puzzled with trying to resolve the idea that laws should not be based on morality, while understanding that laws are required to protect an individuals rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).  On the surface, I see this makes sense.  You don't want the trendy moral standard of the day enacted into law, thus making it illegal to take showers at noon on Tuesdays, or some such nonsense.  But the laws designed to protect the rights of an individual, are based, as viewed through Objectivism, on the right to life. (This is not a pro-life abortion speech)

Someone else commented earlier that abuse of animals would indicate bad values.  I do not believe laws should force people to act one way or another, assuming their actions to not infringe on the rights of others.  But if abuse of animals shows bad values.. those that are anti-life.. can we then say that it is morally corrupt to torture an animal (shortening or ending it's life) because it shows a lack of respect for the value of life itself? (Again, this is not related to abortion, because that involves a "parasitic" nature which is not independent.) 

If we at least recognize that the action is based on bad values, can we then say that, morally, we should act in opposition to this?  (We establish that torturing an animal without purpose is the result of bad values and can then say that it is morally abbhorrent to abuse an animal, and thus should take measures to prevent it whenever possible.)

Life is a value, but I'm guessing the argument will be that life alone, is not a value within itself.  It is only valuable when .....?

If I have misunderstood key points of this philosophy, I apologize.  I am sincerely trying to figure this out.  When it was pointed out to me before that all my arguments for "animal rights" were emotional, I took a day to think about this, and found this evaluation was correct.  But it seems to me that there must be some moral value in preserving life, when it is reasonably (and rationally) possible to do so.

What am I missing?

I think that the Darwin's Law would be appropriate in this case. Survival of the fittest.

Do we have the right to kill animals if it benefits us? Yes.

Do the animals have the right to defend themselves? Yes. They are infact programmed that way.

But we do need to recognize the rights of other men/women. The alternative is a barbaric society which is harmful to everyone except the one who wants to die.

[jfortun]

I think that the Darwin's Law would be appropriate in this case. Survival of the fittest.

Do we have the right to kill animals if it benefits us? Yes.

Do the animals have the right to defend themselves? Yes.

Nope. Animals do not have any rights. period.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

Nope.  Animals do not have any rights.  period.

A buffalo and a human walk into a bar. The human has rights, he has defined rights as a set of principles sanctioning his actions towards other humans.

The it is point is the only purpose of rights are to sanction actions towards other people. Saying a buffalo or a tree has a right to live is not different from saying a rock has a right to exist.

The reason I quoted you is because I completely agree, because 'rights' is an meaningless term when applied to anything without free will.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

One more thing to think about. The first, most fundamental human right is the right to live, right? But reconize that it is we, humans and only humans, that have a choice in the matter (aka free will).

[DavidOdden]

What I can't seem to disassociate myself with, is the intrinsic value of living creatures, specifically those with higher brain functions.

As Good points out, nothing has an intrinsic value. However, it might have an objective value, that is, be clearly and recognisably good for your purposes. Hence for most life forms, oxygen is necessary for life, and if you recognise that, it is an objective value. That value isn't "in the oxygen", but rather is a consequence of the nature of man.

I am puzzled with trying to resolve the idea that laws should not be based on morality, while understanding that laws are required to protect an individuals rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

But that is a moral standard: you do want laws to be the expression of morality - just not any arbitrary morality. You want laws to reflect a specific morality (having to do with life as a human, and what's necessary for such a life). Laws against murder promote rational life; laws against Tuesday noon showers do not. (The necessary part, but not the sufficient part, qv. below).

Someone else commented earlier that abuse of animals would indicate bad values.  I do not believe laws should force people to act one way or another, assuming their actions to not infringe on the rights of others.  But if abuse of animals shows bad values.. those that are anti-life.. can we then say that it is morally corrupt to torture an animal (shortening or ending it's life) because it shows a lack of respect for the value of life itself?

Laws should not enforce good values: they should protect rights. Thus, for instance, having a malevolent sense of life should not be a capital crime (or even a misdemeanor), but it is a bad value. There's an important distinction between when you are justified in complaining about someone's actions or attitudes, vs. when it is right to bring down the might of the law against them. Some values should enforced by law, but not all.

But it seems to me that there must be some moral value in preserving life, when it is reasonably (and rationally) possible to do so.

This makes the preservation of life seem to be almost the highest possible value, and it shouldn't be. There are times when it's reasonable and good to kill an animal: in conjunction with dinner, if there are too many of them, if they harm you or your property, if they are old and sick. I'm not a recreational animal killer, but perfectly reasonable people like to go out and plink squirrels as a form of recreation (I have to admit, I consider squirrels to be a major disvalue), and I don't think that recreational hunting reflects a psychological illness. I don't see the moral value in preserving animal life; but that doesn't mean that I should kill any animal I can. To decide to kill an animal, I would need a reason. I have a blanket death warrant out for all squirrels and cockroaches, for good reason.

[stephen_speicher]

What I can't seem to disassociate myself with, is the intrinsic value of living creatures, specifically those with higher brain functions.  (Most large mammals, domesticated cats and dogs, dolphins, chimps, rats, octopi... etc)

Why would you want to disassociate yourself from a perfectly proper value as that? Accepting the use of animals for human purpose (food, research, etc.) does not mean that you have to acquire a disregard for the life-value of animals. Frankly, though I realize that some of the attitudes expressed in this thread may have been meant to be thrown in the absurd face of the animal rights crowd, I am still disturbed by the rather callous disregard for life contained in some of those remarks.

I am puzzled with trying to resolve the idea that laws should not be based on morality, while understanding that laws are required to protect an individuals rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

But the root of objective law is a proper morality, a code of values that recognizes individual rights. An immoral law would be a non-objective law. All laws should be moral, but not all morality should be codified into law.

Someone else commented earlier that abuse of animals would indicate bad values.  I do not believe laws should force people to act one way or another, assuming their actions to not infringe on the rights of others.  But if abuse of animals shows bad values.. those that are anti-life.. can we then say that it is morally corrupt to torture an animal (shortening or ending it's life) because it shows a lack of respect for the value of life itself? (Again, this is not related to abortion, because that involves a "parasitic" nature which is not independent.)

Torturing an animal is "morally corrupt," and it should be most strongly condemned. But, if by torture you mean, as you say "shortening or ending it's[sic] life," as in using the animal for food or research, then you have expanded the concept of torture beyond its meaning. To torture is to act for the purpose of intentionally inflicting intense pain, not for harvesting an animal for a useful purpose to man.

If we at least recognize that the action is based on bad values, can we then say that, morally, we should act in opposition to this?

Yes, morally, but not legally. The principle of individual rights applies to man as a rational being, not to animals.

Life is a value, but I'm guessing the argument will be that life alone, is not a value within itself.  It is only valuable when .....?

The very notion of value only has meaning in regard to life, but only human beings, not animals, get to choose what they value. Life as its ultimate value is a built-in mechanism for the animal -- it does not act morally, it acts automatically to preserve its life -- but the moral principles by which man acts rests upon, and is freely chosen in recognition of, holding his life as his ultimate value. We sometimes tend to grant to animals a meaning and significance to their life and actions which goes beyond their very nature. For the best kind of person this stems from a benevolence which he extends beyond himself, towards the world in general and life in particular. But it is always of value to keep the full context in mind. We can love and enjoy animals to our heart's content, but we simply cannot extend to them the right to life, which is itself a moral principle peculiar to a rational mind.

[stephen_speicher]

Objectivism is a philosophy that recognizes no intrinsic value.

"Since I regard all values as contextual and hierarchical, I would ultimately regard only one good as 'intrinsic,' in your sense of the term, namely: life." (Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 561.)

[GoodOrigamiMan]

"Since I regard all values as contextual and hierarchical, I would ultimately regard only one good as 'intrinsic,' in your sense of the term, namely: life." (Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 561.)

Yes... but. First: whose sense of the term is she talking in here? And second: it sounds like she’s saying: life is ‘intrinsic’ because all standards of value are derived from life, so the primary value is life itself, which has to be accepted as value ‘intrinsically’ (or else you couldn’t derive other values). My life to myself has ‘intrinsic’ value. However don’t I get to decide whether or not I value my life? I think the issue is: does my life have any value by nature; yes it does – to me; my life is ‘intrinsically’ good for my life? Since you didn’t say one way or the other though; do you think tasty animals have intrinsic value because they are alive? Regardless I’m interested in a longer version of that quote that puts it into context, please.

[MisterSwig]

Yes... but.  First: whose sense of the term is she talking in here? ... Regardless I’m interested in a longer version of that quote that puts it into context, please.

Excerpt taken from Ayn Rand letter to John Hospers:

"You ask whether I would agree with the distinction you make between "intrinsic good" and "instrumental good." I do not object to the concepts as you define them, but I would not use them, for the following reasons: A. The term "intrinsic" is extremely dangerous to use in ethics. It can be taken to mean "good of and by itself," regardless of context, standard, source, recipient and recipient's knowledge."

Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 561

The portion I quoted is the beginning of the paragraph. The previously quoted portion falls at the end of the paragraph. There is some content between the two quotes, but I don't think it is especially relevant.

The question of Ayn Rand's use of the term "intrinsic" in her letter to John Hospers has already been discussed at some length in this thread.

[stephen_speicher]

Yes... but. First: whose sense of the term is she talking in here? ... Regardless I’m interested in a longer version of that quote that puts it into context, please.

She was referring to John Hospers' use of the term, and the quote was part of a very long letter that Miss Rand wrote to him. Several months ago there was a thread in which I discussed this all in a lot of detail, in the "Basic Questions" section. Here are pointers to the most relevant posts I made there. post 1, post 2, post 3, post 4.

[jfortun]

Frankly, though I realize that some of the attitudes expressed in this thread may have been meant to be thrown in the absurd face of the animal rights crowd, I am still disturbed by the rather callous disregard for life contained in some of those remarks.

Animal right's activists' use of hyperbole just begs to have some of it slung back at them. The only thing the most rabid of them understand is shock and hatred, so given that a rational arguement will serve little purpose, one can either be silent or respond in kind. Sometimes it's more fun to respond in kind.

Given the context of the thread and the content of their posts in other threads, I don't believe anyone here has expressed a genuine desire to harm animals. We have enough enemies outside the ranks without looking for more amongst ourselves.

[Thoyd Loki]

Frankly, though I realize that some of the attitudes expressed in this thread may have been meant to be thrown in the absurd face of the animal rights crowd, I am still disturbed by the rather callous disregard for life contained in some of those remarks.

I, as probably the crudest contributor of the remarks, do not know what you mean (unless I missed a doozy). I saw numerous references to slapping them on the grill, but nothing worse. I love my dog, I don't like to see animals senselessly abused (more because of the action of the human), and I've always loved racoons. But, for the most part they are ingredients in dishes. Perhaps, a professional bias on my part. I feel the same way about veggies, although I don't think I'll have one as a pet.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

"The first kind of good is called instrumental good because the goodness or worthwhileness of these things lies in their being instruments toward the attainment of the other things which are considered good not merely as instruments. The second kind of good is called intrinsic good because we value these things (whatever they may turn out to be) not for what they lead to but for what they are."

-- John Hospers, Human Conduct, _Harcourt, Brace, & World, p. 105, 1961.

"You ask whether I would agree with the distinction you make between "intrinsic good" and "instrumental good." I do not object to the concepts as you define them, but I would not use them, for the following reasons: A. The term "intrinsic" is extremely dangerous to use in ethics. It can be taken to mean "good of and by itself," regardless of context, standard, source, recipient and recipient's knowledge."

Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 561

"Since I regard all values as contextual and hierarchical, I would ultimately regard only one good as 'intrinsic,' in your sense of the term, namely: life."

In summation Ayn Rand called life an ‘intrinsic’ good in the context of John Hospers’ concept of ‘intrinsic’ that did not define ‘intrinsic’ as “good of and by itself”. I see no problems with my statement:

Objectivism is a philosophy that recognizes no intrinsic value.

The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousnesses.

yo Thoyd, it’s monadulous! Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, not John Hospers, she knew the common interpretation of ‘intrinsic’ and did not apply it to her ethics (aka Objectivist ethics). Unlike Rand (at the time) I was not speaking in the context of John Hospers' concepts of 'intrinsic' and 'instrumental'. What I said was perfectly true.

Of course you haven't actually said I was wrong, although I think it was implied in the placement of quotes. You didn't answer my question either... Do you think tasty animals have intrinsic good because they are alive?

[the tortured one]

when I hear the bantering of animal rights activists, I can't help but think of the immortal Nuge (Ted Nugent for those of who dont know):

The cuter they are, the better they taste.

Speaking of PETA, i want this hat:

!!!! I would pay good money to own that.

[nimble]

rights are rationally derived by the demand of a creature's nature and requirements to live. Humans, in order to survive, must respect each other when interacting. A policy of non-aggression is the the best fitted for this interaction. Thus humans have rights that are derived from the principle that no man may initiate the use of force on another, and it is also derived from the principle that each man OWNS his own body (in a sense all rights are derived from property). Animals do not have rights because their nature requires them to live off of aggressive actions, such as when a wolf attacks and eats a rabbit. Not only is that action required for the wolf's survival but the wolf doesn't have the rational capacity to recognize principles such as non-aggression.

Since the wolf lives off of "murder" (although i wouldnt call it that), it cannot claim the right to life, since it, by nature, must take others lives. Rights do not extend to creatures without rational capacity (thats rule #1). If you pass rule number 1, then you must pass the second rule. It only applies to creatures who may interact with each other and survive without aggression.

For example, lets say a new alien species comes to earth, and they ARE RATIONAL, but they have some trait by nature that requires them to feed off of humans. Can they possibly interact with humans without violating our rights? NO! So they are not included by our human sphere of rights, and we must treat each one of them as an enemy.

Does that help any?

[Montesquieu]

rights are rationally derived by the demand of a creature's nature and requirements to live. Humans, in order to survive, must respect each other when interacting. A policy of non-aggression is the the best fitted for this interaction. Thus humans have rights that are derived from the principle that no man may initiate the use of force on another, and it is also derived from the principle that each man OWNS his own body (in a sense all rights are derived from property). Animals do not have rights because their nature requires them to live off of aggressive actions, such as when a wolf attacks and eats a rabbit. Not only is that action required for the wolf's survival but the wolf doesn't have the rational capacity to recognize principles such as non-aggression.

Since the wolf lives off of "murder" (although i wouldnt call it that), it cannot claim the right to life, since it, by nature, must take others lives. Rights do not extend to creatures without rational capacity (thats rule #1). If you pass rule number 1, then you must pass the second rule. It only applies to creatures who may interact with each other and survive without aggression.

For example, lets say a new alien species comes to earth, and they ARE RATIONAL, but they have some trait by nature that requires them to feed off of humans. Can they possibly interact with humans without violating our rights? NO! So they are not included by our human sphere of rights, and we must treat each one of them as an enemy.

Does that help any?

The problem is that you frame the act of a wolf surviving in humanistic terms, like the wolf is living off "aggressive actions" like when it "attacks and eats a rabbit." The wolf and the rabbit are equally devoid of human rights, as they aren't humans. The world of beasts is a strugal for survival, the human world is not not per se, but an attempt to survive through our primary means of survival, human reason, whereas all other animals work off of brute force and built-in genetic instincts. We have no instincts because we don't need them, every human being can figure out how to survive simply by learning things with the passage of time.

A wolf cannot take "aggressive" actions in the human sense of that word (like Germany aggressively invading Poland or France) because whereas humans have the right to be free, a rabbit has no rights at all either qua wolf or qua man. It's life is only good so long as it can stay alive, by being faster and more aware, agile, etc. than potential predators, including the greatest predator the world has ever known, mankind.

While it is easily within our ability to exterminate all mammal life on the planet, if we really put our resources and efforts into it, we don't do so because it is to our benefit to keep some animals around, particularly chickens, cows, pigs, goats, sheep, fish, etc. They exist, in artificially gigantic numbers, because of our wants and desires. Were we to all go vegetarian tomorrow, these animals would die wholesale because no one would want them for anything at all. Either way, if we all eat meat or all refuse, animals will continue to die at our will, and if we all became nutjob vegetarians, whim.

[nimble]

The problem is that you frame the act of a wolf surviving in humanistic terms, like the wolf is living off "aggressive actions" like when it "attacks and eats a rabbit." The wolf and the rabbit are equally devoid of human rights, as they aren't humans. The world of beasts is a strugal for survival, the human world is not not per se, but an attempt to survive through our primary means of survival, human reason, whereas all other animals work off of brute force and built-in genetic instincts. We have no instincts because we don't need them, every human being can figure out how to survive simply by learning things with the passage of time.

A wolf cannot take "aggressive" actions in the human sense of that word (like Germany aggressively invading Poland or France) because whereas humans have the right to be free, a rabbit has no rights at all either qua wolf or qua man. It's life is only good so long as it can stay alive, by being faster and more aware, agile, etc. than potential predators, including the greatest predator the world has ever known, mankind.

While it is easily within our ability to exterminate all mammal life on the planet, if we really put our resources and efforts into it, we don't do so because it is to our benefit to keep some animals around, particularly chickens, cows, pigs, goats, sheep, fish, etc. They exist, in artificially gigantic numbers, because of our wants and desires. Were we to all go vegetarian tomorrow, these animals would die wholesale because no one would want them for anything at all. Either way, if we all eat meat or all refuse, animals will continue to die at our will, and if we all became nutjob vegetarians, whim.

If you had read my post you will see that I gave the wolf "humanistic" abilities to show how silly that is. And to demonstrate that because it is not a rational being and cannot realize its actions are aggressive, and that in fact its nature requires aggression, therefore it does not have rights.

[Montesquieu]

If you had read my post you will see that I gave the wolf "humanistic" abilities to show how silly that is. And to demonstrate that because it is not a rational being and cannot realize its actions are aggressive, and that in fact its nature requires aggression, therefore it does not have rights.

Of course I did read your post, there was method to my madness of posting it over my post. I don't think the point you claim to have been trying to make came through very clearly. Again, you say "its [wolf] nature requires aggression," which I think is a mischaracterization of what happens in nature when a wolf kills a rabbit or any other animal. All carnivorous animals, including us, kill other animals to eat. We don't consider it aggression when we kill chickens, why should it be considered anything other than trying not to die when a wolf does it? Aggression is an unwarranted action to destroy in a human context. I just don't think using this particular word is helpful to understanding this issue.

[nimble]

Of course I did read your post, there was method to my madness of posting it over my post. I don't think the point you claim to have been trying to make came through very clearly. Again, you say "its [wolf] nature requires aggression," which I think is a mischaracterization of what happens in nature when a wolf kills a rabbit or any other animal. All carnivorous animals, including us, kill other animals to eat. We don't consider it aggression when we kill chickens, why should it be considered anything other than trying not to die when a wolf does it? Aggression is an unwarranted action to destroy in a human context. I just don't think using this particular word is helpful to understanding this issue.

Okay, I'll grant that you the term aggression as I used it was vague. When I started my argument, I went on the presumption that wolves have rights (something reserved only for humans and other potential rational beings). From there I "humanized" the wolf, and used the term "aggression" in the human sense (unwarranted action to destroy) and showed how the wolf cannot rationally comprehend or respect rights. This is showing that granting a wolf rights is IMPOSSIBLE.

As for the positive argument for restraining the term rights to only involve rational beings, that I think is very clear to most of us at least.

Sorry for the confusion, does that help, or do you still disagree with me?

[Montesquieu]

I didn't really disagree with you to begin with, I was only concerned about the use of the term agression for wolves or any animal aside from a man qua man situation.

[LucentBrave]

Systematic is a heck of a lot better than haphazard.

I recently read an article about a dog that was found on the bank of a river with a plastic bag over it's head that was secured by a roped by a rope around it's neck. That sickened me. I know it's a tad off-topic, but I'm doing it to prove a point.

Animal cruelty is that- damage to animals without purpose. Systematic slaughter of animals does serve a purpose. It feeds people who enjoy the taste of meat. It baffles me to think that anyone would think that any mode of survival such as meat (food) as being immoral.

That being said, I think that the animals would prefer to be put out of their misery before they are tossed into a pot.

[y_feldblum]

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.

Wanton destruction of animals is akin to wanton destruction of anything: it is the exemplification of abandoning one's values. It is wrong in exactly the same way as nihilism.

[Colonel Rebel]

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....