Rights for the non-rational

[dream_weaver]

I think you're right, but I want to continue the logical progression for a bit. What about plants, they only absorb sunlight, water and nitrogen (dead organic cells?)?

I guess at that point, who the heck cares about plants -- they have no mind.

At which point you may want to consider the distinctive difference between the mind of man, which gave rise to the concept of rights, and the minds of the animals that abide by the rules of the jungle.

[Eiuol]

Eiuol, What are the conditions of rights then?

Conditions of survival are part of what rights are, yes, but those aren't really justifications for having rights at all. You have a good part of rights understood, but I don't see much egoistic justification. What would you get out of letting an animal live its own life according to its own automatic decision process? What would you get out of allowing people to pursue their own life?

[RationalBiker]

Rationalbiker, A cheeta may violate rights of other animals [but] what about herbivores -- they seem to live just fine without the initiation of force, unless I'm mistaken about that. Most men do not understand the concept of rights, so I don't think understanding is a factor.

Take a step back - are you going to arrest (or take any sanction against) the Cheetah for violating the "rights" of the Gazelle? If not, why?

I disagree with your premise that most men do not understand the concept of rights, but to be more clear, men have the conceptual ability to understand rights whether they actually do or not. Animals do not have that conceptual ability.

[Trebor]

thanks. This helped a bit. I was trying to explain the derivation of rights to someone and they asked if my (not so good) explanation justified rights for animals. I didn't have a good answer. So I came here to get clarification.

It seems that volition is the key, which allows for reason, which allows a means to deal with one another without the use of force. Since our means of survival is not automatic, and requires reason, then force actually goes against our means of survival; while animals live by means other than reason, which means the use of force.

You're welcome.

I wouldn't say that volition allows for reason, but rather that man's rational faculty (Reason) is his volitional faculty, his means of identifying alternatives (conceptually) and then choosing among the alternatives he is aware of. So, instead of saying that "volition is the key, which allows for reason...," I would say that reason is volitional. Thinking is volitional; making choices is volitional.

So the right to life never arises in an animal's mind (or for a plant) because they are preprogramed to further it -- humans are not programed is that same regard. Man must choose amongst alternatives, which is why a rational moral code is necessary. Rights is the bridge between ethics and politics. Relationships between men, not only can be handled without force, but it's better for everyone involved if relationships are not handled that way.

Yes, man must choose among alternatives, and man is fallible, so man needs knowledge in order to guide his choices. He needs moral principles. If you've not listened to Dr. Peikoff's one-hour lecture, "Why Should One Act on Principle?," I would recommend it. I believe that understanding what principles are and why we need them will be helpful to your understanding of this issue. You can listen to he lecture for free (along with a 30 minute followup Q&A session), if you are registered, at the Ayn Rand Institute. The lecture is on your "Registered User Page" (link on the upper left of the home page). If you are not yet registered, once you register, you'll automatically be taken to your "Registered User Page."

Moreover, life exists by devouring other life starting from a blade of grass to the most complex life form -- i.e., man if he's not careful. So, Until and unless we find a way to deal with animals on a rational [level], and find a better means to gain value from them besides nourishment, then they will remain within our chain of food.

Please clear up any [] misunderstandings I may have. I want a solid understanding of this.

Dealing with animals on a rational level is a matter of dealing with them in accordance with their natures.

Initiating the use of force (violating rights) is not exhausted by physical force that results in bodily harm or death.

The right to life is not equivalent to the right to be alive. There is no right to be alive as such, which, taken logically, would require others to provide what we need to be or remain alive. Nor is the right to life a right to be left free of force per se; it's the right to be left free from the initiation of the use of force.

"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave." "Man's Rights"

Looking only at animals that prey on other animals and asking if they are violating the rights of non-predatory animals begs the question: Do animals, other than man, have rights? If the predators do not kill and eat their prey, they cannot live. By their nature they must initiate the use of force. Their prey, even if they themselves are not predators on other animals, are what they are, and they do what they can to defend their own life, certainly not always unsuccessfully. There's no choice for either predator or prey.

Further, and my point of saying that the initiation of the use of force is not exhausted by physical force that results in bodily harm or death, what about property rights?

What are some of the implications?

If animals (non-human) have the right to life, then they too have the right to property. But even within a species, which animal gets what is determined by force, not by a grasp of rights and a choice to live in accord with rights. Why? Why do they not recognize the rights of those in their own species?

And, what shall be done, and by whom and at what cost, to ensure that all of the predators stop violating the "rights" of their prey? How will the predators live if they do stop initiating force and violating the "rights" of their prey?

And, what shall be done to ensure that all animals recognize and respect the property rights of all other animals, within their own species and beyond?

And when there are conflicts relating to the rights of other animals, such as when one does prey on another animal, or when one animal trespasses on another animal's property or eats another animal's food, etc., how will the conflicts be resolved? Will the accused have a right to face his accusers in court in order to ensure a just outcome? Will he have a right to a trial with a jury of his peers, etc. Peers within his species or from the whole animal kingdom?

And, if humans are to be obligated to recognize and protect the rights of all animals, how will we go about and who is going to pay for all of this education and training and accommodation to the "rights" of all animals to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness?

If animals do have rights, if they do have a conceptual faculty (which is advantageous), then why have they not stood up for their rights? What are they waiting for? Why haven't they all gotten together and created a "just" world already? Our bad?

As well as Dr. Peikoff's lecture, you might find these three of Miss Rand's essays helpful (all available, free, online at ARI):

"Man's Rigths"

"The Nature of Government"

"Collectivized Rights"

[TrueMaterialist]

Define Rational?Damn, I meant to quote the poster. but I dont know how! HAHA Oh, sorry. I should read further. John did you say: rationality = reason + volition?Is that freedom to choose?or Freedom to choose within reason?

Edited September 23, 2011 by TrueMaterialist

[Trebor]

Define Rational?Damn, I meant to quote the poster. but I dont know how! HAHA Oh, sorry. I should read further. John did you say: rationality = reason + volition?Is that freedom to choose?or Freedom to choose within reason?

"Define Rational?"

Rational (from my Mac's dictionary):

based on or in accordance with reason or logic

• (of a person) able to think clearly, sensibly, and logically

• endowed with the capacity to reason [Man is the rational animal.]

Rationality: "Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking—that the mind is one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide of action—that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise—that a concession to the irrational invalidates one’s consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality—that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind—that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one’s consciousness." - Galt's Speech

Man's rational faculty is his faculty of reason, his ability or capacity to reason. To be rational is to choose to use one's rational faculty, to choose to use one's ability or capacity to reason.

Reason: "The senses, concepts, logic: these are the elements of man’s rational faculty—its start, its form, its method. In essence, “follow reason” means: base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relationships among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Identity). Since each of these elements is based on the facts of reality, the conclusions reached by a process of reason are objective." - Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels

"[D]id you say: rationality = reason + volition?"

If I understand your question, then no, I did not and I would not say that "rationality = reason + volition." Reason and volition are inseparable. It's not as though one one could have a faculty of reason without volition (rationality = reason) or a faculty of reason with volition (rationality = reason + volition).

To have a rational faculty (reason) is to have a volitional faculty. To have a volitional faculty is to have a rational faculty (reason). Our reason, our rational faculty, is our volitional faculty. We have to choose to use reason, choose to be rational, and in choosing to use reason, in choosing to be rational, we are able to identify the alternatives open to us and then to choose among those alternative.

"Is that freedom to choose?or Freedom to choose within reason?"

It is both. It is the freedom to choose and it is the freedom to choose within reason or by virtue of reason and within the limits of the alternatives in reality that one is able to grasp using reason.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Trebor

[utabintarbo]

I guess there is another implication/application I have not yet seen here: What about the non-rational human? I don't mean those who choose to be non-rational, but those who can't be rational (mentally impaired, whatever). What are their rights? How is society to deal with such persons?

[TrueMaterialist]

Trebor,

Your statement:

"If I understand your question, then no, I did not and I would not say that "rationality = reason + volition." Reason and volition are inseparable. It's not as though one one could have a faculty of reason without volition (rationality = reason) or a faculty of reason with volition (rationality = reason + volition).

My formula: Rationality = reason + volition, means both reason and volition are required to be rational, not one or the other. It mean that volition + reason IS rationality.

Linguistics is deceptive, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. I prefer to use the terms and turn the other words into their mathematical symbols. Its one of the best ways to see the truth or, lack of it, in any given lexicon.

You said:

"To have a rational faculty (reason) is to have a volitional faculty. To have a volitional faculty is to have a rational faculty (reason). Our reason, our rational faculty, is our volitional faculty. We have to choose to use reason, choose to be rational, and in choosing to use reason, in choosing to be rational, we are able to identify the alternatives open to us and then to choose among those alternative."

So do you mean:

reason = rational

rational = volitional

volitional = reason

That these terms all mean the same thing and can be use interchangeably?

So, I can say volition, or rational, or reason, And each term will mean the same sum of all three terms?

do you mean that the definitions of each term is actually one defintion?

So are you saying I must always make a personal choice to come to the right conclusion?

[TrueMaterialist]

I know i am double posting, but these questions relates to my post above.

My cat can open every door in my house. For door handles, he jumps up, hangs from the handle using his front claws, then uses his hind legs to push backward off the door frame. He does this as a single action because he knows that he cannot simply kick back on the door-frame without hanging his weight on the handle and he also knows that simply hanging from the handle will not give him the momentum to open the door. For door-knobs, he does the same thing with his lags, but he twists with his front claws. He does this correctly every time...and he can do this in other houses as well.

His reason for doing this is not simply to get food, but to look for me, find a place to sleep or look for his cat toys.

Is he not making a choice to open doors? Did he not learn how to open doors, by watching me and other people?  I am not sure if he did because people dont kick off door-frames to open doors. He figured that technique out for himself. He somehow knew that the door-frame was stationary and the door itself pulls outward...and he some how knows that pushing off that doorframe is how he applies force to open the door.

he also knows to push open the door from the other side. In this case he just runs, jumps for the handle or knob, while throwing his momentum into the door.

He also plays games that require altering strategy with other cats.

SO how can we reasonibly conclude that he is not rational to some degree, when he is clearly making a choice, clearly applying a strategy to achieve a desired effect and when it is clear he learns?

I am not implying that he thinks linguistically, though I am sure he understnds the general meaning behind certain words.

Also, when my younger cat is hungery, she often goes for his bowl before her own. Unstead of getting angry, he patiently backs off and lets her eat. He doesn't have to. She isn't a threat. He simply wants to. He makes a choice to let her eat from his bowel. He deosn't do that with my parents cat when my girlfriend and I take him over to their house. Their cat is a girl too, but for some reaon he dislikes her.  Is it not clear he makes choices and has preferences?

How do you explain this? How do you fit this into the idea that man is the only rational animal.

After observing this behavior, I could not make a decision on whether or not he was performing ratinal actions. Logical Reasoning simply forced me to accept it. i suppose I could make up unreasonible excuses in an attempt to convince myself that what I am seeing all the time is not actually happening, but I would not believe those excuses.

Further, have you ever watched chimps use tools?<have you ever seen them push the button they are asked to, the right button out of 150 buttons, even when their arrangments are changed?</p>

Have you ever seen a dog parent a cat?

Do you know their are actual accounts were wild dolphins rescued drowning people, dogs, and even pigs, pulled drowning children out of pools?

How do you explain this?

Edited September 28, 2011 by TrueMaterialist