Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Animal rights

Rate this topic


Ragnar

Recommended Posts

"I would be careful there: one can raise questions about the rights of plants as well as animals."

Agreed! It is this "carefulness" that led me to veganism in the first place. The problem I ran into during my ethics class was that I could not draw a hard and fast line as to what constitutes a morally relevant entity (or, what made an entity worthy of "rights"). It was referred to as "Domino Theory", or alternatively, the "Slippery Slope". Consider the following:

[ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/monkeymirror/html/intro.html ]

"As infants, humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical skills and habits. Both babies grab at objects, smile at friendly faces, and scream out their frustration when unhappy. For about a year, humans and chimps develop along a strikingly similar line: for instance, a baby chimpanzee can complete puzzles designed for a human of the same age. This similarity begins to disappear around the age of one year, when a chimpanzee's learning curve levels just as a human's is taking off."

I do not assign moral relevance on the sole basis of an entity's potential to become rational, because this would mean I would have to hold a zygote and an adult human being as equal in value. Personally, I value adult human beings more than a non-sentient collection of cells, and assign them a greater degree of moral relevance/protection/rights as a result. So, because I assign value based on the actuality of an entity, versus it's potential, I am forced to equate one-year-old human infants with one-year-old chimpanzee infants, because they are roughly equivalent in terms of intelligence (intelligence being what I value about them). But what happens when both subjects are a year and one day old? Two days? Three? At what point should I draw the "line"?

Appreciate the response!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right thing to do, according to my personal philosophy, is to alter the nature of the world so that unnecessary pain is eliminated.

Could you elaborate on "unnecessary" ? What criteria would you use to distinguish unnecessary pain from necessary pain?

Also, with regard to the elimination part: Suppose that somebody proposes to kill all lions using some completely painless method (e.g. a lethal injection that anesthetizes them and makes them unconscious before killing them). This procedure would cause no pain to lions, but it would eliminate a lot of pain for zebras and other animals that lions prey on--so, it would seem to me, it is a suitable way of eliminating unnecessary pain. Would you support it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is that in speaking about actualities versus potentialities, you have glossed over what the actualities are. Humans ARE creatures whose means of survival is reason, whether the human is 1 day old, 30 years old, or 98 years old -- it is a human by virtue of the fact that reason is its means of survival (put the embyro/zygote/fetus debate aside here). A chimp does not operate on this level. The fact that a human baby and a chimp baby are as intelligent as eachother is irrelevant when drawing conclusions about the essential traits of either entity. A human baby possesses the rational faculty and has merely not developed it; a chimp does not. Rights do not stem from intelligence or the USE of the rational faculty -- otherwise, there would be a lot of people without rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, it's important to understand that unrealistic situations, or emergencies, are not the basis for ethical or moral theory. The purpose of ethics is to guide rational beings through their every-day lives.

Agreed! No tin-foil hats or dream-catchers. Our difference of opinion here seems to lie in the evaluation of what is "realistic." It is my belief that within my lifetime, our technology will have advanced to the point where the implausible is suddenly plausible, and I want to be morally equipped before the fact, versus waiting for an "emergency" to happen. For a glimpse of this, read the Dehumanization (Frankenstein argument) section of

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism...ein_argument.29 ]. Does such an entity possess rights? I might need to know the answer in a few decades.

"But to answer your hypothetical; yes, she would. Rights exist because they are a requirement of our survival as rational beings. Specifically, to negate the initiation of force in all social interactions between men (Rational beings). If, somehow, we were to discover another race who were not "men," but who were similarly rational, then yes, they would have these rights as rational beings."

Ok! The purpose of that question was to verify that the Objectivist take on the concept of "rights" is not determined by an entity's species, but by other factors. I'm still not quite sure what these "other factors" are. I'm interpreting your statement (in conjunction with Tenzing's Post #8) to mean that Objectivists believe that if an entity possesses such a nature that it absolutely cannot sustain it's life by any other means than the application of reason to it's environment, then, and only then, can it possess rights. Is this correct?

"I think you are misunderstanding what rights are, as well. A "right" is simply a recognition of the fact of reality that, to survive, man must not be coerced into taking actions that his rational faculty knows will hurt him. It is not a gift, or a whim, imposed by man on other men."

I have been staring at this (and similar comments) for over five hours. This is what I'm getting:

1) In order to satisfy their values in the most efficient, optimal manner possible (versus living an animal, sub-human existence), humans should be free to pursue their rational self-interest, i.e., their happiness, because that is the nature of their values (freedom itself is a value).

2) Not all humans respect the interests of others, thus, many humans are not free to pursue their rational self-interest.

3) In an attempt to rectify 2), the concept of "rights" was invented as a means of protecting rational men from irrational men, because it was in the rational self-interest of the rational men to do so.

4) Rights do not exist independent of man; rights are the result of man's thought-process.

This makes sense to me, but I'm not sure if it represents Objectivism. I have another question:

What is the relationship between the concepts of "whim", "desire", and "value"? I've been having some serious issues telling them apart.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does such an entity possess rights?
You have to describe this entity in more detail. (Don't rely on the poor Wiki description, create your own critter). What is the nature of Pigman? Is it in the nature of Pigman that they have free will, a conceptual consciousness, with a faculty of reason? Can they grasp and choose to respect the moral concepts "Do not kill men; do not steal the property of men"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Could you elaborate on "unnecessary" ? What criteria would you use to distinguish unnecessary pain from necessary pain?"

Certainly! I came across this question while attempting to create a utopia. According to my point of view, a certain amount of pain/displeasure/conflict/resistance (not quite sure how to put it) is required in a person's development in order to provide a proper (optimal) context for the experience of "pleasure". Going through Basic Training, I found it amazing the things I once took for granted, and I feel this new appreciation was a direct result of the "pain" I experienced (it must be nice having your own toilet!). This might also account for the stereotype of "spoiled rich kids" who have led a relatively sheltered (pain-free) existence. However, I feel that there is a point of diminishing returns, and that pain exceeding this point would be "unnecessary". How is this point determined? That's something I've been leaving for another day, for when I have a better grasp of philosophy and psychology.

"Suppose that somebody proposes to kill all lions using some completely painless method (e.g. a lethal injection that anesthetizes them and makes them unconscious before killing them). This procedure would cause no pain to lions, but it would eliminate a lot of pain for zebras and other animals that lions prey on--so, it would seem to me, it is a suitable way of eliminating unnecessary pain. Would you support it?"

I wouldn't, because not only would that be killing the lions (a painless death is better than a painful one, but death still results in the loss of that which I value), but the zebras would soon overpopulate their environment, only to starve to death. Thus, killing the lions would accomplish nothing. More to the point, as much as I value lions and zebras, I value humans more. By hiring people to kill every lion (and every carnivore, by logical extension) I would be destroying the ecosystem and consuming a huge amount of resources that I feel would be better spent on solving human problems.

Good questions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't, because not only would that be killing the lions (a painless death is better than a painful one, but death still results in the loss of that which I value), but the zebras would soon overpopulate their environment, only to starve to death. Thus, killing the lions would accomplish nothing. More to the point, as much as I value lions and zebras, I value humans more. By hiring people to kill every lion (and every carnivore, by logical extension) I would be destroying the ecosystem and consuming a huge amount of resources that I feel would be better spent on solving human problems.
My first question is, why do you value lions at all? How do they enable you to live qua man? Second, your overpopulation objection ignores leopards, hunting dogs, cheetahs, jackals and hyenas which also control the zebra population. (The proposal on the table is to eliminate the lions, not all predators). Additionally, the plain can sustain more zebras, and when it can't there are other mechanisms (lack of food) which resolve the problem. Remember, "overpopulation" is not an intrinsically bad thing, and thus killing lions will not destroy or even damage the ecosysem, except by eliminating a predator.

Third, lions are a very serious problem for humans because they also kill humans and make it very difficult for people to survive in some areas. If you value humans more than you value animals, you should support the extermination of this feline pestilence. Fourth, your argument based on "hiring people and consuming vast resources better spent on solving human problems" presupposes -- quite contrary to fact -- that this plan involves a major tax-funded government boondoggle. This plan does not consume resources, it creates them, first by the creation of a supply of lion meat for dinner, and second by the creation of safe lion-free zones where man can exist.

The problems with your argument seem to stem from the one assumptoin that man is a higher objective value than animal. If you reject that assumption, these objections would have sway; the question is whether you will check your assumptions and discover that your hierarchy of values is not what you thought it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randy,

Thanks for your answers. There is one more thing I'm wondering about: You say you're a vegan, which as I understand means that you don't consume eggs or dairy products, either. But if eliminating pain is the objective, why refrain from those? I think milking cows does not cause them any pain, and removing eggs laid by hens certainly doesn't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a male fitness model, I have met ONE vegetarian model/bodybuilder.

Soy protein has so many negatives in the male body (pubmed.org) that he admitted having to rely on an overuse of steroids to maintain his physique.

FTR, he is no longer a model or a vegetarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soy protein has so many negatives in the male body (pubmed.org)

Do you have a link to a specific article that you could share? My wife is a fish-eating vegetarian (pescetarian?), while I eat any dead animal that's reasonably clean. I'd love to have a good reason to avoid the nasty un-meats she eats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a link to a specific article that you could share? My wife is a fish-eating vegetarian (pescetarian?), while I eat any dead animal that's reasonably clean. I'd love to have a good reason to avoid the nasty un-meats she eats.

"...any dead animal that's reasonably clean" I'm still laughing, thank you, Jake!

= Mindy

Edited by Mindy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is that in speaking about actualities versus potentialities, you have glossed over what the actualities are. Humans ARE creatures whose means of survival is reason, whether the human is 1 day old, 30 years old, or 98 years old -- it is a human by virtue of the fact that reason is its means of survival (put the embyro/zygote/fetus debate aside here). A chimp does not operate on this level. The fact that a human baby and a chimp baby are as intelligent as eachother is irrelevant when drawing conclusions about the essential traits of either entity. A human baby possesses the rational faculty and has merely not developed it; a chimp does not. Rights do not stem from intelligence or the USE of the rational faculty -- otherwise, there would be a lot of people without rights.

It might help to note that infants and children are not given full legal rights until they are considered to have reached adulthood. Children cannot enter into contracts, for instance. Also, what would be considered assault if performed with an adult is merely child-care, for much of a child's life. One is allowed to physically restrain toddlers--and you'd better do it, too--because telling them to stay out of the street isn't good enough. Talk yourself blue-in-the-face to a lion, telling him you'll feed him twice a day if he'll stay out of the village, you'd still better not leave your doors or windows open at night.

Also, we do have rules against cruelty to animals, recognizing that their unnecessary pain and suffering is a moral wrong.

The essence of rights is the alternative reason gives us in dealing with one another. We don't have to live by brute strength if we can agree on terms of interacting with one another. The lower animals are damned to a life of physical dominance and predation. Man is not.

= Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey David! Before answering your questions I should probably attempt an explanation of my personal philosophy, so you can get a better idea of where I'm coming from. I describe myself as a moral relativist, where "right" is that which furthers my interests and "wrong" is that which contradicts them. I suppose I could also be described as a hedonist, where the concept of "pleasure" includes the more abstract emotions/desires such as the desire for love, or for a good book. Because I wish to maximize the experience of pleasure, I find it best to do so through the application of reason, as this is apparently the most effective way of affecting reality (in which all desires are grounded). At it's core, my philosophy consists of the objective pursuit of subjective values. For an alternate format, see the following:

- I exist.

- Something else exists.

- This "something else" is able to affect me, and I am able to affect it.

- These interactions appear to follow a pattern, such that I am usually able to predict the consequences of my actions.

- Upon realizing this, I am faced with a choice: To what end do I act?*

- I experience "desires".

- I have observed other apparently conscious entities pursuing desires that I do not feel.

- It is possible for entities to desire different things.

- Desires are subjective in nature.

- I am apparently free to pursue whatever desires I want, in whatever fashion I wish.

- I desire to fulfill as many desires as I can, to the fullest extent possible.

- Some desires are stronger/more important to me than others.

- Some desires, if pursued, conflict with other desires.

- I cannot pursue all of my desires.

- I have chosen to pursue happiness, which I understand as the optimal achievement of my values (which I understand as those desires I have chosen to pursue), as the ultimate end towards which I will act.

- Which desires will I choose as values?

- By what means will I pursue these values?

- Help!

"My first question is, why do you value lions at all?"

When determining the moral relevance of animals, I make a comparison to Sasha, a dog I once cared for. I enjoyed her wagging tail, her silly antics, the way she would slip her head under my hand to be petted as I lay on the couch (the leash in her mouth as often as not). Apparently, I was able to make her happy. My nature is such that, if through my actions I am able to cause others happiness, I am thus made happy. The opposite is true; if through my actions I cause pain, I feel pain. I understand this emotion/desire to be "compassion", or "sympathy" (distinguishable from "empathy").** Because she caused me pleasure, I valued her. And because I valued her, I assign a certain amount of value to all animals as potential Sashas (although the "slippery slope" complicates things). This, I believe, is why Ayn Rand valued complete strangers, as they had the potential to be John Galts.

"How do they enable you to live qua man?"

I don't know what is meant by "man qua man", so I'm unable to answer this question.

"Second, your overpopulation objection ignores leopards, hunting dogs, cheetahs, jackals and hyenas which also control the zebra population. (The proposal on the table is to eliminate the lions, not all predators). Additionally, the plain can sustain more zebras, and when it can't there are other mechanisms (lack of food) which resolve the problem. Remember, "overpopulation" is not an intrinsically bad thing, and thus killing lions will not destroy or even damage the ecosysem, except by eliminating a predator."

The intent of this scenario, I assumed, was to demonstrate the implausibility of killing predators as a means of reducing the overall amount of pain experienced by the inhabitants of a given environment, excluding humans (not because humans are, as a rule, the moral equivalent of animals, but because I envisioned the area in question to be uninhabited). The logical extension of this policy (to prevent pain by killing lions) would be to kill every predator in existence, which (in the long run) would clearly do nothing to reduce the pain experienced by the surviving animals.

"Third, lions are a very serious problem for humans because they also kill humans and make it very difficult for people to survive in some areas. If you value humans more than you value animals, you should support the extermination of this feline pestilence."

If the lions pose a significant risk to human life, then yes, I agree that they should be put down.

"Fourth, your argument based on "hiring people and consuming vast resources better spent on solving human problems" presupposes -- quite contrary to fact -- that this plan involves a major tax-funded government boondoggle. This plan does not consume resources, it creates them, first by the creation of a supply of lion meat for dinner, and second by the creation of safe lion-free zones where man can exist."

This was under the assumption that we were trying to eliminate every predator in existence. In the more limited sense that you are speaking of, I agree that killing the lions would consume a negligible amount of resources, and that humanity would stand to benefit.

"The problems with your argument seem to stem from the one assumptoin that man is a higher objective value than animal. If you reject that assumption, these objections would have sway; the question is whether you will check your assumptions and discover that your hierarchy of values is not what you thought it was."

Hmmm. I think what you're saying here is that I might say I value humans more than animals, but I really value them equally. Apparently because I failed to mention the negative impact of lions on humans in my response, thus implying that this impact was of little significance. If this is the case, then there seems to be a misunderstanding.

Due to my understanding of "subjective" and "objective", I'm unable to conceptualize an "objective value"; for not only does the concept of "value" presuppose the existence of an entity capable of holding values, but it also presupposes a reason for the entity to hold said values (assuming the entity is rational and volitional).*** The only reasons I'm aware of are subjective: "I act to gain and/or keep X because it feels good". The lions have value because I choose to assign value to them, as I assign value to humans, as I assign value to anything. I generally value humans more than I generally value animals because humans are generally more capable of causing me pleasure (I cannot hold a stimulating intellectual conversation with a lion, nor can I fall in love with one). However, I am open to the possibility that I might value some animals (Sasha) over some humans (child rapist/murderer, or Terri Schiavo).

Sorry I took so long!

* Well, why have I ever done anything in life? To get to where I am now, I've been required to perform a huge number of actions. What motivated me to do so? Ultimately, at the core of every choice is a desire. Without desires, any action of mine would be completely arbitrary. Without hunger, why would I eat? Without sympathy, why would I act to minimize the pain of others? Without the discontent of having no purpose in life, why would I ask any of these questions in the first place?

** This is my understanding of the relationship between "compassion" and "empathy" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy ]:

"Empathy is the capacity to recognize or understand another's state of mind or emotion. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or to in some way experience the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself. It is important to note that empathy does not necessarily imply compassion. Empathy can be 'used' for compassionate or cruel behavior."

*** This is my understanding of the relationship between "objective" and "subjective" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) ]:

"While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created."

"In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that '2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times, places or people. For instance, 'That painting is beautiful' may be true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is one more thing I'm wondering about: You say you're a vegan, which as I understand means that you don't consume eggs or dairy products, either. But if eliminating pain is the objective, why refrain from those? I think milking cows does not cause them any pain, and removing eggs laid by hens certainly doesn't!"

Good question! Originally, I was a vegetarian. I didn't understood why someone would want to be a vegan, until I found out about battery cages, the conditions dairy cows are kept in, and of course, the origin of veal. Veganism, then, was the logical next step. There are a number of gruesome videos floating around, should you wish to view them. However, I'll just link some informative articles.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_cage#Animal_welfare ]:

"Animal Welfare scientists have been critical of battery cages because they do not provide hens with sufficient space to stand, walk, flap their wings, perch or make a nest, and it is widely considered that hens suffer through boredom and frustration through being unable to perform these behaviours."

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veal ]:

"Though veal can be produced from any calf, most veal comes from male calves of dairy cattle breeds."

[ http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=98 ] ~ Milk: A Cruel and Unhealthy Product

[ http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=99 ] ~ Poultry and Eggs: Industries That Abuse Chickens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As a male fitness model, I have met ONE vegetarian model/bodybuilder.

Soy protein has so many negatives in the male body (pubmed.org) that he admitted having to rely on an overuse of steroids to maintain his physique.

FTR, he is no longer a model or a vegetarian."

Well, I suspect this has more to do with the rarity of vegetarians/vegans than their diets. Soy isn't the only veggie source of protein out there, should one wish for an alternative. Personally, I drink a lot of soymilk, and have yet to start lactating. I'm also in reasonably good shape, in that I can run two miles in 13 minutes, and do 70ish push-ups and sit-ups within separate two-minute time-frames (Army PT test). Though I'm hardly a bodybuilder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I describe myself as a moral relativist, where "right" is that which furthers my interests and "wrong" is that which contradicts them. I suppose I could also be described as a hedonist, where the concept of "pleasure" includes the more abstract emotions/desires such as the desire for love, or for a good book.

The only reasons I'm aware of are subjective: "I act to gain and/or keep X because it feels good". The lions have value because I choose to assign value to them, as I assign value to humans, as I assign value to anything. I generally value humans more than I generally value animals because humans are generally more capable of causing me pleasure (I cannot hold a stimulating intellectual conversation with a lion, nor can I fall in love with one).

So, if I interpret your philosophy correctly, if applied to a different person with different subjective values, the following could be "right";

I feel good when I cause pain to animals so I should slaughter as many of them as possible. Or;

I feel good when I cause pain and misery to other people so I should do so to whatever extent I can avoid being caught and punished for it.

Would this be correct according to your philosophy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if I interpret your philosophy correctly, if applied to a different person with different subjective values, the following could be "right";

I feel good when I cause pain to animals so I should slaughter as many of them as possible. Or;

I feel good when I cause pain and misery to other people so I should do so to whatever extent I can avoid being caught and punished for it.

Would this be correct according to your philosophy?

Yes, this would be a correct interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this would be a correct interpretation.

So the next logical step I take in my interpretation of your philosophy is that you don't believe in or accept any notion of 'rights' (moral or natural - however you wish to consider them) - be they applied to animals OR humans. Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to post my opinion as a person who has considered animal rights and veganism. I will be trying to respond to many topics here and I do not know yet how to use quotes so I will attempt to make as much sense as possible.

On the topic of soy protein. I am going to have to call you on using personal experience to dictate your reasoning behind the fallibility of anti-soy dieting. Simply because you are 22, you have mentioned that you were not born a vegan, and it would take many years for a specifically soy based diet to affect your body. I also would like to go into the scientific reasoning behind an anti-soy argument:

In order to function our body needs particular amino acids. Amino acids come from proteins, yes, but proteins have only specific chains. Soy protein in particular does -not- contain the necessary protein to maintain the body in health. Essentially the required amino acids come from other animals. We need meat, just as we need vegetables, to maintain health. One of the theories on man's emergence from ape is that because early man discovered fire he was able to cook foods, releasing more nutrients in it. Cooked food requires less energy to digest thus because our bodies did not have to focus on the development of the digestive system we were able to develop larger brains. In effect, we need proteins from animals in order to have the reasoning brain we have.

Now, onto the topic of animal rights and treatment. In effect my stance is that animals are not volitional, sentient beings, and humans are. Animals were quite capable of existence before we arrived on the scene, without sentience. Humans are not capable of existence without sentience and reason. In order for reason to exist one must obey simple laws of nature in regards to it. I cannot kill another creature which uses reason, and I will not allow another creature to kill me. In order for me to survive as a human, and an omnivore, I must consume plants and animals. Animals do not have rights, because their existence does not require them. None of this leads me to any logical conclusion involving creating mass extinctions. Would I eat an endangered species? No, not at all. It is not within the realm of rational self interest to make extinct any species of animal. We have multitudinous means of preventing animals from going completely extinct, and more than enough people willing to see that no animal does. Despite that there is no logical reason to hunt an animal to extinction, there are also reasons for us to wish to keep animals alive. Many medical breakthroughs come from the study of animals, their physiology, and their behaviors. We are not capable of predicting which animals will be of use to us in the future.

That said, do I like fur coats? Yes. Killing is not a nice thing, no matter how it is done. Before I ate my Carl's Jr. hamburger, I realized that the cow was most likely held in a small pen being fed hormones and fillers until it was selected for butchering, at which point it was killed and then cut into many small pieces, its parts stripped of skin and fat and nearly every piece used to some productive end. This does not bother me at all, as a moral and rational human being, who loves the company of his dog named Atia, and cherishes every cat he's ever owned. Why not? Animals must be killed, animals must eat to survive, and I am quite certain that the spirit or soul of that cow is not angry at me for eating it, nor is every cow I meet going to think of me as a 'wretched beef eater'. They lack the ability to think, which is precisely what makes them incapable of having rights. I would not enjoy watching the cow get slaughtered, that is why I pay someone else to do it for me. In an emergency situation, if it was between dieing, or killing and butchering my own food, I would do so.

Randy, by your example of the zebra population rising from lack of predators, I see that you understand what evolution and natural selection means. Yet you deny that we are part of that cycle. After years of dominating the food chain, in your opinion we should sink to the bottom of it, and become herbivores. We should use science to ensure that eventually all animals become herbivores. In effect, we should attempt to deny nature (read reality) because you perceive that animals have some sort of rights. I deny that claim, for the reasons listed by many other Objectivists in this thread.

But the problem with your philosophy does not seem to lie within the topic you brought up, but your lack of understanding of objectivism at a whole. If you believe that everyone can only act according to his or her perspective, and you claim that his or her perspective is in effect his or her -reality-, then you have not yet truly understood Rand. The point of Objectivism you haven't got yet is that there -is- a reality, all humans are capable of perceiving that reality accurately, and morally should work to ensure that all conclusions drawn fit into this objective reality. You may believe certain things based on emotions you had when you watched disgusting videos, just like anyone would. The cause of those emotions was not empathy for the animals, as most probably watching them filled you with anger instead of pity or sympathy. The anger should not be directed at the butcher, just as you are not angry at the lion for eating the zebra inside out while it is still alive. These things are simply facts of reality. Your anger should be directed to the people that created these videos, the people who want to shock you into following their point of view by appealing to your emotions, for this is also an attempt at shutting down your power of reason.

I am brought to a particular example: In the local marketplace here there are signs of a small child with a cleft deformity on his or her mouth. The point of the sign was to incite sympathy for the child and thus spur me to donate to charity X in the name of getting this child a cosmetic surgery. If you had asked me before I had seen this picture, I would have reasoned over it and then most likely said no. There is no reason for me to feel responsible for this child's deformity, and it is not my responsibility to support him or her. At seeing the picture I was first revulsed, then slightly saddened, and then angered. For that moment, the creator of the ad had succeeded in a form of control over my mind, he had shown me a shocking picture, with the intent of rousing my emotion to the point of action. After reasoning, one may feel sympathy for the child, in that situation I might feel saddened about my deformity. However, despite the emotional reaction, I am still philosophically against donating to that charity, now with further reason, as the ad creator has not yet tried to appeal to reason, but instead chose to try to control through emotion. He pulled the trigger before asking the question.

I have heard stories of vans with pictures on the sides showing aborted fetuses, this too I deplore. Shock tactics are not a method of persuasion, but an attempt at control through emotion. When you realize what Rand said, that emotions are products of our value judgements, then you realize that it is not emotion > reason, but reason > emotion. To act on emotions is less than acting on instinct. To allow emotion to govern your reason is to be less intelligent than an animal.

Again I apologize if I did not make sense at some points, I hope you understand the point of what I'm saying. Despite that you -feel- animals deserve rights, they do not -have- rights. A privilege is deserved, a right is inherent. That is what the Bill of Rights and attached documents tells us, that there are fundamental rights inherent in the property of existing as man. Unfortunately, by your logic, if tyrannosaurus rex was loosed on the earth once more, we should lay down and die, for who are we to contest his right to eat and survive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I describe myself as a moral relativist, where "right" is that which furthers my interests and "wrong" is that which contradicts them.
My main suggestion is that you should think through some of your positions with greater rigor, to get at what, more exactly, you believe, and why. I am gonna focus on a few points -- like that statement -- and hope that you will see what that should entail. Your ultimate interest is living, and specifically being alive. You can tell the difference with plants quite often -- living, flourishing plants are alive, healthy, robust; dead plants are pretty obvious. Sickly, dying plants are technically alive, in name only. Your interest is not in being a dying person, it's in being a living person. Now the question is, what exactly are "your interests", so that we can know what furthers them.

It's a mistake to think of "your interests" like an anthill full of millions of ants, all equal and indistinguishable and adding up to just a hill of ants. You have one primary interest, namely living. Any other interests of your have to be judged in terms of the extent to which they further your primary interest. Now whether or not something actually does advance your interests in this way is an objective fact and is not a mental whimsical construct. It is an objective fact that cyanide is poison that will absolutely contradict your interest -- all of them -- and you cannot just decide "But I have an interest is the almondy taste of cyanide that has to be considered". Objectively speaking, any secondary (or tertiary, or vastly lower) interest you have in a particular taste is totally subordinate to your interest in living, which cyanide absolutely contradicts.

The moral relativist holds that there is no objective relationship between cause and effect, so that you cannot decide that cyanide is good or bad for you based on facts of reality; rather, it is an arbitrary whimsical decision to see ingesting cyanide as good or bad. The Objectivist view of morality says that the relation exists independent of whimsical conclusions, and that the facts of reality determine what is good or bad for an individual. However: not all individuals are exactly the same. Cyanide is bad for all men, but milk is good for some and bad for others. See your doctor for advice on that point. Calculus is good for some and bad for others, though never as extremely bad as cyanide.

Because I wish to maximize the experience of pleasure, I find it best to do so through the application of reason, as this is apparently the most effective way of affecting reality (in which all desires are grounded).
I maintain that hedonism cannot be taken seriously, because nobody rational is really is willing to die fot the sake of an extreme sensation of pleasure. Though there are people who are willing to kill themselves for the ultimate high, but you can tell in advance that these are just crazy people.
Due to my understanding of "subjective" and "objective", I'm unable to conceptualize an "objective value"; for not only does the concept of "value" presuppose the existence of an entity capable of holding values, but it also presupposes a reason for the entity to hold said values (assuming the entity is rational and volitional).
Except in the case of the ultimate value. You can value water and shelter by using reason to see that they are necessary to realize your ultimate goal (existence). The ultimate goal cannot be justified in terms of something else -- that's what it means to be an "ultimate goal". And this, I think, is what leads many people down the slippery path to subjectivism and nihilism: the fact that of course you cannot justify your ultimate goal in terms of its efficacy w.r.t. some other "ultimate goal", so therefor... goals can't ever be rationally justified? Hardly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So the next logical step I take in my interpretation of your philosophy is that you don't believe in or accept any notion of 'rights' (moral or natural - however you wish to consider them) - be they applied to animals OR humans. Is that correct?"

Hmmm. It would seem that I don't accept the notion of "natural" or "objective" rights; rights that exist independent of minds. However, I do accept the notion of "moral" or "subjective" rights; rights that originate from minds. So, this would be an incorrect interpretation of my philosophy.

If it helps, my understanding of "rights" is synonymous with the concept of "laws" (the legal sort).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of rights. Rights are not derived from govenment or laws, but are inherent to our exisance as rational beings.

"A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.

If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.

If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right." -- “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 83.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

[Mod's note: merged with a previous thread. - sN]

 

 

Hey guys

A friend of mine has approached me with a slight conundrum he's been having and I now too am having. We both acknowledge that animals have no rights. That said, if we saw an individual senselessly torturing their dog/cat/whatever in the street, we (and many others I assume) would feel the need to use force to get the owner to stop, assuming a verbal threat was of no use. In doing this, we have obviously infringed upon the rights of a human being who has infringed upon no ones rights and consequently we are now liable for criminal charges. At the same time, I struggle to understand how any human being can stand by and watch an act of this nature take place.

Would appreciate any reasonable thoughts on the matter.
Thanks.

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...