Devil's Advocate Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Nobody who doesn't believe in animal rights argues that there aren't similarities between humans and other animals, or that humans aren't animals, or that animal (including "human animal") brains don't have some similarities. They argue that humans can reason, an enormous, unique difference which alters everything about how we deal with animals who can't reason. ... Isn't this just another assertion of human bias, e.g., only humans have a moral brain node, only humans construct courts of law, only humans have opposable thumbs, only humans make tools? What standard are we using to differentiate animals who reason from those who don't?? What check are we applying on humans who can't reason??? ... Why don't rocks have rights? Why shouldn't you leave a boulder be, to be altered only by the chance of the universe? Why use life as your fundamental to dictate what you can or can't do while existing in the universe? What about bugs who ruin crops? The standard isn't anything but you and your life. Animals don't have rights because they don't have the ability to recognize yours. You use animals for your life because it's advantageous for you to do so. Isn't this more a concequence of securing rights? Again, what is the check being applied on humans who don't recognize your rights?? Just asking... And I certainly don't consider that life, specifically the independent preservation of ones life, isn't the fundamental dictate of what one can or can't do while existing in the universe. At present, I'm considering life, from the POV of all individuals, to be at the intersection of all ethical spheres of rights; if such could be presented as a venn diagram. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Re: Statements 1 & 2, the difference is in the recognition of a moral reality, or what you refer to as objective morality. You pointed out earlier the questionable dichotomy between what is moral and what is correct in post #93: -- "If I may observe: one must be careful in asserting too much of a dichotomy between 'morality' and 'correctness'. Objective morality depends upon correctness and is based on reality and the consequences of actions to the proper beneficiary, the individual who uses morality to guide his action." ~ StrictlyLogical "As such to answer DA, 1) morality is not additional to 2) correctness, it is a specific form of correctness."~ StrictlyLogical -- I believe we are copacetic on this issue. As to your follow up, that is the issue to be resolved in this particular thread; specifically, the necessity of a human qualifier. As stated yes, all facts of reality are in principle capable of independent observation and validation by any rational human being. But are all facts of reality dependent on independent observation and validation by a rational human being? At this point I believe it is more correct to say, all facts of reality are in principle capable of independent observation and validation by any intelligent human being. Consider the following: -- "... For whatever we mean by calling our minds 'rational,' surely this must be compatible with a recognition that the human mind is a species of animal mind, which has arisen through the same sorts of evolutionary processes that also produced the minds we call 'nonrational.' And the more we learn about the cognitive, behavioral, and neurophysiological similarities between ourselves and other animals, and about the extent to which we 'rational' creatures frequently think and choose in ways that systematically deviate from what rational principles would dictate, the more we seem compelled to regard the specialness of our minds as merely a matter of degree, not a difference in kind..." ~ from Introduction to Essentially Rational Animals, 1.1: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8641838/Essentially_rational_animals.pdf?sequence=1 -- Now, shall we begin? ~ Khan, Star Trek, Into Darkness Don't jump the gun. We'll deal with what informs rights later... we still need to determine what rights are which depends on the sandbox (philosophy) we are actually playing in. This is why I posed my last question: by capable of observation and verification I am getting at the sense that no statement of fact of reality can be asserted true while at the same time asserted as being outside the ability for a rational being to verify through observation. This is to distinguish between a statement of a fact of reality and a statement of the arbitrary/imaginary. For Example: We have been able to describe and detect neutrinos, which are so incredibly fast and so lightweight (perhaps massless?) such that it would be hard to say they exist at all except for the fact that we know they exist and in fact one is bound in every single neutron (with a proton and an electron) of matter! Also we have verified how vast the universe is. These are facts which although require painstaking direct-indirect observation, experimentation etc. can be validated by any rational being willing to look at and analyze the data rationally. "Moral reality" as you put it, makes it sound like you are reifying moral truths or morality itself. Yet you seem to agree moral statements are statements of facts of reality. So I will need to investigate further. Statement 3: Person X, did Y, in context Z, and it was wrong. Statement 4: Person X, did Y, in context Z, and it was right. Since each of statements 3 and 4 are statements of facts of reality, and all facts of reality are capable of observation and validation by any rational being, Q: What kinds of observable and verifiable facts of reality would you need to observe and validate in order to conclude which of statements 3 or 4 is true? Assume you know X, Y, and Z, how does the analysis proceed? Edited January 31, 2014 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Isn't this just another assertion of human bias[...] This is the entire basis of Objectivist ethics. This is why I keep asking of what benefit to ME it is to make up rights for animals... a concept of rights which makes no sense compared to how Rand described it. Isn't this more a concequence of securing rights? Again, what is the check being applied on humans who don't recognize your rights?? Just asking... Objective law, which only humans can understand. This is just repeating myself. At present, I'm considering life, from the POV of all individuals, to be at the intersection of all ethical spheres of rights; if such could be presented as a venn diagram. Why? The whole point is that an animal's POV is drastically different than a human's POV -- so different that we deal with each other by a set of rules, and with animals by a much different set of rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Isn't this just another assertion of human bias,... ...Actually, it is an example of human innovation. Microbes feast on all sorts of other species, sometimes helping sometimes hurting. All sorts of animals devour plant life with no concern for the vegetation. Carnivores eat these animals. It's the "Cycle of Life" page from early school days. Humans used to enslave each other, kill each other and so on too. (Yes, they still do.) Animals like lions and apes have evolved some behaviors that allow them to live within groups of their own species. Often, a big-boss of the group uses physical force to keep things in check. Among rhinos you have coups when a young male challenges the big boss and wins. Until a few thousand years ago, most human groups followed a similar small-group structure. Then, for whatever reason (probably because inter-group peace and trade made sense), humans began to come up with rules to keep the peace on a wider scale. The question of including lions and apes in such rules never arose. Over a few thousand years, there have been attempts to codify the rules (Hammurabi and others) and attempts to create a stable structure (the caste system, the hierarchy of feudalism). Again, the question of including horses or cows in this hierarchy did not even arise. Finally, we are at a stage where most of the world recognizes that people ought to be politically equal, but they still think the major way to implement this is to vote and let the majority of individuals decide. Yet, in parallel, there is the concept of rights: there are some things that we can all agree are inviolate -- and cannot be breached even by majorities. The question of including my dog in this still does not even arise. Edited January 31, 2014 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 ... The question of including my dog in this still does not even arise. Good points all, and I agree with your assessment of the history of coming to recognize a human right to life. What I'm curious to know is, suppose someone chose to challenge your dog's right to live. Would you be primarily defending your property, or your dog's? And if this aggression resulted in the death of the dog, would legal restitution adequately restore your property to you?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 What I'm curious to know is, suppose someone chose to challenge your dog's right to live. Would you be primarily defending your property, or your dog's? And if this aggression resulted in the death of the dog, would legal restitution adequately restore your property to you??If someone tried to kill my dog, the main reason i'd be defending him is that he is my dog. (The other side is that I reserve the right to be the sole decision-maker about whether it is time to put my dog down.) If some group of people want to farm dogs the way my suppliers farm cows and pigs, I'm not going to interfere with that. If some scientist wants to perform experiments on a guinea-pig, I'm aware that it is probably a rational choice -- but, not on my guinea-pig. Now, don't take "a dog is property" and jump to "a dog is only property" in the sense that I should feel the same toward all my property. Someone posted above, asking people to introspect whether they'd be more mad if someone intentionally smashed their car or their dog. Almost everyone will be emotionally connected to their dog. Even with inanimate property, there is a range: a home you've lived in for many years burns down, as opposed to one you just moved into. Perhaps you have a personal treasure, worth nothing to anybody else -- an old alarm wind-up alarm clock that does not work any more. Yet, there's a story to it, and you've built a little narrative around the symbolism of that clock. If someone breaks it, you'd be way more upset than if he broke the $20 working one that you can replace at Walmart. Now consider this: imagine you tell someone the story of that alarm clock, and what it means to you. Suppose you see that your listener understands, but he spitefully grabs it and smashes it to smithereens. Would not that be worse? We value things differently, and we also expect other people to understand that to some extent. A higher-living mammal like a dog will become part of the family, not part of the furniture. Sure, it almost feels that he is more than your best-loved property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 This is the entire basis of Objectivist ethics. This is why I keep asking of what benefit to ME it is to make up rights for animals... a concept of rights which makes no sense compared to how Rand described it. ... Fair enough, but please understand I'm not asking you to "make up" anything. The issue of an ethical right to life is one of recognition of reality; not Divine creation of reality, or man made reality. Who does your life belong to; who animates it? Can your life be alienated from you in any way that avoids immediate death?? ... Objective law, which only humans can understand. This is just repeating myself. ... No need to - I get it, at lease the legal end, and we can agree that security is a matter of objective law. But is an ethical right to life created by securing it, or simply recognized as something worth legally securing?? ... Why? The whole point is that an animal's POV is drastically different than a human's POV -- so different that we deal with each other by a set of rules, and with animals by a much different set of rules. Because life is fundamental actually and mentally to all living beings regardless of a POV about how to live it, or whether to live at all. The rule at the center of my venn diagram states that life cannot be alienated from the bearer without causing death. There is certainly enough objective evidence to support this claim, is there not? What does this suggest to you as an Objectivist about ones life (anyones) as a property? A credible rebuttal might be to demonstrate how life, as a property, can be accumulated by transferring it from one to another. Here the objective measure would be longevity, which is noticably short for the one being alienated from their life. Where does the surplus go?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 ... "Moral reality" as you put it, makes it sound like you are reifying moral truths or morality itself. Yet you seem to agree moral statements are statements of facts of reality. So I will need to investigate further. Statement 3: Person X, did Y, in context Z, and it was wrong. Statement 4: Person X, did Y, in context Z, and it was right. Since each of statements 3 and 4 are statements of facts of reality, and all facts of reality are capable of observation and validation by any rational being, Q: What kinds of observable and verifiable facts of reality would you need to observe and validate in order to conclude which of statements 3 or 4 is true? Assume you know X, Y, and Z, how does the analysis proceed? Your statements as presented suggest a kind of moral ambiguity or a contradiction of reality. In my mind, the same person X doing the same thing Y cannot be both right and wrong at the same time; it would be to assert that ones actions are morally meaningless. And I can't imagine how a separate observer would draw any kind of moral conclusion about such an act. Perhaps you can fill in Y, and Z with some sample values for me to get a better understanding of what you are suggesting at this point? I'll read this again later to see what I'm missing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) Your statements as presented suggest a kind of moral ambiguity or a contradiction of reality. In my mind, the same person X doing the same thing Y cannot be both right and wrong at the same time; it would be to assert that ones actions are morally meaningless. And I can't imagine how a separate observer would draw any kind of moral conclusion about such an act. Perhaps you can fill in Y, and Z with some sample values for me to get a better understanding of what you are suggesting at this point? I'll read this again later to see what I'm missing... Please reread carefully. I am not suggesting both statements are true, in fact I ask what kinds of facts of reality would you need to observe and validate to conclude WHICH of the two statements is true. Obviously both cannot be true. Moral statements of facts of reality like any statement of facts of reality can be true or false. eg S1: The ball has property J, which causes K, when under the influence of L. This is a statement of facts of reality which may or may not be true. Statements 3 and 4 are contradictory, only one could be true. Edited February 1, 2014 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 For consideration of validating a right to life as property: -- "Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others. " - Locke, Chap 5, 2nd Treatise of Civil Government -- Is Locke correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Please reread carefully. I am not suggesting both statements are true, in fact I ask what kinds of facts of reality would you need to observe and validate to conclude WHICH of the two statements is true. Obviously both cannot be true. Moral statements of facts of reality like any statement of facts of reality can be true or false. eg S1: The ball has property J, which causes K, when under the influence of L. This is a statement of facts of reality which may or may not be true. Statements 3 and 4 are contradictory, only one could be true. OK, looking again at statements 3 & 4 from the POV of a rational observer, to establish the moral truth of either statement objectively, one would have to have a moral benchmark to evaluate X's Y in Z. For example, if X intended Y to achieve Z, and Z occured, then X's Y is factually true, however it still lacks a moral benchmark to establish if X doing Y is good. So if the moral benchmark is life is good (Z), then X's Y is morally true when X's Z is preserved. That may still not be what you're looking for, but that's the omelet I come up with using your variables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) @ softwareNerd, Thank you again for a thorough and thoughtful response, which again I cannot but agree with. However I remain curious as to the property of life you are working to secure. I don't care to dispute your (or anyone elses) claim to non-living property, e.g., sofas or antique clocks. Let me try again this way... I'm asking if you are defending your dog as your property, or your dog's life as its property under your care. Do you see the distinction I make?? Edited February 1, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) “I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I ... am ... a ... man!” ~ John Merrick, The Elephant Man, based on the life of Joseph Carey Merrick And being a man, Joseph Merrick has a ethical right to his life; a right we all agree to by definition as being "morally good, justified, or acceptable, and true or correct as a fact" (post #90); and morally correct as "a specific form of correctness" (post #93). Joseph Merrick was an individual; a singular living being. The object of the ethical standard is his life; not just his body, but that which animates it; without which a ethical right to life has no meaning because a corpse, like a rock, needs not a right to life. And it is significant to note that in the end, Joseph Merrick choose to exercise the ethical right to his life by ending it. By any objective standard, it is a body combined with that which animates it that defines life as a singular possession; a property. Further, it is a fact of reality that life cannot be separated from its bearer without causing death. Therefore the only credible meaning to having a ethical right to life, is that such a thing is both inherent and unalienable to living beings, and is only actionable by choice. That is the meaning and scope of having a ethical right to life, liberty and property/pursuit of happiness. Life may or may not be good, but without recognition that it's good for individual lives to be allowed self-determination/governance, ethical evaluations as such are meaningless. So while there's a rational argument for Joseph Merrick, as a human being, to have a ethical right to enjoy his life, by the same standard of a life as a ethical value, there can be no argument against the life of a animal, e.g., a elephant, to be let alone to pursue its own happiness. Unless or until the ethical right of two lives are in conflict, there's no transgression to be addressed; live and let live. Aggression is the threshold necessary to justify securing a ethical right to life, because only then does it become objectively necessary to repel a specific threat to a specific life. And by aggression, I don't mean the aggression of a preditor towards its prey; that is a function of biology, and one in which humans cannot distinguish themselves from other predators. Go Broncos! ... both species Edited February 2, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) OK, looking again at statements 3 & 4 from the POV of a rational observer, to establish the moral truth of either statement objectively, one would have to have a moral benchmark to evaluate X's Y in Z. For example, if X intended Y to achieve Z, and Z occured, then X's Y is factually true, however it still lacks a moral benchmark to establish if X doing Y is good. So if the moral benchmark is life is good (Z), then X's Y is morally true when X's Z is preserved. That may still not be what you're looking for, but that's the omelet I come up with using your variables. This is such a subtle point I will need to change my tack a bit. Consider the following: Two points or locations can be traversed along an arguably infinite number of curves. Of all of the curves connecting the points there is one which has the least length (this happens to be a straight line). These are facts of reality, specifically of the distance which would be travelled as a consequence of traversing certain curves. Suppose I wish to walk between two locations on a flat surface say, while travelling the least distance. I call this goal the goal of walking least. Since no one is perfect I also call a secondary goal "walking efficiently" and define it as walking at most 120% the least possible distance. It is a fact of reality that in traversing between any two points either I have sucessfully acheived walking efficiently as I have defined it or I have failed. In this sense whether I have "walked efficienty" is a fact of reality, verifiable by observation and validation, one need only determine the length of the straightline and whether or not the total difference I travelled is less than 120% of it or not. There is no "walking efficiently" reality. No table of curve definitions and length values somewhere in reality along with a little label saying "efficient for walking" or "not efficient for walking". It is not written in the stars spacetime or the possible curves themselves. In fact "walking efficiently" is not an inherent state, property, attribute, or quality of anything in the universe whatever. The facts of reality are: 1 that I have chosen a goal and a classification for "walking efficiently" 2 that for any single path I have, or propose to traverse, it is or would in reality fall within the classification of "walking efficiently" depending upon the nature of the path, specifically the distance traversed (or would be traversed) along it going from between the two points being equal to or less than 120% of the distance of a straight line between the points. Fact 2 is independently observable and verifiable by any rational observer. Does "walking efficiently" as defined here have the same status as any moral action? I.e. are all "right" and "wrong" moral facts, facts of reality in the same way "walking efficiently" or "not walking efficiently" is a fact of reality? Edited February 3, 2014 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 DA: Thinking... or have you "lost interest"? BTW, there is a typo,where I say: "one need only determine the length of the straightline and whether or not the total difference I travelled is less than 120% of it or not." I mean "one need only determine the length of the straightline and whether or not the total distance difference I travelled is less than 120% of it or not" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) DA: Thinking... or have you "lost interest"? BTW, there is a typo,where I say: "one need only determine the length of the straightline and whether or not the total difference I travelled is less than 120% of it or not." I mean "one need only determine the length of the straightline and whether or not the total distance difference I travelled is less than 120% of it or not" No, still very interested in this topic... ... Does "walking efficiently" as defined here have the same status as any moral action? I.e. are all "right" and "wrong" moral facts, facts of reality in the same way "walking efficiently" or "not walking efficiently" is a fact of reality? No, not all facts of reality are moral facts of reality. Isn't this just another way of saying that morality is a specific form of correctness? We could also say right actions are, morally good, justified, or acceptable, and true or correct as a fact, i.e., the definition of right doesn't depend on an ethical context any more than 1+1=2 being a morally good equation, or a proof of justice. Edited February 4, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm not clear on your answer. Not all facts of reality are "moral facts of reality"... of course. Not all facts of reality are "walking efficiently" facts of reality, not all facts of reality are "eating most nutritiously" facts of reality... this is obvious. My question is Are moral facts of reality facts of reality in the same way "walking efficiently" is a fact of reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm beginning to hear ticking noises in my head... ... Are moral facts of reality facts of reality in the same way "walking efficiently" is a fact of reality? Fact #1 (post #168) is based on individual choice, Fact #2 (post #168) is objectively observable. You have stated, "There is no 'walking efficiently' reality" (Fact #1), so unless your point is that an individual choice based on non-reality cannot be verified by independent observation of reality, I'm at a loss as to what you're driving at... Perhaps it's just over my head, but the observation of moral reality, i.e., a specific form of correctness, isn't the same as the questionable reality of "walking efficiently". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylab72 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 By referring to "social context" are you proposing humans and animals "should" form a "society" together and, in that context, recognize the rights arising in that context? Actually I would assert that "social context" does not refer to a "proposal" but rather to a long history of human-animal interaction SL has referred to as "domestication". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) I understand you are stating that moral facts of reality are not facts of reality in the same way "walking efficiently" is a fact of reality. This is the CRUX of it all... we are so close... What is the difference? Edited February 4, 2014 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 ... What is the difference? The only difference I can see at this point would be the objective validation of a subjective POV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Actually I would assert that "social context" does not refer to a "proposal" but rather to a long history of human-animal interaction SL has referred to as "domestication". Yes, I have raised the issue of domestication as being an example of trader principle between man and beast, e.g., goods for services, earned and exchanged by individual labor. The trader principle cannot be applied between master and slave for obvious reasons, but this only underscores a selfish advantage on the part of human traders to base their working animal partnerships on some model other than the slave trade. Yes, you can beat an animal (or a human) into submission on the premise that the life of a beast is undeserving of ethical consideration; indeed this is what men commonly do with their "property". And consistent action on this premise promotes the infliction of pain and suffering for want of compassion; compassion being presumed wasted on a animal that will bite the hand that feeds it. But where is the ethical right to intentionally inflict pain and suffering on any living creature? To assert that a animal has no ethical right to life as a property inalienable to it, and only ought to be treated kindly when it suits a man to do so, is a vaguery of ethics that only undermines a man's right to life, which in practice then makes a virtue of cruelty. Skylab72 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 The only difference I can see at this point would be the objective validation of a subjective POV. So you argue that "walking efficiently" is capable of "objective validation" only from a "subjective POV ", by that I assume you imply "morally right action" also is capable of "objective validation" but from some other kind of view or perspective? 1. What in my definition of "walking efficiently" is subjective? 2 What in my definition of "walking efficiently" has something to do with a point of view? From your answers I see you do not consider "right" and "wrong" the same way as they are defined by Objectivism. It is no surprise, and I accept it. So which philosophical sandbox are we to play in when arguing/persuading/reasoning whether or not animal rights exist, the Objectivist one or some other one of your choice? If you choose your sandbox I will play and promise to diligently obey the rules (premises) of your sandbox, if you agree to play in the Objectivist sandbox I would expect the same from you. You, however, get to be the one to choose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) So you argue that "walking efficiently" is capable of "objective validation" only from a "subjective POV ", by that I assume you imply "morally right action" also is capable of "objective validation" but from some other kind of view or perspective? 1. What in my definition of "walking efficiently" is subjective? 2 What in my definition of "walking efficiently" has something to do with a point of view? ... 1) The adherent's POV. Who chose the variables, and who accepts them? 2) Choice. Which route did you choose to take; was that a choice at all?? I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that "objective validation" is validated "from some other kind of view or perspective than a subjective one," but feel free to elaborate on that ... ... From your answers I see you do not consider "right" and "wrong" the same way as they are defined by Objectivism. It is no surprise, and I accept it. ... Please elaborate and correct me where I fail to be objective. ... So which philosophical sandbox are we to play in when arguing/persuading/reasoning whether or not animal rights exist, the Objectivist one or some other one of your choice? If you choose your sandbox I will play and promise to diligently obey the rules (premises) of your sandbox, if you agree to play in the Objectivist sandbox I would expect the same from you. You, however, get to be the one to choose! Oh, I so want to play in a sandbox that is objective! Let me posit a few facts of reality for your consideration, and please feel free to dispute any particular one... 1) Life is the unalienable possession of any living being; in this context, possession is 100% of the law and death is the consequence of breaking it. 2) What is objectively observable to any living being is a valid means of knowledge; show me the proof, and if I fail to recognize it, let me suffer the consequences. Only a tyrant demands that you live by his rules because he knows better. 3) The ethical standard of selfishness is exhibited by every living being; that one choses to exist is validated by hanging around. If it can be proven that a living being doesn't register harm and try to avoid it, do so. If the standard is altruistic, say so. The repeated argument that an inherently animal brain can be essentially divided by hemisphere, such that a left brain (rational) is ethically entitled to a right to life, while a right brain (subjective) is at the mercy of more rational animals, is neither consistent nor persuasive in the context of the reality of life. Life is either the property of every living being, or it is the property of no living being. 4) The rational standard of selfishness is limited to moral beings; there's no such thing as absolute life, and little evidence that being rational prolongs it. One chooses to live and does so, or one abstains and remains subject to the same natural law... mortality. This isn't presented as an effort to prolong a discussion where minds have been set; as I am fond of saying, one makes a pet of their own dogma. Either the 4 preceding points are rationally true or they aren't. I have nothing else to add at this time... Edit: but I do appreciate the feedback I've recieved, and the OP for presenting the oppertunity to discuss something of real interest to me Edited February 5, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) 1) The adherent's POV. Who chose the variables, and who accepts them? 2) Choice. Which route did you choose to take; was that a choice at all?? I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that "objective validation" is validated "from some other kind of view or perspective than a subjective one," but feel free to elaborate on that ... Please elaborate and correct me where I fail to be objective. I am not ignoring your further remarks, I want to delay addressing them, which we can do later, until after we "really" decide which sandbox you want to play in. You stated: "The only difference I can see at this point would be the objective validation of a subjective POV." I may have misinterpreted. In any case I do not understand what you are getting at as to what actually IS, in your opinion, the difference between moral facts of reality and "walking efficiently" facts of reality. Walking Efficiently 1. We choose/define the goal or standard of walking efficiently in a certain way which is related to and based on reality 2. There are facts of reality which dictate whether or not any action we take falls within the definition and hence which actually fulfills the goal or standard of walking efficiently. There is nothing subjective about whether or not a chosen path is or is not proper for walking efficiently. This is purely Objective (not subjective and not intrinsic) Please describe how you see moral action as different. One hint for thinking like an Objectivist is to first strip the universe from all intrinsic mystical, non natural attributes and properties etc. additionally you can about the universe before any life emerged. Imagine no god or gods, no fate, no spirits, no karma, no perfect forms, no platonic reality, no intrinsic right and wrong, no Justice, no Truth, only entities, only stuff. From this base (and be sure you have exorcised any and every non material thing) imagine no change in the universe, except a complex natural system which is a human appeared suddenly... Edited February 5, 2014 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.