Animal rights

[Devil's Advocate]

Rather than "difference" I would say it was a "discovery" that Objectivism would bring to the anti-verse.  Rational recognition of consequences, ALL of them insofar as a non-omniscient fallible entity can consider. 

 

Please think about these Objectivists of the anti-verse.... imagine they are perfectly logical to a fault, but understand they themselves are fallible and not omniscient.

 

I put to you your answer about the Cow is correct for all Objectivists in the anti-verse, and as morality is concerned and rights which are derived from morality are concerned, correct for all Objectivists in this universe.

 

If we can agree that in the anti-verse "rights" have limits and are not applicable to Cows, we could start to talk about the difference between moral requirements, limits, "rights" and areas of action where there are only amoral considerations (not moral requirements, not near any limits) which are essentially at the option of the actor.  Here is where you get chosen behaviors of an individual in regards to a particular animal which can reflect real value in that particular animal like a loved pet but is not a moral requirement nor applicable to all animals in general.

 

I'm not prepared at this point to abandon cow rights without first examining whether cow liberties is a more viable option...

[JASKN]

Hear-hear! ... but is this freedom, of which you speak, unique to human life?

Yup.

[Devil's Advocate]

Yup.

 

So the result of removing a human's freedom is different than that of removing a animal's freedom, chew for chew?

[Regi F.]

JASKN

 

I do not disgree at all that freedom is necessary to human life, as necessary as food and water.

 

"As it's said, 'the price of freedom is constant vigilance.'" Well the price of freedom is usually much more than that and those who said it meant some supposed freedom provided by a government or social system. If that were what  you meant my freedom, (I don't believe it is), it wouldn't be worth having.

 

As necessary to human life as food, water, knowledge, and freedom are, how does anyone have a right to any of them if they do not secure them for themselves by their own effort? What does it mean to have a "right" to it. How is saying one has a right to freedom different from saying one has a right to water, or food, or knowledge?

 

I can see how someone who understands the nature and value of freedom would feel the very appropriate emotional response, "it's my life and my freedom, dammit, and no one is taking it away from me," which is exactly how I feel, but that feeling does no justify believing it is mine by some right (unless by right one only means it is right to be free). If I want to have knowledge, I have to acquire it by my own effort. If I want to be free, I have to secure my own freedom. No matter how much I stamp my foot and insist freedom is mine by right, I won't have it till I pay the praice to secure it.

 

The only way I could agree that freedom is, "a right," is to say it is "a morally right thing for an individual to seek, achieve, and exercise and morally necessary as well." It is certainly not a right in the sense that it is "deserved" in some way, just because someone is born.

[Regi F.]

To the first question, probably not...  but the question of morality certainly would.  Having the freedom to do anything one chooses doesn't imply one should do anything without regard to consequence to oneself.  Acting without reservation on every whim would be reckless to say the least, and more likely suggests a kind of insanity.

 

To the second part, I would only amend that social rights only have meaning in a social context.  Even the freedom of solitary individual remains limited by reality.  Freedom is best defined as being at liberty to do what is possible, given the circumstances, e.g., free-will.  I'm interested in the concept of liberties vs claims brought up earlier (post #249), where the kind of definition you suggest as rights without obligations might be found.

 

"To the second part, I would only amend that social rights only have meaning in a social context," said. Since you agreed that outside of a society the question of rights does not even come up, what other kinds of rights then social rights would there be?

 

The idea, by the way, that there are different kinds of rights is fascinating. So far, no one has been able to tell me exactly what any kind of rights are supposed to be. I had not idea there were different kinds.

[JASKN]

chew for chew?

There's been plenty of chewing in this thread already.

[Devil's Advocate]

...

 

The idea, by the way, that there are different kinds of rights is fascinating. So far, no one has been able to tell me exactly what any kind of rights are supposed to be. I had not idea there were different kinds.

 

I'm guilty of raising that issue in this thread by challenging the definition of the word right, which includes a moral context (see post #90), and the presumed necessity of delimiting such a right to a social context.  One would think a right to life would have a very clear definition in this forum, or at least as clear as the one given in the D.O.I. as secured by the Constitution, but it seems to be wedged somewhere below the bottom turtle of this philosophy...

[Devil's Advocate]

There's been plenty of chewing in this thread already.

 

Chewing is good for digestion...

[JASKN]

Chewing is good for digestion...

No point in 70 chews per bite when 5 or 6 does the trick.

[StrictlyLogical]

Regi F.

 

I am not going to define rights.  That would open a very large discussion of abstractions upon abstractions requiring drilling down to concretes and facts of reality with many pitfalls and risks that could set loose rationalism in a mad rampage...

 

so I will try to illustrate the basis in reality of rights by a scenario:

 

 

Imagine there is an Objectivist, Jim, who has finally decided not to live in isolation, he resolves to form social relationships and as a first step drafts a kind of "agreement in principle" type document which stipulates his requirements and limits for others if they are to have social arrangements with him, one on one.

 

Of course this document is informed by Jim's ethics and morality, his choice to live etc.  Clearly Jim will insist, if he is to have a relationship with any other individual, that the other individual is not to interfere with Jim in such a way that directly acts against his life, or interferes with Jim's ability to lead a life in accordance with his morality.  Of course Jim wants to trade but he does need nor want to make anyone promise to trade with him... he will let opportunities come and go as they do and he anticipates much good will come of everyday commerce.

 

This is a good start.  Jim then realizes that if he approaches you (say another Objectivist), and he selfishly does want to have a relationship with you, that you too have certain requirements and limits for forming the relationship.  Not unlike what Jim just spent hours to draft in his own agreement in principle.  Jim not only has to realize you come with these and that you can and will refuse to enter into an agreement with him if these are not up to your standards, he also realizes that the entire purpose of the arrangement to him, i.e. your being able to benefit Jim, depends upon your ability to be of most benefit to yourself, specifically, to flourish as a rational, productive, thinking entity.  As such your nature informs what limits there should be in the relationship to ensure you can be of greatest benefit to Jim, even if you do not know them and even if you do not demand them.

 

In either case and for both reasons, Jim includes in the "agreement in principle" those requirements and limits.  Insofar as and to the extend that Jim is rational, understands his nature and reality, and chooses life, and insofar as you also understands your nature and reality and choose life, the requirements and limits are agreeable to both yourself and Jim and maximize your benefits to yourselves, and thereby each other, without imposing undue restrictions on your living as independent individuals who voluntarily trade with each other.

 

This process, which is Objective, taking into account facts of reality but nothing mystical or "intrinsically prescriptive", is a concretization of what rights are at their root.  Someone comes to you with requirements of their nature and of their choices which to benefit from them in your society are to be recognized (to the extent the choices are rational, etc.).  The next step is to socialize the agreements in principle to a society of like minded people by for example a sort of constitution.

[Devil's Advocate]

If all rights are man made, then it seems appropriate to delimit the application of all rights to man, and I have no problem with this.  However when ones right is founded on life as a value, life being objectively shared by all animals, then I expect the application of this right to include all animals or to provide some definition of life that excludes all animals but man.  The problem here is that no definition of life establishes such a dichotomy between man and beast; not in the Lexicon, and not in Merriam-Webster.  So either the value is misplaced, or every life is a value.

 

Reality has no duty to provide meals for predators, or security for prey.  One can readily observe the actions of both as being necessary to preserve their own lives; the former only requiring the freedom to eat, and the latter only requiring the freedom to escape being eaten.  Remove this freedom from both, and both die.  Therefore the actions of both are correct to being what each is; an end in themselves.

 

So how on earth does man rationalize a duty on animals to provide that which he exempts himself from having a duty to provide?  Clearly no right to anothers life is supported or required by reality, and only represents an insincere effort by otherwise "rational" minds to create a moral excuse for immoral behavior;  it don't cut any ice on the veldt.

 

In this thread, trying to prove a negative would be less embarrasing than presuming a unilateral right without proof, or relying on what amounts to a rationalization of Genesis 1:26.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[softwareNerd]

... when ones right is founded on life as a value,...

What does this mean? I suppose you agree that Objectivism does not say that rights come from the mere fact of being alive. So, what do you mean when you say rights are "founded on" life as a value?

 

Yes, being alive is a pre-condition for having rights; but that's trivial (even being a good commie is founded on being alive), so i assume you do not mean life is a  "pre-condition".

In addition if all one wanted to do were to die, one would need that one narrow right, but none of the rich variety of actions that we subsume under the concept of rights. So, we clearly need rights in order to pursue our life, but does the mere fact that we need rights mean we have rights?

 

In what sense, then, are rights "founded" on the "value of life"?

Edited February 14, 2014 by softwareNerd

[Harrison Danneskjold]

DA:  'To allow the individual as much freedom as possible, without harming anyone else', critically needs clarification.

How does one measure freedom; what is its standard?  What qualifies as harm?  Who should allow this and why?

 

Have you seen the Croods?  Because the theme of that movie is the precise concept you're missing.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Regi:  The only time "other people's rights" can contradict "my desires" is when I form immoral desires.

[Devil's Advocate]

What does this mean? I suppose you agree that Objectivism does not say that rights come from the mere fact of being alive. So, what do you mean when you say rights are "founded on" life as a value?

...

 

I agree that life is valuable to mortal beings, until they choose otherwise.  So yeah, the mere fact of being alive doesn't imply a duty on others to preserve ones life.

 

...

Yes, being alive is a pre-condition for having rights; but that's trivial (even being a good commie is founded on being alive), so i assume you do not mean life is a  "pre-condition".

In addition if all one wanted to do were to die, one would need that one narrow right, but none of the rich variety of actions that we subsume under the concept of rights. So, we clearly need rights in order to pursue our life, but does the mere fact that we need rights mean we have rights?

...

 

Life is only a "pre-condition" to the degree that a corpse has little to say about a right to life; it's that "one narrow right" I'm interested in exposing.  Specifically, to what is that particular "right" attached?  I propose that is is nothing more than recognition of being self-governing, and everything that follows are essentially agreements of non-interference.

 

...

In what sense, then, are rights "founded" on the "value of life"?

 

Rights are founded on the value of choice, which only a living being is capable of making.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

A "right" is a concept of method which refers to social interaction.

Everyone has their own unique experiences, which provide a truly unique conceptual context in which to form opinions, theories and desires; even two people with identical moralities would have unique personalities for this reason.

 

An explicit concept of morality serves to allow you to guide your own personal development; it shows you a clearly coherent direction in which to form opinions and desires.

 

In a social context, a shared morality also allows people to share valuative-values (which desires are desirable) which is the only way people with different particular values and ideas can meaningfully cooperate.

 

"Individual rights" are the consistent application of the value of reason to a social context with mixed morality.  In a fully Objectivist society, the concept of "rights" would be superfluous because nobody would desire the unearned in the first place; it would be shameful.

 

A "right" in short is a choice which should be made, with the particular individual specified and the evaluation of such choice omitted; it is every human being's morally-prescribed freedom to be stupid (which ends when their stupidity interferes with the choices of others).

 

"Animal rights" cannot even be classified as wrong; it's a contradiction in terms.  It's attributing a moral status to something which lacks volition.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Any animal which can be treated as having "rights" must also be able to grasp that concept, itself, and apply it to the rights of others.

Find me that animal and I'll treat it accordingly.

 

And make no mistake:  individual rights are a moral concept which must be grasped and evaluated by each individual, within the context of their own well-being.

Once that has been grasped, the application of individual rights is the basis of politics.

 

Or, within the mind of an altruist, if safety takes priority over happiness then the concept of politics is formed, not on the basis of the value of reason, but on the disvalue of risk; the consistent application of which is usually referred to as "rights" but is properly something else entirely.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold

[softwareNerd]

Rights are founded on the value of choice, which only a living being is capable of making.

This does not clarify things, at least for me. I don't understand the term "founded", because it is a bit abstract. Do you mean choice is a "pre-condition" for rights, perhaps a "necessary precondition"; or, do you mean that because we have choice, it follows that we have rights.

I see the argument for "pre-condition" (more so if you go back to using "life" rather than "choice".) We cannot have rights without life, and perhaps not without choice (less clear); but, I don't see how you can go from life to "therefore rights", without adding some more premises.

[Devil's Advocate]

This does not clarify things, at least for me. I don't understand the term "founded", because it is a bit abstract. Do you mean choice is a "pre-condition" for rights, perhaps a "necessary precondition"; or, do you mean that because we have choice, it follows that we have rights.

I see the argument for "pre-condition" (more so if you go back to using "life" rather than "choice".) We cannot have rights without life, and perhaps not without choice (less clear); but, I don't see how you can go from life to "therefore rights", without adding some more premises.

 

 

We cannot have rights without choice, and choice without life, so I guess the train runs something like: life > choice > rights (optional)

 

I'm pressed for time right now, so I'll have to come back to this in a couple of days...  headed to the desert for a date shake

[StrictlyLogical]

If all rights are man made, then it seems appropriate to delimit the application of all rights to man, and I have no problem with this.  However when ones right is founded on life as a value, life being objectively shared by all animals, then I expect the application of this right to include all animals or to provide some definition of life that excludes all animals but man.  The problem here is that no definition of life establishes such a dichotomy between man and beast; not in the Lexicon, and not in Merriam-Webster.  So either the value is misplaced, or every life is a value.

 

Reality has no duty to provide meals for predators, or security for prey.  One can readily observe the actions of both as being necessary to preserve their own lives; the former only requiring the freedom to eat, and the latter only requiring the freedom to escape being eaten.  Remove this freedom from both, and both die.  Therefore the actions of both are correct to being what each is; an end in themselves.

 

So how on earth does man rationalize a duty on animals to provide that which he exempts himself from having a duty to provide?  Clearly no right to anothers life is supported or required by reality, and only represents an insincere effort by otherwise "rational" minds to create a moral excuse for immoral behavior;  it don't cut any ice on the veldt.

 

In this thread, trying to prove a negative would be less embarrasing than presuming a unilateral right without proof, or relying on what amounts to a rationalization of Genesis 1:26.

 

DA:

 

What do mean by "man made" in this context?  Please explain what a "right" could possible BE, if not man-made!  I don't want to know what they "should be based" on, you apparently claim to know what they are to be based on.  But you never clarify WHAT are they, those things which you say are "based" on or "founded" on life as a value.  If WE are not the ones "making" them and basing them upon something WHAT or WHO is?

 

Also please do not be misled, no Objectivist EVER said that to an entity A who is alive, the life of entity B always has value independent of the nature of or relationship to or a million other things regarding entity B.  When referred to in Objectivism, "life" means an entity's life, and the entity's property of being alive.  The word "Life" when referring to every other living being, is not according to Objectivism an automatic value to A, and in fact is not something of any particular importance in the ethics of Objectivism. 

 

Your assessment of a dichotomy is misplaced.  Objectivist ethics has at its roots the LIFE OF THE ENTITY not "Life" in general.  Recall Objectivism repudiates any claim of altruism, and embraces the idea that an individual lives for himself and that the sole beneficiary of his morality, i.e. the ultimate and legitimate beneficiary IS the self.  This is pretty basic stuff if you want to play in the Objectivist sandbox.

 

No Objectivist has EVER stated there is any duty on any animal.  We don't contract with Cows, or try to GUILT them into staying around for slaughter using Genesis 1:26 and nice big cathedrals and pipe organs.  (We happen to use fences and they seem to do the job)  Duties are simply inapplicable to animals, they cannot conceive of them nor follow them.  Duties also do not apply to carrots or rocks.  Your accusation that Objectivists "rationalize" duties is completely unfounded.  Also, unchosen duties, i.e. ones not voluntarily chosen and accepted are not valid according to Objectivism.  we hold such a concept as rationalism or mysticism ala Kant or Religion.

 

"Morality" "Immoral behavior": your reference to morality is a perversion of the concept adopted by Objectivism.  Either you accept what morality means in the context of Objectivism, or decide to play outside the sandbox.  Don't refer to morality when you know your use of it imposes upon the concept a meaning exactly the opposite to what Objectivism holds is morality.  

 

"Unilateral right without proof" clearly belies your belief in an intrinsic or mystical property of the universe.  Quite clearly you are repudiating the entire basis of Objectivist ethics.

 

Morality which is selfish and based on the life of the entity who has chosen to live and recognizes that he must act in accordance with metaphysical reality as he finds it, simply is NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU. 

 

That is OK.  But you really should admit you REJECT Objectivism at its root.

Edited February 15, 2014 by StrictlyLogical

[Harrison Danneskjold]

When you apply the "value of life" to insects and reptiles and intestinal parasites, you really should check your definitions.  "Life" can be used towards several distinct referents.

If you've accepted that life is the ultimate value, and life refers to continued metabolism, then how can we justify the massacres which our own immune systems execute every single minute?  Aren't bacteria alive?

 

If you see the problem with such logic then take it to its conclusion.  Find the proper referent of "life" in a moral context.

[StrictlyLogical]

DA:

 

Curious to know what you think at this juncture.

 

 

 

Regi F.:

 

You had asked me a question... any comments on my answer?

Edited February 17, 2014 by StrictlyLogical

[Regi F.]

You had asked me a question... any comments on my answer?

Very sorry StrictlyLogical. I've been busy (not an excuse, just and explanation).

Thank you taking the time to illustrate your point. I see nothing wrong with individuals making formal agreements about their relationships. In my view, every individual is free to interact with any other individual or individuals by their mutual agreement. That is certainly true without invoking any notion of rights. It is simply based on the essential principle that reason is the only way individual's may morally deal with one another, which necessarily means, no one may morally interfere in anyone else's life in any way without their agreement or permission. Beyond that, individuals may form any relationships they choose for any purpose they choose.

Just a note about formal written agreements. I do not have the almost mystic view others have about contracts. No contract, no piece of paper, has ever made anyone do anything. The only real virtue of contracts is to document the details of complex agreements so everyone involved will be able to refer to them if some details of the agreement are forgotten. Between honest individuals that is all a contract would be for. Among dishonest individuals, no contract will force anyone to abide by the agreement, which is why contracts are in constant litigation.

A constitution is not a contract, and of course is designed entirely to regulate those who do not agree with its provisions. You don't need a law against murder for people who have no intention of murdering anyone, and never would. Of course a law against murder does not work for those who do intend to commit murder and do.

The worst thing about the notion of a constitution is that it is binding (supposedly) on those who never signed it, or ever had an opportunity to. No one born and living in the United States today every agreed to the terms of the U. S. Constitution.

Just my thoughts.

[Devil's Advocate]

@ softwareNerd, JASKN, StrictlyLogical, dream_weaver, Harrison Danneskjold, et al,

 

At this point I'm very interested in verifying the credibilty of a liberty right as the inverse of a claim right.  As I understand it, a liberty right to X means the freedom to have or do X, and a claim right to X means an obligation on others to provide X.  Therefore one is essentially at liberty to X to the degree that another doesn't have a unilateral claim to X.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_rights_and_liberty_rights

 

So step 1 involves recognition that what is commonly refered to as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) is essentially a liberty right.  Now consider the following from the POV of an Objectivist:

 

"Libertarianism holds that agents are, at least initially, full self-owners. Agents are (moral) full self-owners just in case they morally own themselves in just the same way that they can morally fully own inanimate objects."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/#1

 

This view is consistent with Locke's assessment of a right to self-preservation and endorsed by the signatories of the Declaration of Independence.  So step 2 involves recognition that this view is also compatible with Objectivism.  Now here's the stretch...

If liberty rights are valid and inherent to human animals, are they not in fact valid for all animals?

Edited February 18, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[tadmjones]

DA

Isn't the logical end game of that reasoning basically janism? When to stop the designation until one only discriminates between animate and inanimate ?