Eating Meat and Animal Rights

[donnywithana]

Ok first of all, I'm not a vegetarian.

Here's my thought process. If Objectivism holds life as the fundamental value, and believes that coercion is bad, then why would it be ok to raise an animal in captivity and then kill it? Is it because they don't have volition? That they aren't conscious? Then would it be ethical to kill and eat a brain damaged human? The same goes for any animal domestication. To force an animal to live the way a person would want is a clear violation of its rights.

Is this a logical interpretation of the ideology?

[RationalBiker]

If Objectivism holds life as the fundamental value, and believes that coercion is bad, then why would it be ok to raise an animal in captivity and then kill it?

The standard of value isn't just ANY life, it's man's life, and specific to that man.

[DavidOdden]

If Objectivism holds life as the fundamental value, and believes that coercion is bad, then why would it be ok to raise an animal in captivity and then kill it?

The concept of "coersion" is not applicable to plants, animals, or dirt, since they aren't volitional.

Then would it be ethical to kill and eat a brain damaged human?

You mean someone like Hillary Clinton? Brain damage doesn't automatically negate volition.

I think you're asking the wrong questions, but asking the wrong questions is okay if it leads you to asking the right questions. The right questions would be things like "Why should you do X?" or "Why should you not do X?"; "What gives rise to rights?" and "Who/what has rights (to do what)?". Man has rights, and man is also bipedal with 10 fingers. Some people have lost a leg or finger, or even have an extra finger, so they are "broken units" (subscribe) but they are still men. An ancephalic infant is still an instance of "man", even though it lacks a rational faculty. Now the crucial point, I think, is that rights are principles that relate morality of the individual to a society's laws. In a society of cannibals, it would be ethical to eat brainless babies and even stupid people (I'm not saying that this is a rational and proper society, but rather I'm emphasizing that cannibalism isn't "absolutely unethical"). In a society that places the individual over society and sees society as a way for individuals to voluntarily live together in harmony, then killing and eating the young (or the old, or the dumb) would be unethical.

The central question, which I think answers your other questions, is whether the legal code regarding killing should be stated in terms of "man" and recognise that some men are broken units; or should the code be stated in terms of "a being with a rational faculty" or something similar. It should be the former, because the identification "man" is rather simple, compared to "being with a rational faculty". The addition of "and eat" confuses the issue -- should there be a different answer to the question if you're asking "kill and eat" versus just "kill"? A cleaner question would be "When is it ethical to kill another human?".

[dondigitalia]

You mean someone like Hillary Clinton?

As far as I know, eating rats is perfectly ok, although the thought does put a bad taste in my mouth.

[BurgessLau]

Is this a logical interpretation of the ideology?

Objectivism is a philosophy, not an ideology. A philosophy is a set of abstractions about the most fundamental issues that everyone faces, explicitly or implicitly: What exists? (Metaphysics) How do I know anything? (Epistemology) What should I do about it? (Ethics) How should we relate to each other in society? (Politics) And how can one retain one's most basic principles, that is, one's basic view of the world, in a single grasp? (Esthetics)

An ideology is an application of a philosophy to a particular milieu, that is, to a particular time and place in history. I would suggest that the closest Ayn Rand came to producing a single volume presenting an ideology was For the New Intellectual. She called it a "manifesto."

For anyone new to Objectivism, I suggest reading the "Objectivism," "Philosophy," and "Ideology" articles in The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

[donnywithana]

Ok, well after another delightful session of "what does that word mean?" we're at the same place, except with a tightly defined question. But then, what would I expect from you folks?

Ok, so here's the question. What is it about man that makes him deserving of rights? Is it merely the species he belongs to? That is to say, if there is some being that was not a Homo Sapien, does it not have rights? If we were to need to abridge this law to incorporate another species, what basis would we evaluate the need for this amendment?

One possible factor could be volition. Thus the new summary would be that any volitional being possesses rights. Does this mean that any being without volition does not have rights? Would an individual with brain damage, or a child not yet capable of volitional thought (I am told that this does not develop before birth?) not possess rights? My guess would be that Objectivists would hold these individuals to possess rights themselves.

Thus we can ammend the statement to say that any being belonging to a species capable of volition has rights. I guess that answers my question. Any objections?

[dondigitalia]

One possible factor could be volition.

We have a winner!

Would an individual with brain damage, or a child not yet capable of volitional thought (I am told that this does not develop before birth?) not possess rights? My guess would be that Objectivists would hold these individuals to possess rights themselves.

As far as babies are concerned, they do possess a conceptual faculty (which is the source of volition), but it is undeveloped at birth. So, yes, children have rights.

In the case of a brain damaged-human, you have a broken unit. (Read about Don Watkins' theory of broken units here.) So, yes, brain-damaged humans have rights as well.

In both cases, the rights-bearing parties are incapable of acting to exercise/protect their own rights, which is why they have guardians to do it for them.

[donnywithana]

Gotcha.

[Inspector]

Would volition be enough? I thought it was the faculty of REASON that gave man rights...?

[gags]

I'm asking myself the same question Inspector.

Doesn't man have rights because of his unique combination of both volition and reason? Some more advanced species of animals appear to be capable of very elementary reasoning (I'm thinking of the recent stories about an ape that uses crude tools), but we don't grant rights to apes. Also, I would think that some more advanced animals would be crudely volitional in that they can make choices. They choose one type of food over another, as an example.

Man is the only being with a volitional consciousness. Man can choose to use reason or not. I'm not aware of any animals capable of making such a choice.

[dondigitalia]

It is the faculty of conceptual consciousness, which is inseperable from the faculty of volition.

My understanding is as follows: Rights stem from the fact that man's means of survival (reason, i.e. conceptual conciousness) must be exercised volitionally, therefore he must be left free to use it.

To have a faculty of reason is to have a volitional consciousness, to talk of volition apart from reason or reason apart from volition is meaningless, since they are two aspects of the same thing.

Fundamentally, the source of rights is the conceptual faculty. But, without volition, which is a consequence of the conceptual faculty, the concept of rights does not logically follow.

Doesn't man have rights because of his unique combination of both volition and reason? Some more advanced species of animals appear to be capable of very elementary reasoning (I'm thinking of the recent stories about an ape that uses crude tools), but we don't grant rights to apes. Also, I would think that some more advanced animals would be crudely volitional in that they can make choices. They choose one type of food over another, as an example.

Man is the only being with a volitional consciousness. Man can choose to use reason or not. I'm not aware of any animals capable of making such a choice.

Reason is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. It operates by means of concepts. Unless apes can use concepts, they cannot use reason. If apes have a conceptual faculty, then it follows that they have rights. I have never seen evidence of conceptualization in any animal other than man. Using crude tools does not necessarily imply conceptual thinking--constructing those tools out of other materials would.

Also, the ability to "choose" among alternatives is not what volition is. Volition is the ability to make a specific choice--the choice to focus, i.e. to regulate the conceptual level of consciousness, i.e. the choice to think or not to think.

[Inspector]

Thanks, Dave, that's what I thought.

As a corollary, it is reason which allows a being to respect the rights of others. Without this ability, there can be no rights.

[dondigitalia]

Thanks, Dave, that's what I thought.

As a corollary, it is reason which allows a being to respect the rights of others. Without this ability, there can be no rights.

Well... I sort of agree and sort of don't. Rights would still exist regardless of whether or not anyone respected them, although reason is what allows us to exercise those rights in practice.

[Inspector]

Well... I sort of agree and sort of don't. Rights would still exist regardless of whether or not anyone respected them, although reason is what allows us to exercise those rights in practice.

Hmm, I think you misunderstand. What I am saying is that a being must be capable of respecting the rights of others in order to, itself, posess rights. (It is reason which allows a being to respect the rights of others)

Do you agree with that?

[dondigitalia]

Hmm, I think you misunderstand. What I am saying is that a being must be capable of respecting the rights of others in order to, itself, posess rights. (It is reason which allows a being to respect the rights of others)

Do you agree with that?

Yes.

[gags]

It is the faculty of conceptual consciousness, which is inseperable from the faculty of volition.

My understanding is as follows: Rights stem from the fact that man's means of survival (reason, i.e. conceptual conciousness) must be exercised volitionally, therefore he must be left free to use it.

To have a faculty of reason is to have a volitional consciousness, to talk of volition apart from reason or reason apart from volition is meaningless, since they are two aspects of the same thing.

Fundamentally, the source of rights is the conceptual faculty. But, without volition, which is a consequence of the conceptual faculty, the concept of rights does not logically follow.

Reason is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. It operates by means of concepts. Unless apes can use concepts, they cannot use reason. If apes have a conceptual faculty, then it follows that they have rights. I have never seen evidence of conceptualization in any animal other than man. Using crude tools does not necessarily imply conceptual thinking--constructing those tools out of other materials would.

Also, the ability to "choose" among alternatives is not what volition is. Volition is the ability to make a specific choice--the choice to focus, i.e. to regulate the conceptual level of consciousness, i.e. the choice to think or not to think.

That's a good explanation Dave. Clears up my thinking on the issue.

[donnywithana]

Rock on.

[Reena]

I always heard that mentally brain damaged humans had rights because they were members of the "moral community". But animals are not.

(Mod's note: Removed Amazon link.)

Edited October 31, 2005 by softwareNerd

[RationalBiker]

I always heard that mentally brain damaged humans had rights because they were members of the moral community. But animals are not.

Hello, and welcome to the forum.

Now that you have heard that mentally brain damaged humans had rights because they were members of the moral community, what does it mean? After you heard it, did you think through what you heard, and come to a conclusion? What was you conclusion, and the reasoning behind it?

[Edit - added italicized section above for clarification - RC]

Edited October 31, 2005 by RationalCop

[Jon P]

Volition applies to man, right on. But is it so hard to believe that animals actually do have the ability to make conscious decisions to some degree, if not to the fullest degree? Absurd you say? Probably, but let's look at this objectively. Birds for example. They seem to fly in formation, get food on their own, build some pretty amazing nests, but yet they don't live long enough and have schools to teach them how to do these seemingly intelligent things, there must be something called instincts , inherited abilities to do seemingly intelligent acts.

It would take some basketing lessons in art school for us to make something resembling a nest. Flying in formation would take years at air force academy, and other than going to the market, most of us wouldn't know what natural food to eat without poisoning ourselves within the first couple days.

When we encounter birds, we look at them and we figure out what they're thinking with our power of observation. We look at them as they turn their heads side to side, let out chirps, shake their body and fly away. What kind of stupid thing is that? we think. No thinking there.

But is it possible that birds do communicate among themselves with high pitch intricate chirps? They seem to not have the lung capacity to form words, which doesn't necessarily mean they’re mindless biological programs does it? Maybe it does, but maybe the elder birds actually Do teach them after all, and they learn so fast because nature has giving them super speed learning skills in order to live.

Spiders can make isometric webs, that’s some pretty impressive stuff. It would take an impeccable amount of grandma skills to knit something like that. I live near Cambridge, Ma, one time when I was walking in harvard sq. this crazy guy (most like a harvard student) grabs me as I’m walking by and demands I observe the spider web on a metal post. I looked at it once he let go of my arm. Anyway, as I was observing it, he was narrating the experience as if he was the guy on discovery channel telling me what I’m looking at in his English accent. I was a little scared so I tried to appear interested as he explained it as a phenomenon. Believe it or not, I was twelve or thirteen, and he could have thought of someone better to show it to, but looking back on it, he was pretty transfixed on that spiderweb for a reason. The spider had built its web around the top of a metal post that was circular like a door knob facing Up. It was a pretty nifty design but I didn't understand what was so amazing. Now as recall the experience, he no doubt was amazed at its seemingly intelligent structure. Spiders are no doubt calculating those angles with all their eyes.

[Styles2112]

vo·li·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn)

n.

The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision.

A conscious choice or decision.

The power or faculty of choosing; the will.

Who determined that animals don't have volition? What sources did they use? Who's research to back it up? This is the one area of Objectivism that I vehemently disagree on. Every animal I've ever known has used volition, and since that is a defining character of the rights idea, I believe animals have rights. I will agree that plants do not have volition, and therefor have no rights.

[gags]

Styles, if you carefully read dondigitalia's posts above, you'll note that man is the only being with a volitional and conceptual consciousness. In other words, we can choose whether or not to think and we also have the ability to form concepts, which other life forms do not. It is from these attributes that our rights are derived.

I think most O'ists would agree that many animals make limited "choices" (if you want to call them that). I suppose a salmon "chooses" to swim upstream, rather than downstream, to spawn. A dog chooses to roll over on it's back when you whistle because it has been conditioned to expect a treat after it performs that behavior. However, the choices these animals make are based on instinct or biological factors that are designed to ensure their continued existence and/or the continuation of the species. This is quite different from having a volitional and conceptual consciousness, as man does.

[Inspector]

This is quite different from having a volitional and conceptual consciousness, as man does.

And, as a result, animals do not have rights. Do I need to point out that the concept "animal rights" is a bromide which wipes out the concept of human rights.

Animals are beasts. Simple as that. They do not posess the ability to recognize human rights. If they can't, by their very nature, respect our rights, then they cannot be said to posess rights of their own.

[Jon P]

If you carefully read dondigitalia's posts above, you'll note that man is the only being with a volitional and conceptual consciousness.

You're absolutely right, but isn't this definition of volition a man made definition? Some guy thought that up, and although it sounds perfectly feasible enough to be accepted by the entire contemporary world, is my doubting it any less valid if I come up with reasons why it may be valid to put it up for examination? You can't deny that as intelligent as you think we are, a million years from now, our future race wouldn't even so much as raise an eyebrow to any idea we find profound. We are obsolete minds, even though there is no superior race to compare us to, there will be, and very well can be. I believe that lots of what we think we know as facts, are just things that are accepted for the meantime. I don't mean all things, that would be a ridiculous statement, but much of what we know though pure observation has got to be thrown to the can eventually. Just like 100 years ago, perfectly educated contemporaries didn't know what the hell was going on. You might know more than them, but truth certainly doesn't stop with your lifetime.

Like all animals, we only communicate among our species, with Only other humans. Likewise, birds only communicate with other birds, and rhinos spend their time with each other, and no one else. Even ants work together, and have no inclination to develop a form of understanding with different insects. In fact, most animals and insects that find themselves walking into a member of another species, feel nothing but a sense of physical threat, obviously they have no intention to build a bridge of communication between each other. And if there is no threat, you still can't communicate with them above an emotional level. They are hardwired differently, two totally different things.

I think most O'ists would agree that many animals make limited "choices" (if you want to call them that). I suppose a salmon "chooses" to swim upstream, rather than downstream, to spawn. A dog chooses to roll over on it's back when you whistle because it has been conditioned to expect a treat after it performs that behavior.

If I took time to really empathize with a dog instead of looking at it with Benign bewilderment, wouldn't I realize that my dog is actually thinking, and he is trying to tell me that with his eyes? You who have pets might know what I'm talking about.

Edited November 1, 2005 by Jon P

[Inspector]

a million years from now, our future race wouldn't even so much as raise an eyebrow to any idea we find profound.

But regardless of this, we remain rational and volitional beings, which therefore posess rights. If those future beings were smart enough to be Objectivists, they would recognize our rights, no matter how "slow" we are in comparison.

What you're missing is that our volitional, conceptual consciousness makes us fundamentally different from every other creature on earth. We're not just smarter; we're a complete paradigm shift.

In fact, most animals and insects that find themselves walking into a member of another species, feel nothing but a sense of physical threat, obviously they have no intention to build a bridge of communication between each other. And if there is no threat, you still can't communicate with them above an emotional level. They are hardwired differently, two totally different things.

How can you recognize this fact without realizing that the logical conclusion is that since animals cannot be reasoned with, they must be dealt with by force.? That is the inescapable conclusion!