Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eating Meat and Animal Rights

Rate this topic


donnywithana

Recommended Posts

Please please please please don't start this discussion. It's just not worth it. Just leave it at this (unless of course I've grossly mischaracterized the Objectivist position, which is not unlikely):

Man is capable of such powerful cognitive processes that his instincts become subject to evaluation before they are enacted. This is, as far as we know, a uniquely human process.

Therefore, while all other creatures that we are aware of act solely based on their brains' biological programming, human brains are set up in such a way that they perceive biologically linked drives (emotions) differently. Humans self evaluate before acting, and thus they possess the ability to choose not to perform an action.

Because of this, humans can be held to a higher standard of morality. The systems approach in communication and social ontological theory describes this idea in this way: humans have agency for their actions, but are influenced by social constructions.

Because of the law of non-contradiction, no entity can claim a "right" for itself that it does not recognize for others. Because animals do not enter into the systems created by man, they can not reap the benefits that those systems allow. In other words, animals can not demand or recognize rights any more than we can stop our knee from jerking when it's hit with a mallet.

So we eat them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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!

I'm disagreeing with this "logical conclusion", I think it is more of an accepted belief. I’m not eager to argue the point, but I thought I explained my take on exactly what you are implying somewhere in my post, if you want to look through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm disagreeing with this "logical conclusion", I think it is more of an accepted belief. I’m not eager to argue the point, but I thought I explained my take on exactly what you are implying somewhere in my post, if you want to look through it.

I don't see any arguments in your post that disprove my statement, but that's fine because the debate forum would be the place for such things. It is clearly the postion of Objectivism that animals do not posess rights.

If you're not eager to argue the point, then that's fine. Good day to you. If you change your mind, there is the debate forum, but please do not post any more anti-Objectivist arguments here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Volition is the source of rights, and animals have no volition, and therefore no rights.

Force is the negation of volition. Since animals have no volition, there is no such thing as "force" in dealing with animals. What we use in dealing with animals is not properly called force. It is simply another means of man shaping and using nature in order to suit his needs, like digging up ore to make steel. Perhaps a better term for it would be "processing". Ore needs the process of being dug up in order to further man's life. Animals need the process of being raised and harvested in order to further man's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Force is the negation of volition. Since animals have no volition, there is no such thing as "force" in dealing with animals.

Hmm, I don't think I agree with that statement. Force is not defined simply as the negation of volition. It does in fact negate volition if there is any. But force means simply "the use of physical force" and so it is fine the way I said it.

Now, of course, you are right about the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Is there any evidence to prove animals can not be reasoned with? I believe the only evidence available to us states in some form or another, that "We do not know how to reason with animals." That sounds like a bit more suitable suggestion. And still, I would even narrow that down to a more acceptable statement: "Most people do not know how to reason with animals."

On an atomic scale, our brains are relatively the same size as a birds. Perceptively, taking the entire universe into consideration, our brains could be inseparable in size from our entire planet. The vast irrelevance to size in this universe, and I just can't imagine that the small difference in our brain sizes makes the difference between Big thinking, and No thinking.

If you observed the agent Egyptians building a pyramid looking from the sky, would you see any difference in looking at ants, collectively building a triangular prism of an ant farm, obviously disinterested in anything outside of the purpose at hand. They might even go so far as to worship a queen, while having little thoughts about what life actually entails. The thing that separates these souls from human souls is they can't speak English. So go out and buy some raid, they'll accept their deaths as a fierce striking of the two legged gods. But how could they possibly believe humans are gods? Maybe the same way the Egyptians believe animals were gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...there is the debate forum, ...
Good idea. Interested in starting a debate about animals Jon P. If so, check out the debate sub-forum, propose the subject for debate and your position and see if someone will take the other side of the argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So what, exactly, is it when my dog "chooses" one toy over another when playing by himself? What is it, exactly, when he "chooses" to curl up on the couch with my wife and I, or "choose" to lay on the floor? When the cat "decides" to play, or "chooses" which toy to play with? I'm sorry, but I disagree, while even limited in scope, animals have MANY volitional choices.

And in your first paragraph, man cannot choose not to think, just as an animal cannot choose not to think. Choosing not to make a choice IS making a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There comes a point in the life of a thread where the discussion shifts from the topic to "meta-issue" of whether the topic ought to be discussed, etc. I think this thread needs a breather, so I'll close it for a while. Meanwhile, if a couple of people want to start a debate in the debate sub-forum, amen. [meaty-issue --> meta-issue]

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any evidence to prove animals can not be reasoned with?
Here you are asking for proof of a negative -- and then using the lack of such proof to traffic in the arbitrary. The proper approach is to ask if there is any evidence that animals other than man can operate at the conceptual level. I have heard of no such evidence.

So what, exactly, is it when my dog "chooses" one toy over another when playing by himself? What is it, exactly, when he "chooses" to curl up on the couch with my wife and I, or "choose" to lay on the floor? When the cat "decides" to play, or "chooses" which toy to play with? I'm sorry, but I disagree, while even limited in scope, animals have MANY volitional choices.
Volition and choice are not identical. Volition refers to man's ability to choose to operate at the conceptual level, i.e. to invoke his faculty of reason and engage in a process of thought. Lower animals have the ability to choose among alternatives -- but there is no evidence that they ever move beyond the perceptual level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The definitions you gave for volition are not the same ones used in Objectivism. None of those concepts logically lead to rights. The concept that does is: the ability to regulate one's level of awareness, which is what Objectivists mean when they use the term "volition." Remember, it's not the word "volition," which has different meanings in different contexts, that's important here; it's the concept it refers to within the context of Objectivism.

You're absolutely right, but isn't this definition of volition a man made definition?

Of course it is. They all are.

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.
I have had pets, and I know what you're talking about, but it's not thinking. To suppose that it is thinking, without any evidence of conceptual activity, would be anthropomorphizing.

So what, exactly, is it when my dog "chooses" one toy over another when playing by himself? What is it, exactly, when he "chooses" to curl up on the couch with my wife and I, or "choose" to lay on the floor? When the cat "decides" to play, or "chooses" which toy to play with? I'm sorry, but I disagree, while even limited in scope, animals have MANY volitional choices.

I've already addressed this in my response about definitions. In many contexts, one might call it "volition," but in those contexts, it does not refer to the concept that gives rise to rights.

And in your first paragraph, man cannot choose not to think, just as an animal cannot choose not to think. Choosing not to make a choice IS making a choice.

It's not a binary think/don't think choice. I don't think it's possible for a normal human being to completely shut of his conceptual faculty and engage in no thought whatsoever, but we can regulate the level at which is operates. This is the key distinction between us and animals.

Someone earlier asked where it had been proven that animals cannot think (I'm not going back and re-reading everything to find it). I want to issue a reminder that one cannot prove the non-existence of anything, so the onus of proof is on anyone who makes the positive claim that animals can use concepts. I am extremely open to evidence on this issue, as I think it would be a fantastic thing to discover a conceptual faculty in another species (I don't doubt that evolution will take some of the other apes down that road, eventually).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you are asking for proof of a negative -- and then using the lack of such proof to traffic in the arbitrary. The proper approach is to ask if there is any evidence that animals other than man can operate at the conceptual level. I have heard of no such evidence.

The proof is in the pudding. Thinking in conceptual form - would you say that this can only be done in the form of words, spoken aloud in some form of human language? Or can conceptual thinking be formed in your mind, without language? If a bird makes a nest, wouldn't you say that the bird is actually forming in reality, his idea of nest building? Or does he need to be able to discuss his ideas to be considered conceptual? Maybe he does discuss his ideas with other birds, with his body language, and intricite chirps. And he learned these things using the same form of language.

And so the question remains, must an animal speak a language that uses vocalized words, that require human lung capacity to be considered alive? They have two eyes, a heart, and a pair of breathing lungs, just like us. Since when did only humans have receptive ends to their eyeballs, while the other animals just connected to nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon P, Wouldn't you marvel at a human being who can spin a thin web the way a spider does? And, if nobody had ever spoken to that human being, wouldn't that be even more spectacular. I think it would be unbelievable for a human child to whom nobody has ever spoken, to up and spin a web. [This example is borrowed from Charlotte's Web, by E.B.White]

Would you conclude (not argue hypothetically, but really conclude to yourself) that human beings are intellectually inferior to spiders, or to dolphins, or migratory birds? If you do not think it is possible to determine which species is intellectually superior, then -- in what way are they different?

BTW: Here are some related threads (link #1) and (link #2) and (link #3)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon P, Wouldn't you marvel at a human being who can spin a thin web the way a spider does? And, if nobody had ever spoken to that human being, wouldn't that be even more spectacular. I think it would be unbelievable for a human child to whom nobody has ever spoken, to up and spin a web. [This example is borrowed from Charlotte's Web, by E.B.White]

Yes, that would all be very surprising.

That whole idea is a stumper, and would really seem to diminish some of my hocus pocus beliefs. But, babies wouldn't weave symmetrical webs in the first place because they don't have the body designed for it. The spider does however. It also has eight eyes, and uses them to calculate the "web design" process. You can't deny that this creature is actually using its brain.

Would you conclude (not argue hypothetically, but really conclude to yourself) that human beings are intellectually inferior to spiders, or to dolphins, or migratory birds? If you do not think it is possible to determine which species is intellectually superior, then -- in what way are they different?

No. But, if evolution responds to animals who flourish to natural habitats by giving them super learning intelligence that differs from their distant ancestors slow learning, but "conceptual" intelligence, I don't see why either wouldn't have the ability to think at the very least, in reasoning form.

BTW: Here are some related threads (link #1) and (link #2) and (link #3)

I'll check these out.

Edited by Jon P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't deny that this creature is actually using its brain.

Actually, yes you can. When you say it is "using it's brain", you are implying that it has a choice in the manner in which it uses it, without actually proving that it can make a choice. What can be more accurately stated is that it's brain is being utilized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof is in the pudding. Thinking in conceptual form - would you say that this can only be done in the form of words, spoken aloud in some form of human language? Or can conceptual thinking be formed in your mind, without language? If a bird makes a nest, wouldn't you say that the bird is actually forming in reality, his idea of nest building? Or does he need to be able to discuss his ideas to be considered conceptual? Maybe he does discuss his ideas with other birds, with his body language, and intricite chirps. And he learned these things using the same form of language.

And so the question remains, must an animal speak a language that uses vocalized words, that require human lung capacity to be considered alive? They have two eyes, a heart, and a pair of breathing lungs, just like us. Since when did only humans have receptive ends to their eyeballs, while the other animals just connected to nothing?

The answer is both yes and no, depending on how you choose to attack the problem. Assigning a word is the last step in concept-formation. (For the Objectivist theory of concepts, I will refer you to Introduction to Objectivist Epsitemology, the most important philosophical text since Aristotle's Analytics). Now, it is possible to hold a conceptual idea in one's head, for which one has not assigned a word, but introspection tells me that such ideas are always integrations of propositions, which are necessarily made up of individual concepts. There is no way to use concepts without words. That's the whole reason we have words in the first place.

Communication can occur by non-conceptual means. We even do it as humans, by means of facial expressions, laughter, moans of pain, and other automatic actions. We're animals, too. We're everything that they are, plus a little extra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, yes you can. When you say it is "using it's brain", you are implying that it has a choice in the manner in which it uses it, without actually proving that it can make a choice. What can be more accurately stated is that it's brain is being utilized.

I'll accept this, but if a spider does not have some form of awareness that assists in making decisions, then who is utilizing the spiders brain and body movements? Are they being controlled from remote location? There must be some faint sense of self concept in the very core of a spider. I can’t prove if a spider makes choices or not, and neither could you, but aren't they animals like us, who have a brain like us? They walk around, eat things, digest foods, attack bad guys. Brains. Brains. Brains. Aren't their bodies inhibited and inhabited by a ‘Self’ concept? A self concept that sees outside of the spiders eyes, that hears through the spiders senses? There is a receptive end to these senses, and that’s where you will find, Mr. Spider, taking his own senses into acount, and acting upon them to the best of his knowledge. If you disagree with this, then you likely believe that a human brain has a receptive self, and only a human brain. You would likely come to this conclusion because you are a human - That’s first hand evidence that your brain has a receptive self, you. But what base do people who believe this have, to say that other animals do not think, just because we can’t possibly manifest ourselves as them? That would mean that animals do not essentially exist, while they are apparently moving around, mating, having children, seeking shelter, having two sexes in their species, climbing in shells, and biting with their mouths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll accept this, but if a spider does not have some form of awareness that assists in making decisions

I don't think there is a dispute that spiders (or other animals) possess some sensory capacity. What's in question is the control over which they have in responding to that sensory input. I suspect it's more like a computer processing an "if-then" statement. A CPU processes input, but it doesn't "think" or make choices beyond how it is programmed. I suspect an animal or insect, unlike a human, functions in a very similar manner.

There must be some faint sense of self concept in the very core of a spider.
Saying something must exist does not make it so.

I can’t prove if a spider makes choices or not, and neither could you

Yes, I know. However, it's your burden to prove the positive assertion, not mine to prove the negative.

attack bad guys.
You will have a much tougher time establishing that spiders make moral evaluations.

There is a receptive end to these senses, and that’s where you will find, Mr. Spider, taking his own senses into acount, and acting upon them to the best of his knowledge. If you disagree with this, then you likely believe that a human brain has a receptive self, and only a human brain.

I will not allow you to saddle me with package deals or false alternatives. Please stick to attempting to establish your position, not making illogical assumptions about my position.

That would mean that animals do not essentially exist, while they are apparently moving around, mating, having children, seeking shelter, having two sexes in their species, climbing in shells, and biting with their mouths.

This makes absolutely no sense. You are saying either they think or they don't exist. Rocks exist, but they don't think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say it is "using it's brain", you are implying that it has a choice in the manner in which it uses it, without actually proving that it can make a choice.

Does any animal besides a human have the choice of the manner in which it uses its brain? Is it more likely that animals who seem to possess this ability might be "utilizing their brains" to decide how to further "utilize their brains?" Shoot, I really don't want to get kicked off this forum, so I won't take that thought to its conclusion, but could this type of behavior be considered as a higher mental process, and therefore grounds for isolating one type of animal from another?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had pets, and I know what you're talking about, but it's not thinking. To suppose that it is thinking, without any evidence of conceptual activity, would be anthropomorphizing.

We have proof that Dogs, AND most other animals dream. Isn't that PROOF in itself of conceptual activity?

Also, what about animals rescuing humans in tragedies? (especially ones not implicitly taught to do so?) Since animals have no "Volition" therefor no actual values assigned, ALL animals would do nothing more than run away based on their assigned instincts. But, in the cases where dogs jump into rivers to rescue people or the dog comes and jumps on the bed and barks to wake his owners, he/she shows value interest in those humans, THUS showing not only volition but value systems OUTSIDE of self-preservation.

Doesn't learning, in ITSELF, present volition? The idea to choose what to, and what not to learn? How could birds learn to count without being able to conceptualize? How can ALL animals learn HUMAN words and understand their meaning without being able to conceptualize?

Edited by Styles2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have proof that Dogs, AND most other animals dream. Isn't that PROOF in itself of conceptual activity?

No, it isn't.

Also, what about animals rescuing humans in tragedies?
What about it? That's completely beside the point. It does absolutely zilch to prove a rational, conceptual, volitional consciousness.

Doesn't learning, in ITSELF, present volition?

No, it doesn't.

It's one thing to say that a creature has the ability to detect sensations or react to stimuli. Higher animals even have a perceptual capacity, as outlined is VoS, but that is not a CONCEPTUAL consciousness.

In the face of overwhelming proof, you seem to be clinging to your emotional need to assign rights to animals. Just because you think they're "cute" doesn't mean that they have rights. You need to consider what would REALLY happen in animals were given rights... especially, you need to consider the HARM that would come to humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the face of overwhelming proof, you seem to be clinging to your emotional need to assign rights to animals. Just because you think they're "cute" doesn't mean that they have rights. You need to consider what would REALLY happen in animals were given rights... especially, you need to consider the HARM that would come to humans.

There is no emotional need only rational observation and evaluation. No need to get insulting.

What "harm" would come to humans, may I ask?

Edited by Styles2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no emotional need only rational observation and evaluation.

Rationally, how can you fail to see that an animal is an animal? That it is not capable of understanding the concept of "rights" and not capable of respecting it either. Where do ideas like this come from? You're not the first person I've met who has fantasies about being able to "live in harmony with the animals." I'd like to ask seriously what makes you think that animals would do anything but kill and eat us?

What "harm" would come to humans, may I ask?

Are you that ignorant? I don't mean that as an insult, but literally. I don't even know where to start answering that question... what harm wouldn't come to humans?!? Don't you know what an animal is? Imagine if you dumped the contents of the San Diego zoo into the middle of downtown and deployed the police to make sure nobody hurt the animals. How many people would be gored, trampled, mauled, etc? They're ANIMALS. That's what they DO. You can no more convince them to not do those things than you can convince a rock to stop being so hard.

Then, of course, there's the question of food. "No big deal," you say, because you're a vegetarian so you don't eat meat anyway. That's fine. But farm combines and threashers kill millions of voles a year when they harvest fields. That's got to stop. Guess we'll have to go back to using hand scythes and ox plows. Oh, wait, the oxen have rights! Scratch that idea. So now people have to push the plows themselves. Hope you like a life of backbreaking toil.

Did I mention you're going to die from some horrible disease? Yep, no animal testing. If the economy can even support something as complex as a LAB. See, a bear decided it wants to live in your house, so you're out on the streets. You can forget about warm clothing; the sheep have a RIGHT to their wool. Cotton? Nope, animals ate the crops. Polyester? PLEASE! That oil rig interferes with the migration of a few caribou.

Want me to keep going? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rationally, how can you fail to see that an animal is an animal? That it is not capable of understanding the concept of "rights" and not capable of respecting it either. Where do ideas like this come from? You're not the first person I've met who has fantasies about being able to "live in harmony with the animals." I'd like to ask seriously what makes you think that animals would do anything but kill and eat us?

Are you that ignorant? I don't mean that as an insult, but literally. I don't even know where to start answering that question... what harm wouldn't come to humans?!? Don't you know what an animal is? Imagine if you dumped the contents of the San Diego zoo into the middle of downtown and deployed the police to make sure nobody hurt the animals. How many people would be gored, trampled, mauled, etc? They're ANIMALS. That's what they DO. You can no more convince them to not do those things than you can convince a rock to stop being so hard.

How can you say that humans aren't animals? And your questions as to about killing and eating us, because they haven't yet (Don't know too many horses, rushing out there to kill us. Don't know too many domestic cats plotting our demise and most other wild animals flea from us and attack ONLY when provoked). It's funny, it's okay if WE eat them to further our lives, but it's not okay for them to eat us to further theirs. When it comes down to it, it's all the same. Your example is completely out of context. Not only did we take those animals out of their natural habitats and stick them in a cage, the possibility of them getting out (at least on a mass level) is highly unlikely. Beyond that, most of those animals will simply run away from people, and I'd imagine that there would not be a mass amount of deaths as you're suggesting. NOW, since you failed to read most of my posts, I will say I'm NOT advocating FULL "human" rights for animals, but that they should be allowed CERTAIN rights based on the Intelligence that they have. Just as an animal has the right to kill to protect itself or it's species, humans have a right to kill to protect themselves or it's species, so in your flawed example, we, of course, would be forced to put down any animal that was threatening humans. (which would wouldn't even need to do anyways, because of tranquilizors. {sp}) However, I am against useless killing of animals purely for sport (as my Dad always told me, you can't kill it unless you plan to eat it), and the way we mass kill animals for food. I think it could be more humane. You, however assume that animals are no better than rocks (which in my mind is the ignorant thing).

Then, of course, there's the question of food. "No big deal," you say, because you're a vegetarian so you don't eat meat anyway. That's fine. But farm combines and threashers kill millions of voles a year when they harvest fields. That's got to stop. Guess we'll have to go back to using hand scythes and ox plows. Oh, wait, the oxen have rights! Scratch that idea. So now people have to push the plows themselves. Hope you like a life of backbreaking toil.

I'm not a vegetarian. You're presupposing many things about me that you should not. You're taking the idea way too far. Number one, those oxen get paid for their work in the form of shelter and food. If the oxen truly did not want to work, it would not (as there are several animals that make that CHOICE). Accidental deaths are not a factor here (another out of context example), if that we're true, there'd be no car use for people because people get killed by cars. For someone who, I find, generally writes very good arguments in other threads, you've been nothing but insulting ("ignorant") and out of context for your last couple posts in this one.

Did I mention you're going to die from some horrible disease? Yep, no animal testing. If the economy can even support something as complex as a LAB. See, a bear decided it wants to live in your house, so you're out on the streets. You can forget about warm clothing; the sheep have a RIGHT to their wool. Cotton? Nope, animals ate the crops. Polyester? PLEASE! That oil rig interferes with the migration of a few caribou.

You again think that I'm advocating FULL rights for animals, which I'm not. I'm simply saying that they have enough intelligence, and what I'D consider volition to warrant CERTAIN rights. No, I don't believe in animal testing. As far as I'm concerned, if I come down with a horrible disease (unless they come up with cure without sacrifice) too bad for me. I've no interest in sacrificing further life (human or animal) just for mine (That is somewhat emotional, but it is also based on MY VALUES, it is not something I expect you to accept). I'm willing to bet a bear would not want to live in my house, so another off the wall example. We're not harming sheep by removing their wool. In fact, it actually helps them and is beneficial. Caribou will change their migration pattern, and live, no biggy.

Anyways, I apologize for even beginning to argue about this, as I understand this is against forum rules. I have no intention of spreading or introducing ideas contrary to Objectivism. While I agree with many/most of the points of Objectivism, this is one that I disagree with. I'd argue with you in the debate area, if you wish, but I will not do so here anymore.

Edited by Styles2112
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...