Humans over other animals

[Michael Archer]

I know many hunters who have killed deer. Let's say one of them cut off the deer's arms and legs and skinned it alive? Why should the governemtn *not* try to stop such cruelty?

 

Because the role of the government is and only is to protect individual rights. Animals do not have rights, so the government should not protect them.

 

Yes, we use them for food, and as pets. Neither use justifies causing them undue harm. We rely on nature to survive, that never gives us the right abuse it, and so it is important for anyone in any position of power to protect nature from such abuse.

 

Why should nature be protected from abuse? Nature doesn't have an intrinsic value; its only value is what humans can use from it.

 

Are you saying that we should protect nature, because we shouldn't abuse it? There's a lot of things we shouldn't do but are fully within your right e.g. advocate genocide, insult people, walk by a person having a heart attack and do nothing. The government shouldn't do anything because they're supposed to protect rights; only humans have rights so the government should only protect humans.

 

Now, if you think the government should do more, that's a different story all together. There's a capitalism vs. statism thread if you want to discuss that further.

 

Fish and anemones can have symbiotic relationships. The fish bring anemones nutrients while the anemones offer protection. The base instinct of both result in a peaceful trade. Just because they lack the same reason as us does not mean they are incapable of resourceful coexistance.

 

And rights would help in this situation...how? If the fish's actions were sanctioned and recognized by a government, how would this help the fish use his reason to survive?

 

As far as I'm concerned, a symbiotic relationship between two different species is too different than two humans engaging in a trade. In a symbiotic relationship, two different species exploit each other in order to survive; the anemone would gain nothing in having the fish's mind free, nor would the fish gain anything if the anemone's "mind" was free. In a trade, two rational beings exchange goods or services for the purpose of surviving and becoming wealthy; in a trade, the humans can negotiate a deal, make a better one, threaten to go to another human etc. While the former uses animal instinct, the latter uses reason. Reason must be free from force to function normally, that's what the government is for. The symbiotic relationship does not need a government sanction to work; it's been working fine for millions of years.

 

We as humans helping each other, while respecting the rest of the animal kingdom is not anarchy.

 

And of course, I never said it was. What I did say is that anarchy is how animals live with each other. Not that there's anything wrong with that; any system other than anarchy would be impossible and absurd in the animal kingdom.

[BTGBullseye]

We as humans helping each other, while respecting the rest of the animal kingdom is not anarchy.

 

And of course, I never said it was. What I did say is that anarchy is how animals live with each other. Not that there's anything wrong with that; any system other than anarchy would be impossible and absurd in the animal kingdom.

It's early and I don't have much time, but I wanted to hit on this subject...

 

Wolf packs are hierarchical not anarchical. Same for most other carnivorous species... (though none as prominent as the wolf)

 

I don't think I've seen a single herbivore group that didn't closely resemble a dictatorship/communism system.

 

Where is the anarchy?

[Alyxx Thorne]

We as humans helping each other, while respecting the rest of the animal kingdom is not anarchy.

 

And of course, I never said it was. What I did say is that anarchy is how animals live with each other. Not that there's anything wrong with that; any system other than anarchy would be impossible and absurd in the animal kingdom.

It's early and I don't have much time, but I wanted to hit on this subject...

 

Wolf packs are hierarchical not anarchical. Same for most other carnivorous species... (though none as prominent as the wolf)

 

I don't think I've seen a single herbivore group that didn't closely resemble a dictatorship/communism system.

 

Where is the anarchy?

I second this.

[Geneaux486]

Because the role of the government is and only is to protect individual rights. Animals do not have rights, so the government should not protect them.

 

Yet in many governments, animals do indeed have rights from a legal standpoint. It is illegal where I live, for instance, to torture an animal, or to shoot deer in a number that exceeds a set limit. From a moral standpoint, the rights of an animal extends to its capacity to feel. It is aware of its environment, and it can feel pain, therefore it should be protected from being caused undue pain.

 

Why should nature be protected from abuse? Nature doesn't have an intrinsic value; its only value is what humans can use from it.

 

A rather short-cited view. Humans do not simply find uses for nature, we are dependent on it in nearly all forms for our very survival. Should the government legally preserve some forests? Yes. Why? Because cutting down too many trees eliminates carbon sinks, which harms the ozone layer.

 

And rights would help in this situation...how? If the fish's actions were sanctioned and recognized by a government, how would this help the fish use his reason to survive?

 

The fish gives nutrients to the anemone, and the anemone protects the fish. Each assists the other in doing something it is incapable of doing itself. This can be viewed as a type of peaceful trade.

[Michael Archer]

Yet in many governments, animals do indeed have rights from a legal standpoint. It is illegal where I live, for instance, to torture an animal, or to shoot deer in a number that exceeds a set limit. From a moral standpoint, the rights of an animal extends to its capacity to feel. It is aware of its environment, and it can feel pain, therefore it should be protected from being caused undue pain.

 

Yes, many statist governments protect animals i.e. many government who believe it's ok to abuse their monopoly on physical force and initiate force on its own citizens; this is why I'm an advocate of capitalism where only retaliatory force may be used by the government.

 

You say that they should have rights because they can feel pain, but this is not why humans have rights. Humans have rights because they use reason to survive. Because force and mind are opposites, humans cannot exist on earth without rights. Rights protect man's reason from force. That's why they have rights; no one decided humans have rights, they just do; rights are a condition of man's existence.

 

Animals survive using force i.e. it is possible for animals to exist without rights.

 

A rather short-cited view. Humans do not simply find uses for nature, we are dependent on it in nearly all forms for our very survival. Should the government legally preserve some forests? Yes. Why? Because cutting down too many trees eliminates carbon sinks, which harms the ozone layer.

 

"Dependent on" means "exploit" i.e. exploiting nature and trading with each other is how humans survive. Sorry, I should've made that clearer.

 

The government should do protect forests if you're a statist and and don't believe individual rights should be respected and upheld. To outlaw the use of private property under certain circumstances despite those circumstances being completely peaceful, would be initiating force and rendering men's minds (more specifically, the minds of whoever owns the forests) useless. You need to reason to survive, so in a sense, the government would be sentencing the forest owners to death. All countries are statist to some degree; the world is far from perfect.

 

The fish gives nutrients to the anemone, and the anemone protects the fish. Each assists the other in doing something it is incapable of doing itself. This can be viewed as a type of peaceful trade.

 

Yes, but this does not involve any reason. Rights protect reason, ergo no rights are involved in that situation and nothing for a government to protect.

[Geneaux486]

Humans have rights because they use reason to survive. Because force and mind are opposites, humans cannot exist on earth without rights. Rights protect man's reason from force. That's why they have rights; no one decided humans have rights, they just do; rights are a condition of man's existence.

 

Rights from a moral perspective exist for all living things, just in different capacities. Rights are not reliant on reason to exist, protecting reason from force is one of many kinds of rights. You and I disagree on the basic definition. Like I said, we are at an impass. Factors that determine rights can be moral, legal, or ethical. You seem focused on the legal aspect while ignoring the other two aspects, making it an incomplete definition.

[J.C.]

the world is far from perfect.

Exactly. That's why, while I do believe in capitalism, and the fact that individual rights should be respected and upheld, the world is far from perfect.

 

The problem with most of the arguments you've used in the past posts is the "absolute" quality of them. Asymptotic analysis, to give it a name, does not play well with a far from perfect world.

 

Because force and mind are opposites

Only if you think in absolutes. But as you said, this is a far from perfect world, so you can't oversimplify like this.

 

humans cannot exist on earth without rights

Who told you that? The existence of successful communities is not based on rights, but in achieving balance with their enviroment and amongst themselves. This, in turn, leads to individual rights, goverment, rational use of natural resources, etc.

 

You should look up the principles of game theory. It might help you see why absolutes don't really apply in a far from perfect world.

[Axeldeath]

So a human being that has no capacity to reason loses their rights?

[J.C.]

So a human being that has no capacity to reason loses their rights?

 

If you go by his arguments (Archer's I mean), that's the natural conclusion.

 

But as I said a couple of posts up, thinking in absolutes, does not work well in a far from perfect word

[Michael Archer]

Rights from a moral perspective exist for all living things, just in different capacities. Rights are not reliant on reason to exist, protecting reason from force is one of many kinds of rights. You and I disagree on the basic definition. Like I said, we are at an impass. Factors that determine rights can be moral, legal, or ethical. You seem focused on the legal aspect while ignoring the other two aspects, making it an incomplete definition.

 

Rights are only moral; legally, a government is supposed to protect rights, but in reality they don't a lot of the time.

 

If rights don't come from identity, from where do they come? I want to understand your train of thought.

 

I'm talking about moral and I'm talking as if legal should follow moral, which is doesn't a lot of the time.

 

Who told you that? The existence of successful communities is not based on rights, but in achieving balance with their enviroment and amongst themselves. This, in turn, leads to individual rights, goverment, rational use of natural resources, etc.

 

Aristotle, John Locke (if you thought of the Lost character, please leave right now, lol) , Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, mostly.

 

But it makes sense. Rights exist because reason exist. To survive, man has to use reason. Therefore, it is right for him to use reason as it is right for him to exist and survive.

 

Humans do not create rights; they were there the second humans with the full rational capacity of today existed. The only thing that has changed is the government that's supposed to secure and recognize them.

 

You should look up the principles of game theory. It might help you see why absolutes don't really apply in a far from perfect world.

 

Probably (pun intended). I don't know what will make the world perfect, but I do know it won't make it better by advocating the abrogation of the basic right to life.

 

So a human being that has no capacity to reason loses their rights?

 

Axeldeath: Good question! I'm suprised Geneaux didn't bring it up earlier.

 

By humans that have no capacity to reason, I assume you mean humans like children (their capacity to reason is limited), babies, and retarded humans. Keep in mind, babies and children and retarded humans do not have the same rights as adults, for this very reason.

 

We still give babies and children basic rights, because infancy and childhood are very important steps in developing a fully rational being i.e. you can't have a rational being without it first being a baby. Retarded humans have rights, because they are part of a species that is rational and under normal circumstances, they are rational. An animal will never be rational at any stage of its life under normal development.

 

Also, with the progression of medicine (which is being done through animal testing: that horrible procedure that is saving many lives that the "animal rights" people think is immoral) these retarded humans may become rational beings someday. I believe there are some drugs for learning disabilities already e.g. Ritalin.

[Geneaux486]

Rights are only moral; legally, a government is supposed to protect rights, but in reality they don't a lot of the time.

 

If rights don't come from identity, from where do they come? I want to understand your train of thought.

 

I'm talking about moral and I'm talking as if legal should follow moral, which is doesn't a lot of the time.

 

Rights by definition are moral, legal, and ethical. My train of thought is basically that rights extend to anything that has perspective, conciousness, and is capable of feeling. As I've said before, I believe rights are dynamic, not static, fluctuating relative to the capacity any given living organism has. I believe, for instance, that it is morally wrong to cause an animal undue pain, because the animal can register this pain and react to it. It follows that this is because the animal has a right to be spared undue pain. Whether or not we choose to honor that right is a different matter, but what we choose to do does not effect what we ought to do. It does not change how we ought to treat the animal, or any other living thing relative to its capacities.

 

Axeldeath: Good question! I'm suprised Geneaux didn't bring it up earlier.

 

I touched on it a bit by bringing up the hypothetical comatose person. Pretty sure it was in the other thread though. Seems like we're getting closer and closer to arguing the same basic thing in both threads, which could get a little confusing, so please bear with me

[Axeldeath]

Yeah the two threads are merging together to become somethig different, Maybe someone should start a human rights thread

[J.C.]

Aristotle, John Locke (if you thought of the Lost character, please leave right now, lol) , Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, mostly.

, you know you had me scratching my head there for a while with that "Lost Character" thing? I kept looking at "John Locke", thinking you'd left out an "h" or a "k" somewhere ("lost character"). When I realized you where referring to the TV series, I had a good laugh.

 

Humans do not create rights; they were there the second humans with the full rational capacity of today existed. The only thing that has changed is the government that's supposed to secure and recognize them.

The world seems bent on proving you wrong there... And not just the goverments, people and nature don't behave like that.

[Michael Archer]

Rights by definition are moral, legal, and ethical. My train of thought is basically that rights extend to anything that has perspective, conciousness, and is capable of feeling.

 

I'm still confused; why does any life that has perspective, consciousness, and the capacity of feeling, have rights?

 

As I've said before, I believe rights are dynamic, not static, fluctuating relative to the capacity any given living organism has.

 

I agree with the everything before the third comma; since life is the standard for all rights, things like property rights are limited i.e. you cannot exercise your property rights in a way that violate other's right to life e.g. building a bomb in your basement, holding a bonfire on your own property too close to other buildings.

 

As for what I have to say in response to what you said after the third comma, please refer to what I said after your first quote in this post.

 

I believe, for instance, that it is morally wrong to cause an animal undue pain, because the animal can register this pain and react to it.

 

I also believe it is morally wrong to cause an animal undue pain, but not for that reason. I think it's wrong because it says a lot about yourself i.e. how you view life and the others around you.

 

It follows that this is because the animal has a right to be spared undue pain.

 

Again: refer to what I said after your first quote in this post.

 

The world seems bent on proving you wrong there... And not just the goverments, people and nature don't behave like that.

 

But because I deal with absolutes and objectivity, they never will.

[Geneaux486]

I'm still confused; why does any life that has perspective, consciousness, and the capacity of feeling, have rights?

 

 

I cannot prove that they have rights, I can only explain why I believe they have rights. This is the same thing I said in the abortion thread. Though this might be a slippery slope, I'm going to post it here as well:

 

Here I am refering to rights from a purely moral standpoint. The universe does not revolve around any single one of us, so theoretically none of us deserves more or less than anyone else. As individuals we know what we find desirable, and what we find painful. In a way, it boils down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most of us would wish to be spared undue pain. It follows that we should also spare undue pain to any living creature that can feel and discern pain, as there is no discernable difference between our basic sense of pain, and the basic sense of pain of anything else that can feel and register it. This is what I base my argument that rights extend to the capacity of any given living thing upon.

[J.C.]

The world seems bent on proving you wrong there... And not just the goverments, people and nature don't behave like that.

 

But because I deal with absolutes and objectivity, they never will.

 

He he he

Indeed my friend.

 

You know, we should have this conversation again in, let's say, 30 years. See how my collaborative games and fuzzy logic models fared against your absolutes and objectivity in our personal experiences.

[xxxxxxxxx]

Couldn't you guys type less? I hate having to read everything to make sure you're all playing nice.

[BTGBullseye]

Couldn't you guys type less? I hate having to read everything to make sure you're all playing nice.

If you want to give up your job I'd be happy to take on another mod position...

[Michael Archer]

I cannot prove that they have rights, I can only explain why I believe they have rights.

 

Ah...subjectivist theory of ethics and rights. So easy; it doesn't require any work to justify. You can even ignore reality. It explains why you advocate statist theories; capitalism is the only theory that respects the objectivist theory.

 

Believing they have rights isn't enough; a maniac could believe that you have the right to kill people; it doesn't mean it would be actually be a right.

[Geneaux486]

So easy; it doesn't require any work to justify.

 

And yet I did justify my view of rights. What a mentally healthy human being would find to be in its best interests, living, eating, etc. is deserved by everyone who would benefit from any such thing unless there is a discernable difference between them. There is no ignoring reality in this line of reasoning. On the contrary, it focuses completely on reality. Furthermore, you claim that I simply believe in rights as though you are doing something different. You're not, hoss. Your perception of rights is no more factual than mine.