+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 104

Thread: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

  1. #51
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    I find it interesting how your hypotheticals about treatment of fellow humans are just that -- they require one to assume things that are unjustifiable, and essentially repugnant to any modern-day person.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    And not all believers in natural rights are Believers in any sort of god. Rothbard is an almost militant atheist, but he is also a vehement proponent of natural rights. So are Objectivists.
    Well, of course. Stupid people manage to believe all sorts of obviously contradictory things.

  3. #53
    The Apostabulous Inner Stickler's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Collegeville, MN
    Posts
    2,172

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    I find it interesting how your hypotheticals about treatment of fellow humans are just that -- they require one to assume things that are unjustifiable, and essentially repugnant to any modern-day person.
    Well what if chemical A were acid glue and chemical B shot your toddler's car seat?
    I don't think so, therefore I'm probably not.

  4. #54
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Harlequin
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    There are two problems with the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    Why are you now introducing the Golden Rule into the discussion only to attack it? I haven't mentioned it.
    Yes, you did, indirectly. You said that if I wanted to cause suffering to others, I had to be willing to take it myself. That is the Golden Rule. I thought you were hinting at it on purpose, but I guess it was an accident.

    So the only answer is that you have the right to stop me because you have the might to stop me.
    No, I didn't say that.
    "Depends on what you mean by "right". If you're talking about legal rights, I think you're well aware of what right I have to stop you. If not, my answer is "it doesn't matter". I'm not big on putting things in abstract and entirely arbitrary terms like "rights"."

    You just said that the only important part about your "right" to stop me is that you have the law, AKA might, behind you, and that abstract things like "rights" are not important. Please explain what else that could mean. I really do want to know where you're coming from.

    What if it's an incurable genetic affliction of the entire gypsy "race"? Should they be excluded from welfare and charity, since they are not willing to work hard, even when given a job?
    Difficult to answer without the kind of details that would be available were this a reality. I have said that it is quite possible that something should be done. Is that enough?
    Yes, I suppose.

    So gypsies do not have the right to reproductive freedom, if this could be dangerous to society? I believe that right is respected by the UN and the EU.
    I believe so too. What of it?
    I believe, then, that this makes your opinion no different from that of the Eugenics movement (which was not limited to Nazi Germany; sterilization was done in the U.S. and other countries, too. Not sure about Sweden, although I would guess "yes".), except that they were scientifically wrong with their ideas about mental illness, gypsies, and Jews, whereas you would be scientifically right. You would both be advocating extremely statist, authoritarian positions.

    Would it be alright to compel gypsies not to have children (in a similar way to China's one child policy) in an effort to peaceably bring about their demise as an ethnic group, if this were the case?
    Depends on the severity of the problem, but yes, it might.
    See above.

    Why isn't the will of the people sovereign?
    Why would it be?
    If the will of the people isn't sovereign, if the will of the individual is not sovereign, if natural rights are not sovereign, if the will of a monarch is not sovereign, then just who is sovereign? Harlequin?
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  5. #55
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    I find it interesting how your hypotheticals about treatment of fellow humans are just that -- they require one to assume things that are unjustifiable, and essentially repugnant to any modern-day person.
    Appealing to disgust is not a logical argument. I don't agree with you that it is repugnant (I assume that you're talking about the issue of children). There is no arguing about taste. So, we're stuck.

    And calling people stupid does not refute their points, either. Natural rights and atheism are not contradictory.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  6. #56
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    You've ignored my post, VI.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  7. #57
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by danceswithcats
    You've ignored my post, VI.
    I did not answer your post, but I did answer your point. It is true that animals contribute the well-being of humans; in fact, they are essential to the survival of humans. But that confers no moral obligation to "pay them back", any more than I am obligated not to crash my car because it provides me with transportation. It is true that I'm not allowed to destroy someone else's car, or to destroy all the cars in the world, just as it is not moral for me to kill someone else's dog, or to kill all the dogs in the world, because both of these things are other people's property. Also, to destroy all the dogs or all the cars in the world would be against my self-interest, since I benefit from them.

    Animals contribute to human society as servants, resources, and playthings, not as equals. "When animals petition for rights, then we'll see about granting them."

    ETA: Unless, of course, you believe that we have a moral obligation to our cars and computers.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  8. #58
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    :noitacoL
    Posts
    651

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    You seem to be neglecting the value in living things in general as having more value than non-living things.
    Here's the hijack Q for ya, Voxie- you can answer it, keep it in your repertoire for random Qs to ask, just look at it and think about it, or just ignore it, but I thought I'd share it with you:
    [spoiler:20fcpybj]So I will pose to you my question given to me by my Biology Professor as part of his Final Exam (It was a X Page Paper, and this was question one):
    You have to pick between two evils- one of those either or sort of scenarios, no wiggle room, no walking away, etc. Just pick Choice A or Choice B. (And then Justify your answer using what you've learned in the course blah blah blah). It was basically a Toddler in the Car sort of a question and he KNEW it was. He pretty much told us about it- but still expected us to answer it as it was 1/6 of our Final Exam grade (though, he didn't really care about the answers, he just wanted to see your ability to defend a statement, etc).

    Basically the gist of the question was this (there were more details and blathering but I'll try to cut it down) :
    Choice A: Press the Button that will okay a 15 year old to get an Abortion for her 3 month fetus/child/person/ whatever you want to call it- it's in the first trimester. The being was conceived from a case of molestation and the girl does not feel she wants to raise this child. You can push a Button and Grant the permission to have her get an abortion and lose the child/fetus/etc. And in doing so, you will not have to Complete Task B.
    End of Choice A.

    OR

    Choice B: You take a can of Gasoline and the Lighter next to you- and you can pour it over the burlap sack presented in front of you and set it on fire. You know that there is a 7 year old stray Cat that has been living on streets placed inside the sack. You can hear it mewling within and moving around in the sack. You can pour the Gasoline on it, and light it on fire, and you watch it die.
    You cannot by bypass that fact. But you will not have to complete Task A, and you will be allowed to talk to the girl to advise her on another option for the child if you wish. But only after you have watched the Cat die.

    Which of the two Choices however evil you may find them, which one would you pick: A or B, and What justifications would you use to defend your choice? Is one inherently more evil or worse than the other, and why? Etc... etc....[/spoiler:20fcpybj]

    Fun times that class. (-_-)
    It was a class on Human Nature. One of the best classes I had though, and a very fun class. Just... very crazy too because of things like that he liked to pull.
    "Dude, your statistical average, which was already in the toilet, just took a plunge into the Earth's mantle." ~ iampunha

  9. #59
    Elephant CRSP's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Perfidious Albion
    Posts
    936

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Um, the Enlightenment philosophers were mostly right. So, that is where they come from.
    Says who? For one, it simply wasn't the case that all learned men in the eighteenth century believed in natural rights. So, when you say "the Enlightenment philosophers", who exactly are you talking about? Secondly, we've had two hundred years of scientific and philosophic advances. The trouble with analytic philosophy is that it's so wedded to the scientific process: do you really think, given our vastly increased knowledge of how the world works, that those same philosophers who were supporting natural law back then would be doing the same today? Would Descartes hold the same position on animals as automata, or Rousseau make the same arguments with respect to animal's inability to reason, after seeing chimps manufacture primitive tools and pass this knowledge on, through generations, or crows work in teams, to obtain food?

    Vox, I'll ask again: where, in your opinion, do natural rights spring from? If a man can possess an inalienable right to life, why can't a chimpanzee, or a horse, or insect? If you claim that natural rights aren't merely a theological argument in disguise, then where along our evolutionary time line did we suddenly begin to possess these rights?
    Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne blessent mon coeur
    D'une langueur Monotone

  10. #60
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,149

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Harlequin
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    There are two problems with the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    Why are you now introducing the Golden Rule into the discussion only to attack it? I haven't mentioned it.
    Yes, you did, indirectly. You said that if I wanted to cause suffering to others, I had to be willing to take it myself.[/quote]
    No, I didn't. I didn't advocate any kind of rule, golden or not. I said that to be consistent, if you're OK with suffering, you have to be OK with it no matter who the victim is.
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    "Depends on what you mean by "right". If you're talking about legal rights, I think you're well aware of what right I have to stop you. If not, my answer is "it doesn't matter". I'm not big on putting things in abstract and entirely arbitrary terms like "rights"."

    You just said that the only important part about your "right" to stop me is that you have the law, AKA might, behind you, and that abstract things like "rights" are not important. Please explain what else that could mean. I really do want to know where you're coming from.
    I mean that I don't care about rights. The only rights that matter are legal rights and then only in a discussion on the law. As this is not a discussion on the law, I am not interested in rights.
    I believe, then, that this makes your opinion no different from that of the Eugenics movement (which was not limited to Nazi Germany; sterilization was done in the U.S. and other countries, too. Not sure about Sweden, although I would guess "yes".), except that they were scientifically wrong with their ideas about mental illness, gypsies, and Jews, whereas you would be scientifically right.
    I agree. The main difference between our opinions, not our methods, is that theirs were based on wrong premises and mine would, in your hypothetical, be based on correct ones. I have no problem with that. If you get to change the circumstances around you can get me to agree with virtually anybody.
    If the will of the people isn't sovereign, if the will of the individual is not sovereign, if natural rights are not sovereign, if the will of a monarch is not sovereign, then just who is sovereign?
    Nothing. We do the democracy thing because it works for us, not because it has some theoretical validity.

  11. #61
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    I find it interesting how your hypotheticals about treatment of fellow humans are just that -- they require one to assume things that are unjustifiable, and essentially repugnant to any modern-day person.
    Appealing to disgust is not a logical argument. I don't agree with you that it is repugnant (I assume that you're talking about the issue of children). There is no arguing about taste. So, we're stuck.
    Maybe I phrased it badly. Your gypsy hypotheticals here are an attempt to force people to agree that the status of being human, in and of itself, is why humans have "rights", even if there are groups of humans who are incapable of using those rights in their own self-interest. (It's contradictory to your earlier arguments about humans having rights because we can exercise agency, though.) But the bottom line is that these hypotheticals require us to pretend that humans are completely different than we actually are. Why would these gypsies be treated like human beings? In your hypothetical, they aren't.


    Natural rights and atheism are not contradictory.
    Of course they are. You can tart up an appeal to mysticism all you want, but it's still an appeal to mysticism.

  12. #62
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    I've read the whole thread, and I'm still missing the connection between animals not having rights and their suffering being morally irrelevant. I'm no student of philosophy by any means, so maybe there's something I'm not getting, but how does one follow from the other? It seems to me that if a creature has no "natural" rights (and who does, really? we all only have rights we are willing to give each other, when it comes down to it), it's more incumbent on humans to reduce their suffering, because of the power we have over them and their lack of means to protect themselves. It's certainly convenient and expedient to ignore the suffering of "lesser" creatures, but if man wants to lay claim to being a moral creature, then I think that the way they treat the powerless is highly relevant...whether they are of our species or not.

  13. #63
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena
    I've read the whole thread, and I'm still missing the connection between animals not having rights and their suffering being morally irrelevant.
    Yeah, I agree that I don't think he's come up with a convincing explanation. It's an assumption inherent to the approach that I think he's taking. His idea is that morality is based upon rights; that is, the only possible immoral act is one in which someone's rights are violated.

    Personally, I view the fact that his approach results in the conclusion that, say, sadistically torturing a dog is perfectly morally acceptable as evidence that his approach doesn't work. If you decide that immorality consists of violations of someone's rights, then you have to come up with a sufficiently sophisticated model of "rights" to be able to assign certain rights to animals. If you're going to simplify one part of the model, unless you've hit on some elegant new solution to the problem, it's often going to mean offloading that complexity to another part of the model. At least if you want the model to continue giving useful answers and still maintain the same explanatory power.

    I guess that's why I'm a scientist and not a philosopher.

  14. #64
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    46

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    In other words, feel free to abuse and kill animals, as long as you own them. Frankly, I don't see how this is any different than me saying that I own my wife and therefore can subject her to any physical or mental abuse I want to because I believe that 'women aren't people.'

  15. #65
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    313

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Nor did I suggest an "absolute secular basis" for moral considerability. Perhaps the most defensible position concerning what might be understood as the ontology of ethics is one of eliminativism.

    Nevertheless, the construction of ethical tests necessitates the induction of first principles. In order that an act or belief be judged moral or immoral, that act or belief must be conjoined with a second order evaluative statement.
    So, you're saying that, in order to judge whether one act is moral or immoral, it has to be compared with a foundational moral principle? Where do those come from?
    One's answer to this latter question largely depends upon one's predisposition. As an atheist and a naturalist, and as one accepting of the basic conclusions of evolutionary ethics, my reply would be the best ethical first principles are largely derived from evolved social strategies.

  16. #66
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Given that animals have never lied to me, have never stolen from me, never borrowed something and failed to return it, never drank all my booze and puked on the floor, or committed any of the numerous other indiscretions my fellow humans have, I will state that my animal friends have earned my respect, many times over.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  17. #67
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena
    I've read the whole thread, and I'm still missing the connection between animals not having rights and their suffering being morally irrelevant. I'm no student of philosophy by any means, so maybe there's something I'm not getting, but how does one follow from the other? It seems to me that if a creature has no "natural" rights (and who does, really? we all only have rights we are willing to give each other, when it comes down to it), it's more incumbent on humans to reduce their suffering, because of the power we have over them and their lack of means to protect themselves. It's certainly convenient and expedient to ignore the suffering of "lesser" creatures, but if man wants to lay claim to being a moral creature, then I think that the way they treat the powerless is highly relevant...whether they are of our species or not.

    Why?
    No one has told me, once, why the suffering of animals should be morally relevant. We do not have an obligation to everything we hold sway over; that's ridiculous (see cars). Not all living things, either (see bacteria). Since the default state of something has to be allowed, tell me why it shouldn't be allowed. Tell me why it is relevant. If, as you say, the only rights are what we give to things, why should we give them to animals? For that matter, why should we give them to each other?

    The "connection" between animals not having rights and their suffering being morally irrelevant, is that there is, without rights, no reason for it to be relevant.

    Quote Originally posted by danceswithcats
    Given that animals have never lied to me, have never stolen from me, never borrowed something and failed to return it, never drank all my booze and puked on the floor, or committed any of the numerous other indiscretions my fellow humans have, I will state that my animal friends have earned my respect, many times over.
    Your "friends" may have earned your respect, but that is no reason for me (or anyone else) to give them mine. My car has never stolen from me, never borrowed something and failed to return it, never drank beer and puked on my floor, or done anything else wrong to me (although animals have torn up some of my stuff, something my car has never done. Animals also kill people every day. Cars only kill people when caused to do so by other people). I still don't give it high-fives every day for the good work.

    CRSP, natural rights come from reason. I have explained why in my other posts and in the book I linked to. They are not incompatible with atheism; there is no reason to even suppose so. They are not incompatible with religion, either; there is no reason why belief in God has anything to do with them. Also, people haven't gotten any smarter; the works of the ancient philosophers are just as valid.

    Quote Originally posted by Harlequin
    Nothing. We do the democracy thing because it works for us, not because it has some theoretical validity.
    Who is "us", if not the people? Sovereignty doesn't refer to some magical concept. All it means is—who can make the laws? Obviously, I'm not in charge of making the laws, in your opinion, and I don't think you believe you are. So who is? The government, obviously, but who should be in the government? George W. Bush was the head of the government of the U.S., but I doubt you liked him. A common answer is that the people of a nation should decide who gets to be in the government.

    So who should in charge of making the laws, if that is not your opinion (in practice, as you insist, not in theory)? It's really not that hard of a question.

    No, I didn't. I didn't advocate any kind of rule, golden or not. I said that to be consistent, if you're OK with suffering, you have to be OK with it no matter who the victim is.
    Why does consistency matter, of all things?

    I mean that I don't care about rights. The only rights that matter are legal rights and then only in a discussion on the law. As this is not a discussion on the law, I am not interested in rights.
    I understand that you don't care about rights. Would you agree or disagree with the statement that actions are neither good or bad, and that "right" (which doesn't really exist) is merely determined by what people have the power to do? That is what I meant by "might makes right".

    I agree. The main difference between our opinions, not our methods, is that theirs were based on wrong premises and mine would, in your hypothetical, be based on correct ones. I have no problem with that. If you get to change the circumstances around you can get me to agree with virtually anybody.
    This is one of the most evil things that I have ever heard anyone say seriously. Since Excalibur has already asked me, why should we protect the disabled, in your opinion? And why do the specific methods of instituting the social change matter? You are the one who is resorting to "theoretical validity" here, since you have obviously hinted that some methods are not acceptable.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  18. #68
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Sorry Vox. I won't continue further, other than to state that your position is woefully lacking, IMO. I'll take the companionship of my critter friends over somene like you any day.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  19. #69
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by danceswithcats
    Sorry Vox. I won't continue further, other than to state that your position is woefully lacking, IMO. I'll take the companionship of my critter friends over somene like you any day.
    Okay, but you realize that your statement that my position is "lacking" is just an unsupported opinion, right? You didn't even say what it is lacking.

    I've never felt any affinity with animals, but I don't think that makes me a bad person. I certainly don't think your judgment makes me a bad person. I don't have a problem with your affinity with animals; I just don't think you can enforce that on me.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  20. #70
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by danceswithcats
    Sorry Vox. I won't continue further, other than to state that your position is woefully lacking, IMO. I'll take the companionship of my critter friends over somene like you any day.
    Oh honestly. You haven't even tried engaging in a serious debate here. Vox's line of argument has mostly not been particularly successful here (not that you'd know the difference). But you coming into a thread in which the grownups are trying to have an actual debate and yammering about how much you love your kitties represents nothing like an actual contribution. There's a whole lot of other threads about how much people love their kitties, and you can also start a new one of your own if you like.

    I suppose it's to be expected you'd whine like this right after Vox effortlessly demonstrated just how ridiculous your little attempt at a rhetorical flourish was. Whatever. Trying to shit all over other people's attempts to have a serious conversation just because you don't want to is puerile and it just makes this place a stupider place to hang out.

  21. #71
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena
    I've read the whole thread, and I'm still missing the connection between animals not having rights and their suffering being morally irrelevant. I'm no student of philosophy by any means, so maybe there's something I'm not getting, but how does one follow from the other? It seems to me that if a creature has no "natural" rights (and who does, really? we all only have rights we are willing to give each other, when it comes down to it), it's more incumbent on humans to reduce their suffering, because of the power we have over them and their lack of means to protect themselves. It's certainly convenient and expedient to ignore the suffering of "lesser" creatures, but if man wants to lay claim to being a moral creature, then I think that the way they treat the powerless is highly relevant...whether they are of our species or not.

    Why?
    No one has told me, once, why the suffering of animals should be morally relevant. We do not have an obligation to everything we hold sway over; that's ridiculous (see cars). Not all living things, either (see bacteria). Since the default state of something has to be allowed, tell me why it shouldn't be allowed. Tell me why it is relevant. If, as you say, the only rights are what we give to things, why should we give them to animals? For that matter, why should we give them to each other?

    The "connection" between animals not having rights and their suffering being morally irrelevant, is that there is, without rights, no reason for it to be relevant.
    The reason I'd give is human empathy. The fact that we can understand suffering and know what it would be like to feel it ourselves gives it moral relevance. I actually think that whether or not we assign "rights" to a creature is irrelevant. Our empathy still exists...pretending it doesn't because we haven't arbitrarily assigned rights to something is ignoring what makes us human.

  22. #72
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,149

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Why? No one has told me, once, why the suffering of animals should be morally relevant.
    Why is the suffering of humans morally relevant?
    Sovereignty doesn't refer to some magical concept. All it means is—who can make the laws?
    So this is a discussion about law, after all? We're not talking about morality but of law?
    Why does consistency matter, of all things?
    It's how we see whether something makes sense.
    Would you agree or disagree with the statement that actions are neither good or bad, and that "right" (which doesn't really exist) is merely determined by what people have the power to do?
    I would disagree with that statement. There are good actions and bad actions.
    This is one of the most evil things that I have ever heard anyone say seriously. Since Excalibur has already asked me, why should we protect the disabled, in your opinion?
    Because they would suffer if we didn't. I think suffering is bad.

  23. #73
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Harlequin
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Why? No one has told me, once, why the suffering of animals should be morally relevant.
    Why is the suffering of humans morally relevant?
    Because they have rights. If they didn't have rights, it would not be.

    [quote:ytgvjdyv]Sovereignty doesn't refer to some magical concept. All it means is—who can make the laws?
    So this is a discussion about law, after all? We're not talking about morality but of law?[/quote:ytgvjdyv]

    It is a discussion of both: a discussion of whether it is morally wrong to cause animal suffering in the first place, and of whether you have the right to stop me if it is. It is not a discussion of the bare facts of current animal cruelty laws.

    [quote:ytgvjdyv]Why does consistency matter, of all things?
    It's how we see whether something makes sense.[/quote:ytgvjdyv]

    Something does not have to be applicable to all things to make sense. If I believe that suffering is bad for humans, it does not follow that I must believe suffering is bad for animals. If there is a difference between humans and animals, the statement need not apply to both categories. To say otherwise is to say that because mangoes should be eaten, cyanide should be eaten. There is an obvious difference between the two things.

    [quote:ytgvjdyv]Would you agree or disagree with the statement that actions are neither good or bad, and that "right" (which doesn't really exist) is merely determined by what people have the power to do?
    I would disagree with that statement. There are good actions and bad actions.[/quote:ytgvjdyv]

    What makes one good and the other bad? Harlequin thinks it's wrong? God thinks it's wrong? The king thinks it's wrong? Reason dictates that it must be considered wrong? The people think it's wrong? This is what I was getting at with "sovereignty" (besides simply the law itself). If there is a right and a wrong, as you agree that there is, what determines it?

    [quote:ytgvjdyv]This is one of the most evil things that I have ever heard anyone say seriously. Since Excalibur has already asked me, why should we protect the disabled, in your opinion?
    Because they would suffer if we didn't. I think suffering is bad.[/quote:ytgvjdyv]

    Why is suffering bad? Is it bad the same way the Twilight series is bad, i.e. personal dislike? Is it bad because we mostly agree it is? (What if most of us enjoyed inflicting suffering and were willing to put up with some in return, and it was just you who thought it was bad?) Or is there any higher reason?

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena
    The reason I'd give is human empathy. The fact that we can understand suffering and know what it would be like to feel it ourselves gives it moral relevance. I actually think that whether or not we assign "rights" to a creature is irrelevant. Our empathy still exists...pretending it doesn't because we haven't arbitrarily assigned rights to something is ignoring what makes us human.
    I don't think empathy alone is enough to justify it. It is merely an emotion. I do not share your emotions; in fact, I truly do not care if other people make animals suffer. You can deny that I think that way, but it is true. And animals themselves make each other suffer all the time. The only way we can connect and make logical rules for society is to use reason.

    And I still don't think that the fact that they suffer has any bearing on whether I as a person should care if they suffer. It doesn't affect me in any way. Empathy does not even hold for all human suffering. Consider that people are starving in Africa right now. I don't really care; I don't think I have an obligation to help them. Neither do you, really, or you would be over there. Sure, if I were starving, I would like someone to help me, but that doesn't put an obligation on them, either.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  24. #74
    Elephant CRSP's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Perfidious Albion
    Posts
    936

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    CRSP, natural rights come from reason. I have explained why in my other posts and in the book I linked to.
    Natural laws and rights, as used in political philosophy, do not exist. That's the root of it. What you describe as natural laws are not natural in any sense at all. The law of gravity is a natural law. The law of conservation of momentum is a natural law. The human right to life is a human construct. It isn't respected by the animal kingdom, by the rest of the universe, or even by fellow humans.

    Natural law exists to elevate libertarian ideology to a metaphysical realm. Without natural law, there is no basis for the libertarian to claim that taxation is theft, for instance, or the right to property is inviolate. In effect, your whole political worldview is predicated on the existence of natural law, and that's why you're forced into defending silly positions, and dodging questions (e.g. you didn't answer where on our evolutionary time line we moved from being "just animals" to having a full set of natural rights, and if we could do such a thing, why can't e.g. other higher primates, or the corvids?)

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    They are not incompatible with atheism; there is no reason to even suppose so. They are not incompatible with religion, either; there is no reason why belief in God has anything to do with them. Also, people haven't gotten any smarter; the works of the ancient philosophers are just as valid.
    Again, no they aren't. What you're missing is that "real philosophy" (as opposed to the pomo crap that's currently in vogue) isn't just aged men sitting around making stuff up. It's informed by discoveries in the scientific world. Plato's ideas on forms, for instance, are now thoroughly debunked. Descartes' ideas about animals as automata, again, are thoroughly debunked. Philosophy, like all other subjects, advances, and it's ridiculous to think otherwise!

    (And, once more, you dodged the question: which ancient philosophers are you talking about? Bentham and Burke, who attacked the idea of natural rights as being baseless? Again, you seem to be under the impression that there was a consensus during the Enlightenment that natural rights existed. There wasn't.)
    Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne blessent mon coeur
    D'une langueur Monotone

  25. #75
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    183

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    To me, the disturbing parts of the OP are these:
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    With nothing to contribute to society, they are therefore excluded from the social contract; they are inherently inferior to humans. And no matter how mistreated, an animal cannot rebel against society in the same way a human slave (since animal rights advocates often compare animal ownership to slavery) can, and it will not do its work better if left to its own devices, like a human slave.
    To me this rationalizes killing and torturing animals because (a) they have no use, and (b) they are powerless and incapable of retribution. There do exist rational arguments why animals don't/shouldn't have rights. The ones you've given are simply horrific and mercenary.

    I agree that to some extent we have to draw the line of the moral circle somewhere and that it is not always a bright line. I have argued elsewhere that pain for lobsters doesn't mean the same as pain for us because they do not have limbic systems that cause emotional state changes in regard to applying or removing pain, nor any capacity for recognizing a potentially painful stimulus before it is applied and experiencing anything that can be called a fear of imminent pain.

    For higher animals such as birds and mammals, even a casual observer can see these states in evidence. We know that humans later revealed to be sociopaths enjoy creating states of suffering in others. Although for reasons discussed, I do not think animals inherently have any legal rights, I do think their unnecessary suffering should be lawfully regulated... not due to rights of animals themselves, but against the general repugnance of causing in animals the kind of suffering that we recognize in ourselves. Suffering in higher animals, in terms of casual appearance and physiological testing, is disturbingly similar to human suffering. Thus, I believe the prohibition of undue animal suffering strengthens society's resistance to cruelty in general, and humans directly benefit from this rejection of generalized needless cruelty. Animals have no rights, but in general we need to promote the concept that it's not OK to cause suffering without serious consideration of the consequences.

  26. #76
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,149

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Quote Originally posted by Harlequin
    Why is the suffering of humans morally relevant?
    Because they have rights. If they didn't have rights, it would not be.
    So you've created a concept called "rights", decided that humans have them and animals don't have them, and decided that this means the suffering of animals isn't morally relevant while the suffering of humans is. Why you feel this is less arbitrary, more "natural", or whatever term you choose to use, than my view is what mystifies me.
    What makes one good and the other bad? Harlequin thinks it's wrong?
    What actions I personally think are good or bad are entirely determined by what actions I personally think are good or bad, yes.
    Why is suffering bad?
    I hate it, personally. If you don't mind suffering, good for you; you must have a very pleasant life if not one that I can understand. But as long as I know what suffering feels like, know that it feels bad, I must consider suffering bad whenever it happens to a creature that also dislikes suffering, and since virtually every creature does I can safely assume a priori that a creature I haven't asked yet also does. If you're not one of them then I won't do anything to prevent your suffering, but I'll still be against suffering in others.

    If I may add something, it seems that you're constantly looking for some kind of elevated arbitrary principle or leader that I follow and that decide my morals for me, be it natural rights, Enlightenment philosophers, God, the law, or anything else. I think it may help if I explain that I don't have any of those. They're all arbitrary and in most cases abstract; not things I follow. Unless you count "suffering is bad", I look to no guiding star.

  27. #77
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by CRSP
    Natural laws and rights, as used in political philosophy, do not exist. That's the root of it. What you describe as natural laws are not natural in any sense at all. The law of gravity is a natural law. The law of conservation of momentum is a natural law. The human right to life is a human construct. It isn't respected by the animal kingdom, by the rest of the universe, or even by fellow humans.

    Natural law exists to elevate libertarian ideology to a metaphysical realm. Without natural law, there is no basis for the libertarian to claim that taxation is theft, for instance, or the right to property is inviolate. In effect, your whole political worldview is predicated on the existence of natural law, and that's why you're forced into defending silly positions, and dodging questions (e.g. you didn't answer where on our evolutionary time line we moved from being "just animals" to having a full set of natural rights, and if we could do such a thing, why can't e.g. other higher primates, or the corvids?)
    Excellently put.


    Quote Originally posted by Harlequin
    If I may add something, it seems that you're constantly looking for some kind of elevated arbitrary principle or leader that I follow and that decide my morals for me, be it natural rights, Enlightenment philosophers, God, the law, or anything else. I think it may help if I explain that I don't have any of those. They're all arbitrary and in most cases abstract; not things I follow. Unless you count "suffering is bad", I look to no guiding star.
    And that's really how everyone operates. If Vox Imperatoris is claiming that anyone, including him, is genuinely acting on the basis of these abstract axioms and the moral principles that can be derived from them, he's deceiving himself. It's plainly contrary to how the human mind works. Rationality is neat and all, but it's not at the core of how people make decisions.

    There's really no discernible value to political philosophy as far as I can tell. It certainly doesn't function as a good model of how human ethical reasoning works. I don't see any evidence that it functions as a model of how societies "reason", either. And even if the reasoning is bulletproof, there's nothing that would make an actually rational person decide that one particular set of moral principles, derived from one particular set of starting axioms, is correct, when there are other systems to choose from as well. The model Vox keeps expounding upon is interesting, no doubt, but it comes to a result that most people in this culture, at least, consider plainly wrong: that any degree of abuse of animals, for any purpose, is morally acceptable.

    (Other cultures, of course, treat their animals in entirely different ways -- the way an American treats the family dog might seem cruel to a Hindu if it was inflicted upon a cow. Whereas Koreans eat live octopuses. People like to imagine that they are autonomous and that they believe the things they do because those things are correct, rather than because those things are ingrained in their cultural context, but it's not really true.)

    If the model comes to a conclusion that is entirely different than mine, it certainly hasn't adequately described my moral beliefs. It hasn't described those of my culture, either. Nor should one expect it to, since the type of reasoning employed in philosophical discussions is not how any human makes their decisions, so it would be a surprising coincidence if the model actually did adequately account for human moral reasoning. What Vox doesn't seem to be able to answer is why I should believe that his model is "correct" and my own moral principles are wrong.

    I don't want to harp on his age, because he's a whole lot smarter than plenty of the adults running around here, but I think his perspective is limited because of his age. I suspect and hope he'll gain the perspective to critically examine philosophy, as a system, from the outside, when he's a little older. I certainly couldn't have done so when I was his age, either.

  28. #78
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    So, Vox, is the only reason to refrain from causing harm because things have rights? Seems to me that there are some ultra-special super duper things that we want to respect, like life, liberty, etc., and so those things we afford legal protection called "rights." There are lots of other things that we expect people to respect, like traffic safety and sexual autonomy, that aren't so important we call them rights, but instead make "laws" about them. Then there's a whole 'nother level of stuff that's not encoded in rights or in law, but is widely considered douchitoudinous, like parking like an asshole, not returning your cart at the supermarket or talking in the theater. No one has a "right" to a quiet theater or a parking space, yet it's widely considered wrong to hinder other people's access to them.

    Can you at least agree that wanton cruelty to animals is as wrong as talking in the theater? Or are all values of right or wrong determined solely by "rights"?
    Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one. A moment. In childhood. When it first occurred to you that you don't go on forever. Must have been shattering. Stamped into one's memory. And yet, I can't remember it.

  29. #79
    Indifferent to bacon Julie's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,636

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    I have a tough time accepting any world view that posits a super bright line between humans and animals. We are animals. We differ in degree, not in kind.

    Compassion, empathy, generosity, kindness, these are all things I value no matter what the object of the emotion is. I consider them good and believe that they improve the world. Views that require me to ignore or discard these values aren't views that I can hold.

    I am honestly suspicious of some people's need to create that bright line. Those who deny, for example, that animals feel any emotions seem to be using their ideologies as filters to prevent reality from creeping into their consciences. The more we learn about animals, the less we find that humans differ from them.

  30. #80
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    806

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    I've skipped a lot of this discussion because I find the basic idea abhorrent and unfortunately very Human. Other is not Us, so it's suffering is unimportant.

    As one of my many quotes and taglines;

    "Fair" is a Human Ideological Concept.

    "Fair" doesn't exist in nature. The Universe is decidedly UN-fair. It is only we Humans, who have that whole "Knowledge of Good and Evil" thing going for us that have the concept. I think that's part of the very reason that we have gods in the first place is a vain attempt to enforce or explain some kind of unknown "fairness" on an unfair Universe.

    That being said...

    We DO have the capability of understanding and even creating this thing called "fair" in our World (subjective, created 'world' of perception and action). We have the capability of comprehending our own suffering and of understanding the suffering of others. We are capable of Empathy.

    Sociopaths and serial killers either lack that Empathy, or deliberately ignore it for their own gain. The suffering of others is unimportant. Their own gain is paramount. I think that this gives us a clue as to the nature of Human society should we not hold such things to be of much value. We can also look to millenia of Human history, the inevitable, as I said at the start "Other is not Us, so it's suffering is unimportant". The people of the next village, the next tribe, the next nation-state, the next religion, the next ethnic or linguistic or cultural group are not US, and are therefore undeserving of our Empathy, of the same considerations, and we are therefore justified or excused in committing every evil on them without ever considering that evil to be a part of our own nature.

    The next frontier, which we in the Wealthy West have reached, is the frontier of the Lesser. The Animals, the insects, the non-Human inhabitants of this world. Are they too worthy of any consideration? Are they too worthy of our Empathy? Or are they unimportant enough that when we act out our baser, "evil" instincts against them, we are free to do so without remorse, without consideration that such evil is really a part of our own nature.
    I reserve the right to be bothered by things that don't faze you,
    and to cheerfully ignore things that bug the shit out of you.
    I am not you.

  31. #81
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Chimera
    Sociopaths and serial killers either lack that Empathy, or deliberately ignore it for their own gain. The suffering of others is unimportant. Their own gain is paramount. I think that this gives us a clue as to the nature of Human society should we not hold such things to be of much value. We can also look to millenia of Human history, the inevitable, as I said at the start "Other is not Us, so it's suffering is unimportant". The people of the next village, the next tribe, the next nation-state, the next religion, the next ethnic or linguistic or cultural group are not US, and are therefore undeserving of our Empathy, of the same considerations, and we are therefore justified or excused in committing every evil on them without ever considering that evil to be a part of our own nature.

    The next frontier, which we in the Wealthy West have reached, is the frontier of the Lesser. The Animals, the insects, the non-Human inhabitants of this world. Are they too worthy of any consideration? Are they too worthy of our Empathy? Or are they unimportant enough that when we act out our baser, "evil" instincts against them, we are free to do so without remorse, without consideration that such evil is really a part of our own nature.
    Very well expressed. These are points I'd have tried to make, but I'd likely have done it more ham-fistedly.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  32. #82
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Oh look. A vacuous appeal to emotion.

  33. #83
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    806

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Oh look, a flippant dismissal without cogent argument.
    I reserve the right to be bothered by things that don't faze you,
    and to cheerfully ignore things that bug the shit out of you.
    I am not you.

  34. #84
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Chimera
    Oh look, a flippant dismissal without cogent argument.
    What was I supposed to argue against, dude?

  35. #85
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    806

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    You could try to read and discuss something that I posted, rather than your usual bullshit behavior in regards to me.

    My post was not an appeal simply to emotion, but to logic and intellect. We have the ability to discern, to subjectively create a "world" that is different from the indifferent and unfair larger universe. We have the ability to understand suffering on an intellectual level, and to make our own decisions about how we deal with such things.
    I reserve the right to be bothered by things that don't faze you,
    and to cheerfully ignore things that bug the shit out of you.
    I am not you.

  36. #86
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Or at least explain why he opposed such views.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  37. #87
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Chimera
    You could try to read and discuss something that I posted, rather than your usual bullshit behavior in regards to me.

    My post was not an appeal simply to emotion, but to logic and intellect. We have the ability to discern, to subjectively create a "world" that is different from the indifferent and unfair larger universe. We have the ability to understand suffering on an intellectual level, and to make our own decisions about how we deal with such things.
    You didn't make an argument. What am I supposed to respond to?

    What do you want out of participating in the Crucible? You can plainly see that there are at least a few people here who want to have substantial, serious discussions. Is it that you feel you can't participate, so you want to dumb the place down to the level of your posts? Or do you want affirmative action? You're not capable of participating here, but all the rest of us should pretend you did, in order to make you feel better?

  38. #88
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    As you are equating my understanding with dumbness, I'll tell you what I want - you to say what your objections are; not just that you have them.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  39. #89
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    183

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    I don't want to harp on his age, because he's a whole lot smarter than plenty of the adults running around here, but I think his perspective is limited because of his age. I suspect and hope he'll gain the perspective to critically examine philosophy, as a system, from the outside, when he's a little older. I certainly couldn't have done so when I was his age, either.
    Good point. If he were a 40-year-old espousing these ideas, I'd call him a complete dickwhistle. Being where he is, I'd say he has a good set of mental chops that should mature nicely over time. Dare I risk generalizing that all intelligent young men have grown into and out of a Randroid-ish phase that they'd later prefer to forget? I confess I've done it.

  40. #90
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,149

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    What do you want out of participating in the Crucible?
    If I may answer your question with a question, what do you want out of it? Is it to bully people who you feel (erroneously, in my opinion) do not contribute, thus ensuring a bad environment for debate? If you see a post you feel is empty, just ignore it or at least respond to it with something more than a handful of dismissing words.

  41. #91
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by WhyNot
    Can you at least agree that wanton cruelty to animals is as wrong as talking in the theater? Or are all values of right or wrong determined solely by "rights"?
    Yes, all moral wrong is determined by rights. Being annoying in the movie theater is disagreeable, and it will likely cause you social disadvantages, but it is not evil. It's similar for animal cruelty.

    Do you think being rude in the movie theater is evil? I think it is merely inadvisable.

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    If the model comes to a conclusion that is entirely different than mine, it certainly hasn't adequately described my moral beliefs. It hasn't described those of my culture, either. Nor should one expect it to, since the type of reasoning employed in philosophical discussions is not how any human makes their decisions, so it would be a surprising coincidence if the model actually did adequately account for human moral reasoning. What Vox doesn't seem to be able to answer is why I should believe that his model is "correct" and my own moral principles are wrong.
    Of course, anyone can just up and decide on a set of moral axioms for no logical reason at all, and people do it all the time. I even admit that most people do it because "it's how I was raised." But the only way we can decide on axioms that aren't totally subjective is to use reason. The advantage of objective axioms is that they can apply to everyone, regardless of whether they agree to them or not. Humans are fallible; they make mistakes; and they are very different from each other. But reason is infallible, when given true principles; therefore, it can be applicable to everyone.

    It's not a perfect analogy, but I'm going to compare it mathematics. Without a system mathematics, there is no way to solve even simple problems that present paradoxes to us, like Zeno's Paradox. How can you move across a room if every space through which you move can be divided in half? You can say, "Dang, I don't know. We still get across the room, right?" but you can just as easily say that we never move at all, and that movement is just an illusion (as some Greek philosophers did). Every answer is just as valid. But with Calculus, you can use limits to solve the problem—there is one explanation. All others are incorrect.

    There's really no discernible value to political philosophy as far as I can tell. It certainly doesn't function as a good model of how human ethical reasoning works. I don't see any evidence that it functions as a model of how societies "reason", either. And even if the reasoning is bulletproof, there's nothing that would make an actually rational person decide that one particular set of moral principles, derived from one particular set of starting axioms, is correct, when there are other systems to choose from as well. The model Vox keeps expounding upon is interesting, no doubt, but it comes to a result that most people in this culture, at least, consider plainly wrong: that any degree of abuse of animals, for any purpose, is morally acceptable.
    The point of political philosophy is not that it reflects how people naturally think. People naturally think some very stupid things, which are ingrained by prejudices learned at an early age. They also naturally think very differently—consider the issue of how one person's taste can vary so wildly from another's. But educated people, luckily, are capable of disregarding their emotions and illogical thoughts and using reason to determine what systems are acceptable, not just naked opinion. You yourself called out Chimera for making a blind appeal to emotion—that is what happens when you just determine political philosophy by whether you "like it" or not: you disagree, and there is no way to solve it but to find enough people who share agree with your opinion to stop the people who share the opposite opinion from carrying out their view of things.

    There's a lot of things I don't "like" about libertarianism. I don't like promiscuous sex; I don't like drugs; I don't like abortion; I don't like alcohol; I don't like being a jerk. But I don't have the right to force people not to do these things because they're not violating anyone else's rights.

    Quote Originally posted by Chimera
    My post was not an appeal simply to emotion, but to logic and intellect. We have the ability to discern, to subjectively create a "world" that is different from the indifferent and unfair larger universe. We have the ability to understand suffering on an intellectual level, and to make our own decisions about how we deal with such things.
    We have the ability to bark like dogs, too. Should we do it? The fact that we have an ability does not logically mean that we should use it.

    And using emotional justifications for moral philosophy isn't really too much different from a dog thinks. A dog doesn't know why it does the things it does; it just does them because that's what seems right and is what its instincts drive it to. One of the major achievements of mankind that sets us apart from animals is that we have advanced beyond merely doing what our instincts tell us to do.

    Quote Originally posted by CRSP
    Again, no they aren't. What you're missing is that "real philosophy" (as opposed to the pomo crap that's currently in vogue) isn't just aged men sitting around making stuff up. It's informed by discoveries in the scientific world. Plato's ideas on forms, for instance, are now thoroughly debunked. Descartes' ideas about animals as automata, again, are thoroughly debunked. Philosophy, like all other subjects, advances, and it's ridiculous to think otherwise!
    I may have caused confusion: when I said that they were "just as valid", I meant that they were just as valid as they ever were. Sure, some parts of their philosophy, which you can't really separate from their science, in many cases, have been disproven, but their essential observations on how people should behave are largely unaffected by this. People themselves have not changed; an ancient Greek was just as capable of using modern reason. He just didn't have the correct inputs to produce the correct outputs. Ancient philosophy may be wrong, but it is not wrong because it is ancient.

    (And, once more, you dodged the question: which ancient philosophers are you talking about? Bentham and Burke, who attacked the idea of natural rights as being baseless? Again, you seem to be under the impression that there was a consensus during the Enlightenment that natural rights existed. There wasn't.)
    I meant the classical liberal Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke, who did support natural rights. I obviously do not mean the classical conservatives like Burke; in fact, "conservatism", the idea that rights are merely dictated by the government and that social institutions should be preserved merely because they are traditional and liked by most people, is precisely what I'm arguing against (even though I, ironically, am considered a conservative in today's society because "liberal" has been redefined to mean "statist"). And I am well aware that some of the things John Locke argued, like some of his ideas about labor, just didn't make any sense. But I don't believe that any philosopher spoke with the divine word of God; they are all capable of misusing reason or feeding it false information.

    ETA: Harlequin, this isn't a poll. If you have nothing to back up your opinion by your own feelings, all someone can do is dismiss it.

    If I may add something, it seems that you're constantly looking for some kind of elevated arbitrary principle or leader that I follow and that decide my morals for me, be it natural rights, Enlightenment philosophers, God, the law, or anything else. I think it may help if I explain that I don't have any of those. They're all arbitrary and in most cases abstract; not things I follow. Unless you count "suffering is bad", I look to no guiding star.
    You realize that the only possible "argument" against someone who has no basis for thinking a certain way is to start beating him up until he changes his mind, right?
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  42. #92
    Member
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    32

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    Oh look. A vacuous appeal to emotion.
    Your comments in this thread appear to have been dedicated solely to attacking Vox's philosophical model for its lack of "explanatory power"; when you say "the suffering of animals is morally irrelevant" is an obviously, stupidly wrong statement you can only mean that people do in fact regard it as morally relevant, possibly due to what's "ingrained in their cultural context," not that animal suffering is morally acceptable or repugnant in any absolute sense since the only direct statement I saw you make on the latter topic was to disavow an opinion. But the latter topic is the topic of this thread, as is clearly shown by Vox's excursions into religion and neurobiology. You've done a great job demolishing his political philosophy but it seem like bad form to sneer at those who are participating in the main discussion until you've contributed something to it that is superior to what they're putting forth. I don't think you can do it. I don't think anybody can do it. The subject cannot be approached rationally.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    But educated people, luckily, are capable of disregarding their emotions and illogical thoughts and using reason to determine what systems are acceptable, not just naked opinion.
    Either you've never met an educated person, or I haven't.

  43. #93
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    From my reading of Vox's thoughts on this subject, it appears that the only reason humans are deserving of special dispensation over all the 'lesser animals', is the fact that we can express such a construct. Simply entitling ourselves as "Caretakers Of The Planet" and declaring only humans have 'rights', is all the justification he needs to belittle the plight of creatures we should be protecting, rather than allowing people to do anything they want to them just because they've been assigned the title of 'property'.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  44. #94
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Quote Originally posted by WhyNot
    Can you at least agree that wanton cruelty to animals is as wrong as talking in the theater? Or are all values of right or wrong determined solely by "rights"?
    Yes, all moral wrong is determined by rights.
    Why?

    Being annoying in the movie theater is disagreeable, and it will likely cause you social disadvantages, but it is not evil. It's similar for animal cruelty.

    Do you think being rude in the movie theater is evil? I think it is merely inadvisable.
    There is some moral ground between "evil" and "not evil," don't you think?

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    If the model comes to a conclusion that is entirely different than mine, it certainly hasn't adequately described my moral beliefs. It hasn't described those of my culture, either. Nor should one expect it to, since the type of reasoning employed in philosophical discussions is not how any human makes their decisions, so it would be a surprising coincidence if the model actually did adequately account for human moral reasoning. What Vox doesn't seem to be able to answer is why I should believe that his model is "correct" and my own moral principles are wrong.
    Of course, anyone can just up and decide on a set of moral axioms for no logical reason at all, and people do it all the time. I even admit that most people do it because "it's how I was raised." But the only way we can decide on axioms that aren't totally subjective is to use reason. The advantage of objective axioms is that they can apply to everyone, regardless of whether they agree to them or not. Humans are fallible; they make mistakes; and they are very different from each other. But reason is infallible, when given true principles; therefore, it can be applicable to everyone.
    You haven't explained the logic behind your axiom, though...what is the subjective logic that takes you from "animals don't have rights" to "their suffering is morally irrelevant?"

  45. #95
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Within shouting distance of Hershey
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    [modhat:38nepeqe]Excalibur and Chimera, please keep the sniping out of this forum. Exy, please tone down the snide. Chimera, you don't have to respond in kind. If you have other issues with each other, you know where to take them. Otherwise, please keep it civil.[/modhat:38nepeqe]
    There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. -- Ray Bradbury's "Coda"

  46. #96
    Member
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    32

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    It's not a perfect analogy, but I'm going to compare it mathematics.
    Mathematical axioms are the result of observation and general agreement. They have no logical basis at all. There are no "true principles" in the way you seem to think there are. Is the parallel postulate true or false? Zeno's paradox does not demonstrate that motion is impossible, it demonstrates that reason is fallible. If there were no motion, there would be no paradox. Insofar as your analogy is applicable - and you seem to be striving to make it as applicable as possible - it only weakens your position.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    A dog doesn't know why it does the things it does; it just does them because that's what seems right and is what its instincts drive it to.
    That's why I do the things I do. Is there some logical reason you are even engaging in this discussion?

  47. #97
    Elephant CRSP's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Perfidious Albion
    Posts
    936

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    It's not a perfect analogy, but I'm going to compare it mathematics. Without a system mathematics, there is no way to solve even simple problems that present paradoxes to us, like Zeno's Paradox. How can you move across a room if every space through which you move can be divided in half? You can say, "Dang, I don't know. We still get across the room, right?" but you can just as easily say that we never move at all, and that movement is just an illusion (as some Greek philosophers did). Every answer is just as valid. But with Calculus, you can use limits to solve the problem—there is one explanation. All others are incorrect.
    Mathematics isn't as cut and dried as you make it seem. Yes, there's "standard mathematics" what you're taught at school, and what most mathematicians practice, but then there's also loads of other variations, each just as "logical" as the others (as an example, doing all your mathematics inside Quine's NF instead of the standard ZFC means you never run into Russell's paradox), and just as valid. Mathematicians have been bickering over things like this for millennia.

    Ultimately, the only way to critique a set of axioms is to look at what they entail, and decide whether you want to live with that. The largest body of mathematicians have decided they can't live without the law of excluded middle, and I have decided I don't want to live by a set of axioms that sees animals being killed for no reason.
    Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne blessent mon coeur
    D'une langueur Monotone

  48. #98
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    806

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by ivan astikov
    From my reading of Vox's thoughts on this subject, it appears that the only reason humans are deserving of special dispensation over all the 'lesser animals', is the fact that we can express such a construct. Simply entitling ourselves as "Caretakers Of The Planet" and declaring only humans have 'rights', is all the justification he needs to belittle the plight of creatures we should be protecting, rather than allowing people to do anything they want to them just because they've been assigned the title of 'property'.
    Well that's just it. Our grasp of that "good and evil" thing allows us to decide what is right and what is wrong. "Rights" are an artificial construct, the same as "Fair". There are no "rights" in the Universe. Even deciding that we can deal with "lesser beings" as we see fit is a construct.

    If we rule out all the constructs, we're left with the basic "because we can". Which then leads us as thinking beings straight back into all the constructs - we CAN do quite a few things, depending on what we decide, on how we construct our logic.
    I reserve the right to be bothered by things that don't faze you,
    and to cheerfully ignore things that bug the shit out of you.
    I am not you.

  49. #99
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,149

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    You realize that the only possible "argument" against someone who has no basis for thinking a certain way is to start beating him up until he changes his mind, right?
    Correct. Witness human history. While you may think you're standing on ground more solid than mine, you're really not. The basis for my thinking is no less valid than yours, and I'd argue that it is more so. The authorities you look to are pulled out of the air.

  50. #100
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Animals have no rights, and their suffering is morally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Of course, anyone can just up and decide on a set of moral axioms for no logical reason at all, and people do it all the time. I even admit that most people do it because "it's how I was raised." But the only way we can decide on axioms that aren't totally subjective is to use reason.
    But that's the point. You can't. How could there be an objective starting point? All reason can do is come up with conclusions from whatever premises you assume.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts