[Eran]

The term "animal rights" makes no sense.

"Rights" are a normative concept belonging to the organisation of relations within a society of communicating, cooperating beings, able, at the very least, to understand and respect each other's rights.

Since animals aren't so capable, they don't have rights.

Having said that, it is entirely plausible that humans will adopt the treatment of animals as an important moral principle. If enough people feel strongly enough that mistreating animals is morally wrong, society will broadly stop mistreating animals.

[Godstud]

This is, however, a very interesting hypothetical - like War of the Worlds.

Yes, and like in War of the Worlds, we'd get our asses kicked unless some other species(like a cold virus) came and saved the day and we wouldn't be able to squawk about HUMAN rights to those aliens and expect a reasonable response.

[Baff]

If we didn't eat cows chickens pigs etc. They would probably be extinct by now.

Or we would.

[AFAIK]

The term "animal rights" makes no sense.

"Rights" are a normative concept belonging to the organisation of relations within a society of communicating, cooperating beings, able, at the very least, to understand and respect each other's rights.

Since animals aren't so capable, they don't have rights.

Why isn't that argument applied to human fetuses and infants?

[Phred]

Why isn't that argument applied to human fetuses and infants?

While Eran's statement is correct, it isn't complete. The concept of "rights" is a null concept when applied to interactions between species. Is a porcine influenza virus violating the rights of the pig it kills? Is a zebra that squishes a fly by rubbing against an acacia branch violating the rights of that fly? Is a pickerel eating a minnow violating the rights of that minnow? What about the pack of hyenas killing a stray wildebeest cut by cut, bite by bite?


Phred

[AFAIK]

A sleeping person rolls over and crushes her pet cat, a sleeping person rolls over and crushes her 2 month old baby.

Why doesn't sentience earn a creature rights?
Or the capacity to feel pain?

I'm not arguing that all life is equal but surely we owe some consideration to other animals.
Why is a self-aware human more deserving of rights than a self-aware ape or dolphin?

[Godstud]

You answered your own question when you said

belonging to the organisation of relations within a society of communicating, cooperating beings, able, at the very least, to understand and respect each other's rights.

A self-aware ape or dolphin, does not exist within our society.

[SolarCross]

The sentience excuse doesn't work because sentience isn't a binary; it is not like a being is either a rock or an all-knowing super-being, there are many shades of grey inbetween. Most of the animals we are especially keen to chew on are mammals with decent if not spectacular cognitive ability: cows, sheep, pigs. They do feel emotions, have some awareness of themselves and their environment and they are often social animals too. Sure they probably can't do calculus or compose decent poetry, but so it is for a fair number of humans too. If we are honest, we eat them because we can, we benefit from it and because we choose not to care. Which is broadly the same reasons some people made other people slaves, taxpayers, crime victims and trophy kills. Buddhists, hindus and especially jainists have already solved this ethical issue. Libertarians may one day get to that stage too, but the good news is for meat eating libertarians we have long way yet to go to in solving how to treat other human beings before we start worrying about other animals.

[Godstud]

Buddhists in Thailand have absolutely no problem with eating fish, pigs, cows and chickens.

[AFAIK]

You answered your own question when you said, belonging to the organisation of relations within a society of communicating, cooperating beings, able, at the very least, to understand and respect each other's rights.

A self-aware ape or dolphin, does not exist within our society.

You mis-quoted. Eran said that, I quoted his post, then typed my question.
Is it acceptable to make the same distinction when dealing with races, tribes or religious groups?
Why is a cluster of human cells granted greater consideration and protection than animals with a greater capacity to experience pain?

I believe animals are worthy of equal consideration. I'm not sure if other species should be granted rights though.

If we are honest, we eat them because we can, we benefit from it and because we choose not to care. Which is broadly the same reasons some people made other people slaves, taxpayers, crime victims and trophy kills.

Perhaps in the near future society will view our treatment of animals in a similar manner we view slavery today.

[Godstud]

Perhaps in the near future society will view our treatment of animals in a similar manner we view slavery today.

I sure, as fuck, hope not.

I view that in the same way I view the idiots(and I am being nice) who compare animal cruelty to the Holocaust. people like that should just be used as organ donors, and have their organs given to more worthy human beings.

[Eran]

Human societies understandably treat fetuses, babies, temporarily-incapacitated and permanently-incapacitated humans differently from similarly-sentient animal beings. This difference contains both a rational and an irrational component.

Rationally, fetuses, babies and temporarily-incapacitated adults are potential fully-functional adult humans. They can be logically treated as self-owners who are temporarily unable to exert control over their property, and could thus benefit from the aid of a guardian, acting as trustee with respect to both their self-ownership and potentially ownership over external objects.

Humans who used to be functional adults and are no longer so permanently (whether still alive or not) have had an opportunity to express their wishes with respect to their property (both self- and external). Respecting their wishes is critical in creating a sense of security in others that their wishes will be respected in turn.

Humans who could never become decision-makers, e.g. babies born with deep, permanent retardation, cannot rationally be distinguished from animals. Human societies tend to treat them differently because of their obvious outward resemblance to normal humans, a resemblance that arises inter-human emotions of care and empathy.


When I wrote that animals have no rights, I meant so in the narrow, legalistic sense. Certainly not in the moral sense. Hurting animals may certainly be a moral bad. To what extent, under what circumstances, with respect to which animals, etc. is a very complicated question(s), not susceptible to a clear, bright, crisp answer of the kind available for the use of force between humans.

Perhaps in the near future society will view our treatment of animals in a similar manner we view slavery today.

Societal attitudes towards the treatment of animals are clearly evolving in parallel with our feelings about treating other humans. We live in a far less violent society today compared with historic standards, and that applies to both animals and humans.

I don't think the line between humans and animals will ever disappear altogether. Do you?

[AFAIK]

--I don't think the line between humans and animals will ever disappear altogether. Do you?--

Some people are averse to eating species that they regularly interact with as pets due to the cannibalistic overtones. So in a sense the distinction is narrowing for many. Now that you clarified the distinction between legal and moral rights I think it is unlikely that legal rights will be extended to other species in the same manner as they are to humans.

Have any libertarians written about animal welfare? Does anyone propose extending the NAP to habitat protection of higher (self aware) mammals?
What if an artificial intelligence became self aware and was able to communicate and express agency?

[Eran]

The libertarian writing on animal rights tends to be similar to the attitude I expressed above - animals don't have enforceable rights, though there may well be strong moral aspects to their treatment.

Needless to say, the characterising attribute of being a self-owner (and, by extension, having enforceable rights) is having rational, communicative capacity to coordinate rules of behaviours with other members of society.

Intelligent extra-terrestrials, for example, would certainly have rights by libertarian standards.

The question of artificial intelligence is an interesting and complex one. For example, an artificial intelligence doesn't have an obvious "body". The computer on which its software is run belongs to some person who built or bought it. Would a software company suddenly acquire rights over the hardware on which it is run?

Without such rights, its status is difficult. Thinking as I type, I guess owners of computers hosting intelligent software may have a duty to allow the software to find an alternative "home" before terminating it, similar to the duty that parents have to allow others to take over the care of their children before abandoning them.

As long as intelligent software is relatively rare/expensive, the problem can easily be contained. But what when/if it becomes as easy to create a new intelligent being as it is to start a new session of Sim Life?

[fuser]

Buddhists in Thailand have absolutely no problem with eating fish, pigs, cows and chickens.

Its more of a cultural issue than religious issue, Budhhist in India (a very small number comparative to Indian population) don't eat (generally) cows etc. Even Sikhs don't eat them even though there will be no religious contradiction if they do eat them.

[Cromwell]

As far as I understand that Libertarianism has its basis in the classical liberalism of Bentham, you may have some interest in one of my favourite quotes:

"The question is not can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?"

[Godstud]

Cromwell, almost anything is capable of suffering, if it feels pain in any way. That's a pretty weak argument for animal rights, if it's simply based on pain threshold.

Animals should never be treated AS humans, because they simply are NOT humans. People who lose this distinction are the people you really have to worry about.

[AFAIK]

^Reported for speciesism.

How are humans distinct from other animals?
Several species are self-aware, why not apply the same level of consideration to species that are in the same category of intelligence?

[Godstud]

Because that simply doesn't make any kind of sense, AFAIK. Human rights should only apply to HUMANS.

[AFAIK]

It makes sense to me. I'm arguing that animals are worthy of equal consideration. This doesn't necessarily entail equal treatment.

To argue that humans have rights for no other reason than for being human whilst others lack rights solely because they are not human is irrational and prejudicial. You could apply the same logic to races, nationalities, etc.