"Animal Rights"

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

He's a sheep in wolf's clothing...

Michael

I think you've got it. Baa, baa, baa. But those clothes are awesome!

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

No, seriously, guys. I think I'm more animal than rational, of necessity. You know, food shelter clothing .. er, reproduction and such. Rational people do not need a 12-bar shuffle and Crown power amplification nor liberal doses of Dewars for fun.

B)

[Mike Renzulli]

That's one hell of a quote. If "predation, and not reason, is an animals only means of survival," and man is a "rational animal," is there any reason predation will evaporate from his nature because he can suddenly produce his values through conceptual thought? Anyway, isn't farming a form of predation by control of reproduction and confinement?

In terms of humans it is true that we have the CAPACITY of predation but thanks to our reasoning minds and the ability to acquire knowledge we do not have to. Many people prefer to be vegetarians and thanks to science we can make substances that can replace many of the meats humans consume, thereby enabling us not to kill animals for consumption.

Locke is on to something here, but I think he makes a mistake defining animal in terms of predation, then ignoring it when he gets to human beings.

I disagree since Objectivism is about human life being the standard of all values and people being an end in itself. If one thinks about it (which I am sure you and many on these boards do) and you take into account my previous comment about rights depend on a humans ability of rational thought. Animals have no such capacity therefore they do not deserve special protections.

I think this is where Locke is coming from.

In terms of rights, I am beginning to have a glimmer of a better premise than NIOF. Since survival is the main value, one human being being a predator of another is anti-survival, thus it violates his right to life (to jump ahead in my inquiry).

Agreed.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

Judith,

If your talking in terms of protecting animals that are owned then property laws protecting them from damage or harm are appropriate.

However, Objectivism holds HUMAN life on this Earth as the standard of all of its values. Not animals. To do so otherwise (no offense intended) is to go against the philosophy itself (i.e. trying to have your cake and eat it to).

You are correct that Objectivists oppose laws against protections for animals short of protecting them via property laws.

{quote}(*snort*)

Obviously neither he nor you has ever trained a dog or a horse. Or, at least not by any means that recognized the animal's true capacities.

You might be fascinated sometime to watch a horse trying to figure out just what the rider is trying to impart when teaching higher level dressage to the horse. The horse really does have to "figure it out". Or, you might be fascinated sometime to watch the face of a dog watching his or her person and deciding on whether or not to do something forbidden. I'd not argue that they're capable of philosophical discourse, or of inventing gods, but anyone who says animals don't use simple concepts isn't looking at what's right in front of them.

I am sure what you are saying is the case but would dare to argue that what you point out is due to animal instincts and their training. While humans have to be trained, the one major advantage we have is the capacity of reason and logic. Animals do not have such capacity as they have no intelligence beyond what their instincts tell them.

Also, an animal would not value your life and would have not think twice about eating you if it needed sustenance.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Mike Renzulli

[Judith]

If your talking in terms of protecting animals that are owned then property laws protecting them from damage or harm are appropriate.

Nope. I'm talking about, at the VERY least, anti-cruelty laws. For both wild, unowned, and domestic animals.

However, Objectivism holds HUMAN life on this Earth as the standard of all of its values. Not animals. To do so otherwise (no offense intended) is to go against the philosophy itself (i.e. trying to have your cake and eat it to)..

If so, then I think the philosophy is inconsistent and in need of modification. The basis of human rights is those characteristics inherent in our nature. I believe that living things other than humans also have certain characteristics inherent in their nature that also endow upon them something worthy of our respect and deference, although it certainly doesn't rise to the same level of human legal rights. Obviously it's something that a number of us are still struggling with intellectually and haven't managed to work out as a fully developed system.

I am sure what you are saying is the case but would dare to argue that what you point out is due to animal instincts and their training. While humans have to be trained, the one major advantage we have is the capacity of reason and logic. Animals do not have such capacity as they have no intelligence beyond what their instincts tell them.

Mike, that's question begging; you're asserting as fact the very point that is being disputed. My observations, at very close personal range over decades, has led me to conclude that animals do in fact use reason and logic, although certainly nowhere near at the level of adult humans. It's probably somewhere at the level of young children.

Also, an animal would not value your life and would have not think twice about eating you if it needed sustenance.

I live with two giant carnivorous predators, each of which weighs nearly 200 pounds. Neither has eaten me yet. And if I were starving, I might eat a human too.

Judith

[Ellen Stuttle]

My observations, at very close personal range over decades, has led me to conclude that animals do in fact use reason and logic, although certainly nowhere near at the level of adult humans. It's probably somewhere at the level of young children.

I expect you're talking about mammals -- and possibly birds. I agree that reasoning and logic aren't limited only to humans. But I think the comparison to "the level of young children" is inaccurate. Young children are on a developmental continuum toward adult human abilities; the use of true language is part of their reasoning.

I think the accurate comparison between other animals and humans is to all the sorts of non-verbal reasoning which adult humans use, probably in most cases hardly noticing they're using it: visual, spatial, kinesthetic, aural reasoning. If you make a deliberate attempt to notice how much of this sort of reasoning you use in navigating about your environment, and try as best you can (it's very difficult) to imagine functioning entirely like that, without accompanying verbal process, I fancy you can glimmer what a non-human mammal's consciousness might be like. (Shades of "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?")

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

I just had a flash of insight concerning ethics and relating it to the Objectivist definition of man.

One other part of the "animal" side in "rational animal" that has been discussed by Rand, but not as a component of rights, is the valuing mechanism found in all animals: the pleasure-pain response.

Part of the rules of engagment in society (which is partly what I am beginning to think rights are) would have to deal with that since the concept of rights sits on ethics. If rights are developed from human nature and the pleasure-pain mechanism is a fundamental part of human nature, it follows that human beings would take that into account in forming values, even extending that valuation to the metaphysical realm (all of life) and include other species. The basis for this is raw observation—primary level stuff

In a very real sense, taking delight in or ignoring the pain of another creature is tantamount to saying that pain is not important to identifying values in life forms, thus it cannot be fundamental to human life, which is only one life form. One cannot use one standard as fundamental for oneself and exclude that standard for non-conceptual intelligent beings as not fundamental since human beings are defined as a special more advanced form of intelligent being (a conceptual form). That is a contradiction, since it sets human beings outside the animal kingdom. Thus man would not be a rational animal. He could be considered a rational something to keep the logic, but not animal.

Also, if pleasure-pain is undercut from valuation, then the whole basis of Objectivist concept formation falls (i.e., deriving initial integrated units from sensory data), especially the normative part.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

...visual, spatial, kinesthetic, aural reasoning...

A note to say I admire your precision and scope of thought.

W.

[Judith]

I expect you're talking about mammals -- and possibly birds. I agree that reasoning and logic aren't limited only to humans. But I think the comparison to "the level of young children" is inaccurate. Young children are on a developmental continuum toward adult human abilities; the use of true language is part of their reasoning.

I think the accurate comparison between other animals and humans is to all the sorts of non-verbal reasoning which adult humans use, probably in most cases hardly noticing they're using it: visual, spatial, kinesthetic, aural reasoning. If you make a deliberate attempt to notice how much of this sort of reasoning you use in navigating about your environment, and try as best you can (it's very difficult) to imagine functioning entirely like that, without accompanying verbal process, I fancy you can glimmer what a non-human mammal's consciousness might be like. (Shades of "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?")

I was indeed thinking about mammals and some birds. It's very difficult to try to make analogies. They're like us and yet not like us. Not only do they not have language, they rely on different senses. Dogs map the world in terms of scent. Many animals see a different portion of the spectrum. Your comment is excellent and entirely apt.

And as far as what to do regarding different forms of life and where to draw the line regarding what characteristics are such that a particular organism merits efforts to avoid harming it -- I've no idea. Some Buddhist monks walk around wearing cloths over their faces so as not to harm insects by inhaling them. It's impossible to avoid harming some living things in the course of life. We harm bacteria every time we wash. Etc. And that's taking into account our entirely defensible right to defend ourselves against harm and home invasion by killing intestinal parasites, harmful viruses, and rodents that carry diseases. It's not an easy issue. It's very easy simply to dismiss it entirely.

I just had a flash of insight concerning ethics and relating it to the Objectivist definition of man.

One other part of the "animal" side in "rational animal" that has been discussed by Rand, but not as a component of rights, is the valuing mechanism found in all animals: the pleasure-pain response.

Part of the rules of engagment in society (which is partly what I am beginning to think rights are) would have to deal with that since the concept of rights sits on ethics. If rights are developed from human nature and the pleasure-pain mechanism is a fundamental part of human nature, it follows that human beings would take that into account in forming values, even extending that valuation to the metaphysical realm (all of life) and include other species. The basis for this is raw observation—primary level stuff

In a very real sense, taking delight in or ignoring the pain of another creature is tantamount to saying that pain is not important to identifying values in life forms, thus it cannot be fundamental to human life, which is only one life form. One cannot use one standard as fundamental for oneself and exclude that standard for non-conceptual intelligent beings as not fundamental since human beings are defined as a special more advanced form of intelligent being (a conceptual form). That is a contradiction, since it sets human beings outside the animal kingdom. Thus man would not be a rational animal. He could be considered a rational something to keep the logic, but not animal.

Also, if pleasure-pain is undercut from valuation, then the whole basis of Objectivist concept formation falls (i.e., deriving initial integrated units from sensory data), especially the normative part.

Another good point. I'm glad this site is archived!

Judith

[John Dailey]

~ It's really not a question as to whether animals HAVE 'rights' in the O'ist framework-of-thinking, if you re-check the def in Galt's speech.

~ The question is whether or not such should be recognized/respected...by us humans.

~ We humans have no prob NOT respecting the 'rights' of those humans who invade our homes and lives (check the local news...anywhere...anytime); that's what prisons, and executions are for. These humanoids show no 'respect' for our rights, ergo, they deserve no 'respect' for theirs, though they do have them!

~ I 'respect' the rights of all animals (or species) who respect my rights; I've found none so far. Those around me exist by my PRIVILEGE of allowing them to continue; however, thereby, any-and-all non-'rights-recognizing' groups (Nazis, wolf-pack, ant-horde) is PREY, to me, should I so choose.

LLAP

J:D

Edited April 26, 2008 by John Dailey

[BaalChatzaf]

My own position is very simple: Let people who abuse cats and dogs philosophically defend themselves in a court of law if they can. I won't.

--Brant

You presume the rectitude of laws prohibiting cruelty (whatever that is) to animals. If you were totally consistent you would object to killing animals in order to masticate, swallow and digest their flesh. I think it is rather unkind to give a steer an electric shock or bash his head in, then cut his jugular and caratid arteries to drain his blood. I would not want anyone to do that to me. On the other hand, meat tastes good. To hell with the animal then. Cook him Danno!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

My own position is very simple: Let people who abuse cats and dogs philosophically defend themselves in a court of law if they can. I won't.

--Brant

You presume the rectitude of laws prohibiting cruelty (whatever that is) to animals. If you were totally consistent you would object to killing animals in order to masticate, swallow and digest their flesh. I think it is rather unkind to give a steer an electric shock or bash his head in, then cut his jugular and caratid arteries to drain his blood. I would not want anyone to do that to me. On the other hand, meat tastes good. To hell with the animal then. Cook him Danno!

I am consistent. If I wanted to defend low-lifes I'd have been a criminal defense attorney. I don't defend them. This not a put-down of this profession, but my personal sensibilities are too delicate for me to sit next to them in court without jabbing them with my pencil.

--Brant

[Jim Profit]

Edited February 6, 2009 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Brant Gaede]

I believe as the highest species on the planet, we shouldn't make the needs of animals much of a priority.

Yes, I feel bad when an animal is abused. But not enough to warrant taking action. It has nothing to do with if the act is good or evil, I won't hesitate to say it, people who abuse animals are evil. Even if they're abusing them with some sortof justification like profit. Dog-fighting is evil, beating a kitten with a rock is evil.

I however, don't care enough to think about it more then in the immideate. If I hear about it on teleivsion, I don't care. If I hear he didn't get punished, I don't care.

If I see it happening, I still don't much care. I might do something about it anyway. As I'm sure people will bare witness and call me a hero, or at the very least the animal will be grateful and become my new pet. I doubt anyone who would abuse an animal is someone I'd be pals with anyway.

It's an equal approach. If people have a right to inflict pain on another creature, they have the right to receive pain from another creature. Humankind are not gods. As much as they'd like to think they are.

They can try to be, they can try to create laws and traditions to protect them while they get to inflict pain on others... But they can't garantee it, because it's not tangible. Good people don't always have good things happen to them, and evil people sometimes have evil things happen to them. Should the point of life be to reduce evil haphazardly, or improve good constructively?

All animal abuse laws do is create misunderstandings and confuse the principle we're trying to implement.

Also I might respect vegetarians from a perspective they're compassionate, but I'm sorry. The Darwinist in me cannot stand to see some animals not be killed and eaten.

I mean look at the cow, just look at it, it's huge. Could feed an entire family, and it just stands there, eating grass. It's just begging to be eaten. I'm sure some primitives had a spear in hand and when the horse saw them he went "fuck you! NEEEE!!!" and ran away. The cow just stood there and mooed. And that's why we eat cow.

Chickens the same thing. I don't think chicken can rationally taste very good. If it tasted so great there wouldn't be so many things that taste like it. But we eat chicken because it's a retarded ass bird that can't fly!!!

If I hear about you on the evening news being mugged, I won't care.

--Brant

[psychoanaleesis]

Question is, how does being cruel to animals benefit a person in any way? Answer being: none. If they say that their standard is pleasure and pain, a trait that is common to all animals (man included) then let's see how this person likes to be cut, shocked, burnt and beaten 'just for the heck of it'. Even if say dogs do not know what it means to have rights, you do. You, as man should know how pointless it is to pursue these kinds of endeavors as it goes round and round. It's not productive in any way. When pleasure and pain are your standards, the your values would follow. Since pleasure and pain are the base values common to all forms of animals and you chose this, then you are no better that what you are torturing and therefore you are one. This is one of the lines dividing a mere animal incapable of reason nor volition and Man, who has better things to do.

[sbeaulieu]

A key word here should be necessity. With regards to animals being a source of food and clothing (and glue apparently), we find enough reason to extinguish their lives for our benefit. However, there are humane ways to seeing that those animals do not suffer slaughterhouse-style. As humans, we are capable of killing quickly and efficiently. We should do so out of necessity.

As a pet owner, I'm emotionally attached to my dog, cat, and guinea pigs. I'd even be willing to put a hurting on anyone that tried to harm them. I wouldn't set aside that human life is more valuable than animals. But in seeing a person capable of inflicting needless harm on a defenseless animal, I would find fault in that person's ethics...that it's ok to exert pain for their amusement. I'd beat the shit out of them.

I would also intervene on seeing it done...animals have every right to exist as we do without some fuckhead ruining their day because that person has nothing better to do. It's abberant, irrational behavior. Again, necessity (and I don't mean necessity of some psycho, either) being the deciding factor.

~ Shane