What is the Libertarian view on...

[Earthborn]

Animals and the Natural Right to Life

I find this article highly unsatisfactory.

Dogs, for example, are empathetically oblivious to pain and suffering in other, unrelated dogs. The sight, without the sound, of another dog in pain will illicit no response.

I think this is an unfair demand. Dogs are not visually oriented animals like apes and people are. They react mostly to scent and hearing. To claim that they are empathetically oblivious to eachother when they only see but not hear and smell another dog in pain would be the same as claiming that a human who is visually impaired is oblivious to the pain of another human being if s/he is presented with only the sight of a human being in pain.

Even for humans who are not visually impaired, it is more difficult to be empathic to the pain of another human being if they can only see the suffering. The fact that people thought the Abu Ghraib pictures were frat pranks is proof of this.

I place chimpanzees and orangutans in a different class, as they are the only two animals apart from humans that consistently pass the mirror test; a classic, thought disputed, test for self-awareness.

Interestingly, Gorillas who are no less intelligent than chimpanzees and orangutans, consistently fail the mirror test. This is because they are different from humans, which makes such tests highly debatable. Gorillas don't look eachother straight in the eyes as they consider it threatening. So they avoid eye contact with their mirror image and never notice that they can see themselves in it. If on the other hand they are filmed with a camera at their side and are able to see their own side in a monitor, they do seem to be able to realize that it depicts themselves. Dolphins seem to pass the mirror test, but they can also get frustrated with mirrors, possibly because they expect to be able to echolocate themselves through them, which is of course impossible.

It shows how difficult it is to reach to conclusions about such experiments. Is it fair to say that animals who are unable to pass the mirror test because they are not as visually oriented as humans and apes are unable to be self aware? I don't think it is.

Remember all these difficult considerations about selfawareness and the ability to feel pain and empathisize in this article can be resolved in one swoop: by abandoning the concept of 'natural rights' and considering rights as agreements and a social contract with other people. Animals then don't have rights, because we simply never gave them any rights. That's all there is to it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then, as you were asked, what's the criteria? When does an artifact become an "archaeological artifact"? 100 years old? 1000?

I don't recall being asked for criteria, but it depends on what is found. Usually, we rate things from before 1900 as worth saving, but it is also possible that something of historical value younger than that can be considered.

From what I've read, Roy maintains that it was his fault.

I was kinda hoping you would use a Libertarian argument.

Not at all. You're just using this as an excuse. The point I made was that farmers in China who find fossils on their own land have a financian incentive to turn them over. And they do. Case closed.

So, the Chinese government has nothing to do with your argument?

No, because you have policies in place that MUST be followed.

You have a very distorted way of how government works. It is not a totalitarian dictatorship.

Don't need to. The numbers are irrelevant.

Yes, you do need to. But you won't. Fine.

Stop name-calling and accept responsibility for your own words.

You call me a liar? I was describing your behavior, not your person.

No, it wasn't. There's a difference between taking water from a river and taking the river itself. You're redefining the question to try and push me into a corner, as is your usual tactic.

No, I am not redefining your question, I am asking a question that derives from the problem posed. If you are not able to answer the question - or simply refuse, just say so.

Yes, TWICE. Deny all you want, but they were answered.

Apparently not. You just admitted they weren't.

 

[Kodiak]

Hmmm.....but insects do?

I'm confused here. Insects do what?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm confused here. Insect do what?

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it......

wait, sorry, I'll stop derailing this thread here and now.

 

[Kodiak]

Dogs are not visually oriented animals like apes and people are. They react mostly to scent and hearing. To claim that they are empathetically oblivious to eachother when they only see but not hear and smell another dog in pain would be the same as claiming that a human who is visually impaired is oblivious to the pain of another human being if s/he is presented with only the sight of a human being in pain.

Sorry, but dogs are not visually impaired. While they do possess keener senses like smell and hearing, they are in no way visually inferior as you suggest. The article also says nothing about a dog's ability to smell another dog in pain.

Interestingly, Gorillas who are no less intelligent than chimpanzees and orangutans, consistently fail the mirror test.

This only reinforces the likelyhood of emotional and empathic differences between humans and other high-order life forms.

Remember all these difficult considerations about selfawareness and the ability to feel pain and empathisize in this article can be resolved in one swoop: by abandoning the concept of 'natural rights' and considering rights as agreements and a social contract with other people. Animals then don't have rights, because we simply never gave them any rights. That's all there is to it.

Evolution also has many "difficult considerations". Should we also resolve them in one swoop by abandoning natural selection?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm confused here. Insects do what?

Not what you and Nyar thinks!

Insects do have nerve endings and brains. Ergo, his argument is invalid.

 

[Earthborn]

Sorry, but dogs are not visually impaired.

No, but they are not very visually oriented either. So it is unreasonable to assume that they should react the same way to visual stimuli as very visually oriented animals do. The unability to empathise is not the only reasonable explanation why they don't react to seeing another dog being hurt. If you allow them to hear it, I think it reasonable that the dog will either try to attack the attacker of the other dog, or try to flee. That means that it either knows that the other dog is being hurt and it might be able to save it, of it knows that what happens to the other dog can also happen to itself. That's empathy, isn't it?

This only reinforces the likelyhood of emotional and empathic differences between humans and other high-order life forms.

Of course there are differences, but are such differences good justification for claiming that they don't have 'natural rights'

Evolution also has many "difficult considerations". Should we also resolve them in one swoop by abandoning natural selection?

I don't see any similarity between abandoning the concept of 'natural rights' and abandoning natural selection. Perhaps you can explain what you mean.

 

[BillyTK]

Sorry, but dogs are not visually impaired. While they do possess keener senses like smell and hearing, they are in no way visually inferior as you suggest. The article also says nothing about a dog's ability to smell another dog in pain.

Some interesting facts about canine vision:
Dogs are red-green colour blind; their sensitivity to detail is estimated to be be 6x less than humans, and have a 40 degree less overlap in their field of vision. A human with equivalent vision would be considered to be visually impaired. Because of these deficits it's fallacious to only use visual tests to test their sensitivity to the suffering of others, and makes one wonder why the researchers chose to focus (sic) on vision alone.

Earthborn raises an interesting point about the human ability to detect the suffering of others; I wonder how many humans would be able to tell if another dog, or even another human, is suffering from vision alone. To this end I'd like to suggest an experiment; try watching the infamous orgasm scene from When Harry Met Sally with the sound off, and see if it's obvious as to what the Sally character is experiencing.

Evolution also has many "difficult considerations". Should we also resolve them in one swoop by abandoning natural selection?

I don't see how evolution and rights theories are in any way equivalent, and I must admit some surprise that you'd raise this as an objection. Are you sure you don't have the real Kodiak locked in your basement?

 

[Kodiak]

I don't see how evolution and rights theories are in any way equivalent, and I must admit some surprise that you'd raise this as an objection. Are you sure you don't have the real Kodiak locked in your basement?

I'd have thought is was obvious that it was not the subject matter I was comparing, but the form of Earthborns argument.

 

[Kodiak]

Not what you and Nyar thinks!

Insects do have nerve endings and brains. Ergo, his argument is invalid.

Scientists in the field seem to think the matter is more complicated than that.

Besides, (and you should know this Claus...) the validity of an argument is not determined by the truthfullness of the premises.

 

[CFLarsen]

Scientists in the field seem to think the matter is more complicated than that.

Besides, (and you should know this Claus...) the validity of an argument is not determined by the truthfullness of the premises.

Sure, it's complicated. Shall we say that his argument seems a bit dodgy?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

W/r/t fossils, what would your lunar Libertarian say about grinding up fossils and selling them as alternative remedies? Australian customs have recently intercepted quite a few batches of fossils which were for these purposes. Surely this is wrong? I mean, the fossils are the property of the seller, right?

 

[Kodiak]

Sure, it's complicated. Shall we say that his argument seems a bit dodgy?

Definitely, in more than one area, as even the author admits.

 

[Cain]

Yeah, well, I know Libertarians who are anti-abortion or pro-war as well—same with liberals. Libertarians are a diverse bunch. It's often said that if you ask ten different Libertarians you'll get twelve different opinions. I was asked for the general Libertarian view, which is what I gave. I doubt you'll find 100% of any group agreeing on a particular issue.

Anti-abortion and pro-war libertarians do not really surprise me, though, especially given the common joke that Libertarians are just Republicans on drugs. With abortion you can be said to be defending a human right -- stopping the initiation of force and all that. With war you're defending the homeland from terrorist killers. Contorted positions, perhaps, but still within the realm. Animal rights contradicts the libertarian conception of "natural rights" on a more fundamental level.

 

[Kodiak]

To this end I'd like to suggest an experiment; try watching the infamous orgasm scene from When Harry Met Sally with the sound off, and see if it's obvious as to what the Sally character is experiencing.

Though it may be interpreted differently by different people, everyone would conclude that she was experiencing something very intense or extreme.

Another point: While we can argue about whether or not animals can empathize with members of their own species, humans are uniquely able, I think, to empathize with other, lower-order life forms. Does the lion consider the mother of the newborn gazelle it just devoured? Does the pit bull care how the mailman feels when he bites him? Does the chimpanzee have any feelings of guilt or remorse after it kills a baboon for invading its territory?

 

[CFLarsen]

Definitely, in more than one area, as even the author admits.

Good to see you are compromising. First step to be a good Social Democrat!

 

[Earthborn]

Another point: While we can argue about whether or not animals can empathize with members of their own species, humans are uniquely able, I think, to empathize with other, lower-order life forms. Does the lion consider the mother of the newborn gazelle it just devoured? Does the pit bull care how the mailman feels when he bites him? Does the chimpanzee have any feelings of guilt or remorse after it kills a baboon for invading its territory?

Does a butcher feel sorry for the pig he slaughters? I don't think so.

What you are describing is simply the result of imprinting: we feel sorry for the animals we have been taught from an early age are similar to us: our pets, animals that look like our pets and animals that are frequently humanized in popular culture. The same however is true of other animals: many people raise cats and dogs together and they learn to treat eachother similar as their own kind. Dolphinariums keep orcas and dolphins together and they learn to play together and treat eachother as equals even though in the ocean, a killer whale would eat a dolphin without second thought. Imprinting is the principle that animals learn treat other animals they are surrounded with from early childhood as belonging to their own species. In the wild this just doesn't happen very often between predator and prey because they usually prefer different surroundings to live in.

 

[Kodiak]

Does a butcher feel sorry for the pig he slaughters? I don't think so.

Do you really feel that comfortable speaking for all butchers? Besides, I'm talking species and you are talking a specific occupation you hope will prove your point. It doesn't. It's the ability to empathize with other species, not the actual act, that is crucial. We protect threatened and endangered species from extinction. We consider some animals food and others companions. Do you think mosquitos care that they kill millions of human being a year? Do you think any animal, even a single chimp or dolphin, care one whit about the devastating human loss generated by the feeding of mosquitos? How many non-human animals want a human being as a companion?

...our pets, animals that look like our pets and animals that are frequently humanized in popular culture. The same however is true of other animals: many people raise cats and dogs together and they learn to treat eachother similar as their own kind. Dolphinariums keep orcas and dolphins together and they learn to play together and treat each other as equals even though in the ocean, a killer whale would eat a dolphin without second thought. Imprinting is the principle that animals learn treat other animals they are surrounded with from early childhood as belonging to their own species. In the wild this just doesn't happen very often between predator and prey because they usually prefer different surroundings to live in.

You've just made my argument for me. Only man is uniquely capable of interacting with, loving, cross-breeding, training, caring, housing, feeding, protecting, and empathizing with other species.

It never happens "in the wild" because all other species are incapable of doing it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you really feel that comfortable speaking for all butchers? Besides, I'm talking species and you are talking a specific occupation you hope will prove your point. It doesn't. It's the ability to empathize with other species, not the actual act, that is crucial. We protect threatened and endangered species from extinction. We consider some animals food and others companions. Do you think mosquitos care that they kill millions of human being a year? Do you think any animal, even a single chimp or dolphin, care one whit about the devastating human loss generated by the feeding of mosquitos? How many non-human animals want a human being as a companion?

...

You've just made my argument for me. Only man is uniquely capable of interacting with, loving, cross-breeding, training, caring, housing, feeding, protecting, and empathizing with other species.

It never happens "in the wild" because all other species are incapable of doing it.

So, you are saying that, if you want rights, you gotta care? You gotta "do unto others"?

Edited to add:

You gotta be able to "do unto others"? (There's a slight difference)

 

[Earthborn]

It never happens "in the wild" because all other species are incapable of doing it.

If all other species are incapable of doing it, they would also be incapable of doing it in captivity. And that's just not true. So this ability is not missing in other animals, it just depends on the environment that they are in whether it develops or not.

The only thing you can argue that is 'superior' in humans is its ability to be a generalist. We can use our intelligence to adapt to almost any environment. The only reason why we care so much for so many other animals is because we can colonize so many environments and meet so many other species to become imprinted on. We don't necessarily have a greater ability to empathize, just more to empathize with.

I don't see how anyone can derive natural rights from that.