Article Image

My reply to Mike Renzulli on "Animal 'Rights' being incompatible with liberty"...

Written by Subject: Philosophy of Liberty

MARC VICTOR'S REPLY (ON 09-05-15) TO MIKE RENZULLI'S RESPONSE TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

A Response to Mike Renzulli...

My friend Mike Renzulli has posted his thoughtful response to my article.  Although I respect Mike as well as his opinion on the matter, like others who have read my article, Mike has missed the main point.  In my article, I have admittedly and intentionally advanced several different points.  That said, the main point of my article is that issues of "morality" are almost always legitimate points of disagreement and contention.  As such, we need to be vigilant about strictly excluding moral views from the legal realm where the consequences of acting against the rule could result in prison time.  Although laws are indeed based upon moral views, the legal realm should only contain those very basic moral views with which most rational people agree.  I assert that the Non-Aggression Principle encompasses those moral views.  As such, the legal realm ought to be comprised solely of rules aligned with the Non-Aggression Principle.  That the "moral realm" and the "legal realm" ought to be identified separately and treated accordingly is the main point of my article.

Given that most freedom inclined people agree on easy issues such as the drug war or prostitution, I could have used either of those issues  to make my main point in a less controversial way.  That I intentionally used the much more complex issue of "animal rights" to illustrate my main point is simply evidence that I sometimes see controversy as a useful tool.  I'm therefore not surprised at all that my article has generated controversy, however I do not want readers to lose sight of my critically important main point.

As I said at the outset, I also intended to advance several different minor points for readers to consider.  One of my unrelated minor points I hope readers will consider is the health benefits which flow from decreasing the consumption of animal protein and adopting a predominately whole food plant based diet.  This point is mostly unrelated to any moral or legal issue.  As a matter of human health, I do not strongly advocate abstaining from ingesting all animal products.  However, the scientific evidence, as well as my own personal experience, move me to alert and encourage my fellow human beings to at least decrease the ingestion of all animal products to at most 10% of caloric intake.  Especially readers who are skeptical of government should consider that the government may have its own reasons, unrelated to your health, for relentlessly promoting the ingestion of animal products; especially to our children.  I hope readers will be open minded to this issue for the sake of their own health. 

Another point I wanted to encourage readers to think about is the moral issue of simply killing or eating animals for mere pleasure.  The argument that eating meat for pleasure is immoral was previously and more eloquently asserted by Ethics Professor Louis P. Pojman.  He asserts this position notwithstanding a belief that humans ought to be valued above non-human animals.  I encourage readers to carefully review it here:                          

http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Engel,%20The%20Immorality%20of%20Eating%20Meat%20(2000).pdf

In addition to Professor Pojman's article, I challenge you to watch this thirteen minute video narrated by Paul McCartney. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_UpyY2MIOc  I fail to comprehend how any human being could view this video and not be moved to conclude eating animals for pleasure isn't at least immoral.  Regularly eating animals for pleasure is supporting an Auschwitz-like experience for our fellow animals.  Although we are intellectually superior in all ways to our fellow animals, supporting this treatment for animals is disgraceful.  This conduct is incompatible with the claim that we are compassionate, thoughtful, moral people of peace.  It doesn't mesh.  We ought to at least be honest about what we are doing.  

Finally, for more refined libertarian thinkers, my article asserts the important point that difficult issues where honest libertarians genuinely attempting to apply the Non-Aggression Principle disagree ought to simply be swept into the moral realm.  To assert that all libertarians agree on all issues is simply inaccurate.  There are many difficult issues such as abortion.  Libertarians for life reasonably see the unborn baby as a self owning being entitled to the same protections against trespass as any other human.  Libertarians for choice are reasonably offended by laws that assert control, or even initiate force upon a woman's body and personal reproductive decisions.  As such, these libertarians don't recognize the unborn baby's "rights" until some time much later than conception.  Both camps have reasonable arguments. 

However, because we ought to be vigilant about keeping the legal realm strictly limited to clear violations of the Non-Aggression Principle, until such time as a majority of reasonable people honestly attempting to apply the Non-Aggression Principle agree, we must treat the issue as a moral issue.  The same can be said of animal rights.  I intentionally used the word "subjective" on my animal rights chart.  I can't prove any of it, and honest libertarians can and do disagree with my analysis.  Therefore, as I said in my article's title, I acknowledge your right to eat steak.  Society must continue to have workable rules.  Strictly limiting the legal realm to rules organized around clear violations of the Non-Aggression Principle is what makes the most sense to me. 

=========================================================

MIKE RENZULLI'S RESPONSE ON 09-04-15 TO MARC'S ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

Animal "rights" are incompatible with liberty and a free society

In a recent essay criminal attorney Marc Victor attempts to make the case for animal rights based on the non-aggression principle (THE IMMORALITY OF EATING STEAK AND WHY I ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR RIGHT TO EAT IT). Though, to his credit, he personally would not impose his views on others, however, Victor's endorsement of the idea indirectly gives credence to the concept of giving animals the same rights as humans as purported by groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Animal rights are incompatible with a free society and, consequently, Marc Victor contradicts himself when he says he is a lover of liberty but falls on the side of seeking to persuade others to treat animals the same as humans since (according to him) both are, essentially, the same. In one sentence, Victor surprisingly seems to allude to the notion that a caged animal is similar to the condition of  slavery.

As Aristotle observed, humans aren't just animals we are moral animals. There is one primary thing that separates humans from animals and why humans are nature's favored species. As Ayn Rand points out, rights are moral principles derived from reality that enable humans to be able to peacefully resolve disputes and trade among each other. The idea of animal rights borrows from French Enlightenment philosopher Rene Descartes' claim I feel pain, therefore I have rights. However, rights are not dependent on a being's ability to feel pain, but on a being's ability to think. This is what John Locke concluded when he essentially corrected Descartes in his writings on government. It is because of mankind's ability to think and reason that seperates humans from animals like dogs, cats or even cows. Predation, and not reason, is an animal's primary means of survival and that why animals cannot and should not have the same rights as humans. It is also morally just for humans to use animals for their betterment, be it for food, domestic use (such as pets or sport) or even medical experimentation (aka vivisection).

I have no doubt that Marc Victor does not subscribe to the same ethics as PETA or ALF and I do not condone abusing animals but do think that killing them is necessary in certain situations. But the reason why animal rights groups exist and further their morally bankrupt idea is that they subscribe to a mystical reverence for nature grounded in their hatred of human beings (other than themselves of course). Essentially, groups like PETA and ALF worship the savagery of the animal kingdom and simultaneously condemn the civilization of mankind because they themselves are savages. The philosophy of animal rights was not created out of any high minded cause of seeking to convince people that animals should be treated humanely but to give justification to the animalistic treatment of humans. The organizations based on this evil mantra and their activists are of the purest evil since killing off humans and destroying our civilization is their end goal.

A prime example of this are animal rights groups who want to outlaw using animals in medical experiments. Thanks to vivisection, medicines and even therapies have been produced that help save and even enhance human lives. But, as PETA head Ingrid Newkirk once said that even if medical experiments involving using animals are conducted to find a cure for AIDS her group would be against them. PETA has followed through by giving moral, legal and even monetary help to ALF activists who have conducted acts of vandalism and terrorism. This includes ransacking medical labs, releasing animals in lab custody and even conducting acts of harassment and violence against scientists. Other organizations have released videos of alleged animal abuse only to have found later they were skewed or edited to fit the claim put forth that a slaughter house, farm or medical lab that housed the animals were abusing them. If using animals for medical tests is halted or even banned, then humans who could benefit from medical research using animals would either live lives of pain and suffering or die prematurely. 

If you would like to read about this issue further, some great sources that explore the issue of animal rights in more detail are Tibor Machan's book Putting Humans First and there are lectures featuring him on YouTube. The Ayn Rand Institute's Dr. Edwin Locke has written about this in which you can read his essays on this subject online for free and the blog Green Jihad (http://greenjihad.net) documents activities of environmentalist groups such as PETA and ALF.  Marc Victor has a right to his conclusions, opinions and dietary choices, but when it comes to his essay, he has obviously decided to follow his feelings and not the facts. That includes not taking into account the long term implications of what he is advocating, as evidenced by his logical and ethical contradiction related to comparing animals to humans while seeking to persuade others to treat animals ethically.

=========================================================

MARC'S ORIGINAL ARTICLE (BELOW) POSTED ON 09-03-15:

Being humble or even productively self-critical isn't fashionable.  People groundlessly and publicly proclaiming, "I'm the greatest" or "Nobody is as smart as me" seems commonplace today.  When people hold differing opinions, I have noticed many people "listen" to others but hear nothing as they prepare their "brilliant" and mostly regurgitated stock responses.  We live in a chest pounding, self-aggrandizing, money flaunting society.  I don't pretend to be totally immune. 

Like most people, I have always thought of myself as an enlightened guy.  I am generally comfortable I have arrived at correct conclusions for all the issues I have carefully considered.  However, as I have grown older, I have learned the value of carefully and regularly re-evaluating all my conclusions.  I now enjoy the process; especially discarding a long held but erroneous conclusion for a new more correct one.  I have become a bit more humble in my conclusions; at least inwardly.  I have sincerely adopted the difficult position of being more dedicated to holding correct conclusions rather than simply maintaining the same conclusions forever. 

The Non-Aggression Principle

 I'm proud to say I'm a man of peace.  I have enthusiastically been telling people for decades I oppose the initiation of force or fraud against non-aggressors a/k/a the "Non-Aggression Principle" hereinafter, the "Principle."  The Principle seems simple, elegant and self evident to me.  Sometimes I express the Principle as follows, "How about we agree I'm in charge of me and my property and you are in charge of you and your property?"  Duh!  Sometimes I express the Principle in a slightly more complex way thusly, "Voluntary exchanges between peaceful and competent adults ought to be legal, while involuntary exchanges ought to be illegal."

I'm not advocating for utopia.  I realize lots of important issues remain unresolved such as determining actual competency, identifying who is initiating the force, and defining the outer boundaries of "force" or "fraud" or "imminent risk of force" and "coercion."[1] 

Despite these debatable issues, adhering to the Principle as the major foundational and guiding legal principle of a civilized society is the only way to possibly achieve a free society.  To the extent this Principle is not followed, what results is a tyrannical society where force or fraud is initiated against non-aggressors, allowing some people to unjustly impose their will upon others.  Said another way, to the extent this Principle is adhered to, a civil and just society results.    

I have probably thought through, discussed and even gladly argued about countless applications of this Principle with more people than I could ever recall over many years.  I'm generally offended by any compromise of the holy Principle.  As such, I consider myself to be pro-freedom, pro-peace, and a solid, some would say "hard core" or even "radical"[2] libertarian.

Honestly Considering Animal Rights

Every once in a while, during some hotly contested debate with either a statist or another libertarian, the issue of animal rights arises.  Like most libertarians I have met, I quickly and mindlessly dismissed the issue with a terse assertion about how the Principle is simply inapplicable to "animals."

I have never been consciously aware of any conflict in promoting the Principle as I was cheerfully eating my way through some portion of a cow's dead flesh.  In fact, I suspect few people regularly ate more dead animal flesh than me.  I clearly recall the joy I once derived from strictly adhering to the Atkins Diet.  For me, eating bacon cheese burgers for breakfast, chicken for lunch and steak for dinner was second only to eating some form of pork for any meal.  For the first 44 years of my life, I was undoubtedly a huge fan and regular consumer of eating dead animal flesh.

I have always been very interested in promoting good health.[3]  I have exercised vigorously and regularly since the age of 16.  In Marine Corps boot camp, I achieved the highest score in my series for the physical fitness test.  Few Marines could ever outperform me on either a physical fitness test or a push up challenge.  For most of my life, I have regularly been going to the gym approximately six days per week.  I have always appeared to be both healthy and fit. 

However, at age 44, my doctor informed me that both my cholesterol level and my blood pressure were a bit high.  After the issues persisted, prescription drugs were suggested.  At this point, I grudgingly decided to reexamine my diet.  After reading The China Study by T. Colin Campbell and Eat to Live by Joel Fuhrman, I resolved to radically change my diet and adopt a "whole food plant based" diet instead.[4]  I made this change solely for health reasons without the slightest thought to any ethical or environmental concerns.  It wasn't long after I had adopted a whole food plant based diet my overall health dramatically and objectively improved.             

Quite unexpectedly, I soon realized my thinking about animal rights had been entirely corrupted and thoroughly biased by my previously insatiable desire to eat dead animal flesh.  Prior to my dietary change, I would never have envisioned giving up eating dead animals nor would I ever have entertained the possibility that eating dead animals necessitated an unjustified initiation of force.  Although not by any conscious or dishonest intention, I realized I had previously been too dismissive of most animal rights arguments.

For the first time in my life, I confronted the animal rights issue free from my own personal need to justify my seemingly insatiable desire to continue to consume dead animal flesh.  With full awareness of my new health related biases against consuming dead animal flesh, I endeavored to consider the issue anew.

For most of my life, I have not consumed any tobacco, alcohol or carbonated drinks.  Despite my personal preferences, I remain an uncompromising defender of the rights of others to peacefully consume such items.  Indeed, I have previously written about the virtue of defending the rights of others to peacefully engage in activities you personally abhor.[5]   Nonetheless, I endeavored to proceed carefully applying my dearly held Principle.

It's easy to exclude "animals" from the Principle until you honestly admit humans are also "animals."  Sometimes we pretend humans are not animals, but I expect any serious biologist would quickly dispel that notion.  Humans are undoubtedly special mammals for many reasons, but that special nature does not magically convert us into something other than animals.

I have often wondered how many of our nation's founding fathers could speak and write so eloquently about the philosophy of freedom while also being so hypocritical by holding black slaves.  Now I understand.  By simply exempting black people from the rights of other humans, slavery seemed legally and morally justified.  By simply exempting non-human animals from the Principle, it appears as if I did the same thing as our slave owning founding fathers. 

However, my sincere effort to apply the Principle to non-human animals has proven extraordinarily difficult.  For starters, something seems wrong about equating the rights of a Bonobo Monkey with that of a common mosquito.  For that matter, it wasn't clear to me why all plants were automatically exempt from the Principle.  Additionally, the purpose for the initiation of force also appears relevant to me.  Killing animals for pleasure, a/k/a "hunting" seems qualitatively different from initiating force against, or even killing, animals for critical life saving medical research to possibly save countless human lives. 

As part of my sincere attempt to objectively determine how the Principle applies to non-human animals, I created a chart detailing my best efforts to figure it out.  I created my "Wonderfulness of Life" scale for the X Axis.  It reflects my entirely subjective determinations based on many factors, including complexity of life, consciousness level, ability to experience pain and others.  The Y Axis contains my entirely subjective rankings about the reason force is employed.  As you will see from briefly reviewing my best efforts, there are lots of conclusions for reasonable people to disagree with and argue about in this area.  I don't pretend to have now uncovered the objective truth about when force can morally be initiated against non-human animals.[6] 

The Moral Realm and the Legal Realm

As I have frequently lectured, discussed and even argued with countless people about the Principle for decades, I have concluded that the failure to distinguish between the "legal realm" and the "moral realm" may be the single most significant obstacle to achieving a free society.  To state it bluntly, the "legal realm" is actually that section of our morality that we impose upon others by force if necessary.[7] 

I know many libertarians hate how I describe the legal realm.  We don't like to think of ourselves as imposing our morality upon others.  However, I think we are stuck with it.  Like all other opinions, the holy Principle is merely a subjective opinion.  Accepting the Principle first requires an underlying subjective opinion about self-ownership as well as a particular theory of property rights.  As such, the Principle cannot be objectively proven to be anything more than a subjective opinion.[8] 

Although most people initially claim to agree with the Principle, many of them, whether consciously or unconsciously, simply abandon it to forcefully impose their wider moral views upon others who disagree.  Unfortunately, many people are happy to initiate force against others for a variety of reasons.  As such, I have invested lots of time, both successfully and unsuccessfully, attempting to convince others to actually embrace the Principle rather than to simply give it lip service.     

Given that the legal realm is imposed upon people whether they like it or not, it ought to be as small and least intrusive as possible.  It ought to reflect the least common denominator of morality that most reasonable people can agree upon.  The Principle fits this requirement perfectly.  I don't feel badly about imposing upon people laws that restrict them from initiating force or fraud against other people or their property.

We each have moral views far in excess of the Principle.  The Principle is entirely insufficient as a complete moral code.  Beyond prohibiting the initiation of force or fraud, it says nothing.  The Principle is of no help whatsoever in determining how we ought to affirmatively treat our fellow humans.  One could entirely comply with the Principle and be an antisocial, self-centered jerk.

All humans require a moral code far more extensive to resolve most of life's challenges.  Indeed, we all have an extensive moral code upon which we rely even if we are not consciously aware of it.  Our respective moral codes can be either fixed or fluid and are derived from a variety of different sources.  We don't all agree on moral issues and we never will.  Despite the claim that one's morality is objectively true, the reality is that if any particular moral code was objectively true, we would have all agreed on it a long time ago.  No moral code can be objectively proven as the one true moral code.  

Given the endless difficulties in achieving agreement on morality, society has two reasonable options: 1. Engage in an endless and often violent struggle between groups of differing moralities, each trying to impose their particular morality upon others by force, or 2. Limit what we impose on others to the bare minimum by limiting the legal realm to the Principle.  Choice #2 seems the obvious winner. 

As for important and enduring moral principles, I suspect better theories will be persuasive to others on their merits alone.  Good moral principles don't require the force of law to coerce their acceptance.  Such "acceptance" really isn't true acceptance at all.  This is why a free, civilized and truly moral society requires a clear wall of separation between the legal realm and the moral realm.  We ought not to settle for anything less; even in cases where a proposed law is consistent with or even promotes our own personal moral code.  A free society requires that we resist the urge.       

Animal Rights Belong in the Moral Realm

I have a very intelligent and thoughtful libertarian friend who personally holds that prostitution is an immoral act.  I happen to know his conclusion on this point is derived directly from his Christian beliefs.  I suspect he advocates as persuasively as he can to discourage people from engaging in prostitution.  I support his right to peacefully advocate against people engaging in prostitution.  I also know he advocates for legalization of prostitution.  The reason my friend is entirely consistent is because he successfully distinguishes between the moral realm, where he is free to peacefully discourage prostitution, and the legal realm where he should not be free to forcefully impose his personal moral views upon others. 

It is easy to conclude the issue of prostitution ought not to be prohibited in the legal realm.  Applying the Principle, and assuming there is no force or fraud employed, competent adults decide for themselves how to use their own money and bodies.  As such, voluntary and consensual prostitution among consenting adults ought to be legal.[9]  The same can be said for the drug war, homosexual acts, euthanasia, blasphemy, gambling, premarital sex and many other issues.  A free society requires we acknowledge the rights of other competent adults to arrive at their own moral conclusions and act accordingly so long as they don't violate the Principle.  For each of these issues, it is clear that the person who peacefully engages in any one of them does not violate the Principle. 

Determining whether the Principle is violated is the crux of the difficulty for the animal rights issue.  I certainly could have utilized my animal rights chart and concluded that all acts in the "immoral zone" violate the Principle and should therefore be illegal.  However, all aspects of my animal rights chart are entirely subjective judgments, opinions, observations and conclusions with which anyone could honestly and reasonably disagree.  In fact, I could easily be persuaded to make changes to it myself, and I reserve the right to do so anytime in the future.  As such, the issue of animal rights properly resides almost entirely in the moral realm rather than in the legal realm.

I use the words "almost entirely" because I'm not saying animals ought to be afforded no rights at all.  Indeed, there are some acts at the margins that some communities may and have determined clearly violate the Principle and therefore ought to be illegal.[10]  Indeed, as time passes and our society as a whole continues to become more open minded and enlightened, I expect the legal rights of non-human animals will continue to expand; maybe someday to even properly legally prohibit eating steak for pleasure.  However, that day is still far away.      

The difficulty, or even impossibility, of fashioning an honest bright line rule in this area is evidence that the issue of animal rights ought to be relegated to the moral realm except for the clearest of cases upon which enough people agree.  Reasonable people using best efforts to apply the Principle can and do honestly disagree on the vast majority of animal rights related issues.[11] 

My personal view, employing my animal rights chart, is that eating steak is an immoral act.  However, like my friend who concludes prostitution is immoral, I intentionally refuse to impose my moral judgments upon others by enshrining them into law.  I strictly respect the rights of others to reach different moral conclusions and peacefully live accordingly to them.      

Conclusion

It is worth stating again that the failure to distinguish between the "legal realm" and the "moral realm" may be the single most significant obstacle to achieving a free society.  To the extent I have had success in converting people into peace promoting libertarians, my success has been largely based upon convincing them to no longer seek to impose their moral judgments upon others by employing the force of law.

Because of my journey thinking through the animal rights issue, I selected the issue of animal rights to help illustrate the difference between the moral realm and the legal realm for this article.  However, most people fail to analyze their use of force even as applied to our fellow humans.  Typical liberals enthusiastically initiate force against their fellow humans in order to impose their particular moral views in a variety of areas such as controlling distribution of income, mandating healthcare coverage, prohibiting safe firearms ownership, controlling charitable donations and regulating employment contracts. 

These are merely a few examples of liberals wrongfully imposing their greater moral views upon others by enshrining them into law.  That I may even agree with their particular moral ends does not justify their wrongful initiation of force to accomplish those ends.  The hypocrisy of liberals who honorably oppose initiating force against non-human animals, but who gladly and enthusiastically initiate force against humans to accomplish their own personal goals is stunning.  

Conservatives are no better than liberals in exercising restraint in forcefully imposing their particular moral conclusions upon their fellow humans.  Typical conservatives also violate the Principle in a variety of areas such as opposing gay marriage, prohibiting peaceful recreational drug use or prostitution, promoting their particular notions of "family" or "American" or "Christian" values upon other people or nations and simply forcing others to fund foreign aid to other nations for whatever reason.  Although I may also agree with some of their moral goals, violating the Principle to accomplish those ends corrupts the worthiness of the effort.  Violating the Principle is always an immoral act; even when it is violated in good faith to allegedly bring about a worthy moral goal.                            

In the end, imposing your morality on another person by enshrining it into the law is an admission your moral view is unpersuasive and unavailing.  To truly convince another person of the worthiness of your moral view, you must honestly win their heart and mind.      

A real and honest dedication to a free society requires the sometimes difficult commitment to the concept that other competent adults are legally entitled to peacefully engage in acts you personally oppose and find morally reprehensible.  Accepting and even embracing this notion requires a higher degree of thinking, but admits you to the growing club of humans who honestly support a free society.  I urge you to join us!

Marc J. Victor

www.AttorneyForFreedom.com

[1]  There are many other issues as well.  These issues require judgment calls and may be resolved differently in different communities.  So long as people are sincerely dedicated to the Principle in their analysis, I applaud and recognize them as being sincerely committed to achieving a free society.

[2]  It has never bothered me to be called a "radical."  I actually like it.  However, I have never understood what was so radical about asserting that competent adults ought to be in charge of themselves, their money, their property and their time.  Asserting that one person, or even a majority of people, have the right to control others by coercion or force seems the radical position to me. 

[3]  Well, so I thought. 

[4]  I actually read several books by many different authors about diet.  I also carefully reviewed the critiques of The China Study as well as T. Colin Campbell's written responses to those critiques.  I interviewed T. Colin Campbell on my radio show, attended a seminar on nutrition where T. Colin Campbell was a lecturer and personally discussed health and nutrition with him for several hours at my home after we became personal friends.  I also carefully read his second book entitled Whole which I also highly recommend. 

[5]  See my article entitled, "Are You Really For Freedom?"

[6]  Here is a link to a solid, well-reasoned and entirely philosophical approach concluding that eating animals is immoral. http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Engel,%20The%20Immorality%20of%20Eating%20Meat%20(2000).pdf

[7]  Libertarians hate the notion of imposing their morality on others.  However, we shouldn't pretend we aren't doing it.  Although we agree that imposing this particular and small section of our morality upon others is justified, we should be honest about it. 

[8]  That something is a subjective opinion does not mean it is unimportant, irrelevant or wrong.  Not all subjective opinions ought to be treated equally.  Indeed, I attempt to carefully arrive at my fundamental and basic subjective opinions.  If I concluded your subjective opinions were better then mine, I would adopt yours.    

[9]  An entirely different conclusion is reached if the people involved are not competent adults or there is force or fraud employed in the transaction.  Such a transaction would violate the Principle and therefore ought to be illegal.  My personal conclusion about whether prostitution is a moral act is beyond the scope of this article.

[10]  An example may be killing or torturing a bonobo monkey for the "fun" of it.  I wouldn't object to a community honestly attempting to apply the Principle and concluding this ought to be an illegal act. 

[11]  The vast majority of serious human conflicts can be easily and justly resolved by honestly applying the Principle.  The issue of animal rights is one of the few but serious exceptions.  Other examples of difficult issues better left mostly to the moral realm include abortion and the rights of minors.  That the Principle doesn't easily resolve 100% of all issues is in no way an indictment of the Principle.  Using best efforts to honestly adhere to the Principle is still the only way to possibly achieve a just and free society.   

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by Jim Delton
Entered on:

All "proofs" flow from the premise. Marc stated his premises and his proofs flowed from them. Mike's argument at it's core is not that Marc is wrong but that Marc's premises are wrong. Then Mike states his premises and naturally his proof flows from his premises. An example is Mike's statement "However, rights are not dependent on a being's ability to feel pain, but on a being's ability to think." He then offers as proof of his statement that John Locke also concluded likewise. Then, having "proven" his statement (premise) he proceeds down the path that naturally ends showing that he is right. In many years of these kinds of discussions of 'rights' I have concluded that most people are wrong in where they believe rights come from. Rights always come about thru a process called AED. Assert, Exercise, and Defend. And this process can be done on behalf of others. I will expand on AED but first want to make it clear that because animals are so severely disadvantaged in any fight between them and Man, animal "rights" for the most part will only exist when man creates them, thru AED, on behalf of the animals. Neither man, nor animals have any inherent rights. So, what is AED and how does it work? Any rights anyone has are only those rights they, either as an individual, or as a member of a society, can assert, exercise, and defend, hence AED. AED is specifically intended to dispense with the notion of rights that you are born with. i.e. inherent rights or however you wish to characterise starting from a premise that is not open for debate or question. The only "rights you are born with" are those that your parents and/or the society you are born into have agreed that you have by virtue of being a member of that family/society. And you really only have them if your family/society engages in AED to secure them, you don't have them because they are written down somewhere. While we can say you are born with them, which makes it sound like they are inherent, the actual situation is your family/society has chosen to extend them to you. They are not "god given/inherent" but are family/society given and are maintained thru AED. Use the example of the government spying on you...the constitution says you have the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects...but for all practical purposes, that right is gone because we cannot stop the government from violating it, even though it is still in the Constitution and the very people who swore to uphold said document are violating it every day. As we see in the court cases, it's a constant war waged by each side, the gvt versus the citizens with each applying AED. So, any rights anyone has are only those rights they, either as an individual, or as a member of a society, can assert, exercise, and defend (AED). That means I have a right to life only so long as I can AED against someone who feels differently. You might recognize that as war. At that point, since I no longer have a right to life, is it true that person did nothing wrong by taking it? Now we have left the AED framework and moved into Philosophy and the area of right and wrong. Questions of right and wrong may well be underpinnings of why people and society choose what they will AED but right and wrong are not part of AED. We can use founding of the USA as an example of AED. Neither the Declaration or the Constitution were intended to be a list of every single right people had. The founders specifically talked about this issue and it's clear from their writings that they did not intend the list to be all inclusive. As to things being "self-evident", that's well and good if you are looking for something that sounds good but there is no such thing as self-evident or inherent rights. You are born with zero rights. Any rights anyone has are only those rights they, either as an individual, or as a member of a society, can assert, exercise, and defend (AED). AED is an adjunct to the concept of "might makes right". There are least three pertinent meanings to the word "right" and people mix them up and misapply/misunderstand the usage of the phrase "might makes right". right = setting things that are akimbo back on track, such as fixing a collapsed roof,i.e. setting things right. That would be one case of "Might makes right". Someone "strong", i.e. someone with "might" would do the fixing. This is the "It's ok, everything is all RIGHT now" usage. right = something we are able to do in the face of opposition where the opposition is not allowed, or is actively prevented, from stopping us. Burning a flag would be an example. Here the might of society or the state or simply the other people in the room are used to keep at bay those who would stop us from doing the burning. This is the "I have a RIGHT to do that!" use of the term. right = the moral dimension. Some things are morally approved of, some are not, i.e this is right, this other thing is wrong. This is the "What you are doing is offensive to my Islamic beliefs, it's just not RIGHT, cover your face!!." usage. So the phrase =Might makes right= can be used in discussions of any of those aspects of "right". And in discussions, often the wrong aspect is argued. The second and third that I listed are the two most commonly used interchangeably in discussions leading to confusion of what is being discussed. At the end of the day, the Assert, Exercise, and Defend, AED, concept clarifies exactly what's in play. You think you have some inherent Right? Prove it. Assert to me what right you think you have. Now go Exercise it. Can you exercise it when someone else says "stop that"? If you can't DEFEND your right and CONTINUE to Exercise it, then you don't have it. This clarifies the common situation where you ostensibly have a right, on your own property for example, to dig a hole, put a candle in it, light it, and watch the tiny little flame. Apply the AED test to this and I think you'll see how AED shows that if your neighbor objects you win the argument. Now try the same thing on the neighbor's property and apply the AED test to the situation and see if you still have the "right" to do this. The answer can vary depending on the neighbor!! Now look at something more significant that you do and that you ostensibly have a right to do and at each step see how the AED test works out. If the police stop you at a roadblock what "rights" do you ACTUALLY HAVE AT THAT POINT IN TIME? Sometimes the literally correct legal answer (if you aren't being detained then legally you are free to go,... can you do that with three cops surrounding your vehicle....) is at odds with the de facto answer AT THAT TIME. The key here is that at the roadblock you may have lost your rights due to the MIGHT of the police. Once they let you go have you meaningfully regained the right? When there is no challenge against the right which you must then DEFEND there is no significant meaning to the idea of having a right. In the absence of Exercise and Defend ALL rights Exist. This shows the importance of the Exercise part of AED. If you aren't/can't exercise a "right", you don't have it in any meaningful sense. Whenever you think you "have a right to..." apply the AED test and see if you actually do. You will find in the end that "might makes right". If you (or society on your behalf) have enough *might* you can acquire/use any or all of the three dimensions of "right" I defined originally.... Just look at US foreign policy.....

Comment by Justin DeLano
Entered on:

I like this topic because it has enough emotion attached to it to make it interesting. I think it's important to distinguish between those farmers who raise animals with love and compassion and exchange with their animals the care of food, healthcare and a safe place to procreate, for the ultimate sacrifice of their bodies at the end of their life cycle. I think it's important to remember that not every farm is a Foster's farm or mega feedlot. To lump every farmer in with the bad mega corps isn't fair. There are plenty of people who harvest their animals with compassion and fairness. Also, it isn't easy to get complete nutrition from a plant based diet. Many people believe in the work of Dr. Weston Price, who encourages a diet of whole foods that include healthy animals. I have lived as a vegetarian, a vegan, and an omnivore, and I can say, only speaking for myself, that I feel significantly healthier and stronger when animal proteins are in my diet. I also think that it's dangerous to mix topics like eating animals for sustenance and vivisection. I don't have very strong feelings for animal testing, I think that it mainly constitutes torture. But grouping that behavior with all farming, including those small farmers who go out of their way to care for their animals, is doing everyone a disservice. And comparing rats and dogs to farm animals is not really helpful to the argument. No offense to any Chinese readers, but nobody's eating those animals here. We are really talking about a handful of domesticated species that we as humans raise for food. Now, what is the point of life, in general? Basically, eat, sleep, procreate. We have taken a few animals that may or may not have done amazingly on their own in the wild, and we have hitched their wagon to ours. Their survival as a species depends on us. That relationship has some good and bad to it. They are basically our indentured servants or slaves, but their genes get to survive as long as ours do. To say that animals deserve human rights is kind of pointless. No other animal species gets this type of guarantee from any other animal. They eat each other and kill each other in pretty nasty ways. I'd personally rather get shot between the eyes than eaten alive. The deal they get from us is continued survival at the minimum, and depending on the quality of their slave masters, the scale is pretty wide for how good their quality of life is before they are harvested. In the wild, they would get no guarantees, and could be one of the hundreds of species that are becoming extinct almost daily. And really, if you think about humans as domesticated animals also, that's really the deal we have with our overlords. Don't believe in human slaves? Do some more research. Start in china. Look at your iPhone. We are all slaves, but our overlords in America are basically like the small organic farmers who raise small amounts of livestock in very humane ways and harvest them in humane ways while improving the quality of their land through healthy soil life. The main point here is don't over generalize. For the most part, every one is right, but this issue isn't cut and dry, black and white or simple. It's nuanced and needs to be treated as such. The people who treat their animals right need to be recognized for doing so, and those who mistreat animals, should have their actions be shown, so that people can decide who to support with their wallet votes. Peace.

Comment by Ed Vallejo
Entered on:

I would like to point out the major flaw in Mikes 'logic'. He states: " However, rights are not dependent on a being's ability to feel pain, but on a being's ability to think." SO, you have bested Dr. Doolittle and can 'converse with the animals' now, eh? How else could you determine positively that cats, dogs, cows, horses (Go watch the movie 'War Horse'!), dolphins, whales, and rats DO NOT THINK!?! Why are rats a favorite subject for maze experiments that GAUGE REASONING!?! You also state you 'don't condone animal abuse' but in the preceeding paragraph you give the green light to DEATHMATCH BLOODSPORTS! Do I have to make a public statement and put it on social record that I do not want to be eaten, or is it a 'given'? They why does my dog have to? Ed


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

http://freedomsphoenix.thinkpenguin.com/