The "Rights" of Animals
The assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one, writes Murray Rothbard. Individuals possess rights not because we "feel" that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. ... Natural law is necessarily species-bound. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (35)
What if the debate were extended to a machine with true artificial intelligence? A program that thought and reasoned just as a human being does? Does it have a right to exist? Assuming that it was not a sponge on society (sucking up electrons) and had its own independent power system (like solar panels or something), what then?
I know that its hypothetical at this point, but I expect that we'll have to deal with this issue within a couple of generations.
Published: July 6, 2007 8:21 AM
If we follow the logic of Murray Rothbard's argument, that humans can do pretty much what they want to with animals becuase we are more powerful, then these Martians he speaks of could morally do pretty much whatever they wanted to us.
They could kill & eat us, put us in zoos, experiment on us medically, trap us & cut off & wear our skin, shoot us for "sport" -- all the things we do to animals for our profit & pleasure.
We should always be kind to animals, especially if we are religious -- how can we ask for mercy from what is above us if we show none to what is below us ?
Published: July 6, 2007 8:59 AM
Lewis, you missed it.
Rothbard did not say this: "humans can do pretty much what they want to with animals becuase we are more powerful"
He said this:
and this:
"Might makes right" was hardly the topic of discussion here. I think you'll have a much harder time refuting the actual argument. Please think about it some more and see if there isn't some truth to be found here. No one said you have to be mean to animals, just that human rights should not be extended to animals.
Published: July 6, 2007 9:45 AM
I have a cousin who is general manager of a slaughterhouse, owned by a well known company. I have personally toured through it, including the killing floor. They have made remarkable progress in the humane treatment of the cattle coming through for slaughter. Better trained and more humane employees, better equipment.
All this was done because of pressure of the free market, NOT by increased government regulation. Under pressure by various animal welfare groups, various restaurant chains and supermarkets now audit their meat suppliers, which has caused these improvements. Market pressure was sufficient to accomplish this.
There are still a few rogue plants, but most of those are down in Mexico.
As for hunting, I can assure you that every edible part of any animal I hunt is consumed. I can also assure you that if there were no hunting, you would have overpopulation of deer and other prey animals, as their natural predators for the most part have been driven out.
I am kind of amused by the fact that a couple of states are actually trying to RECRUIT young people into hunting, as they realize they will be short of hunters as current hunters die or become unable to hunt.
Published: July 6, 2007 9:58 AM
What we have here, at the least, is a classic "failure to communicate". Until we can communicate with another intelligent species (terrestrial or otherwise), the question of their rights must remain open. For all we know, intelligent species may have been attempting to "petition" us for millennia and we don't know it(and probably wouldn't care, considering the uses we traditionally have had for animals). And making the usual lame argument for how special humans are belies ignorance of the work of zoologists with various, obviously intelligent, (and I think the evidence shows) sentient species over the last few decades. Every one of the characteristics of "human nature" that Rothbard lists: "the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor" are known to exist in at least some, possibly many, species.
Also, citing Genesis is unconvincing for those of us who take the creation story to be metaphorical at best and a poor source of authority for this or any other argument. It is almost certainly the origin of "human uniqueness" argument that is the basis for this discussion. In general, I have found libertarian arguments that reference aspects of the natural world to have a pre-Darwinian aroma to them. Libertarians would benefit from a more serious study of the natural world.
This argument only discusses "inter-species survival" while ignoring the usual focus of discussions of rights -- intra-(human) species survival and how we treat each other. If individuals of another species could be shown to be conscious of and empathic towards the suffering of others of their species (and there is considerable evidence for this), that alone would undercut Rothbard's argument.
Another reason to be sceptical about Rothbard's argument is that it relies on human consciousness as the basis for human action. While humans are at least occasionally conscious, what about those times (most of the time, in my opinion) that we act from unconscious motives? Do we have rights then?
Published: July 6, 2007 10:18 AM
For all we know, intelligent species may have been attempting to "petition" us for millennia and we don't know it(and probably wouldn't care, considering the uses we traditionally have had for animals).
You know what, you could right -- but why should we stop there? For all we know, plants have been pleading with us for our entire existence, only to have their cries fall on deaf bigoted ears. (Perhaps bacteria and other single-cell organisms, too!) With all of this potential injustice, which unfortunately may be escaping our ability to comprehend, we need to play the safest card possible. Since we simply don't know what we don't know, it's best to work with the broadest understanding of rights possible.
No more disinfectants, no more plant-based food, no more lawn-mowing or forest-clearing, and no more picking flowers for mother!
On a more serious note, Alan, I disagree that any animals have displayed true personhood yet (I've read about cases and generally follow the news in this area). In order for an animal to display the 'human' characteristic of sentience, they would have to communicate the concept "I wonder if I will die some day", with the second "I" being the word doing the 'metaphysical work.'
As far as I can tell, animals don't have that first-person perspective, or intentional states, in the way that humans do. And, like I've written above, making an assertion for potential human ignorance isn't a strong enough argument to extend rights.
Published: July 6, 2007 10:32 AM
On a sidenote:
I'm under the impression that most Libertarians and Austrians believe in a women's right to choose when it comes to abortion. However, in the article, Rothbard states:
If babies, including fetuses, are future human adults and human adults have natural rights, then women don't have the right to kill them.
Doesn't this conflict with the classic libertarian/Austrian view on abortion?
Thanks,
Marc
Published: July 6, 2007 11:15 AM
I am surprised that this chapter is not at all included, quoted or even cited on the Wikipedia page on "Animal Rights." Seems to me the libertarian view ought to be put up there where potentially millions of people can see it. Anyone volunteer to do this?
Published: July 6, 2007 11:28 AM
I think a huge part of the problem is that just because something is "allowed" by strict libertarian ethics, it does not mean one approves of it. I obviously don't approve of cruelty to animals, and to the extent that it's possible am nice to animals, have a pet, etc... however I recognize that these animals do not have "rights" in the sense we talk about them.
the same applies to aborition, a heinous, immoral act, but one that in strict libertarian theory, ought to be allowed (given the Rothbardian definition of a fetus as a parasitic organism). so we may boycott, protest, frown upon, discriminate against, exclude aborters, aborition doctors, etc., but we CANNOT shoot them, commit violence against them, etc., as much as it pains us... suffice it to say that their ultimate judgement lies not in our hands, but in His.
Published: July 6, 2007 11:38 AM
DC,
Note that Rothbard made the same point parenthetically and non-sarcastically. But my point was not to extend rights to every species, but possibly to those species that meet (or at least appear to meet) the list of apparently unique attributes that supposedly set humans apart from those other species. Since we only have the behavior of other animals, and of other humans for that matter, to use as evidence here, not an ability to read minds (human or otherwise), if another species appears to share those apparently unique traits, then we must take seriously the implication that they too are sentient and that human nature is not as unique as Rothbard claims. We must also acknowledge (as in my final point) that most humans may not be sentient or even conscious most of the time and therefore have no more rights than a chimp, if as Rothbard seems to indicate, that rights result ultimately from the possession of consciousness, or at the end, the potential for being human. His view is based on a somewhat naive, pre-Darwinian, pre-Freudian view of human nature that appears to be biblically based, rather than on what we know about natural history. The last 30 years of animal cognition research cannot simply be ignored. Some animals certainly ACT as though they are aware of the suffering and death of their fellows, and not simply in an empty- headed "Gee, I wonder where Bob is today" sense. It is a small jump to make that they possess personhood, a first-person perspective, and might be at least vaguely conscious of their own mortality.
Published: July 6, 2007 11:52 AM
Nick Bradley,
"We believe that robots will one day have rights. This will undoubtedly be a historically significant event. Such an extension of rights obviously presupposes a future that will be fundamentally different from the present. The expansion of rights to robots may promote a new appreciation of the interrelated rights and responsibilities of humans, machines and nature."
http://www.metafuture.org/Articles/TheRightsofRobots.htm
This will be an integral part of the so-called technological "Singularity, which people like Ray Kurzweil believe is near:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_is_Near
And among the many wonders in the aftermath of this event will be how lightly we learn to walk on the Earth. So lightly, in fact, that it will barely know we are here. If we are here at all.
Published: July 6, 2007 12:31 PM
It is a small jump to make that they possess personhood, a first-person perspective, and might be at least vaguely conscious of their own mortality.
It's not a small jump; it's the difference between persons and non-persons.
I wasn't going after mortality with my example, I was mostly trying to show the 'first person perspective' that I was talking about. ("I wonder if I will get ice cream today"; "I wonder if I will win this fight"). I don't think animals have shown the ability to think this way -- even with contemporary research taken into account. You are right in that they often ACT as though they do, but this in itself shouldn't be too much of a surprise, given that nature tends to bend boundaries and human-defined classes before breaking them. (For example, many plants seem to have touch / sense abilities).
Nevertheless -- and again, present literature considered -- I don't see a convincing case for non-human personhood in the animal kingdom. At least, not yet.
Published: July 6, 2007 12:49 PM
Before anyone makes the obvious joke: Person is not a robot. Thanks.
Published: July 6, 2007 12:55 PM
Of course animals are conscious of their mortality; it's as much as natural selection can tell us. They just don't have the faculty of reason to apply their mortality to anything more than reproduction and survival.
Published: July 6, 2007 1:49 PM
Person: "Before anyone makes the obvious joke: Person is not a robot. Thanks."
But you are thinking about getting metal legs, right?
Just kidding. ;)
Published: July 6, 2007 2:26 PM
"But suppose, on the other hand, that the Martians also had the characteristics, the nature, of the legendary vampire, and could only exist by feeding on human blood. In that case, regardless of their intelligence, the Martians would be our deadly enemy and we could not consider that they were entitled to the rights of humanity. Deadly enemy, again, not because they were wicked aggressors, but because of the needs and requirements of their nature, which would clash ineluctably with ours."
I'm having trouble seeing how this follows. Requiring human blood for sustenance wouldn't interfere with the requirements of being "conscious, rational, able to communicate with us and participate in the division of labor", would it? It would merely mean that we would be forced to view them as aggressors against our rights if they were unwilling to find some way to voluntarily acquire (or perhaps even manufacture with some kind of biotechnology) human blood.
Published: July 6, 2007 3:43 PM
Wouldn't it be more honest to just argue that in nature we give priority to those who are most closely related to us and to those in our community? After all, I will do more for my family and my group than I will for John Doe, all other things being equal. Of course this may not appeal to those who favor abstract philosophical arguments. But isn't that the fact of our nature?
Note that I do not mean to suggest that this gives us moral license to abuse other species, though.
Published: July 6, 2007 4:15 PM
"If individuals of another species could be shown to be conscious of and empathic towards the suffering of others of their species (and there is considerable evidence for this), that alone would undercut Rothbard's argument."
Iff you hold sentience to be the key requirement of moral obligation. A Kantian ethicist though holds rational agency as the requirement. Until animals can claim rights for themselves and identify themselves as rational agents, they deserve none.
Published: July 6, 2007 5:21 PM
I would like to address what I consider to be a fundamental flaw with this argument. Rothbard states that man has rights because they are "natural:"
"the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor."
So according to the premise of his argument, it is therefore acceptable to butcher, cook, and consume human beings who do not possess these abilities. (Rothbard does make the exception that babies cannot be sauteed because they are "future" humans) So the members of the human population who can now be acceptably consumed according to Rothbard include the elderly and incapacitated, those suffering from mental retardation, autism, and any other mental illness.
Published: July 6, 2007 8:09 PM
"So according to the premise of his argument, it is therefore acceptable to butcher, cook, and consume human beings who do not possess these abilities. (Rothbard does make the exception that babies cannot be sauteed because they are "future" humans) So the members of the human population who can now be acceptably consumed according to Rothbard include the elderly and incapacitated, those suffering from mental retardation, autism, and any other mental illness."
That no more follows from Rothbard's argument than does the idea we lose our rights when we are asleep. All rights are necessarily human rights, and all humans qua humans possess them to some degree, however incapacitated.
Published: July 6, 2007 9:41 PM
I've been a libertarian and reader of Mises.org and Lewrockwell.com since I was converted after taking a basic Economics class from Dr. Walter Block several years ago, and I am pleased to finally see Rothbard's take on "animal rights" in this forum. Unfortunately, I find it less than convincing. Although it may seem strange, this issue is in many ways a kind of sticking point for me in fully accepting the philosophical framework of anarcho-capitalism. After all, if animals can be shown to have rights of some kind, the entire concept of "human" property rights as taken from the Lockean homesteading principle falls apart. Since Austrian Economics is based on the existence of certain a priori truths, it is not unreasonable to address the issue from another angle. Do living things possess rights that non-living things lack? I think most people would intuitively agree with the a priori supposition that a rock has less rights than a chimpanzee, for instance. The question then becomes a matter of degrees of rights. Obviously Rothbard presents a valid paradox by bringing up the issue of animals with "human rights" who kill other animals being in violation of these rights. However, in another sense he merely begs the point here. After all, such an argument could be used by a hypothetical advanced alien against us, i.e., if we are killing chimpanzees than we must not possess "advanced alien" rights. I don't think that merely saying that humans possess human rights because they are human is valid logic either. For instance, take the case of autism mentioned above. Someone with autism or a more incapacitating condition that prevents them from communicating with others could be said to possess less than full human rights since other people make more decisions for them then would otherwise be the case. Certainly the parallel between such a situation and the case for animal rights is obvious. In the end though, the absence of "animal rights" seems to be a case much like the argument about the existence of good and evil. In order to live and function we must act like these suppositions are true even if we never have a truly complete and logical argument to support them.
Published: July 6, 2007 10:59 PM
Did you all learn *nothing*, except how to be intellectually /slapped by me? rtr does this thread. Guess it was similarly so in ancient Greece too. Skewl's in session, again. Anything more than ignorance, would be civilized. How *dare* you even think of questioning what I say! :P
Nick Bradley: "What if the debate were extended to a machine with true artificial intelligence?"
Define "artificial". n00b. Yeah, "intelligence" is still not epistemologically defined yet either. FYI.
Nick Bradley: "A program that thought and reasoned just as a human being does? Does it have a right to exist? Assuming that it was not a sponge on society (sucking up electrons) and had its own independent power system (like solar panels or something), what then?"
ANTZ!
Nick Bradley: "I know that its hypothetical at this point, but I expect that we'll have to deal with this issue within a couple of generations."
I suspect, not. But why not, let's all just ("un-civally" ^-^) insult epistemology with reckless declarations of bull shit, like artificial intelligence. What was that British d00d economist's name that threw 'em for a generation? Yeah, like that.
Lewis Regenstein: "They could kill & eat us, put us in zoos, experiment on us medically, trap us & cut off & wear our skin, shoot us for "sport" -- all the things we do to animals for our profit & pleasure."
Hold up. I'm still waiting for Ayn Rand to get back to me on suicidal plants. But it's almost amazing how philosophically close "austrians" and environmentalist whackos really are. Really! Haha, it's more than a little funny. Paging Dr. Reismann.
Lewis Regenstein: "We should always be kind to animals, especially if we are religious -- how can we ask for mercy from what is above us if we show none to what is below us ?"
Can someone give me a quick run down on "metaphysics"? But lo, that question is *perfect* Marxist non-action for you all artificially intelligent robots.
Scott D: "Rothbard did not say this: 'humans can do pretty much what they want to with animals becuase we are more powerful'
He said this:
'man is a rational and social animal'
and this
'animals, after all, don't respect the "rights" of other animals'"
And rtr said man is a rational and social animal by definition of the division of labor and free trade. rtr > rothbard > Rousseau
Mark Brabson: "They have made remarkable progress in the humane treatment of the cattle coming through for slaughter. Better trained and more humane employees, better equipment."
So you're saying it "tastes" better? Ronald? McDonald? Should I use prettier words too?
Mark Brabson: "There are still a few rogue plants, but most of those are down in Mexico."
How dare they pollute their seeds upon the unspoiled environment! Chop, chop. rtr wood, isn't it better?
Alan: "What we have here, at the least, is a classic "failure to communicate"."
But, nonetheless, lots of words and paragraphs.
Alan: "Until we can communicate with another intelligent species (terrestrial or otherwise), the question of their rights must remain open."
Sit! STFU! Good Alan. Comprende?
Alan: "In general, I have found libertarian arguments that reference aspects of the natural world to have a pre-Darwinian aroma to them. Libertarians would benefit from a more serious study of the natural world."
Knowledge in so far as it exists, absolutely exists. Anyone who holds otherwise, necessarily declares all that which they say is gibberish which should be ignored. How can that be so? Credit for the credit due original Misean pwn of Marxist polylogism.
Alan: "This argument only discusses "inter-species survival" while ignoring the usual focus of discussions of rights -- intra-(human) species survival and how we treat each other. If individuals of another species could be shown to be conscious of and empathic towards the suffering of others of their species (and there is considerable evidence for this), that alone would undercut Rothbard's argument."
Trade? Trade would be just as absolutely true for any being of action as it would be for you or I. Unless you wanna start writing hocus pocus leftist science fiction ... By definiton of space, by definition of body, by definition of property, by definition of action.
Alan: "Another reason to be sceptical about Rothbard's argument is that it relies on human consciousness as the basis for human action. While humans are at least occasionally conscious, what about those times (most of the time, in my opinion) that we act from unconscious motives? Do we have rights then?"
Yuck. Mises addressed this. Whenever somebody could have done something different or not done what they done did, they acted, they chose. He differentiated between instinct, like "breathing", and action, like walking from point A to point B.
DC: "As far as I can tell, animals don't have that first-person perspective,"
Well, that settles it then. Case closed. /Proofed. Pffft, DC, you can do better than that ...
Marc: "If babies, including fetuses, are future human adults and human adults have natural rights, then women don't have the right to kill them.
Doesn't this conflict with the classic libertarian/Austrian view on abortion?
Thanks,
Marc"
Lol. Why call it "abortion" and not call it "murder". Well, we're waiting, baby killer ...
Michael: "the same applies to aborition, a heinous, immoral act, but one that in strict libertarian theory, ought to be allowed (given the Rothbardian definition of a fetus as a parasitic organism)."
He also argued for "intellectual property", and that's been irrefutably destroyed. How about action being the definition of parasitic sacreligious hell of never ending dissatisfaction? What then?
David White: "And among the many wonders in the aftermath of this event will be how lightly we learn to walk on the Earth. So lightly, in fact, that it will barely know we are here. If we are here at all."
As usual, "what"? /fart
DC: "It's not a small jump; it's the difference between persons and non-persons."
So close. Yet so far away. Admire my "deepness". Previous rtr Nobel Prize, *all* knowledge whatsoever eminates from either/or full set/empty set possibilities.
DC: "I don't think animals have shown the ability to think this way -- even with contemporary research taken into account. You are right in that they often ACT as though they do, but this in itself shouldn't be too much of a surprise, given that nature tends to bend boundaries and human-defined classes before breaking them."
And I acted uncivilally when I trashed garbage like this with prettied up Sir B1tch titles of address? *You're* wrong. I know you are, but what am I, besides your rtr daddy? You don't know what *action* is. (Reminds me of that time I told that latinoesse hottie she didn't know what "love" is, lol, B1tch.) Tend to the left, tend to the back, wherever.
Person: "Before anyone makes the obvious joke: Person is not a robot. Thanks."
Haha, that was the stupidest joke ever. How did the Pollack break his leg raking leaves? He fell out of the tree. That anyone would find that funny, that anyone would laugh at that, is funny. That's why it's funny, and that's why they tell them to themselves. Yet "another" caught in a web of laughter.
Brett Celinski: "Of course animals are conscious of their mortality; it's as much as natural selection can tell us. They just don't have the faculty of reason to apply their mortality to anything more than reproduction and survival."
Someone should put those sheep jumping over the cliff on youtube.
Kevin B.: "Just kidding. ;)"
Finally, you make some sense. :P
D. Saul Weiner: "Wouldn't it be more honest to just argue that in nature we give priority to those who are most closely related to us and to those in our community? After all, I will do more for my family and my group than I will for John Doe, all other things being equal. Of course this may not appeal to those who favor abstract philosophical arguments. But isn't that the fact of our nature?"
Yeah? I'm Tony Soprano. Now pay me, B1tch.
Anthony: "Iff you hold sentience to be the key requirement of moral obligation. A Kantian ethicist though holds rational agency as the requirement. Until animals can claim rights for themselves and identify themselves as rational agents, they deserve none."
Some animal species eat each other. Some do not. Explain.
ian davis: "So the members of the human population who can now be acceptably consumed according to Rothbard include the elderly and incapacitated, those suffering from mental retardation, autism, and any other mental illness."
Yup. At least intellectually. You call it /spanked. I call it upbraided.
Daniel Holway: "That no more follows from Rothbard's argument than does the idea we lose our rights when we are asleep. All rights are necessarily human rights, and all humans qua humans possess them to some degree, however incapacitated."
Ooooh, "qua". Big word. Does that have a land speed?
Michael Kirkpatrick: "I've been a libertarian and reader of Mises.org and Lewrockwell.com since I was converted after taking a basic Economics class from Dr. Walter Block several years ago, and I am pleased to finally see Rothbard's take on "animal rights" in this forum."
"Converted"? From what, to what? According to RTR. rtr, several months ago, I'm pleased to say /poke.
Michael Kirkpatrick: "Unfortunately, I find it less than convincing."
C'est la vie.
Michael Kirkpatrick: "I think most people would intuitively agree with the a priori supposition that a rock has less rights than a chimpanzee, for instance."
Hehe. What, is "hehe" uncivilized too? lmao. Devolution.
Michael Kirkpatrick: "The question then becomes a matter of degrees of rights."
"The" question? All other questions have been ruled out?
Michael Kirkpatrick: "Obviously Rothbard presents a valid paradox by bringing up the issue of animals with "human rights" who kill other animals being in violation of these rights. However,"
Hi. I'm rtr. STFU moron.
Published: July 7, 2007 4:33 AM
"Some animal species eat each other. Some do not. Explain."
Explain why you seek to post utter irrelevant nonsense whenever given the opportunity? I doubt even the great Mises could accomplish that.
Published: July 7, 2007 5:13 AM
"And rtr said man is a rational and social animal by definition of the division of labor and free trade. rtr > rothbard > Rousseau"
Aristotle asserted this long before you were even born.
Published: July 7, 2007 5:16 AM
"There are still a few rogue plants, but most of those are down in Mexico."
You don't see such expository entertaining humiliation in bloom every day do ya?
And you're full of it, Rousseau would never of gotten away with his anthropomorphic "social contract" if Aristotle really did say that. But I'm used to peeps talking out their whatever with no proof. I /slap them, all the time, like it ain't no thang. Yeah, I slang that proof around hard (good, eh?), perhaps some day I can cheer along with your pleeb upbraiding if someone, anyone, could manage a refutation. Until that time, comes the duty of instruction. So get yourself a new notebook, and a highlighter.
You feel better now? rtr asserted this ... right (wait for it) now.
Published: July 7, 2007 5:30 AM
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/aee501/aristotle.html
"b. The Nature of Man. Man is a rational animal."
Really hate to burst your bubble, but as is plainly visible Aristotle has made the claim. You can go on ranting ad nauseam, but I see no point in so doing.
Published: July 7, 2007 5:53 AM
Moron, I see no:
1.) "division of labor"
2.) "trade"
Bust that. Get that highlighter with a fat flat tip/edge. Was that supposed to be a clown suit "challenge"? Haha.
A.) "Claim"
B.) "Proof"
Don't forget, notebook educational experience journals like yours are due for grading. /wave + /flex. Who's your teacher, lmao?
Yep, an ingrained hatred to tear me down. Too bad you can't. Maybe if you weren't such a moron ...
Published: July 7, 2007 6:05 AM
Actually Aristotle didn't see much difference between a slave and a tamed animal as both were more or less beasts of burden.
Anyhoo. In the spirit of a major feature of Capitalism is production then the productive capacity (through work or entertainment) of any animal or person determines how they should be treated. After all, an attack on left-wingers is that the 'saving the rainforests' put animals ahead of people. Yet the same could be said when hanging a horse thief.
Reality is both animals and people have differing productive value relative to someone else such that pets of rich people are treated better than poor people. But so what? Poor people are unproductive. Big whoop.
I'm sure many a farmer has far more respect for his work animals than any drifter who swaggers along, through his animals' dedication and hard work whereas drifters are probably thieves looking for handouts.
Published: July 7, 2007 7:36 AM
Hello fellow Mises subscribers,
I wish I had the endurance to read all the posts on this subject. However I read Rothbard's essay and a few of the top comments. No disrespect intended to those I didn't read.
I am a proud member of PETA and I receive the Mises articles. I see we have some members violating the email standards by speaking uncivilly to other posters. This demonstrates failed arguments.
Obviously the essay by Rothbard is flawed so deeply that it will not present much of a challenge for attack. Let me start by saying that any essay that attempts to discuss the ethics of animal rights without using the word "cruelty" anywhere within is likely to be without much substance. Also, failure to discuss the sentience of animals demonstrates the essay is shallow and without substance.
The premise made by some above that slaughter houses have been cleaned up is ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence accumulated by PETA of ongoing cruelty in animal processing which is so horrendous as to threaten the spiritual development of the human race. That is correct. That the human race is not working hard enough to close these "Gates of Hell" is simply a condition of spiritual under-development.
The old adage applies: "We are what we eat." Not unusual, is the observation of new vegans that they have a greater spiritual understanding of all things, once cruelty is no longer part of what they are eating. This is true from my experience as well.
The Standard American Diet (SAD) is so culturally indoctrinated, that Rothbard completely overlooks the outcomes on human health this essay. Heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and cancer are all part of these outcomes. Rothbard's essay attempts to mount an ethical argument without examining all the outcomes. A tree shall be known by its fruit. So how can an essay on animal welfare ethics of this nature be taken seriously as a contribution?
Let us look at the number of fat Americans out there. Meat is in fact a large cause. For meat stimulates the added intake of additional carbohydrates. For what is having one’s meat without potatoes, or rice, or meat sauce without pasta, or without bread on both sides of the hamburger? Meat is part of the excess.
However there is something deeper here. Imagine a cow, giving milk her entire life, having calves which are torn away only for the purpose of stimulating milk production. Then, when the milk giving declines the poor emaciated, uncared for animal is sent to the processor to become hamburger meat.
There is something morally and spiritually wrong with the development of a race that cannot be thankful enough to an animal for lifelong production of food that the beast is not allowed to raise and care for its own young and to be put gently out to pasture after giving its gift.
As well, making clear that many have adjusted well to the vegan diet through education and experience would be necessary if Rothbard was to examine the issue fairly. Simply put, the eating of meat, milk, cheese and eggs are unnecessary, and have been so proven. The drinking of cow milk by humans is completely unnatural. Cheese, for its origins, is completely suspect as well.
The eating of bird eggs is properly the diet of predatory wild animals, and nature accommodates this by the amount of eggs produced by wild birds. The egg production industry is uncommonly cruel - regardless of whether the chickens are in cages or not, the male chicks are frequently destroyed without regard for the ethical dilemma of the cruelty.
The alternative of tofu can be flavored in such a multitude of ways that only an uneducated person could dismiss this material for its inherent value. Protein is available in acceptable forms of non-animal origins.
So what is Rothbard arguing here? That unnecessary animal cruelty is ethical? Rothbard is making a supporting ethical argument for meat, milk and egg producers so they can go on cruelly abusing farm production animals. See the videos posted at PETA before you write an essay on why cruel abuse of farm animals is acceptable. The treatment of animals as production equipment is an ethical Pandora’s box.
Rothbard makes weird claims about the extension of human rights to animals, when most, "animal rights" activists simply want to rid the world of cruelty against animals.
Rothbard demonstrates he has absolutely no mastery or understanding of animal related ethics by degenerating into hypothetical arguments about Martians and vampires. Rothbard should have taken this as a sign that he shouldn't have published the piece at all.
I have repeatedly noticed the tendency of academics to think that they have extensive knowledge outside of their earned degree. A degree in economics does not make one an expert in ethics. However a degree in ethics doesn't make one an expert in ethics either, as the ivory tower complex has demonstrated as well. I don't know which affliction Mr. Rothbard was affected by during his life, but obviously he has one or the other. It is unfortunate to see someone who has talent in one subject, assume that their commentary in a completely unrelated topic is ingenious or has substance. Writers such as Mr. Rothbard only risk damaging their own reputations by these failed exercises.
The length of this post was necessary because of the complex nature of this issue. I do appreciate anyone who took the time to read this post in its entirety.
Thank you,
Edward Caldwell
ed841rxm@yahoo.ca
Published: July 7, 2007 10:22 PM
I'm no professional philosopher (a primitive maybe) but if we are going to have an intelligent discussion about "natural man" or "natural rights" shouldn't we introduce the question of whether drinking cows milk by a human is natural? Or maybe is drinking milk of any kind by an adult natural? It would only be natural for an infant of a given species to drink milk provided by its own species.
Being a primitive philosopher I have little time for the ivory tower variety. ec
Published: July 8, 2007 12:07 AM
Caldwell, none of what you said has anything whatsoever to do with Rothbard's essential point. That animals are not moral agents and thus not entitled to rights of any real sort. Kant made similar arguments. Emotive appeals are not going to bypass this. You may call it "Ivory tower philosophy" but it isn't.
"There is something morally and spiritually wrong with the development of a race that cannot be thankful enough to an animal for lifelong production of food that the beast is not allowed to raise and care for its own young and to be put gently out to pasture after giving its gift. "
Not if animals are not moral agents.
Published: July 8, 2007 7:33 AM
The reason why you are still having this conversation is that you have an ohhh so masssive ego that incapacitates your reasoning proccess.
Let's go to the basics, logic. I'm going to present several differente lines of arguments.
1. Paradox, there are lots of groups, one of them says they know who has rights and who hasn't, gues what, they are the only ones.
The one who design the rules of the game, also wins the game!
2. Assuming we could 'decide' or realize which groups should or shouldn't be included, we can't even communicate with the others, its like judging someone without him even being present!
Lots of animal groups have their own languajes, composes of even hundres of words, but we cannot communicate with them. But some people speak without knowledge declaring 'they dont think, they dont posses consciousness'.
- First ¿how do you know that?
- Second ¿shouldn't the principle of innocence until proven guilty be appiled here?
- Third, if any, the evidence points in the different direction, they are self-aware, the pass the mirror test, test that babies cannot pass until they are 2 years old.
3. Even if we could know, and should be the judges, and would be neutral and objetive, the 'magical' variables that separates one from being a slave to not being one.
¿Where are these variables? I want them explained with mathematically clarity, word by word, so they won't be any unclear meaning.
Once they have been listed and the important words defined. I will discuss them.
But it will be seen immediately that it is virtually impossible to draw these magical straight line.
Published: July 8, 2007 1:37 PM
About the 'ego' part i mentioned before;
There is a big differences between most of us(there are lots of other human civilizations hidden or disconnected from the rest, native-american, african, pacific and many of them live in harmony without harming other animals) and the rest of the animals (because we are animals dont forget that)
Ego, we think that our way of life is better, and all others are 'inferior'. Everything we do is good, and if other races, species, don't achive that, they aren't worth our respect.
¿Why you consider the live of a parrot 'inferior'? He will live longer and happier than you. He will spend his life relaxing and talking, within his community, his family, friends, 'wife' (they are loyal for live), and all that being self-aware of who he is, he will have memories, mourn the lose of their beloved...
(And I'm including lots of variables that dont have to be good per se, I mentioned them just as an example)
¿Why is developing and industrial society a good thing per se? ¿Because we do it, so we assume its good?
¿Is because we have a 'social order', 'ethics'?
Parrots don't attack themselves or their own kind except in what they consider agression or trasspasing of what they think, with their own reasons, their territory
¿Is because our social order, our ethics are in written form? That only happened 6.000 years ago, before that we didn't know even how to write. ¿Were these humans not worth their rights?
We could go on, ¿at which point these early humans, that climbed down their trees and started walking become being with rights?
¿When they hunt in groups? other animals do
¿when they build houses? other animals do
¿when they stop attacking themselves? well they hadnt success in these matter...
¿when they 'exile' the ones who were agressive towards others? other animals do
¿when they made their religions? other animals mourn their deaths, even more than us, to the point of death.
There is a banana tree in the forest, a community of bonobos lies around it, they are a peacefull society, they even ask for forgiveness when they consider they did something wrong.
¿Why should we have more rights to their banana tree than they do?
I'm asking for a coexistance, simply that.
Elefants may not write books about the ethics of liberty, but they apply it. So do all the hervivorous.
The carnivorous don't respect it, so do we.
The conclussion is that the only group truly deserving rights are the hervivorous, that includes human vegetarians.
Published: July 8, 2007 2:13 PM
rtr said man is a rational and social animal by definition of the division of labor and free trade. rtr > rothbard > Rousseau
The rational metaphorically slapping the irrational?
Published: July 30, 2007 2:57 PM
Rothbard already noted the division of labour as part of man's rational nature in The Ethics of Liberty. :)
Published: July 30, 2007 5:10 PM