Just kidding, Iacchus. I was just throwing in my two cents worth and that’s about all it’s worth. I remember you saying in a forum somewhere that you liked chile beans. I noticed that you logged off right after I posted this so I’m just being paranoid.
I tend to believe along these lines.
What are ‘rights’ and who bestows them upon those lucky enough to actually have rights?
And what about a conflict of rights between two individuals or groups? A rather silly (or is it) example would be a cows right to life versus my right to eat a steak. Do I have that right? Does the cow have a right to life? Why or why not? Which ‘right’ supercedes the other? Once again… who determines this?
I tend to believe along these lines.
What are ‘rights’ and who bestows them upon those lucky enough to actually have rights?
And what about a conflict of rights between two individuals or groups? A rather silly (or is it) example would be a cows right to life versus my right to eat a steak. Do I have that right? Does the cow have a right to life? Why or why not? Which ‘right’ supercedes the other? Once again… who determines this?
dan- dinner table it is.
I’ll try to generate some characters to illustrate what I was trying to say: You basically have these three guys sitting somewhere in a cave where one is haggling away, basically splitting oppositional hairs (we’ll call this guy Hegel for fun or H). The other guy insists there has to me more out there… just has to be (we’ll deem this guy kierkegaard whom we shall call K for short). The third fellow sits quietly trying to calm them both down (Hume…we’ll leave that one as is). Hume, in earnest, is trying to ask them not to make any foregone conclusions. He’s basically begging them not to make lurid assumptions. K. keeps insisting there is more out there while Hume simply asks how K. could come up with that assumption when there are no necessary connections. K., in a rage, commands Hume to stop playing mind games. K. resumes to insist that no human could live up to Humes standard and that this only works as a thought experiment. Hume makes the situation worse by asking K. to be rational in reconsidering his assumptions. Without warning, K. makes a mad dash for the cave opening and leaps off the nearest cliff…(don’t ask me why).
So, the anatomy of an assumption and the logistics involved… What does that have to do with animal rights? Hmm, I forget.
Hi guys! Been drifting around ILP and thought I’d post as this seemed an interesting topic…
When considering whether animals have rights maybe we should think whether we have an obligation to treat animals ethically. For example is it acceptable for me to fry my cat in the microwave! And if one holds the position that animals dont have rights, why shouldnt I? One could argue it is perfectly compatible that humans eat meat etc as it is our natural tendency BUT we keep animals in humane conditions etc. I personally accept that the concept of rights are generally derived from the idea of social contract but is it possible to integrate animals into a bigger picture of society although with lesser rights. I have rights because I belong to society (and responsibilities too I might add!) but does the animal kingdom and in the bigger context nature… belong in our picture of society? Or is society purely and formally the human political state? Any thoughts?
danchoo - this is not to assert rights for animals, but to characterise rights - animals can have rights if we assign them rights. In fact, in the U. S, in many jurisdictions, we do assign rights to animals, either directly, or indirectly, through property rights. I am a social contracter as well - there is no reason why a SC cannot include animal rights.
I am also of the opinion that treating animals “humanely” (this formulation is a bit problematic, but not fatally so, I think) has certain benefits for humans. Ever eaten a free-range chicken? Most americans can afford the price differential (might have to limit themselves to three dvd players in each SUV) and they are very tasty - and perhaps a little more healthful to eat.
I think that the argument for some animal rights is usually not as convincing without including the benefits to humans than it is when these benefits are included. Every good deer hunter knows the reasons for the “kill with one shot” rule - it is a good rule, even when the animal’s point of view is not considered.
This thread seems to have some legs. Just thought I’d try to move the conversation along.
fausty
Always take an opportunity to pimp this book, worthwhile for anyone’s bookcase:
UK:
amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI … 96-0868707
USA:
amazon.com/gp/product/155778 … e&n=283155
1990 edition:
Hey fausty,
Yeah I agree with you in that animals only have the rights we assign to them and I would also accept that human benefit has to be considered before considering assigning these rights as mankind is the measure BUT intuitively I would argue that does not mean these rights do not exist within the formulation of a society. Perhaps these rights are less of a fact and more the application of a moral principle in which animals are to be considered too BUT with the proviso they can be treated as means towards human ends. If that makes sense!
I think we’re more or less on the same page, although intuition opens the door to natural rights in some formulations - an idea I regard as fiction. Peter Singer, of course, has asserted that animal rights can be inferred from generally accepted “human” ones - but that these rights are somehow independent of human rights. My view is that, under a SC, human rights can be, and must be, treated not as ends in themselves, but also as means. A circular arrangement, but that doesn’t bother me, as it is all a matter of human decision-making. The circle is escaped via a recognition that philosphy is an eliminative process - we are only discarding bad ideas, and need’nt try to invent new ones.
Wonder if that’s clear.
Yes, human rights are means but I think what I would assert is that the distinction is that we can treat animals as means but humans themselves are ends. So human rights are also a means to human ends. So Im not sure why it has to be a circular argument. Perhaps, that is our one fundamental human right, to be treated as an end never as a means and one can derive that from our status in human society and our other rights generate from that contingent on whats best for society
Im not sure I understand what you mean when you say philosophy is an eliminative process. I accept that there is a lot of ideas in history, good and bad and we have to sieve thru them and pick out whats best for us but I think we do need to invent new ones…
Sorry if Ive misunderstood you!
danchoo - I was vague about circularity. In fact, I do not consider humans as ends in themselves, morally speaking. We may rightly consider our own lives as “ends” - indeed, in a godless universe, we must (or almost must). But other people are means to our ends (potentially) whether we like it or not (and vice versa). I happen to like it. So we are both - our own ends and others’ means to their ends. That’s why we have come together as a society. It is these social needs that produce moral thinking.
By circularity, I mean that there is no moral justification for morality. Morality is justified by other means. Morality itself, I mean. Specific moral rules are justified by morality, of course. But the “good” or the “right” are defined extramorally. So, morality is circular, under the social contract, becasue the social contract has as its purpose, moral arrangements. There is no teleological foundation, in other words. It’s just darned convenient, if I may phrase it flippantly.
fausty
I accept and understand your position. I believe one does not justify morality through a moral claim becase as you would say that would be a circular argument but conceivably it is compatible with social contract theory to say that morality is justified on the basis of promotion of society’s value which I will assert as fundamentally human happiness or well being. The greeks used the term eudaimonia but I think its fundamental that man is never treated as a means and always an end or one comes in for the criticism utilitarians have that there are scenarios which are unacceptable. Ive heard the example of where there is terrible rioting and social unrest in a community due to a terrible crime. The police dont know who is responsible but could end the rioting if they frame and punish an innocent man which would in theory be beneficial to society as whole. For me such a situation cant be justified. However if human happiness is the goal of society this is based on a moral code where man is never treated as a means… For me thats the core basis of the social contract, protecting that right and everything proceeds from there. But hey animal rights? Im not gonna stop eating cheeseburgers!
danchoo - a couple of things. Firstly, the notion that animals have rights, or should, does not preclude that we eat them. Society has most often allowed many forms of killing, even of people. Even if the people have rights.
Another - I am still not exprssing myself clearly - I should accept that I have to get high to write (had other things to do today). An example of non-circular morality is the Ten Commandments. Came from god - clear teleology, clear absolute origin. Anything manmade is circular by comparison. Natural rights do not produce a circular argument, once accepted. My view is that we get to make up the rules - by default. There is no other source. This is circular in that the goal - social order, not happiness, is the same as the means - social order as a worthy goal is already accepted within morality - and the object of morality is social order. Philosophy, morality, is not an end in itself. The teleological order reaches outside of moral thinking. Thus, morality is a closed system which is applied to uses that are not strictly moral.
I still haven’t gotten high. Maybe I just mean that morality is nonteleolgical - despite what religion would have us believe. I’m usually a little clearer than this, I think.
But, eudaimon(ia?) is no longer considered a moral issue. Except in Nietzsche. This concept is foreign to the masses. In fact, I entreat you not to speak of it outside the circle of the philosophical. It is the true meaning of philosophy, and so of ethics - yes. But it cannot be treated systemically - and so lies outside the SC. Eudaimon is evil to the masses. It is Nietzsche’s “immoral” goal. And it is why we philosophise, or should be. That it is such a worthy goal is why I can speak of morality in terms of a SC and at the same time reject any notions of good and evil. It’s what’s got the unphilosophical among us so confused.
Shhhhhhhh.
f
[quote=“faust”]
danchoo - a couple of things. Firstly, the notion that animals have rights, or should, does not preclude that we eat them. Society has most often allowed many forms of killing, even of people. Even if the people have rights.
Yep I totally agree as I hope I made clear in an earlier post, I was just being flippant as I felt we had strayed off topic from the thread…not that thats a problem!
Faust - Anything manmade is circular by comparison. Natural rights do not produce a circular argument, once accepted. My view is that we get to make up the rules - by default. There is no other source. This is circular in that the goal - social order, not happiness, is the same as the means - social order as a worthy goal is already accepted within morality - and the object of morality is social order. Philosophy, morality, is not an end in itself. The teleological order reaches outside of moral thinking. Thus, morality is a closed system which is applied to uses that are not strictly moral.
Im not sure I can accept all of this. Fine, philosophy, morality not ends in themsleves but I would counter that social order is not the ultimate goal of morality but as I said before I believe the aim of morality is our wellbeing and social order is simply the means by which our wellbeing is best achieved. In America, the founding fathers built the Constitution to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not to promote social order although obviously thats a useful tool. I do not know whether you will agree with me but I can see a telos within moral systems. In my opinion we are naturally social animals and have an idealized concept of society within us. I would argue society is natural not artificial and I believe morality is innate within healthy individuals as the best way to interact with others to promote individual and social happiness. I used the concept of eudaimonia, as I believe the term happiness is limited and eudaimonia refers more to human flourishing which is more accurate
I am familiar with some of Nietzsche’s ideas but havent read that much of his stuff but if he describes eudaimonia as the immoral goal, he’s not far wrong. I would say extramoral as it is outside of morality rather than in opposition to it. It doesnt exist within morality but it is the goal to which our moral choices take us. Well in theory…
It could be argued that even ten commandment morality was to promote ‘happiness’. Heaven sounds like an enjoyable place, so I follow a few rules now but it will be beneficial to me in the long run albeit not in the conventional way. If Christians didnt think they were gonna have a good time in heaven I very much doubt they would be so self-righteous now. You probably havent but please note that I dont link eudaimonia with hedonism
What do u think?
danchoo - in your last two posts, you have raised an issue that I can’t address at the moment, as it would interfere with my plans to eat, drink, and abuse drugs this evening. It is this eudaimon. Briefly, I am not sure if I can ascertain if I agree with you or not without separating this idea from the Judeo-christian ethic. It is a very very different concept, as you must know. (By the way, Nietzsche’s view is not overtly aimed at this - it requires a bit of interpretation.)
I think there are, for philosophers, two parallel tracks of ethical thought - the inner, personal morality, and the track that puts moral thinking on the same path as political philosophy. I don’t think there is much of an intersection between the two, or that the intersection is only an individual who can tell the difference. I don’t usually talk about this, because most people aren’t interested, or can’t tell the difference. Mostly because Plato was confused about this.
I will have more to say later. But within the Greek concept, I agree with you on the face of things. I’m just not sure if this is an idea that translates into systematic, formal morality. Nietzsche was neither systematic, in the usual sense, nor formal about his morality - in fact, he called himself an immoralist. The secret (and it IS a secret) is that his morality was wholly Greek, but not Platonic - hence it is lost to most of us now. Gotta run. Interesting posts, yours.
The telos is me. Or you. Or the next guy that “gets” it. It’s, as you have intimated, extramoral morality - a term that requires some discussion to make any sense.
f
Sure! Enjoy your evening and I look forward to discussing this with you at some point!
Oh really! You think my screenname is ‘smart’? Why thank you!
Actually dan,
I said, as you quoted…that you are in fact an animal (a mammal of course).
Yes to make this clear once again I am saying that you and your dog are both animals.
Do eithier of you have rights? No…
Does anything have rights? No…
Is there such a thing as ‘rights’? Only conceptually…
So dan, basically what I am saying is that you don’t have the right to do anything.
However you do have the ability to do certain things, you have your so called free-will.
So I shoot a innocent kitten with a high powered sniper rifle 
I didn’t have the right to do that, because I don’t have rights!!!
I had the ability to though…
That kitten also had the ability to run for cover when he saw me coming…
Yet the kitten does not actually have the brain capacity to understand that I was about to shoot it.
It seems in this scenario I had more ‘ability’ than the kitten did. Which is usually how it weighs out with most human vs. other animal comparisans.
Also
Think about this…before humans existed…did a chimpanzee have more rights than a kangaroo? Or was it the other way around?
Where and how would you begin to decide which of these animals had rights?
I would love to hear an explanation as to what logic one would use in this situation.
Mr. Kebop
Very very good and clear response. I’m not sure how long it take you to think of this response , but judging it, you put quite in effort to it. =D>
Me, I am just a lazy philosopher, I like to ask questions, then watch people argue all the time.
I believe animals do not have rights, and they have rights.