Animals Have NO Rights
Posted by evanescent on 22 December, 2007
I’ve recently explained what morality is and where rights come from. When discussing what human rights mean, we must define exactly what we’re talking about, and justify our definition. When doing so, another interesting topic arises, which is that of animal rights. I have always held the belief that animals have rights, of a sort. For example, the right “not to suffer”. I was wrong, because animals have no rights at all.
First of all, consider individual rights. A human being is a creature that makes decisions based on reason. Unlike an animal which is automatically equipped with the knowledge to select its values, human beings must discover, through a process of reason, what is good for our lives and what is bad. We discover rational values with our ultimate value, life, as the standard. This code of values to guide our decisions is Objective Morality. Therefore, man, to function as a man, must be a moral being. If he is anything less he is living like a beast, not a human. But in order to make moral decisions he must be free to do so. A man who is coerced to do good or evil, at the point of a gun, is not being allowed to act like a rational being, in other words, like a human being. Where force is present, morality becomes impossible. A man needs his morality to guide his actions whether he is alone or in a crowd. However, when a man is in a social setting, he and the others around him need the freedom to act in order to function as rational beings. What guarantees a person the freedom to act without force in pursuit of his goals? Rights. Therefore, Rights are a moral principle that exist in a social setting to guarantee freedom of action for rational beings.
“There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfilment and the enjoyment of his own life.” – The Virtue of Selfishness
Because Rights are moral principles they apply only to moral beings. The purpose of government, in fact the only morally legitimate role of government, is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. To violate the rights of another innocent individual is to be a criminal. Now, because animals do not act based on morality, to give them legally-enforceable rights to guarantee their freedom of action is an egregious contradiction in terms.
Rights apply only to action; to the right to act. For example, no one has the “right to love” – one has the right to seek a mate and win the heart of a member of the opposite sex, but no one has a free entitlement to love. One has the right to sustain one’s life by any means necessary, assuming one doesn’t violate the rights of others; in order to live one needs a job. One is free to act to seek a job; one has NO right to a job. The right to support your own life does not incur an obligation on other people to support your life. Rights only impose a negative obligation on other people, that is: you may not violate MY rights, and I may not violate YOURS.
There is no such thing as the Right “to not suffer”. To quote Leitmotif:
“So, say we grant these animals the right to “protection from torture.” Are we now going to arrest all other animals who break this law by inflicting “torture” on these protected group of animals whom we have just granted these rights? Or does this law only apply to humans, to restrict human activity so that animals can “enjoy” greater freedom and “rights”?”
Suffering is the end result of a course of action, just as happiness is. But, a course of action is dictated by one’s morality. So using suffering or happiness as the standard is to flip the nature of morality on its head. This is the problem with utilitarianism (suffering) and hedonism (happiness). Just because something causes happiness does not make it right, and just because something causes suffering does not make it wrong.
To use an example (I can’t remember the source so any readers are welcome to elucidate): suppose we encounter a sapient alien with all the rational faculty of a human being, but without the capacity to experience any pain or harm. Would this creature still have rights? Of course it would, so the capacity to feel pain (or any level of it) is an invalid standard from which to derive morality, and therefore Rights.
Granting Rights to animals, that would be enforced by government, is to limit the activity of humans, in other words, to prevent the total freedom of mankind in doing whatever he sees necessary to further his life or allow him to flourish. But, remember that rights exist only to protect the action of moral beings. Granting rights to animals is necessarily to sacrifice the rights of humans, which is not only totally irrational, it is grossly immoral. It is immoral, because it treats humans like criminals.
This does not mean that it is “okay” for humans to torture animals. A human being who takes delight in torturing animals is immoral, and such people should be condemned. But there is a difference between the moral and the legal. Fox-hunting, bull-fighting, cock-fighting etc may be deemed immoral, but they are certainly not illegal.
(I’ve not gone into excessive detail here so that any minor issues can be settled in any discussion that follows…)
Edited to add the following, which I posted on a discussion forum on this topic. This is in response to the arguments from an environmentalist pro-animals rights position that tried to resort to evolutionary science to justify morality and animal rights:
“Misanthropic Scott is still ignoring everything I’ve said on this subject for the last few days. I have no problem with science explaining human behavioural trends from an evolutionary point of view. The problem, and this is the last time I’m going to say this, is that it is explaining the wrong thing.
Evolution selects for the success of procreation, whether right or wrong. It has side-effects, whether right or wrong. The affinity of humans to think magically and superstitiously is undeniable, and yet a side-effect of our pattern-recognition faculty in our brains. The very thing that has allowed us to evolve as pattern-seeking creatures and drive our intelligence, has an unfortunate side-effect: magical thinking. Now, no one would call magical thinking “moral”, it is a part of our behaviour that can be explained evolutionarily.
Now, animals that do not attack each other; animals that form social contracts; animals that remember acts of generosity; animals that sacrifice themselves for the “collective good” etc; are NOT, and I repeat NOT acting morally. They are NOT acting immorally. They are acting as a result of evolutionary pressure to behaviour in a way that their genes have selected for. Richard Dawkins has shown that “selfish” genes can produce affects that are apparently “altruistic”, because it indirectly furthers the propagation of particular genes; natural selection will favour any system this is evolutionary stable (ESS).
Now, human behaviour that some people call “moral” can be explained in evolutionary terms. However, this is a faulty use of the term “moral”, and here we are talking past each other. The Objectivist ethics holds that morality is a system to be DISCOVERED, it is a philosophy for living on this earth; for each man and for every man; it is a code of values to guide actions. Morality is a topic that belongs in philosophy, but in seeking to explain what morality is and its source, one must check one’s philosophical premises. If one’s premise is that morality is altruistic/collectivist behaviour, one will seek to explain it scientifically, and how evolution selected for this behaviour. But if one rejects the notion that morality is altruistic, and that MORALITY is the rational decision making and action of thinking beings, any attempt to explain it evolutionarily is irrelevant, because, as I keep explaining, one is trying to explain the wrong thing.
It comes down to the fundamentals of one’s philosophy; the basis of morality for example. Now, the morality of altruism etc is rife in society today, and that is why Humanists and atheists, even the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens etc, accept it. We have the likes of Kant to thank for altruistic “duty” ethics, and altruism is at the core of religion ethics; it is curious that atheists don’t even realise this themselves. Altruism/collectivist ethics are subjective, and any subjective ethics reduce to nihilism, in which case morality becomes impossible. Only an objective morality can make morality possible. That is why we must reject any system of ethics that is not objective and not derived from reality. But we must make sure we’re talking about the right thing.
This talk of brain studies and human behaviour is largely irrelevant; morality is not acting in a way that evolution has selected for. Humans largely have the capacity to control their behaviour; this is because we can think rationally, something no other creature can do. ONLY a rational being can act morally, so only a human being can be a moral being. Therefore, Rights (legal protection against the use of force) can ONLY apply to moral beings, because it is only moral beings that need freedom for force in order to act as the TYPE OF BEINGS THEY ARE.
I encourage any further discussion to be centred philosophically on the concept of morality and rights, and leave the beauty of evolutionary science (of which I’m a fan) out of the discussion. One must start with one’s premise of morality. Using evolution to explain morality begs the question; it assumes that you know what morality already is: I’ve explained what Objectivist morality is, what is YOUR alternative?; that is the proper focus for discussion here. Any other comments about evolution that ignore what I’ve written here will just be ignored by me.”
22 December, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Always thoughtful posts… They rouse a thoughtfulness that has been missing in my beer-besotted mind for many years.
22 December, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Evanescent, you are correct that the concept of “rights” is a social construction. They are what protect the weak in society against force and fraud. As such, they represent the main distinction between civilization and barbarism.
So I would agree in principle that animals cannot have “rights,” especially when the process of natural selection depends on the strong killing the weak. But the intersection of humans and animals is much more complicated. Animals have served humanity since pre-historic times, and continue to be a huge resource of food, labor, and raw materials. So dealing properly with the animal populations and ecosystems is actually in humans’ self-interest.
And once a human adopts and animal as a pet, our empathy extends to that animal as it would to a human member of a person’s family. At that point, the pet receives (as it should) equal moral status as a human (since killing it, kidnapping it or torturing it would cause severe emotional distress to its owner).
In addition, we are beginning to understand that animals have some degree of self-awareness and engage in self-reflection. More so the closer they are in brain power to humans. As we begin to find ways of communicating directly with the brains of animals, we may find they have similar feelings, hopes, dreams, and suffering as we humans do. They may even be able to eventually express these thoughts to us.
I think it’s important to tread lightly on the animal kingdom. Allowing animals to experience a life of expressing their natural instincts as much as possible is the best we can do for them. Even if that means standing by while many are killed by their predators, it is the only ethical thing to do. But we should not excuse on these grounds wanton slaughter of animals by humans, nor destruction of their habitats for short-term human benefit. Ecosystems must be looked at as a whole, and consciously managed for their long-term health.
Humans have a paradoxical relationship: we keep animals as ’slaves,’ we kill and eat them, and we also make them part of our families. Animals are an important part of the interconnected web of life. They are not human, but without them our lives would be almost so different as to be unrecognizable. And since we are also part of the animal kingdom, we should not soon forget where we came from.
22 December, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Not just the weak; they’re there to protect all individuals from force, whether you be a single mum on the breadline or a multi-millionaire.
I would completely agree.
I think your reasoning breaks down here. An animal cannot receive what it is impossible for it to have, that is, moral status. Animals cannot ever be considered moral beings or due any moral consideration.
However, once a human adopts an animal as a pet, it becomes that person’s property, and as such is protected from harm or violation just as any other property of man is. Therefore, the protection of animals under the law is only an extension of the individual rights of humans over their own property.
There’s no doubt that some higher animals are very intelligent, and this subject fascinates me as much as it does you. However, humans are not simply further along a sliding scale of intelligence. It is our rational faculty that necessitates a morality to guide our actions, and it is this that gives us Rights.
You may or may not be right here, but my only point to this would be that our primary concern shouldn’t be what is good for animals or not. That isn’t to say we cannot take care of them, but animals should never take precedence over humans in any matter. To do otherwise would be to sacrifice humans to animals, something I’m sure you wouldn’t agree with doing.
Wanton cruel treatment of animals is certainly wrong and immoral, but should not be illegal. Remember government has a specific limited purpose, and protecting animals is not it.
If destruction of animal habitats will allow humans to flourish, then we should do whatever we need/want. It is against our rational self-interest to destroy any part of the earth so much that our own lives our threatened, but our primary rational concern is not the earth itself, or the animals themselves, or to make the earth into a paradise for the future generations. The rational person does however make the best decisions for the long-term based on his values.
Thanks for the comment BlackSun. Once again your comments are always well-balanced and intelligent and a pleasure to read.
And thanks for the comment Lex!
23 December, 2007 at 2:41 am
I agree with BlackSun that the issue of animal rights is not as simple as you initially potrayed it, and there are a number of arguments against human exceptionalism. There is not a bright line that distinguishes humans from other species; rather, rationality exists along a continuum on what was once called the Great Chain of Being. Even if we cannot say that animals are possessed of rights, do we not owe them a certain moral regard, similar to that owed humans of lesser rational ability (e.g. those with severe mental illness, in comas, or infants)? Reliance on any single attribute as the sole basis for determining moral regard (whether genetics, rationality, autonomy, sentience, ability to feel pain, etc.) is always problematic, no matter how tempting and how simple.
23 December, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I think you’re confusing rationality with intelligence. Animals have varying intelligence, but none of them reason their course of action.
No. Humans, as the type of being we are, have Rights. Now, children, the mentally retarded, those in comas etc have limited rights, just as criminals have limited rights. Animals, because they are not moral beings, cannot have the moral principle of Rights.
It is problematic, unless you identify exactly what rights are and where they come from. Rights arise because of the nature of man and his relationship with reality. This is the only foundation for rights. Since this foundation doesn’t apply to animals, neither can rights.
23 December, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Sorry evancescent,
I must point out again that you are moral only within a human-centric framework. Your assertion that humans are fundamentally different from animals makes you thoroughly and completely immoral with respect to all other species. It also means that, despite your other posts, your mentality is far more in line with religious induhviduals than with science.
Here is why.
To assume that humans are fundamentally different is to argue that humans are different not only in magnitude, but in kind. This is so thoroughly incorrect at its very core as to completely invalidate your entire post.
Many other species of animals have morals.
To ignore this is to simply show how little you have read on the subject. I point you again to the same books to which I pointed you on your other thread. There has been much work done in research into the animal mind. You ignore all of it totally. This ignores all of evolution flatly as well.
You seem to think that morals sprang out of nowhere fully formed in human beings. This is as far from the truth as assuming that humans sprang out of nowhere (or were specially created by god). Humans are part of a continuum of animals. We differ in magnitude from other species in many ways. We differ in kind in very few (mammalian bipedalism and menopause, for example). We do not differ in kind in our mental abilities at all.
We are not special.
Until you realize this, you will be so speciesist as to be beyond reason on this topic. Further, this happens to be such a hot button issue for me that I will A) again refer all scientifically minded individuals to a more rational discussion of interspecies morality on my site and B) remove your blog from my blog roll. I simply have too much trouble dealing with people that believe humans to be special (unless especially bad
) to continue to have these discussions.
Please feel free to read a few of my suggested books and let me know if you come around to a more rational understanding of our place in the biosphere. I believe you are a good person but have a tremendous amount to learn about this subject. However, I also believe this post shows a near religious unwillingness to do so.
23 December, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I think you betray a misunderstanding of morality right here Scott, by implying that there is some morality outside of a human framework. There is no framework of morality outside of human action, because human action is the only kind that can be governed by rational thought.
Are humans the only creatures that are rational or not? It really comes down to that. What other lifeform in existence can you name that has the freedom to choose its actions based on rational values?
It does not ignore evolution or animal biology at all. Show me another creature that can act morally and you might have a point.
I find it hard to take seriously the assertion that we don’t differ in our mental abilities. When was the last time an animal built a skyscraper, a rocketship, drafted a Bill of Rights, fell in love, or landed on the moon? In fact, when was the last time an animal made a moral decision about anything?
Biologically speaking, we are just like most mammals. Intellectually, we are on a different level because we think rationally. Being rational creatures is what best describes humans, homo sapiens, literally meaning “thinking man”. It is this volitional nature that gives rise to rational thought, and our ability to make decisions makes us moral beings. That is why we have Rights.
I’m a big fan of Dawkins, but “speciesism” is absolute rubbish. The idea that humans should be treated like animals and set on a level playing field is grossly immoral. Here’s why:
When was the last time you found a magpie guilty of stealing for invading another bird’s nest? When was the last time you found a cheater guilty of premeditated murder after stalking and ripping the throat out of a gazelle? When was the last time you tried a dog in a court of law for savaging a child? When was the last time humans went to the jungle to put an end to all the suffering of the “innocent” animals being exploited and killed by other animals higher up in the food chain?
You not only want to give individual rights to animals, you want to treat humans as criminals even though other animals can never be considered criminals.
Those who want to give rights to animals don’t want to elevate them, they want to lower humans to the level of an unthinking savage beast that acts on instinct. An animal is never guilty or innocent of anything, because it is never capable of making moral decisions. This is why they CANNOT have Rights. Now, if you disagree Scott, you need to define what “rights” mean to you, and where they come from.
I’m sorry Scott, but this is an absolutely ridiculous response. It’s funny how rational and intelligent fellow atheists think you are until you disagree with them! Have I offended the Humanist mentality and gone against scripture?? Am I being ostracized like any naughty cult-member??
If you want to remove me from your blogroll, go for it, but that would be another symptom of the irrational emotionalism some display when it comes to discussing animals. Why is some people think that because animals have no rights, that is somehow evil or a license for cruelty?
You see, Scott, in my article I explained exactly what morality is and where Rights come from. You haven’t provided a definition of morality or explained what you think Rights are or where they come from. I think, despite your otherwise intelligence, you’re being blinded by this subjective utilitarian approach to morality that totally ignores what morality actually is and where it comes from! From my point of view, it is you, not myself, that is showing a total unwillingness to engage this topic rationally and logically; your heated emotional response about removing me from your blogroll proves that. Should you choose to change your mind, you’re always welcome to comment again…
23 December, 2007 at 6:01 pm
P.S. Here are some articles for anyone not up for reading a full length book on the subject of animal morality.
Grapes, Cucumbers, and Monkey Morality
Are Monkeys Moral
The Theory of Moral Neuroscience — This one briefly discusses the existence of mirror neurons in monkeys and the role that mirror neurons play in human morality.
And, this with monkeys. Anyone with the most basic understanding of evolution will understand that non-human apes would be much closer to human apes in their morals than monkeys are.
23 December, 2007 at 6:17 pm
evanescent,
And this is the heart of your complete and utter misunderstanding of the subject. Since you have an interest in science, you should not make such assertions without reading the available scientific literature on the subject.
I don’t know the answer to that. However rational and moral are fundamentally different. So this is not only not the crux of the issue, it is completely irrelevant to the issue.
Good!! Now we’re onto something. I think that the articles I posted in my P.S. (which I was typing while you were typing your response) actually do just that.
BTW, you should really read about bonobos. They are far more moral than humans. There has never been an observed case of intraspecies lethal violence in bonobos. They resolve their differences with sex.
Please reread my post. Of course we differ. We differ only in magnitude though, not in kind. We are not special. We were not specially created. We are part of a continuum.
Dawkins? That may be where I heard about speciesism, I don’t recall. As for a level playing field, I think if you read my posts, you’ll see that I believe there is a continuum, not an absolute or level playing field. Perhaps bonobos deserve to be treated with a higher standard of morals than humans due to their more moral behavior. I don’t know. You simply rule out the conversation without actually considering the real available data though.
Further, as the Grapes/Cucumbers article shows, other animals do have ways of convicting each other for their own definitions of the violations of their own social contract. Certainly, other apes do. You really do need to read about this instead of using logic based on nothing.
No, you are being treated as a lay person on any topic would be who professes to be an expert on the subject. You are forming your views in exactly the same way as the religious form theirs. I’m merely calling you on your hypocrisy.
You’re correct that definitions are important. I’ll do a bit of research to find an adequate definition and we can debate from there. But, first, you must be at least willing to consider the possibility that morality, whatever it is, did not spring to life fully formed in humans with no precursors.
23 December, 2007 at 6:33 pm
(One more try …
OK, this is the best discussion of the term morality that I have found. If you replace all occurrences of the words person, persons, or people with either individual or individuals, as appropriate, I think I can say with confidence that there are other species who would certainly meet any or all of these descriptions to varying degrees.
http://tinyurl.com/23spww
Again, I am not claiming equal moral capabilities across all species. I doubt an earthworm will be as moral as a bonobo. In fact, I doubt either of us is as moral as a bonobo. But, there are morals across a large number of species, especially social species.
23 December, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Unless you can give me an example of a rational creature, biology here is irrelevant. This is a matter of philosophy. This assertion that I am misunderstanding science is a red herring.
No, actually it is the very heart of the issue. It is impossible to be moral without being rational. I know where you’re coming from about animal behaviour, such as altruism, but 1. that is instinctual behaviour selected for and not freely chosen by the creature 2. altruistic behaviour is not moral. So an evolutionary explanation for morality is inherently flawed because it seeks to explain the wrong thing. Altruism is not morality. I think this is the source of your misunderstanding.
That has nothing to do with morality! Their behaviour is instinctive. They are no more free to rationally choose a course of action than I am free to sprout wings and fly to New York. How on earth can you consider a being “moral” when it cannot possibly choose its action? By your reasoning, a dead man would be the most moral person on earth, since he’s incapable of doing wrong - but he’s actually incapable of doing anything.
What you’re presenting in not evidence. Your are stealing the concept of morality from its source. Morality implies a choice of action. That is PRECISELY WHY we hold people responsible for their actions; because they chose to do something WRONG when they DIDN’T HAVE TO. That is why humans are moral, because we have rational volition. Now, you are incapable of denying the fact that animals cannot choose their decisions rationally. Because of that, they are not morally responsible for any decision they make. That is why we don’t punish animals for theft or murder. They are amoral in the truest sense of the word.
That is the correct explanation of morality and what it means. Your misunderstanding is not scientific, it is philosophical.
This just proves that an evolutionary stable system can arise that produces behaviour that humans would called civilised or altruistic. It says nothing about what is right or wrong.
I’m not a hypocrite at all. You’re the one who wants to treat animals like humans, and humans like animals, whilst all the time exempting animals from the same moral principles that govern ONLY humans. To prove your hypocrisy, you have only to tell me when the last time you arrested an animal for committing a crime was. Can animals commit crimes or not? If not, do not pretend to say they have a morality.
I never said it did. You are labouring under the flawed notion (and I have read most of Dawkins’ works) that morality is altruistic behaviour that evolution selected for (e.g.: The Selfish Gene, which is a brilliant book). That is the problem, which is why I say your mistake is philosophical, not scientific.
I reject “altruism”, “game theory”, “kinship” etc, as morality. Trying to explain altruism with evolution and biology is to miss the point altogether; I would not debate that for a moment. Morality is a system to be rationally discovered. Morality is a code to guide the FREE actions of a THINKING agent. That is my definition, so if you disagree you must disagree with that, nothing else. Now, since morality is what it is, it CANNOT apply to animals. Talk of group behaviour, and sacrificial behaviour, evolutionary stable systems, and evolutionary-selected “social contracts” are actually irrelevant, which is what I’ve been trying to say - they are rooted on a philosophically bankrupt premise: altruism. Morality is a not an instinctive behaviour that has been evolved and selected for. It is something to be discovered by a rational being to guide his actions. (I know this goes against most of what you already believe, and it went against all my beliefs too when I first studied Objectivism, but if you continue this discussion with an open mind, you’ll see that I’m right on this).
23 December, 2007 at 7:53 pm
evanescent,
Let me ask you one simple question. How often do you really, genuinely, and literally consider murdering those who you do not like?
Perhaps you do not have the volition you think you do. Perhaps you are merely the product of properly functioning morals processing centers in your brain. Do you really think that you make the choice not to murder anyone today as a conscious rational choice each day? I know I do not.
You essentially claim that animals have no volition. They are merely the product of their instincts while humans are not. This is a complete and utter violation of Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation for many animal behaviors, and that recognized by any reasonably intelligent pet owner, is that animals have similar emotions, motives, and volition to humans.
Your assertion that we do not prosecute other animals is as irrelevant as anything can possibly be. For they too do not prosecute us. If they were to prosecute us, how would the executives of ExxonMobil fare in light of still having done nothing to clean up Valdez? How would humans fare in light of causing the sixth mass extinction on the planet?
Morals are not rational. Morals are the workings of functioning morals processing centers in our brains. If they were rational, the results of morals tests across widely disparate societies would produce widely disparate results. Instead, nearly identical results are produced regardless of the society asked, even in hunter gatherer societies. Check the results of the so called trolley questions. They should indicate that perhaps you are at least as much (or as little) of an automaton as any other species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Further, if animals have no rights, why are humans prosecuted for cruelty to animals? If one must be a rational being to have rights, why are those who murder severely retarded individuals prosecuted for murder?
In fact, all you have done is to convince me that we have moral obligations to other species regardless of whether they have morals themselves. I am now more convinced than ever that the ability of a living being to think morally is most assuredly NOT that which conveys rights to that species.
Further, humans are not the judge and jury of all life on this planet. You have no right to deny the inalienable rights of another species. And, whatever the current state of our laws is certainly has no bearing on the rights of any individual. If it did, then during the period of our history where humans owned other humans legally and treated them atrociously would be evidence that the slaves had no rights. That would be a fallacy. Slaves had rights even when society failed to grant them rights.
Granting rights to any individual is merely an acknowledgment that the grantee has value and may not be treated with contempt.
Please come down off your high horse. Feel your connection to the rest of the species on the planet. Acknowledge your far greater similarity to the rest than your minor differences. It is a truly wonderful feeling to be connected to such beauty.
23 December, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Ah, yet another P.S. Here is a link to a study using the trolley problem that shows that indeed, morals are not the product of any rational consideration.
http://tinyurl.com/2fpml8
In fact, for starters, just read this quote from the article:
So, if our morals are irrational and animals’ morals are irrational, exactly how are ours fundamentally different?
23 December, 2007 at 8:46 pm
The idea of murdering another person is abhorrent to me. It is irrational and immoral. The only way I would kill someone is in self-defence.
Speak for yourself! As a rational being with free will, I can safely say I freely choose each and every time not to kill anyone!
I didn’t say that animals have no volition, they clearly have very limited volition. The difference is that humans are rational, and animals aren’t.
Occam’s razor has nothing to do with this, and your invocation of it is philosophical naive I think. Of course animal behaviour mirrors reactions that in humans are similar to affection, love, “good” etc. But to believe that animals have emotions and moral systems is pure emotional wishful-thinking. Love is a concept that, amongst other things, requires the rational recognition of one’s own personality and that of the person one loves. No animal is capable of this, so no animal can love.
So, your answer to why we don’t prosecute animals is because they can’t prosecute us?? Well, they can’t prosecute us can they? They have no understanding of the concepts of right and wrong, and therefore morality. That is the point I am making. But you avoided the question: the reason we don’t prosecute animals is because they’re not responsible for their behaviour.
You’re using the evolutionary altruistic/collectivist theory of morality here which is exactly what I’m rejected. These studies are testing human behaviour and innate reactions. By definition, instinctive uncontrollable behaviour is outside the terms of morality.
Now if you want me to explain why human answers are often similar in answer to moral questions, I’d say that evolution has selected for a mix of part rational / part altruistic behaviour because it is conducive to survival. That’s my non-expert opinion.
I have seen the trolley experiment many times in many forms. Your problem is that you think evolutionary selected behaviour such as “working together” or “sacrificing yourself for the tribe” is what morality is. You are incorrect.
Well you’ve just raised two very excellent and important questions, which hit at the heart of what I’m saying. Retarded people who murder humans cannot always control and understand their actions. We try to rehabilitate them, not necessarily punish them if they cannot help their actions.
As for cruelty to animals, I find this very disgusting and the thought of humans deriving pleasure from harming animals sickens me. However, the role of government is very specific and important, and protecting animals is not it. That is why people should not be prosecuted for harming them. Unfortunate perhaps, but necessary.
Wow, well then either I am really really awful at arguing my position, or you have absolutely no idea what Rights are. And I think it’s the latter.
Other species don’t have any rights. Remember, Rights are moral principles that apply to moral beings. Animals aren’t moral beings, so they have no rights.
Yes, you’re right, and that just shows the SUBJECTIVE nature of collective/group mentality, which is exactly what evolution selects for. I am not arguing from the position that our current laws are correct. In fact, most of our current laws are flat-out wrong and immoral. A proper society SHOULD be based around individual rights. That is precisely why government should not protect animals and why animals have no rights. That doesn’t mean it’s ok to abuse them though.
Where does your notion of Rights come from? How do you justify your definition of Rights?
And you say I’m getting religious. I do appreciate the beauty in this planet. I can appreciate the beauty of science, nature, and animals. I think animals are fascinating and I love the pets I’ve had. That doesn’t turn me into a emotional Greenpeace Wiccan hippie who thinks I and the world are one.
My position is simply rational thinking applied. Moral being = Rights.
(Oh and as for that link you provided on the source of morality, the problem is the same: a faulty premise of what morality is to begin with; they end up explaining the wrong thing).
23 December, 2007 at 8:51 pm
PS: You only have to look through my articles under the topics of Science etc to see how much wonder I have for this world.
23 December, 2007 at 9:32 pm
evanescent,
I have a lot of respect for you. However, on this topic, we are completely speaking past each other. I think we should just agree to disagree. I do not see how one can believe that humans alone among all animal species are not subject to behaviorist psychology. Personally, I do not think behaviorist psychology applies to any species. You seem to believe it applies to all species other than humans. Neither of us is likely to convince the other. All I can say is that I hope you have no pets. For you are incapable of truly appreciating the love of any non-human.
Have a merry mythmas, a happy festivus, a satisfactory non-denominational capitalist winter time gift giving season, a pleasant solstice, or whatever else you may or may not celebrate, and a happy new year (if, of course, you choose to delineate your years during this particular season).
Scott
24 December, 2007 at 3:55 am
Evanescent,
I just made a post over at Misanthropic Scott’s blog, which details my thoughts on the subject of morality.
http://misanthropicscott.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/moral-considerability-what-does-it-mean-to-whom-does-it-apply/#comment-940
I would like your thoughts on my reasoning, as well, if you care to provide them.
24 December, 2007 at 9:44 am
Scott, you have shown time and again on my articles to be well-informed and intelligent, (with the exception of this one!), so although it is unfortunate that we cannot resolve this issue perhaps it is best to let it lie for now.
I never said we weren’t. Of course some of our behaviour has been selected for! But, and this is the crux of the matter: evolutionary-selected group behaviour isn’t an adequate definition of morality.
I would say the concept of love is as foreign to an animal as the concept of right-wing neofacist politics.
LOL, same to you.
24 December, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Luckily for the other animals on the planet, you are correct about the latter. As for the former, all I can suggest is that you get out and watch animal behavior in the wild more often. If love is the simplest explanation of the behavior you see, claiming that it isn’t is a clear violation of Occam’s Razor. I have seen far too much that looked exactly like love and nothing else to ever attempt to explain it some other way.
24 December, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Occam’s razor selects the most parsimonious explanation; in order to be selected, the explanation has to be a good one in the first place though.
Here is what Objectivist Leitmotif has to say on the matter of emotion and concept:
24 December, 2007 at 7:41 pm
evanescent,
Thank you for that. I can now say without hesitation that I am completely and utterly unimpressed by the objectivist viewpoint. Were I to view my emotions that way, my life would be a cold meaningless empty void. I would not want to live in a brain that really viewed the world that way.
I’ve often said that it’s not easy living in my brain for other reasons, mostly my inability to prevent myself from free association and punning. However, if I really believed that viewpoint at the deepest levels of my brain, I would commit suicide without remorse.
Understand that there is a difference between intellectual knowledge and deeply rooted belief. I have a friend who is born again. He and I have had religious debates. He does not believe in evolution. His beliefs however, are intellectual. He believes there is a god, but does not seem to know it down to his deepest core. When I debate him, he often discusses things with his father and comes back with very different answers. His father believes to his deepest core. He knows beyond any doubt that there is a god.
I, on the other hand, have looked into the eyes of chimps and gorillas in the wild. I have seen them with my own eyes as my cousins. I not only believe in evolution intellectually as I have done for a long time based on a wealth of data, I know it to be true in the core of my being from personal experience. For anyone to even begin to attempt to convince me that evolution is false, they would not only need to convince me intellectually, they would need to give me a reason for the kinship I feel to varying degrees with so much of the wildlife on this planet, including all of the primates I have seen, lions (the most loving animal I’ve seen in the wild), cetaceans, and many many others.
This aside was to make clear the distinction between intellectual belief and a deeply held belief from personal experience that goes to the core.
Were I to believe the objectivist viewpoint in the core of my being the way I do with evolution, I would kill myself. There would be no reason to go on. I hope for your sake that you only believe it intellectually and do not really feel that way to your core.
24 December, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Emotionalism aside Scott, your being “impressed” by the Objectivist viewpoint is irrelevant to its veracity. You cannot magically concoct morals and rights out of thin air, or your imagination of what animals think or feel about you (very little I imagine). Morals and rights are a political and philosophy concept, and they have specific meanings and origin.
Why on earth you think the Objectivist viewpoint is so nihilist and saddening I have absolutely no idea. I can only assume you haven’t really understand what I’ve said. In fact, this is clear from your continued romanticism about animals, which as charming as it is, is irrelevant to the issues of morality and rights.
You seem to think there is some clash between Objectivism and evolution; I cannot understand why you think that.
The idea of believing something in the core of your being sounds religious to me. Evolution is true, not because you feel it, but because the evidence supports it. Humans are moral beings, not being you or I like the sound of that, but because it’s true. Humans have rights, not because I say so or because you don’t, but because of the application of moral principles to society.
If your quixotic and romantic notion of animals is so deeply enriched that you’d kill yourself without it, that’s up to you. But how that is any different to any theist I’ve debated with, I cannot tell.
Either way, it seems that you’re unable to accept the philosophical notion of morality and rights, and since I cannot explain it any better, now would be a good time to suspend the debate.
24 December, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Because it so closely resembles behaviorist psychology. It essentially reduces us to our chemical reactions. We are more than the sum of our parts.
As for what animals think, I think it is abundantly obvious that I have read more of the science on the subject than you and can assure you that your behaviorist viewpoint has not been in the majority opinion of scientists for decades.
Again, as clearly as I can state it, it is because you think that some magic switched turned on at the instant that homo sapiens began. You do not seem to acknowledge any form of a sliding scale of whatever it is you think we possess that animals do not. This is not the way evolution works. It works in gradual steps. Even those who believe the theory (hypothesis?) of punctuated equilibrium acknowledge that rapid evolution still requires many generations for small incremental steps. You believe in one enormous step with no precursors.
For me, my belief in evolution has two components, as I attempted to explain above.
1) Evolution is simply true because there is abundant evidence supporting it and no contradictory evidence. This describes how I felt about it 20 years ago. This has not changed, except that even more supporting data has come in.
2) In addition, not instead of, I have seen first hand incredible similarity of facial expressions and mental capacity in our closest relatives, giving me more than just a textbook understanding, but a first hand (yes near religious) experience of it and a deeper feeling for it than can be gotten intellectually.
My quixotic and romantic notion of animals, including myself, is a part of what makes me a thinking breathing feeling emotional and sometimes rational animal.
Try this. Explain your views on what love is over a romantic dinner with your life partner if you have one. If not, please do so hypothetically. Imagine as the wine is poured and you gaze into each other’s eyes you explain about the physiological release of hormones you are feeling. I imagine it will be quite misunderstood. I might even suggest that it is the emotional response to one’s partner that causes the hormone release. Certainly, when one is angry or feeling distant from one’s partner, the hormone release does not occur. Perhaps it is that the emotions cause the reaction rather than the other way around.
Either way, to assume that my emotions are purely driven by chemical processes and are nothing more, would negate my very existence as a thinking feeling creature.
And now, I too will suspend this. I simply felt that a couple of these issues did need to be addressed to avoid confusion. I understand your viewpoint. I suspect you understand mine. I doubt either of us will convince the other.
25 December, 2007 at 11:17 am
I have said nothing that implies this point of view at all.
You keep coming back to evolution to demonstrate that humans, biologically, are just like other animals. This demonstrates that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said:
No no no no no. If you understood what I was saying you wouldn’t even mention this. I think you are determined to prove a point that never needed making. This is a philosophical discussion not a scientific one, and I think you’ve missed that point from the first comment.
One last brief time, for the sake of other readers: HOW we got to where we are is IRRELEVANT, that’s a matter for evolution. The fact of the matter here and now is this: we are the only thinking self-conscious rational volitional beings in existence, that gives us the capacity for morality. It cannot apply to animals. QED.
25 December, 2007 at 11:29 am
Another remark based on something Scott said on his blog. Scott mentions animal intelligence, the mirror test etc. This again is irrelevant, and it demonstrates how much Scott misunderstands the fundamental point I am making. By constantly reverting back to evolution, Scott is attempting to show that humans are no different to animals. He, emotionally in my opinion, keeps saying that “humans are not special”. This is a red herring. “Special” could mean anything, and it’s not a word I’ve used.
What Scott cannot deny is that the NATURE of human intelligence is unique. It is not just a case of humans being mentally superior (that is not my point). It is that humans are the only beings who can reason and think rationally. That (despite Scott’s philosophical ignorance) is a prerequisite for morality. Scott is still labouring under flawed humanistic thinking of altruism and kinship as morality (a mistake that even Richard Dawkins makes). That is why he tries to explain “moral” behaviour with evolution, but he is explaining the wrong thing.
He wants to deny that only humans are moral beings, but he cannot do this without denying that only humans have rationality. He wants to magically make animals moral, although they have no capacity for rational choice. He wants to lock humans up for crimes, but never lock animals up for crimes. He wants to punish humans for “crimes” against animals, but never punish animals for “crimes” against humans. We wants to give animals legal protection against humans, but not other animals! He wants to turn humans into the criminal and all animals into a protected species, at our expense. Do you see the double standard?
Scott forgets that I’ve already said that individuals are protected by law by Rights. Animals do not get Rights because they aren’t moral beings. I think Scott sees animals as beautiful animals living in paradise that would be just fine without this pesky human interference. I think he wants to have humans in the service of animals, not the other way around.
I look at it from a moral point of view; from a human point of view. I like animals, and I don’t want to unavoidably hurt them. But I can’t steal the concept of morality from its roots. Scott, like most humanists, environmentalists, utilitarians, wants to sneak Rights in the back door by kicking it off its hinges.
25 December, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I’m going to have to go with Scott on most of his points though I wouldn’t use many of his arguments.
Rights as intrinsic properties do not exist - but are merely assign codes or rules as a generalized protection against the tendancies of others or from a majority. This phenomenon is very similar to morality - it doesn’t exist in the universe as a separate entity from mankind to be learned, but as an extrinsic description of the relationships between entities, needs, or possible outcomes to situations.
On the issue of animals, it’s very tempting to ignore our effect on animals - but it is extremely difficult to rule out their pain, suffering, or existance for the mere reason that they can’t verbally express themselves.
Sure, evolutionarily speaking - life has taken advantage of weaker species for eons, but I’d argue that now that we understand the implications and can find other resources to meet our survival needs - it is finally time for life to make amends and treat other life on earth as we would like to be treated if there existed a superior life form to our own.
I’ve completely barely skimmed over my position on these topics.. it would take hours to lay out my rationale. I’m also not going to keep up with this blog thread for the sake of time. If you have any other questions or rebuttals that you’d like me to which you would like me to respond, feel free to email me.
25 December, 2007 at 11:39 pm
evanescent,
You have put a lot of words in my mouth. Most of them actually are somewhat in line with my opinions on the subject. Some are a bit far off the mark.
First, I do not state that humans are not different. I state that humans are not different in kind. This is a subtle and important point.
Second, I simply do not agree with either premise in your statement that, ‘It is that humans are the only beings who can reason and think rationally. That (despite Scott’s philosophical ignorance) is a prerequisite for morality.’
There is no way to know that in fact humans are the only animals who can reason and think rationally. Every time humans have defined our mental capacities as different before, we have been proven incorrect. Once we were the tool-users, which made us unique. Then we were the tool-makers that made us unique. Now apparently we are the only ones who think rationally and can reason. What will you do when this too is proven false?
Then there is another premise I simply disagree with. It is not that I do not understand your points. I simply disagree. There is no reason to assume that reason and rationality are prerequisites for morality. They are certainly not prerequisites for a member of a moral species to consider the rights of those deemed amoral. Even if they were prerequisites for moral behavior on the part of one individual, that individual becomes obliged to act morally. The fact that the target individual may not be able to reason and think rationally does not exempt them from being treated decently.
In fact, to claim otherwise implies that a human being with brain damage need not be treated morally. You have repeatedly evaded this point. Even children with no clear morals yet and brain damaged adults who have insufficient ability to reason are and should be protected by law. If you honestly believe otherwise, this would make your morality quite abhorrent to me.
As for double standards, parents often expect better behavior from an older child who should know better than from a younger one that may not know enough to behave well.
It is thus with animals as well. If an animal is capable of morals, that animal should be held to the standards applicable to their own species. This is most typically done by other members of the same species.
Mostly though, I completely disagree with your statement that rights flow from morals. I think that many species genuinely have rights, or should be granted rights, even if they are incapable of reasoned behavior. They are not automatons. They are not behaviorist machines. They are conscious thinking feeling beings. By my standards, they have rights.
The fact that I do not subscribe to your ideology of Objectivism does not make me ignorant, though I have indeed not read the works of the great prophet Ayn Rand. It simply means that I disagree with you.
25 December, 2007 at 11:46 pm
evanescent,
I just thought of another point. You claim that we do not hold animals to standards of behavior. In fact, this is not at all true. When a dog bites a human, the dog is often given the death penalty. When a polar bear repeatedly returns to the town of Churchill, Manitoba and harasses people, s/he is actually tagged and put in polar bear prison until the ice forms. Some offenders are air lifted away from town. Repeat offenders are killed.
Similar treatment exists for black and brown bears as well.
In other places, animals guilty of killing humans are hunted down and killed. In fact, only in the Sundabarans (India/Bangladesh) have I heard of tigers killing people and not being hunted down and killed. For some reason, the people in the Sundabarans do not kill human eating tigers. Perhaps they agree with your viewpoint.
So, yes, we do hold animals responsible for their actions.
26 December, 2007 at 11:43 am
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that when we quarantine or taser an animal for their attack on humans, it is not the animal we are “punishing” (in any sensible use of the term), but the rights of the humans under attack that we are protecting and redressing.
By offering the option of “death penalty” as a suitable punishment for animals who fatally attack humans, you are well far away from the animal-rights position on the matter. I think you need to decide which camp you’re in.
26 December, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Miguel said:
This misunderstanding of morality is the problem. Morality is not a phenomenon that emerges when two or more units interact. It is this that evolution attempts to explain, but like I keep saying, it explains the wrong thing. If evolutionists distinguished kinship behaviour from an ethical system that has to be discovered, this ambiguity would evaporate.
Morality is a personal objective code for all man, for every individual man. It tells you how you should live YOUR life.
You say you agree with Scott, yet neither of you explain what you think Rights are. An animal’s capacity to experience pain, or suffering, or exist, does not give it Rights. These things do not even give humans any Rights.
Well, clearly you should have read all the comments up to this point. Because I’ve addressed this sort of thinking already.
So you came along and gave me your unsubstantiated comments, without even reading the article or other comments properly, but aren’t even going to come back and see my response…further, I am to e-mail you if I want to discuss this further? No thanks, I think I’ll pass.
29 December, 2007 at 3:03 am
I’m sorry Evanescent, but you’ve really drunk the objectivist kool-aid. The entire problem here is that you assert propositions without evidence, and then chastise respondents (notably, Scott) when they confront your assertions. But that’s not an argument. You can’t make up a bunch of rules and then hoo and haw when someone questions them. The entire point is to debate the truth value of your claims.
You can’t simply assert that morality requires rationality, that only humans are capable of rational thought, that only humans are capable of conceptual thought. The burden of proof is on you, not on anyone else, to provide evidence for these claims. If you can’t, then it’s all a bunch of hot air.
No, altruism is a stable social strategy that produces practical gains. Thus it’s assuredly not subjective. It’s also not collectivist. Altruism emerges from selfishness. This is easiest to understand in light of Adam Smith’s invisible hand principle. Completely oblivious to common intuition, economic altruism arises most furiously in free markets where selfish consumers and selfish suppliers all seek to maximize their respective welfares.
They have the capacity, but not the will or want. Sure, you can neglect sleeping, and eating, and finding shelter, but you’re compelled by your biology to do otherwise. I don’t think you quite appreciate how irrational human beings really are. We spend (rough estimate) about a fourth of our lives doing what? Sleeping. An utterly irrational, uncontrollable process. Our hearts beat automatically. Our nerves fire automatically. Our livers and stomachs and kidneys process food and gunk automatically. Our unconscious mind flutters unabated 24-7, without even a hint of express permission from our rational selves. We’re scared, and sad, and aroused. I dare you to try to choose your sexual orientation. Try to choose for your heart to skip a beat.
29 December, 2007 at 11:40 am
LOL