Animal Rights?

[Sparx]

I saw this man on the news who beat up his dog, and now he's facing one year in prison. What the fuck is up with that? I'm against mistreating animals, but I also think it's completely unfair to mistreat people like that. The furthest I'd go would be to take the dog away from the abusive owner, as long as there is somebody else who is willing to care for it more than the former. Should animals have rights? What makes a dog more important than a human being? People get beat up all the time, and the bully rarely faces any serious charges. All I'm saying is, this is madness to me. And trust me, I am very sympathetic to dogs. My dad used to beat the dog very often when I was a kid, and it really fucked me up. I think the right thing in that case would have been for my mother to divorce him. I wouldn't want my dad imprisoned. The act of abusing one's pets proves that person to have a violent behavior, which makes him a potential harm to his surroundings. It would follow that people ostracize him, but putting him in prison just doesn't seem right to me.

[Dadalama]

Well I've got the butt of my rifle to help the dog but rights make little sense to me.

[Brad Reddekopp]

The notion that animals have rights seems just silly. After all, if an animal has a right to life, then we need to send cops out into the wilds to arrest all the predators.

The question is not whether or not animals have rights but, rather, whether or not it is justifiable to use force to protect animals from gratuitous cruelty and, in this case, whether or not imprisonment is a justifiable use of force. I might be willing to use moderate force to confiscate an animal (depending on the risk to myself -- I'm fond of dogs but I'll not sacrifice myself for one).

It occurs to me that if someone is gratuitously cruel to animals, I'd prefer to keep him away from me and my loved ones.

[Vichy]

First of all, it's just technically inappropriate to talk about moral norms as 'rights'. Rights are the flip-side of duties, and the two are established by contract. I am not trying to make some sort of contractarian coupe-by-definition, I mean simply that talking about 'rights' outside of the concept of contracts is somewhat nonsensical. The concept is different enough to require its own name.

As Bernard Williams points out in his lectures on Unavoidable Human Prejudice ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9xtDbW3p74 ), the question is not one of 'animal rights' anyways - animals do not demand, and probably could not comprehend, justification. The only question is how we are to treat animals, and the only subjects with who we can debate the matter are - other humans.

For my part, I see it as one part moral delusion and one part existential guilt - the sort that makes people regret being practically superior to others; whether human or animal. (Which is not to say that humans aren't animals, just that most people think of humans in a somewhat different manner than animals).

[plan 9]

I thought you are a nihilist who believes morality is superstition. Now you say there is an obligation to follow contracts and concern on how we ought to treat animals as well. Strange.

[Vichy]

Now you say there is an obligation to follow contracts

No, this is you projecting the improper use of the term 'right' onto law. But contract law is the origin of 'rights'. Rights and duties are established by contract. It's a fact of jurisprudence. It's not an ethical doctrine - rather, it's nonsensical to use such terms in an ethical doctrine. It just doesn't make any sense.

and concern on how we ought to treat animals as well.

First of all, I never said 'treat well'. What I said was that there is no 'sense' in trying to find a cosmological point of view from which to judge how people deal with animals, because neither animals nor the cosmos want any justification. It is only the opinions of people that are relevant in this situation.

[vertigo]

Rights, shmights. People don't like to see animals hurt and the government likes to imprison people for things that it disapproves of, so it is legislated against.

The justification is something like, if someone is cruel to animals, they are a bad person and must be punished. They are bad because being cruel is bad. Good citizens should be rewarded, bad citizens should be punished. So they should be punished.

[plan 9]

Now you say there is an obligation to follow contracts

No, this is you projecting the improper use of the term 'right' onto law. But contract law is the origin of 'rights'. Rights and duties are established by contract. It's a fact of jurisprudence. It's not an ethical doctrine - rather, it's nonsensical to use such terms in an ethical doctrine. It just doesn't make any sense.

and concern on how we ought to treat animals as well.

First of all, I never said 'treat well'. What I said was that there is no 'sense' in trying to find a cosmological point of view from which to judge how people deal with animals, because neither animals nor the cosmos want any justification. It is only the opinions of people that are relevant in this situation.

What special value is there in contracts, that they can establish anything if there is not an obligation to follow them first?

Do you mean that the law forces people to follow contracts and this creates rights? Didnt you also say authority is nonsensical?

What should the law based on? Why should there be a law that contracts must be respected if nihilism is true?

The law is based on prescriptive ideas of past lawmakers on how people should behave, but according to you that is subjective opinion.

The question on what the law should be is a moral question. If there is no rational moral principles there is no rational law. A law that contracts ought to be respected is equally valid as a law saying you can violate contracts if nihilism is true.

[Vichy]

What special value is there in contracts, that they can establish anything if there is not an obligation to follow them first?

Some people find them convenient for various purposes. But that isn't the point - using legal terminology outside of jurisprudence is just bad terminology, if not outright nonsensical.

The question on what the law should be is a moral question.

No, at least not necessary. Jurisprudence and arbitration are bodies of thought and professions, not moral commandments. Most of the coherent presumptions encoded into justice have nothing to do with moral views, they're simple epistemic and functional norms based on the actual subject of the profession (arbitration between competing claims).

[Brad Reddekopp]

If there is no rational moral principles there is no rational law.

If there are generally-agreed-upon values in a social group, then there can be rationally-derived rules for promoting those values. Whether or not those values can be described as moral principles, the rules can be rational means of promoting them.

[Vichy]

If there are generally-agreed-upon values in a social group, then there can be rationally-derived rules for promoting those values. Whether or not those values can be described as moral principles, the rules can be rational means of promoting them.

I would agree with this, and push it even further in a Humean sense - since practically no one actually agrees on the fundaments or applications of ethics, all of the law and order that has ever existed has been almost exclusively of the non-ethical variety - including the laws and orders various moralists might approve of.

The necessity of morality is a myth. Likewise, many libertarians stress the necessity for an 'absolute' right to make the case for libertarianism, despite the fact that most of them were converted by virtue of consequentialist economic arguments.

[plan 9]

How do the lawmakers create laws on how people ought to behave without having any idea on how people ought to behave?

If the lawmakers use utilitarian reasoning that is a type of morality. Arriving at rules based on utilitarian reasoning is implicitly assuming one type of morality.

Slavery used to be legal why is it illegal now? Because majority of modern people believe it is immoral. If you want to separate morality from law would you advocate legalising slavery?

In regards to contracts being merely "convenient" it is a part of the basis of human cooperation that people do what they have agreed to do and a contract is a formalised agreement. If keeping ones contracts and agreements is an intersubjective principle of human cooperation understood all over the world it is a principle of morality.

In arbitration between two claims there is somekind of claim that you have been wronged somehow. If you have not been harmed in any way you dont have a claim for compensation. Moral principles are implicitly assumed. If you think that a principle that you owe compensation for harming others is not moral then why not?

Morality is not necessary if there is law to force people to behave? First you are safer among moral people then people who only fear the law. Second if the lawmakers have no respect for morality you will end up with tyrannical and unjust laws.

[plan 9]

Most of the coherent presumptions encoded into justice have nothing to do with moral views, they're simple epistemic and functional norms based on the actual subject of the profession (arbitration between competing claims).

And basic moral norms are simple epistemic and functional norms based on preserving peaceful cooperation and coexistence between individuals. These norms were codified into the first legal codes when they all included "do not murder" "do not steal" etc.

[vertigo]

Most of the coherent presumptions encoded into justice have nothing to do with moral views, they're simple epistemic and functional norms based on the actual subject of the profession (arbitration between competing claims).

And basic moral norms are simple epistemic and functional norms based on preserving peaceful cooperation and coexistence between individuals. These norms were codified into the first legal codes when they all included "do not murder" "do not steal" etc.

The first legal codes included "do not murder" because the king didn't want to be murdered, and "do not steal" because he didn't want his property stolen. What does this have to do with preserving peaceful cooperation between individuals? Well I suppose you could say he wanted people to peacefully serve and obey him.

[plan 9]

The point was that the norms are independent of legal codes and the basic negative ones have a basis in peaceful cooperation and coexistence, which is why rational laws also include these norms. First laws would have been unwritten tradition, not tracing back to any particular person, such as somalias xeer law which still exists.