Animal Rights
Animals can’t have rights because rights are (1) mutually agreed-upon societal constructions that are (2) understood by and enforceable against the bound parties. Not only are animals bereft of an empowered third party to enforce these hypothetical rights, but there isn’t even any type of mutual agreement that certain behavior is malicious and wrong in the first place! For example, humans believe that killing without provocation is wrong; animals don’t, and can’t, or else all the carnivores would starve.
January 26th, 2010 at 10:09 am
I agree animals have no rights, even if this person’s understanding of rights is incorrect.
January 26th, 2010 at 10:30 am
For a very good analysis of animal rights see Section 21 of The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.
Excerpt:
January 26th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
The term “right” in the sense of natural rights has the same root as the “right” in right and wrong.
In the 1700s, people earnestly debated whether it was right that the king owned everything and everybody, or whether it was right to overthrow a tyranny. It is right to speak freely, to own property, to pursue happiness. It is right that people receive due process. It is right to bear arms in self-defense.
Most people think that torturing animals, or hunting and leaving the carcass to rot, is wrong. In that sense, there is a natural right that humans should be good stewards. Animals have the right not to be senselessly hurt or wasted. The local creek has the right to not have used motor oil poured in it.
January 26th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
According to that definition of rights, the very young or mentally incapacitated have no rights either?
January 26th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Interesting question. They may not understand but they are bound and the parties will enforce against them (though we do make some exception, i guess, with insanity defenses and minors are charged differently).
January 26th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Herbivores will eat meat if they can get away with it … heh.
As for rights for the young or mentally incapacitated … many cultures would not hesitated to kill by exposure unwanted infants.
Rights for people is a cultural decision … not an “act of God”. The hand of God will not come out of the sky and punish you for killing people.
I will ( and people who think like me ), be cause I think some basic human rights are worth going to the wall and putting my life at risk to defend.
January 26th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
No.
January 26th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Putting aside the question of how you define rights, you can explain away the entire argument as irrelevant–humans DO have rights, and we also have responsibilities which include living up to the rule of law and being ethical people.
People who abuse animals are generally engaging in anti-social behavior that displays a level of depravity contrary to the same common good that necessitates other laws and ethical codes that we all agree to live by.
Just because an animal doesn’t have “rights” under whatever construction of right you care to pursue doesn’t mean you’re not a sick fuck who needs be admonished for your behavior if you do something onerous to an animal.
January 26th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
IOW, “animal rights” is really a misnomer–it’s not about the animal, it’s about the person and whether or not we can reasonably apply an ethical standard to your behavior.
January 26th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Wow, I can’t believe I actually agree with Sebastian-PGP on something. =) You stated my understand on the matter extraordinarily well:
“IOW, “animal rights” is really a misnomer–it’s not about the animal, it’s about the person and whether or not we can reasonably apply an ethical standard to your behavior.”
Whether and which ethical standards translate into civil or criminal law is a whole ‘nother question…
January 26th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
+1 on Dan
January 27th, 2010 at 2:34 am
the author of the original post has no conception of natural rights, but BWM correctly cited Rothbard as a good definition. The original post was more about contractual provisions, which animals cannot be a signatory to because they have no agency and have no conception of property rights. This is similar to a non-mature/able adult.
Wow I just reread it and the logic is baseless. What about humans killing without provocation? We kill animals all the time without provocation. We kill humans all the time without provocation and call it collateral damage in war.
His argument is pretty nonsensical.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:32 am
Here’s a libertarian argument in favor of animal rights:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/graham/graham1.html