"Nonhuman animals don't have any rights"
Rupert
nonhuman animal has any rights. The claim has also frequently been
made on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. For example, Jonathan Ball
repeatedly made it, and I also note for reasons that will become clear
later that he considered himself to be a libertarian. And Rick Petter
said to me "animals have NO rights if you can kill them without
penalty", and I can only assume that he meant something like "if it is
morally permissible for you to buy electricity, then it must be the
case that no nonhumans have any rights". For reasons that I hope to
make clear I think that claim is utterly ludicrous.
So, consider the following argument:
(1) If a form of conduct does not violate the rights of any
individual, then it cannot be morally permissible to use force or the
threat of force, or to ask someone else to do that on your behalf, to
dissuade someone from engaging in that conduct, or to punish them for
engaging in that conduct.
(2) If you see someone applying a blowtorch to an innocent stray dog
in the street who is no-one's property, and you call the police, then
you are asking someone else to use force on your behalf to dissuade
them or punish them for engaging in that conduct.
(3) If someone applies a blowtorch to an innocent stray dog in the
street who is no-one's property, then that conduct doesn't violate any
rights except possibly those of the innocent stray dog.
(4) If you see someone applying a blowtorch to an innocent stray dog
in the street who is no-one's property, then it's at the very least
morally *permissible* to call the police.
(5) So, in some circumstances, some nonhuman animals have some rights.
Now, that argument's valid, so if you want to deny that it is sound
then you will have to reject one of premises (1)-(4); more about that
later. But I suppose you may well say "Well, if we grant that the
argument is sound, it's not exactly earth-shattering; you haven't
really made significant progress regarding the question of how we
should treat nonhuman animals and you haven't shown that we should
grant, say, that all mentally normal mammals aged one year or more
have the very extensive rights that Tom Regan claims them to have, or
that all sentient animals have the rights that Gary Francione claims
them to have, and that's what's usually at stake when people say that
they don't believe in animal rights." Fair enough. But I think the
point's worth making. If the argument is sound, then anyone who claims
that no nonhuman animals have any rights is deeply confused, and the
debate ought to be about which rights nonhuman animals have under
which circumstances. Not much progress, perhaps, but some. A
conceptual clarification that is worth making.
But I suspect that some people will still want to claim that the
argument's not sound. Okay, well, it's *valid* in the sense that I can
formalise it is first-order logic and it's deductively valid according
to the rules of the predicate calculus. I know Dutch doesn't like me
to make a big deal out of points like that, but it certainly can be
done and it's computer-checkable, so unless you have some doubts about
the soundness of first-order logic, if you want to deny that the
argument's sound you have to reject one of (1)-(4) and I think it's
fair to ask you which one. I think that helps to focus the
disagreement. It's probably just being a mathematician.
I take (1) to be one of the central defining commitments of
libertarianism, and notably, Roderick Long and Jan Narveson accept (1)
*because* they consider themselves libertarians. I daresay plenty of
people would deny (1), but in my view, if you deny it, you shouldn't
call yourself a libertarian. So that's a point I would press with
Jonathan Ball if he were around these days.
But I suppose plenty of people will deny (1), so if that's the dodgy
premise then fair enough, but it's interesting, it merits further
discussion. When exactly is it morally permissible to commission
someone to use force to dissuade someone from engaging in some
conduct? Might be worth exploring that one.
I've kind of got the feeling that (1) follows from the definition of
what it is to have a right. But maybe some will deny that, and in that
case I wouldn't mind if you tell me what you think a right is.
I don't think that (2) is up for serious debate. (2) has to be
accepted.
But I suppose some might go after (3). Even though the stray dog is no-
one's property, well, maybe in some sense it violates people's rights
that he does it. Maybe he ought to make *absolutely certain* that no-
one sees him doing it, and if he gets caught doing it, then he's
violated someone's rights for negligently allowing that do happen and
it's permissible to use force to punish him. Maybe you could go with
that line of thought. That might be an interesting one to explore too.
Notably Jan Narveson denies (4) and Dutch takes that to be a pretty
serious weakness in his position. He says "No, I wouldn't call the
police" and Dutch says "You've lost". Fair enough. I somewhat suspect
that Roderick Long would deny (4), too, but I don't really know; I
don't know how he would respond to this thought-experiment. But he
seems to be committed to denying (4) based on what he's written; he's
pretty upfront about his contention that we have no enforceable
obligations to nonhuman animals. (We have some *obligations*, on his
view, but it's not permissible to *enforce* them.)
It's not that these issues are enormously significant for the debates
generally pursued on this newsgroup; but I do believe that this
argument shows that anyone who literally believes that *no nonhumans
have any rights* is deeply confused, or at the very least advocating a
very extreme and unpopular view, and I wouldn't mind thrashing this
one out.
Dutch
just say this, I think it is very easy to get off the rails right off here
by failing to sufficiently define what we mean by a "right". The rights that
humans have are reciprocal, so any "right" we say nonhuman animals have must
be of a different sort, since they are not capable of understanding or
entering into our highly complex formal reciprocal agreements. This is not
to say that animals don't engage in reciprocal behaviours, but it is
different. So it is my opinion that if we define the word to apply in a
strict moral agent-patient relationship, that is, since an animal is capable
of suffering therefore we are morally obligated to consider that to some
extent in our interactions with them, and we can therefore say that they
have a right against us that we do. We however hold no such right against
them, thus the non-reciprocal nature of the right.
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in
dh
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Carl Cohen, Roderick Long and Jan Narveson make the claim that no
>nonhuman animal has any rights. The claim has also frequently been
>made on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. For example, Jonathan Ball
>repeatedly made it, and I also note for reasons that will become clear
>later that he considered himself to be a libertarian. And Rick Petter
>said to me "animals have NO rights if you can kill them without
>penalty", and I can only assume that he meant something like "if it is
>morally permissible for you to buy electricity, then it must be the
>case that no nonhumans have any rights". For reasons that I hope to
>make clear I think that claim is utterly ludicrous.
If they had rights then you idiots wouldn't be trying to
provide them with rights. LOL! Duh.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
Now that is an asinine comment even by your low standards.
Rupert
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:46:50 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
In the nineteenth century in the US, African-Americans lacked many
legal rights. Some people *wanted* them to have legal rights.
They did not have the corresponding *moral* rights at the time?
Rupert
> Nice job Rupert, that effort deserves a longer response but right now I'd
> just say this, I think it is very easy to get off the rails right off here
> by failing to sufficiently define what we mean by a "right". The rights that
> humans have are reciprocal, so any "right" we say nonhuman animals have must
> be of a different sort, since they are not capable of understanding or
> entering into our highly complex formal reciprocal agreements. This is not
> to say that animals don't engage in reciprocal behaviours, but it is
> different. So it is my opinion that if we define the word to apply in a
> strict moral agent-patient relationship, that is, since an animal is capable
> of suffering therefore we are morally obligated to consider that to some
> extent in our interactions with them, and we can therefore say that they
> have a right against us that we do. We however hold no such right against
> them, thus the non-reciprocal nature of the right.
>
Well, you're right that it certainly is notably different in that
respect, as with some humans too, infants for example. Even with my
cousin's son Brodie, he's three years old and very bright for his age,
it's probably a bit hard to say that I hold any *rights* against him
just yet. He probably has some kind of awareness of wrongdoing when
his parents make it clear that he's been naughty. That nature of the
moral relationship changes gradually as he develops into an adult.
So I acknowledge an important difference, sure.
Dutch
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2751f366-76ae-41a3...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
--------------->
As you know very well since you have read Weselensen, the difference between
a human infant and a dog is that the human possesses the innate capacity to
participate in the regime of reciprocal rights that human morality and laws
are constructed upon. The argument from marginal cases is not compelling
because *human* rights are founded on the innate capacities of the species,
not any present ability.
Rupert
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have read Wetlesen and I always said I was a bit unclear on what was
meant by "innate capacity"; perhaps I should look the text over again.
Does it mean the same thing as "potential"?
Dutch
------------->
I consider it to be synonymous with potential but different in an important
way in this context because a single individual of any species may be
lacking the potential to develop the abilities typical of the species for
any number of reasons, yet that species member would be said to have the
innate capacities, as demonstrated by other members of the species. For
example if a troupe of apes were discovered which had developed the ability
to learn spoken language that would be considered an innate capacity of the
species, even if other species members had not. On the other hand, if
individuals lack an ability it remains still an innate capacity of the
species.
Rupert
>
> - Show quoted text -
What are the criteria for what innate capacities a species has, and
what are we to make of the fact that all existing species boundaries
were vague at an earlier point in evolutionary history?
Is Koko the gorilla manifesting the innate capacities of her species?
See, this is why I have a hard time with your statement that it's not
a scientific research project.
Dutch
----->
They relate to abilities demonstrated by species members.
, and
what are we to make of the fact that all existing species boundaries
were vague at an earlier point in evolutionary history?
------>
Those boundaries were in fact non-existent at one point, we are all
descendants of amoeba-like creatures. The relevant differences developed
during only the last few million years or so.
Is Koko the gorilla manifesting the innate capacities of her species?
----->
Of course, no animal can exhibit an ability that does not inhere in its
species. Our species gives us the basis for the abilities we manifest and
are capable of manifesting. It is this capability of manifesting that forms
the basis for species recognition, not the abilities of underdeveloped or
handicapped indivduals.
See, this is why I have a hard time with your statement that it's not
a scientific research project.
-------->
I don't follow.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It sure is. It's worth some elaboration. "animal rights activists"
are not trying to "provide" rights to animals. They allege that
animals have rights that are being ignored and violated, and they're
trying to stop the violations. They're wrong, of course - animals do
not have, because they cannot have, rights.
Rupert
>
> - Show quoted text -
A response to the OP would be good.
Rupert
Well, different members of any given species demonstrate different
abilities. What conclusions am I supposed to draw about the "innate
capacities" of the species?
> , and
> what are we to make of the fact that all existing species boundaries
> were vague at an earlier point in evolutionary history?
> ------>
>
> Those boundaries were in fact non-existent at one point, we are all
> descendants of amoeba-like creatures. The relevant differences developed
> during only the last few million years or so.
>
Quite. And, while "being a member of the species Homo sapiens" is
something which is all-or-nothing now, if we were to trace back your
ancestry there would come a point where the boundary would be
something we draw rather than something we find. It is a vague
predicate. That should probably be taken on board when trying to
defend the idea that a species has some "innate capacities".
> Is Koko the gorilla manifesting the innate capacities of her species?
> ----->
>
> Of course, no animal can exhibit an ability that does not inhere in its
> species. Our species gives us the basis for the abilities we manifest and
> are capable of manifesting.
I would have thought it was about an interaction of our genetically
based propensities with our environment as we develop.
> It is this capability of manifesting that forms
> the basis for species recognition, not the abilities of underdeveloped or
> handicapped indivduals.
>
What does it *mean* to say that they still have some "innate
capacities"?
Do they have the "innate capacity" to understand that if there are
infinitely many Woodin cardinals, then projective determinacy is true?
Some members of our species can do that. I was reading the proof the
other day.
> See, this is why I have a hard time with your statement that it's not
> a scientific research project.
> -------->
>
> I don't follow.
I just think the view hasn't been all that clearly presented, to be
honest.
dh
No. Obviously not. They didn't get them until they were given
to them by law, which is the only way any of us get any rights.
And those rights are also taken away if it's decided that they
are to be taken away. A clue to that is: Every person on Earth
does not have the same rights.
Also, even if some animals are provided with some rights,
ONLY humans will be able to recognise or respect them. The
animals will never learn to recognise or respect the rights of
members of their own species, or of any other.
Rupert
As with infants.
> The
> animals will never learn to recognise or respect the rights of
> members of their own species, or of any other.
Well, look, a couple of questions. First of all, I'm a bit curious
about what you think my rights were in China. And secondly, if you
imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when enslavement of
Africans was widely practiced, what would you have thought? Would you
have advocated reform for the practice? On what grounds?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:04:03 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
>
>
> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 18, 6:43 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:46:50 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
> >> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Carl Cohen, Roderick Long and Jan Narveson make the claim that no
> >> >nonhuman animal has any rights. The claim has also frequently been
> >> >made on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. For example, Jonathan Ball
> >> >repeatedly made it, and I also note for reasons that will become clear
> >> >later that he considered himself to be a libertarian. And Rick Petter
> >> >said to me "animals have NO rights if you can kill them without
> >> >penalty", and I can only assume that he meant something like "if it is
> >> >morally permissible for you to buy electricity, then it must be the
> >> >case that no nonhumans have any rights". For reasons that I hope to
> >> >make clear I think that claim is utterly ludicrous.
>
> >> If they had rights then you idiots wouldn't be trying to
> >> provide them with rights. LOL! Duh.
>
> >In the nineteenth century in the US, African-Americans lacked many
> >legal rights. Some people *wanted* them to have legal rights.
>
> >They did not have the corresponding *moral* rights at the time?
>
> No. Obviously not. They didn't get them until they were given
> to them by law, which is the only way any of us get any rights.
That's wrong, and shows you don't know anything about rights theory.
Dutch
---------->
Setting aside the issue of individuals who are impaired in some way as not
representative I would argue that different members of a given species do
NOT demonstrate significantly different abilities. A chicken is a chicken is
a chicken That can be stated unequivocally for 99.99% of all species, only
when you reach the species with the very highest level of cognitive
abilities is there any noticeable difference. Having said that, the
*highest*, most complex behaviours observable in *any* member of a species
define the limits of the innate capacities of that species. Flying is an
innate capacity of many species for example, and we know this because we
observe members of that species flying. Members of species without the
innate capacity of flying never fly, but if one ever managed it we would
have to reassess what we see as the innate capacities of that species.
> , and
> what are we to make of the fact that all existing species boundaries
> were vague at an earlier point in evolutionary history?
> ------>
>
> Those boundaries were in fact non-existent at one point, we are all
> descendants of amoeba-like creatures. The relevant differences developed
> during only the last few million years or so.
>
Quite. And, while "being a member of the species Homo sapiens" is
something which is all-or-nothing now, if we were to trace back your
ancestry there would come a point where the boundary would be
something we draw rather than something we find. It is a vague
predicate. That should probably be taken on board when trying to
defend the idea that a species has some "innate capacities".
------------------->
I think if you see it in the context of evolution then it makes sense. The
innate capacities of homo sapiens are not quite the same as they were
100,000 or 500,000 years ago, because the species has evolved. The same can
be said for any species.
> Is Koko the gorilla manifesting the innate capacities of her species?
> ----->
>
> Of course, no animal can exhibit an ability that does not inhere in its
> species. Our species gives us the basis for the abilities we manifest and
> are capable of manifesting.
I would have thought it was about an interaction of our genetically
based propensities with our environment as we develop.
----------->
You're talking about the mechanics of how the innate capacities of species
evolve, not what they are. Emus lost the innate capacity of flight according
to your theory, but the fact remains, they do not have it any more.
> It is this capability of manifesting that forms
> the basis for species recognition, not the abilities of underdeveloped or
> handicapped indivduals.
>
What does it *mean* to say that they still have some "innate
capacities"?
---------------->
It means they belong to a species where the ability is exhibited, usually
widely and commonly.
Do they have the "innate capacity" to understand that if there are
infinitely many Woodin cardinals, then projective determinacy is true?
Some members of our species can do that. I was reading the proof the
other day.
------------>
Do *who* have that innate capacity?
> See, this is why I have a hard time with your statement that it's not
> a scientific research project.
> -------->
>
> I don't follow.
I just think the view hasn't been all that clearly presented, to be
honest.
----------->
You should take on board the factor of cognitive dissonance here, to see my
point you will have to overcome a strong preconception towards the negative.
Dutch
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:04:03 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 18, 6:43 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:46:50 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>>
>>> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >Carl Cohen, Roderick Long and Jan Narveson make the claim that no
>>> >nonhuman animal has any rights. The claim has also frequently been
>>> >made on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. For example, Jonathan Ball
>>> >repeatedly made it, and I also note for reasons that will become clear
>>> >later that he considered himself to be a libertarian. And Rick Petter
>>> >said to me "animals have NO rights if you can kill them without
>>> >penalty", and I can only assume that he meant something like "if it is
>>> >morally permissible for you to buy electricity, then it must be the
>>> >case that no nonhumans have any rights". For reasons that I hope to
>>> >make clear I think that claim is utterly ludicrous.
>>>
>>> If they had rights then you idiots wouldn't be trying to
>>> provide them with rights. LOL! Duh.
>>
>>In the nineteenth century in the US, African-Americans lacked many
>>legal rights. Some people *wanted* them to have legal rights.
>>
>>They did not have the corresponding *moral* rights at the time?
>
> No. Obviously not. They didn't get them until they were given
> to them by law
Once again you demonstrate that you are way out of your depth here. I would
explain why you're wrong, but I've had my fill of futility for today.
Rupert
Well, is that based on scientific data? Have you actually observed
chickens in any great depth?
> Having said that, the
> *highest*, most complex behaviours observable in *any* member of a species
> define the limits of the innate capacities of that species. Flying is an
> innate capacity of many species for example, and we know this because we
> observe members of that species flying. Members of species without the
> innate capacity of flying never fly, but if one ever managed it we would
> have to reassess what we see as the innate capacities of that species.
>
So, when aeroplanes were invented, the innate capacities of our
species changed, or maybe that doesn't count... ?
Not the sort of flying you're talking about, I suppose.
I mean, humans don't have wings, we can agree on that. But it is also
true that some humans don't have a cerebral cortex. So I guess I find
the statement that we can know the "innate capacities" of some
specific human without doing scientific research to be a bit
problematic...
I mean, there are some humans where according to my way of talking
they *don't* have more innate cognitive capacities than a dog. That
doesn't mean I think that it's okay to do nasty things to them, but
whatever it is that leads to that thought is not based in innate
cognitive capacity...
If innate capacity simply means belonging to a species some of whose
members have certain abilities, then we are back to the debate about
the moral significance of species membership.
I'm talking about how the abilities of individuals evolve, really. How
about Alex the parrot, anyway? Obviously sometimes we need to look and
see what the innate capacities of a species are, on your account...
> > It is this capability of manifesting that forms
> > the basis for species recognition, not the abilities of underdeveloped or
> > handicapped indivduals.
>
> What does it *mean* to say that they still have some "innate
> capacities"?
> ---------------->
>
> It means they belong to a species where the ability is exhibited, usually
> widely and commonly.
>
Well, if that's the definition of what we're talking about, we would
be back to the debate about the moral significance of species
membership...
> Do they have the "innate capacity" to understand that if there are
> infinitely many Woodin cardinals, then projective determinacy is true?
> Some members of our species can do that. I was reading the proof the
> other day.
> ------------>
>
> Do *who* have that innate capacity?
>
Well, you tell me, who does? All humans?
> > See, this is why I have a hard time with your statement that it's not
> > a scientific research project.
> > -------->
>
> > I don't follow.
>
> I just think the view hasn't been all that clearly presented, to be
> honest.
> ----------->
>
> You should take on board the factor of cognitive dissonance here, to see my
> point you will have to overcome a strong preconception towards the negative.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It would be helpful if you could just explain what *is* the point. You
obviously think that belonging to a species where certain abilities
that we think are quite special are generally exhibited by *typical*
members of that species is itself something quite special. Well,
that's what the whole debate was always about, really, wasn't it. I
don't know if it gets you too far just to *assert* it.
But supposing I grant your point for the sake of argument, that simply
being a member of the species Homo sapiens is *in itself* a reason why
you should have quite a lot of rights, we could go back to the OP and
ask what you say about the stray dog in my thought-experiment; do you
grant my point that yes, this dog has some rights, so the debate is
now about which nonhumans have which rights under which circumstances.
The task would be to form some kind of coherent view about that and
give compelling reasons for accepting it.
dh
Did you have any? If so what were they and how did you get
them?
>And secondly, if you
>imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when enslavement of
>Africans was widely practiced, what would you have thought?
There's no way to know that. Having lived the life that you
have you appear to be opposed to the idea, but if you had lived a
different life back then you would have owned slaves yourself.
>Would you
>have advocated reform for the practice? On what grounds?
If I were going to argue it knowing what I know now I'd have
argued that they should be freed and returned to the home land,
on the grounds that they should be free and would live better
lives there. Of course we know that blacks in Africa are far more
fortunate than the descendants of slaves trapped over here unable
to get back where they really would rather be...how sad for them
that they are unable to get back home.
Now that--as always with you people--I have considered another
situation involving humans that's nothing like the situation with
livestock, I'll now go on to consider it in a more similar way:
Imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when
enslavement of Africans was widely practiced, and there was a
movement going on to eliminate them completely. You know that
even though the movement is using the gross misnomer "negro
rights", you're aware that what would really happen would be that
all the negros would be eliminated, and no more would exist. You
might consider that a better solution could be to provide them
with decent lives of positive value instead of eliminating
them...at least a better solution for THEM.
Or, you might decide that regardless of quality of life it
could never be positive for them because the knowledge of their
position in life would create mental suffering that would always
make life of negative value for them. I seriously doubt it was
the case, and I KNOW it's not the case with livestock, but you
may well have thought that and so favored their elimination.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:38:31 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> >Well, look, a couple of questions. First of all, I'm a bit curious
> >about what you think my rights were in China.
>
> Did you have any? If so what were they and how did you get
> them?
>
> >And secondly, if you
> >imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when enslavement of
> >Africans was widely practiced, what would you have thought?
>
> There's no way to know that.
You would have supported the institution of slavery, just as you
support it today.
What there's no way of doing is showing that animals are better off
for existing. They are not.
dh
<notg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 23, 7:52�am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:38:31 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
>> >Well, look, a couple of questions. First of all, I'm a bit curious
>> >about what you think my rights were in China.
>>
>> � � Did you have any? If so what were they and how did you get
>> them?
>>
>> >And secondly, if you
>> >imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when enslavement of
>> >Africans was widely practiced, what would you have thought?
>>
>> � � There's no way to know that.
>
>You would have supported the institution of slavery, just as you
>support it today.
How do you think I support it Goo?
>What there's no way of doing is showing that animals are better off
>for existing. They are not.
What prevents beings from benefitting from lives of positive
value Goob, do you have any idea?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:30:21 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
> <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 23, 7:52 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:38:31 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>>> Well, look, a couple of questions. First of all, I'm a bit curious
>>>> about what you think my rights were in China.
>>> Did you have any? If so what were they and how did you get
>>> them?
>>>
>>>> And secondly, if you
>>>> imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when enslavement of
>>>> Africans was widely practiced, what would you have thought?
>>> There's no way to know that.
>> You would have supported the institution of slavery, just as you
>> support it today.
>
> How do you think I support it
You support it.
>> What there's no way of doing is showing that animals are better off
>> for existing. They are not.
>
> What prevents beings from benefitting from lives of positive
> value
Coming into existence is not a benefit.
Rupert
Well, I was asking you.
> >And secondly, if you
> >imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when enslavement of
> >Africans was widely practiced, what would you have thought?
>
> There's no way to know that. Having lived the life that you
> have you appear to be opposed to the idea, but if you had lived a
> different life back then you would have owned slaves yourself.
>
That may or may not be the case.
> >Would you
> >have advocated reform for the practice? On what grounds?
>
> If I were going to argue it knowing what I know now I'd have
> argued that they should be freed and returned to the home land,
> on the grounds that they should be free and would live better
> lives there. Of course we know that blacks in Africa are far more
> fortunate than the descendants of slaves trapped over here unable
> to get back where they really would rather be...how sad for them
> that they are unable to get back home.
>
I don't quite get that.
> Now that--as always with you people--I have considered another
> situation involving humans that's nothing like the situation with
> livestock, I'll now go on to consider it in a more similar way:
>
> Imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when
> enslavement of Africans was widely practiced, and there was a
> movement going on to eliminate them completely. You know that
> even though the movement is using the gross misnomer "negro
> rights", you're aware that what would really happen would be that
> all the negros would be eliminated, and no more would exist. You
> might consider that a better solution could be to provide them
> with decent lives of positive value instead of eliminating
> them...at least a better solution for THEM.
> Or, you might decide that regardless of quality of life it
> could never be positive for them because the knowledge of their
> position in life would create mental suffering that would always
> make life of negative value for them. I seriously doubt it was
> the case, and I KNOW it's not the case with livestock, but you
> may well have thought that and so favored their elimination.
If negroes were being treated in the way we now treat nonhuman
animals, "lives of positive value" would of course not be the issue.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
No one is trying to "provide" animals with rights. "aras" believe they
are endowed with rights that aren't being respected. They want to force
everyone to acknowledge and respect the rights that "aras" believe
animals have.
dh
It's up to whatever the Chinese government says about it, and
it certainly seems like you should know more about that than I
don't.
>> >And secondly, if you
>> >imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when enslavement of
>> >Africans was widely practiced, what would you have thought?
>>
>> � � There's no way to know that. Having lived the life that you
>> have you appear to be opposed to the idea, but if you had lived a
>> different life back then you would have owned slaves yourself.
>>
>
>That may or may not be the case.
>
>> >Would you
>> >have advocated reform for the practice? On what grounds?
>>
>> � � If I were going to argue it knowing what I know now I'd have
>> argued that they should be freed and returned to the home land,
>> on the grounds that they should be free and would live better
>> lives there. Of course we know that blacks in Africa are far more
>> fortunate than the descendants of slaves trapped over here unable
>> to get back where they really would rather be...how sad for them
>> that they are unable to get back home.
>
>I don't quite get that.
I was being sarcastic. Blacks often/usually appear to feel
that we owe them something. To me they are a lot better off than
they would be back in their homeland, but if we do owe them
anything I believe it's nothing more than free passage back to
Africa. I feel quite certain that every one of them that wants to
go back to stay, could get the passage with very little effort.
If they all decided they wanted to go back if they could get the
money for a ride home, I feel sure they would have no problem.
Who wouldn't donate $100-$200 to help them make that dream come
true? All of them going home together! Everyone I've talked to
about it would be delighted to contribute.
>> � �Now that--as always with you people--I have considered another
>> situation involving humans that's nothing like the situation with
>> livestock, I'll now go on to consider it in a more similar way:
>>
>> Imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when
>> enslavement of Africans was widely practiced, and there was a
>> movement going on to eliminate them completely. You know that
>> even though the movement is using the gross misnomer "negro
>> rights", you're aware that what would really happen would be that
>> all the negros would be eliminated, and no more would exist. You
>> might consider that a better solution could be to provide them
>> with decent lives of positive value instead of eliminating
>> them...at least a better solution for THEM.
>> � � Or, you might decide that regardless of quality of life it
>> could never be positive for them because the knowledge of their
>> position in life would create mental suffering that would always
>> make life of negative value for them. I seriously doubt it was
>> the case, and I KNOW it's not the case with livestock, but you
>> may well have thought that and so favored their elimination.
>
>If negroes were being treated in the way we now treat nonhuman
>animals,
Which ones? Since I can appreciate the fact that some of them
have lives of negative value I can appreciate that situation and
its influence on the animals. But I can also appreciate when they
have lives of positive value which you can not, so....what?.....
you are completely left out of that whole entire very significant
aspect of livestock farming....MILLIONS of lives going on right
now that you can't even really comprehend much less do you have
even basic human appreciation of/for...you simply can not go
there. I'm there, waving and encouraging you along, but
no...nope...not you....
(hi over there rupert...you and the goos...)
>"lives of positive value" would of course not be the issue.
You can't deal with that aspect of it. You can't even
acknowledge it. Or at least you won't. It's the same with the
slaves as it is with the livestock in that respect. The
difference between them is that livestock would no longer exist,
while blacks became part of our society and ARE DOING BETTER THAN
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IF THEY HADN'T BEEN TAKEN INTO
SLAVERY. That is completely opposite of the livestock situation.
You appear unable to appreciate the significance of the
situation described above. Also we know you can't appreciate any
lives of positive value for livestock, which is a huge aspect of
the big picture. You're like a cripple. LOL...it does get sort of
amusing when we think about it in detail. Let's think of you as
duck, which is fun considering how much you misnomer addicts like
to think of animals as humans. You can only have any thoughts at
all about the negative but not the positive. That makes you
mentally like a duck who can only use one leg to swim with, so
you can't ever get anywhere but mentally keep swimming in the
same small little circle. The plus side from your pov is it keeps
you from getting outside your mental safety zone (which works
great for keeping down your cognitive dissonance ;-). The big
question of course is: Why are you a cripple? Did you lose your
leg, and if so how? Or were you born without it, and if so is
there any chance you could learn to move in spite of your
handicap? Or do you have a case of mental attrophy, and you could
develop and grow if you were willing to try to move along with
it? Again as always I encourage you to ask someone you respect
about all this and see what they have to say.
dh
Well Goo they have the same problem you have. They can't
provide a single good reason why anyone should believe any
creatures are endowed with rights, much less who they think
endows them and what good they think they are if whoever endows
them makes no effort to enforce them. They have nothing. You have
the same problem with trying to get people to believe that
something to do with pre-existence prevents beings from
benefitting from their lives. You can't explain what about it you
think could possibly do such a thing, so a person can't even
consider what you think you have in mind because it appears clear
you have NOTHING!
ex-PFC Wintergreen
What do you think the Chinese government said?
>
>>>> And secondly, if you
>>>> imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when enslavement of
>>>> Africans was widely practiced, what would you have thought?
>>> There's no way to know that. Having lived the life that you
>>> have you appear to be opposed to the idea, but if you had lived a
>>> different life back then you would have owned slaves yourself.
>>>
>> That may or may not be the case.
>>
>>>> Would you
>>>> have advocated reform for the practice? On what grounds?
>>> If I were going to argue it knowing what I know now I'd have
>>> argued that they should be freed and returned to the home land,
>>> on the grounds that they should be free and would live better
>>> lives there. Of course we know that blacks in Africa are far more
>>> fortunate than the descendants of slaves trapped over here unable
>>> to get back where they really would rather be...how sad for them
>>> that they are unable to get back home.
>> I don't quite get that.
>
> I was being sarcastic.
It was leaden.
>>> Now that--as always with you people--I have considered another
>>> situation involving humans that's nothing like the situation with
>>> livestock, I'll now go on to consider it in a more similar way:
>>>
>>> Imagine yourself living in the nineteenth century when
>>> enslavement of Africans was widely practiced, and there was a
>>> movement going on to eliminate them completely. You know that
>>> even though the movement is using the gross misnomer "negro
>>> rights", you're aware that what would really happen would be that
>>> all the negros would be eliminated, and no more would exist. You
>>> might consider that a better solution could be to provide them
>>> with decent lives of positive value instead of eliminating
>>> them...at least a better solution for THEM.
>>> Or, you might decide that regardless of quality of life it
>>> could never be positive for them because the knowledge of their
>>> position in life would create mental suffering that would always
>>> make life of negative value for them. I seriously doubt it was
>>> the case, and I KNOW it's not the case with livestock, but you
>>> may well have thought that and so favored their elimination.
>> If negroes were being treated in the way we now treat nonhuman
>> animals,
>
> Which ones?
Any.
>> "lives of positive value" would of course not be the issue.
>
> You can't deal with that aspect of it.
Nothing to deal with. Animals "getting to experience life" deserves no
consideration at all.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:18:05 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen
> <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:46:50 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carl Cohen, Roderick Long and Jan Narveson make the claim that no
>>>> nonhuman animal has any rights. The claim has also frequently been
>>>> made on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. For example, Jonathan Ball
>>>> repeatedly made it, and I also note for reasons that will become clear
>>>> later that he considered himself to be a libertarian. And Rick Petter
>>>> said to me "animals have NO rights if you can kill them without
>>>> penalty", and I can only assume that he meant something like "if it is
>>>> morally permissible for you to buy electricity, then it must be the
>>>> case that no nonhumans have any rights". For reasons that I hope to
>>>> make clear I think that claim is utterly ludicrous.
>>> If they had rights then you idiots wouldn't be trying to
>>> provide them with rights.
>> No one is trying to "provide" animals with rights. "aras" believe they
>> are endowed with rights that aren't being respected. They want to force
>> everyone to acknowledge and respect the rights
>
I don't have any problem with any of this.
> They can't
> provide a single good reason why anyone should believe any
> creatures are endowed with rights,
Of course they can.
dh
<pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:06:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:18:05 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen
>><pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:46:50 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Carl Cohen, Roderick Long and Jan Narveson make the claim that no
>>>>> nonhuman animal has any rights. The claim has also frequently been
>>>>> made on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. For example, Jonathan Ball
>>>>> repeatedly made it, and I also note for reasons that will become clear
>>>>> later that he considered himself to be a libertarian. And Rick Petter
>>>>> said to me "animals have NO rights if you can kill them without
>>>>> penalty", and I can only assume that he meant something like "if it is
>>>>> morally permissible for you to buy electricity, then it must be the
>>>>> case that no nonhumans have any rights". For reasons that I hope to
>>>>> make clear I think that claim is utterly ludicrous.
>>>>
>>>> If they had rights then you idiots wouldn't be trying to
>>>> provide them with rights.
>>>
>>>No one is trying to "provide" animals with rights. "aras" believe they
>>>are endowed with rights that aren't being respected. They want to force
>>>everyone to acknowledge and respect the rights
>>
>> Well Goo they have the same problem you have. They can't
>>provide a single good reason why anyone should believe any
>>creatures are endowed with rights, much less who they think
>>endows them and what good they think they are if whoever endows
>>them makes no effort to enforce them.
>
>Of course they can.
If you think so then provide some examples of whatever it is
you think you're trying to talk about.
Mr.Smartypants
I have an example as summed up by Thomas Jefferson however I think it
will be more entertaining to have Goobs go through his usual
hysterics.
Proceed, Goobs. You have the floor.
dh
We certainly can't count on that to happen, or on Goo ever
supporting any of his claims. It makes a person wonder whether
the Goober has any idea at all what he thinks he's trying to talk
about, or if he has no clue as it appears but he's dishonestly
trying to get people to believe he does.
Mr.Smartypants
Well you know Goobs. He trys to get people to believe he's some kind
of super educated genius...............unfortunately for him the fact
that he's a goober prevents people from believing. Outstupiding
himself at every turn doesn't do much for him either.
It's kind of like the chicken and the egg. Does Goo outstupid himself
because he's a goober or did he become a goober due to outstupiding
himself?
We may never know.
dh
LOL!
>We may never know.
It has a lot to do with dishonesty. He insists that:
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
which seems absurd to begin with. Then later he tries to deny any
significance to his supposed pre-existent state, and denies there
is such a thing. While other times he suggests that life may not
be a benefit *because* his supposed pre-existent state might be
better than the lives we have on Earth.
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo
Then he goes on to insist that life is NEVER a benefit for
anything:
"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans . . . "getting to experience life" is not
a benefit." - Goo
meaning he believes his pre-existent state is always superior to
life on Earth.
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo
BUT! The Goober can never explain how he thinks anything to do
with pre-existence, or with the act of conception, prevents us
from benefitting from our lives. Which part or parts does it seem
most likely that Goo is lying about? Or telling the truth
about...if any?
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
Wow, there's an exchange for the ages..
<SNIPORAMA>
Mr.Smartypants
How did you see what I wrote?
Didn't you killfile me?...............or is it just as I said? You
*can't* even think of killfiling me because you can't stand not
knowing what I post.
dh
>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:54:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:32:57 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>Wow, there's an exchange for the ages..
What do you think prevents you from benefitting from your
existence? That always remains in question.
Dutch
> existence? That always remains in question.
Only to a complete idiot, <hint> you.
Mr.Smartypants
Obviously it remains in question for you as well since you can NEVER
come up with an answer.
dh
They sure can't. Both those goobers want people to believe
that something to do with pre-existence, prevents every being
ever born from benefitting from its own existence. But! They can
never say exactly what prevents us from benefitting or how we are
prevented. So how could a person consider the goobal proposal
even if they wanted to try, when the goobers themselves can't
explain whatever it is they want people to think they're trying
to talk about?
dh
>>What do you think prevents you from benefitting from your
>>existence? That always remains in question.
>
>Only to a complete idiot, <hint> you.
LOL! If you think you know the answer then just try saying
what you think you think it is you poor fool, if you think you
have any clue that is. Here's an idea for you:
Try to answer the question:
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:ucbkk598ttee8d7o2...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:31:46 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 7, 3:55 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>> > What do you think prevents you from benefitting from your
>>> > existence? That always remains in question.
>>>
>>> Only to a complete idiot, <hint> you.
>>
>>
>>Obviously it remains in question for you as well since you can NEVER
>>come up with an answer.
>
> They sure can't.
It's a stupid and dishonest question.
Both those goobers want people to believe
> that something to do with pre-existence, prevents every being
> ever born from benefitting from its own existence. But! They can
> never say exactly what prevents us from benefitting or how we are
> prevented. So how could a person consider the goobal proposal
> even if they wanted to try, when the goobers themselves can't
> explain whatever it is they want people to think they're trying
> to talk about?
Coming into existence and existence are different concepts. Neither is a
"benefit".
Dutch
> What do you think prevents you from benefitting from your
> existence?
You can't "benefit from your existence" because you ARE your existence. If
you have an alternative definition for what you are I'd like to hear it.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:ucbkk598ttee8d7o2...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:31:46 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 7, 3:55 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>> > What do you think prevents you from benefitting from your
>>>> > existence? That always remains in question.
>>>>
>>>> Only to a complete idiot, <hint> you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously it remains in question for you as well since you can NEVER
>>>come up with an answer.
>>
>> They sure can't.
>
>It's a stupid and dishonest question.
You're too stupid to be able to explain what you think
prevents you from benefitting from your existence or what you
think prevented you from benefitting from your conception. You
want people to believe you didn't benefit yet can't explain what
you think prevented you, and prevents you still.
>> Both those goobers want people to believe
>> that something to do with pre-existence, prevents every being
>> ever born from benefitting from its own existence. But! They can
>> never say exactly what prevents us from benefitting or how we are
>> prevented. So how could a person consider the goobal proposal
>> even if they wanted to try, when the goobers themselves can't
>> explain whatever it is they want people to think they're trying
>> to talk about?
>
>Coming into existence and existence are different concepts.
>Neither is a "benefit".
LOL! What do you think you want people to believe always:
1. prevents coming into existence from being a benefit?
2. prevents existing from being a benefit after we have come into
existence?
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>
>> What do you think prevents you from benefitting from your
>> existence?
>
>You can't "benefit from your existence" because you ARE your existence.
What do you think prevents you from benefitting from what you
are?
Do you think anyone on Earth benefits from who they are, or
do you think all are prevented somehow by something and if so
what do you think it is and how do you think it prevents them?
Do you think that applies to all animals too?
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:40jmk5lp55h4vcaj8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:13:09 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:ucbkk598ttee8d7o2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:31:46 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jan 7, 3:55 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> > What do you think prevents you from benefitting from your
>>>>> > existence? That always remains in question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only to a complete idiot, <hint> you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obviously it remains in question for you as well since you can NEVER
>>>>come up with an answer.
>>>
>>> They sure can't.
>>
>>It's a stupid and dishonest question.
>
> You're too stupid to be able to explain
It's been explained to you dozens of times, you're too stupid to grasp it,
and too prideful and dishonest to admit it.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:16:36 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> What do you think prevents you from benefitting from your
>>> existence?
>>
>>You can't "benefit from your existence" because you ARE your existence.
>
> What do you think prevents you from benefitting from what you
> are?
The question is meaningless. "I benefit by being myself" is gibberish. At
best it is some kind of tortured rhetorical statement.
You're just an idiot, that has to be it.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:16:36 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>> What do you think prevents you from benefitting from your
>>>> existence?
>>>
>>>You can't "benefit from your existence" because you ARE your existence.
>>
>> What do you think prevents you from benefitting from what you
>> are?
>
>The question is meaningless.
LOL! Apparently you really are too stupid for this. First you
make the absurd claim that:
You can't "benefit from your existence" because you ARE your
existence.
Then when asked to explain whatever it is you think you're trying
to talk about, you pule that the question is meaningless to you.
LOL...you have outstupided yourself completely this time.
dh
>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:04:31 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:13:09 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:ucbkk598ttee8d7o2...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:31:46 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jan 7, 3:55 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > What do you think prevents you from benefitting from your
>>>>>> > existence? That always remains in question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only to a complete idiot, <hint> you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously it remains in question for you as well since you can NEVER
>>>>>come up with an answer.
>>>>
>>>> They sure can't.
>>>
>>>It's a stupid and dishonest question.
>>
>> You're too stupid to be able to explain what you think
>>prevents you from benefitting from your existence or what you
>>think prevented you from benefitting from your conception. You
>>want people to believe you didn't benefit yet can't explain what
>>you think prevented you, and prevents you still.
>>
>>>> Both those goobers want people to believe
>>>> that something to do with pre-existence, prevents every being
>>>> ever born from benefitting from its own existence. But! They can
>>>> never say exactly what prevents us from benefitting or how we are
>>>> prevented. So how could a person consider the goobal proposal
>>>> even if they wanted to try, when the goobers themselves can't
>>>> explain whatever it is they want people to think they're trying
>>>> to talk about?
>>>
>>>Coming into existence and existence are different concepts.
>>>Neither is a "benefit".
>>
>> LOL! What do you think you want people to believe always:
>>
>>1. prevents coming into existence from being a benefit?
>>
>>2. prevents existing from being a benefit after we have come into
>>existence?
>
>It's been explained to you dozens of times,
That's a blatant lie.
>you're too stupid to grasp it,
I challenge you to try explaining it now.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:5shpk591hjql06418...@4ax.com...
The question is meaningless, you don't benefit from you. You are engaging in
some kind of verbal tiddlywinks. You *exist*, that existence is *you*, you
benefit or suffer from circumstances that happen during that existence.
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:5shpk591hjql06418...@4ax.com...
and the circumstances that happen do so because YOU exist. If you
didn't exist there would be no impact on YOU.
Therefore, do animals (or humans) benefit from their existence?
Dutch
You *are* your life, your existence, so to say your life is a benefit to you
is the same as saying, "I am a benefit to myself", which is meaningless.
Your attempt to make an argument out of life itself fails on any number of
levels, but as I said, you're just too stupid to see it, a fact you continue
to demonstrate over and over.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bc...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:189c06ea-a2c2-42a1...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
----->
Quite right, there is no impact on non-existent entities, good or bad.
Therefore, do animals (or humans) benefit from their existence?
--->
No, they benefit from positive circumstances. They ARE their existence, you
are yours.
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:13:19 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>2. prevents existing from being a benefit after we have come into
>>>>existence?
>>>
>>>It's been explained to you dozens of times,
>>
>> That's a blatant lie.
>>
>>>you're too stupid to grasp it,
>>
>> I challenge you to try explaining it now.
>
>You *are* your life, your existence, so to say your life is a benefit to you
>is the same as saying, "I am a benefit to myself", which is meaningless.
You appear to benefit from being yourself. What do you think
prevents you from benefitting from being yourself as you clearly
appear to do?
>Your attempt to make an argument out of life itself fails on any number of
>levels, but as I said, you're just too stupid to see it
Before anyone can get an idea whatever it is you think you're
trying to talk about, you need to explain EXACTLY what you think
prevents you from benefitting from your existence as you clearly
appear to. Whether you think it has anything to do with
pre-existence or not, try explaining it now:
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <b...@canada.com> wrote in message
Obviously circumstances are a big part of how a life can be deemed to
be worth living or not. Circumstances ARE part of existence. That
being said, do animals/humans benefit from their existence? If so, how
and if not, how?
Take your time Dutch. Feel free to consult with Goobs on this if you
have to.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
>>You *are* your life, your existence, so to say your life is a benefit to
>>you
>>is the same as saying, "I am a benefit to myself", which is meaningless.
>
> You appear to benefit from being yourself.
pure gibberish
Dutch
> No, they benefit from positive circumstances. They ARE their existence,
> you
> are yours.-
Obviously circumstances are a big part of how a life can be deemed to
be worth living or not. Circumstances ARE part of existence. That
being said, do animals/humans benefit from their existence? If so, how
and if not, how?
------>
No, animals/humans ARE their existence, "benefit from one's existence" is
nothing but trite and obviously dangerous rhetoric, because it causes
confusion in weak minds.
If the shoe fits.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <b...@canada.com> wrote
Well the whole topic has certainly fucked you and Goobs up quite
nicely.
>
> If the shoe fits.
It means you're Cinderella.
dh
It appears that he benefits from being himself. That
appearance is quite clear. What he needs to do but cannot, is
explain what he wants people to believe now prevents him from
benefitting as he clearly appears to be doing.
>Take your time Dutch. Feel free to consult with Goobs on this if you
>have to.
Those stupid goobers have been making the same claim for
years but have never been able to back it up. LOL...So of course
the question always comes to mind:
Are they really stupid enough to believe themselves, even though
they can't even attempt to explain why anyone would?
If they really are that stupid, then it is amazing people so
stupid could learn to read and write and to participate in ngs.
If they really are not stupid enough to believe themselves, then
why are they pretending that they are? Are they hoping other
people will be stupid enough to believe them if they act stupid
enough to believe themselves, and if so, what do they think they
could gain if they could pull it off???
Dutch
Meaningless twaddle.
Mr.Smartypants
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the answer is "yes".
We've been treated numerous times to their outrageous stupidity (as
evidenced by Goo's continual outstupiding of himselves) that it *has*
to be part of a plan but the paradox is that the plan itself is
stupid........but then what can you expect from a pair of joined-at-
the-hip goobers?
>
> If they really are that stupid, then it is amazing people so
> stupid could learn to read and write and to participate in ngs.
>
> If they really are not stupid enough to believe themselves, then
> why are they pretending that they are? Are they hoping other
> people will be stupid enough to believe them if they act stupid
> enough to believe themselves, and if so, what do they think they
> could gain if they could pull it off???- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:04:03 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 6:43 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:46:50 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>>
>>> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Carl Cohen, Roderick Long and Jan Narveson make the claim that no
>>>> nonhuman animal has any rights. The claim has also frequently been
>>>> made on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. For example, Jonathan Ball
>>>> repeatedly made it, and I also note for reasons that will become clear
>>>> later that he considered himself to be a libertarian. And Rick Petter
>>>> said to me "animals have NO rights if you can kill them without
>>>> penalty", and I can only assume that he meant something like "if it is
>>>> morally permissible for you to buy electricity, then it must be the
>>>> case that no nonhumans have any rights". For reasons that I hope to
>>>> make clear I think that claim is utterly ludicrous.
>>>
>>> If they had rights then you idiots wouldn't be trying to
>>
>> In the nineteenth century in the US, African-Americans lacked many
>> legal rights. Some people *wanted* them to have legal rights.
>>
>> They did not have the corresponding *moral* rights at the time?
>
> No. Obviously not. They didn't get them until they were given
> to them by law, which is the only way any of us get any rights.
That's wrong, and shows you don't know anything about rights theory.
George Plimpton
> Carl Cohen, Roderick Long and Jan Narveson make the claim that no
> nonhuman animal has any rights. The claim has also frequently been
> made on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. For example, Jonathan Ball
> repeatedly made it, and I also note for reasons that will become clear
> later that he considered himself to be a libertarian. And Rick Petter
> said to me "animals have NO rights if you can kill them without
> penalty", and I can only assume that he meant something like "if it is
> morally permissible for you to buy electricity, then it must be the
> case that no nonhumans have any rights". For reasons that I hope to
> make clear I think that claim is utterly ludicrous.
>
>
> (1) If a form of conduct does not violate the rights of any
> individual, then it cannot be morally permissible to use force or the
> threat of force, or to ask someone else to do that on your behalf, to
> dissuade someone from engaging in that conduct, or to punish them for
> engaging in that conduct.
Prove it.
Rupert
libertarianism. You disagree with it, do you?
George Plimpton
that has been previously proved and is now assumed to be proved.
Get busy.
Rupert
to have some axioms in order to prove anything at all, otherwise there
would be an infinite regress.
As I say, I'm not really sure whether I can prove this assertion.
Would you agree that there are some moral restrictions on when we may
use force? Or do you want me to prove that as well?
George Plimpton
in *subsequent* discussions, one accepts them as "already proved."
Rupert
without proof. Otherwise there will be an infinite regress. This point
was made by Aristotle, for example.
Certainly my remark was correct regarding the axioms of set theory or
number theory. They are assertions that are accepted without proof.
Your take on axioms is ultimately incoherent. There could conceivably
be some statements that we call "axioms" even though they have in fact
been proved earlier on. But it is not coherent to suppose that every
assertion could be capable of proof. It is in the nature of things
that some assertions must be accepted without proof.
Could I ask again: are you prepared to accept without proof that there
are some moral constraints on when we may use force? Or do you want
that statement to be proved as well?
George Plimpton
unless the person is violating or about to violate the rights of some
entity cannot be accepted as an axiom.
Rupert
whether you thought that it would be reasonable to accept without
proof that there are some moral constraints on when we may use force.
That's all that comes to my mind by way of trying to argue for the
assertion. As I've told you, I no longer believe that there are any
objective moral truths in any case.
I mean, what's your take on the assertion? Do you think it's true? Do
you think that you can prove it?
Dutch
> I was trying to make further progress by asking you
> whether you thought that it would be reasonable to accept without
> proof that there are some moral constraints on when we may use force.
you mean force causing harm, to be ethical must be based on a legitimate
purpose. I would put such things as production of food and clothing in
that category. Harrison considers enjoyment of animal combat as a
legitimate purpose. Most people disagree. Of course then we can argue
about what constitutes harm and what constitutes a legitimate purpose,
but I don't think harming a sentient being just because I feel like it
is ethical. Then there is the degree of the harm vs the reward. Catching
sharks for their fins and releasing them to drown is not ethical.
Rupert
one can "prove"? Ball seems to think that they ought to be proved.
Dutch
moral/ethical principle. Consistency seems to be one constant when a
group lobbies for the extension of rights, so maybe we could apply that
in building a case. The shark fin issue would seem to lend itself to the
purpose. I am not coming up with anything useful at the moment though.