About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 7:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Discussing torture and chuch-goers, Robert Malcom wrote about Australian philosoher Peter Albert David Singer:
Am referring to his Animal Liberation book - which has the notion right on the first page no less... those who hold to 'animal rights' consider rights as stemming from 'sentiency', not 'sapiency', from the ability of feeling pain - and most those who decry the torture [of any and extended notions even] use this sentiency as their justification...
However, on my wall, behind the computer screen, taped to my National Geographic map of Mars is this list:
  • sapient
  • sentient
  • volitional
  • conceptual
  • self-conscious
  • self-aware
...  to which I now add: red, crimson, ocre, scarlet, vermillion.

So, lost in space, Robert Malcom would eat a sentient lifeform, but not a sapient lifeform.  I'm not talking survival, just lunch, you know, like carrots and cows.  I don't eat smart animals because they are smart.  Cows, sheep, deer, yes; pigs, dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, no.  Never met a carrot I could communicate with.


Post 1

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 8:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tho deer generally are not, and pigs generally are, you've as much as said you eat domesticated animals and not non... do you, then, confer 'rights' to non-domesticated animals?

Post 2

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 9:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For their sake, I sure hope stupid humans taste bad. :-P

Jordan

Post 3

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 4:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
RM:  you've as much as said you eat domesticated animals and not non... do you, then, confer 'rights' to non-domesticated animals?

Deer are not domesticated.  Elephants are.  Domestication is not my standard.  It does seem indicative that the ability to domesticate animal may have something to do with some interaction of intelligence and temperment.  Hunters -- cats; sharks -- are somewhat harder to domesticate.  However, I've eaten shark, though never cat.

Like "red, crimson, ocre, scarlet, vermillion" the problem may be a continuum and for perhaps a better (or at least another) analogy, there is the box of 64 crayons with red, red-orange, orange-red, and orange.  And if you are deft, you can blend them.  So, as to which animals I eat and which I do not, that might be subjective to me, or perhaps we can discover some objective standard.

As for rights, that is a different question entirely.  I understand the usual argument that man by his nature requires rights in order to live in society.  Crusoe on an island has no need of rights.  Social context requires them.  Rights are held by rational, volitional sapient, conceptual beings in order that they may have praxeological freedom (human action) in a social context.  It may be that you have rights without being self-conscious or self-aware, simply by being conceptual.

Also, I am not sure that "volitional" and "rational" are the same thing.  I just went through a song and dance with the three cats who have captured us.  Two wanted to go out after breakfast, the third waited for them to leave before she asked for breakfast.  Of the two outside, the younger female asks to come back in, whereas the older male is often content to sit on a chair in the garage and wait.  Those all seem to be volitional intentions to me.  However, I cannot say that I can beat them at chess because I cannot even get them to play chess.  So, they probably are not rational -- though, indeed, they are self-interested, unlike dogs who are genetic altruists.

So, basically, as ethics depends on epistemology, I just wanted to nail down some definitions.


Post 4

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This seems to be a discussion of the epistemological aspects that support individual rights. When people create hypotheticals it is usually about being in outer space, encountering a species new to us, and having to decide if they should be seen as having the same kind of rights as humans.

Of the terms Michael has taped to his National Geographic map, our thinking in this area may involve many, or even all of them. But I think it only turns on one: volitonal.

Choice is what makes for our requirement of freedom to act. Not reason, not the capacity to reason, not sapiency, etc. The kind of choice that humans make does require conceptual reason, self-conciousness, and self-awareness. If I didn't need to act, I would need no freedom, and if I didn't weren't able to choose between alternatives, rights would be meaningless.

A cow approaches a tree as it moves along, grazing. It will 'choose' to pass the tree on one side, or on the other. But we don't see that 'choice' as a kind of first event - as 'willed' or as a self-aware, self-concious product of reasoning from a standard of values, but rather as 'determined' by prior events - as an automated response to stimuli, conditioned by past events.

It is this difference in the kind of choice human's make where we conceptualize values using reason and then choose between alternatives based upon our values that requires rights in a social context. We as a society are, with individual rights, optimizing for choice, maximizing the range available for choosing from.

Robots might require programming adjustments to achieve a robot society that is maximized for the widest range of activities. Humans need rights. In programming terms, our choices are like late-binding effects. That is, what comes next wasn't determined early in the chain of events - it wasn't decided in the specs (DNA), it wasn't decided in the coding (development), it wasn't decided during earlier states of program execution or prior runs of the program (learned). It is determined by our reasoning leading to a choice that often can be tipped either way at the very moment it is being made, tipped by volition - by a willing or more or less focus.

Even a newborn baby has this machinery, this volition, and is developing its use. The baby is working on focus and on control. It is choosing, although in a crude way. That is the heart of the rational faculty - the willing, the volition. To find its proper and full use will require attaining certain levels of self-awareness and abstract reasoning, but the rights should adhere to the entity in question when it is seen to be volitional entity.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.