Post AUJFQ0ngh3AMJru3gO by sue@liberdon.com
(DIR) More posts by sue@liberdon.com
(DIR) Post #AUIJLYjKs0nAmeaF5k by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T02:27:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Ethical veganism posits that it is wrong to use and exploit animals for human benefit because animals have rights.Animals do not have rights because they lack the capacity for rational thought and action.Therefore, ethical veganism is ethically wrong.https://sue.hashnode.dev/why-ethical-veganism-is-ethically-wrong#Vegan #Philosophy #Ethics #Veganism #Rothbard
(DIR) Post #AUIWdjaL05Rp2mpOsa by chillanarchist01@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T04:56:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue Ethical veganism isn't necessarily ethically wrong but certainly logically wrong.
(DIR) Post #AUIguKbm7FO22o3MI4 by paelse@mastodon.online
2023-04-04T06:51:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue Your article contains several strawman arguments that I won't addressYour assumption that no animal is capable of rational thought and action is wrong, but so is your assumption that this is the basis of human rights.Rights are a social construct which we can choose to extend to animalsUsually, the argument for animal rights is based on the capacity for feeling pain. By your definition it is not unethical to torture animals as long as you can claim ownership - another social construct
(DIR) Post #AUJ3ifBU5ScrKXA360 by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-04T11:06:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue Don't humans with disable mental capacities have rights ?
(DIR) Post #AUJE1GjUDkIAXSZlTs by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T13:02:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@chillanarchist01It is ethically wrong based on argumentation ethics: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics
(DIR) Post #AUJEGt99gFze1O1vsm by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T13:05:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@paelse 1. It seems unconstructive to point out "strawmen" and not address them.2. Which animals aside from humans are capable of rational thought and action?3. Rights are not a social construct. They are an inherent part of our nature. For example, killing innocent people is always wrong regardless of what "society" has decided. I would suggest reading up on argumentation ethics as a basis of our rights: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics
(DIR) Post #AUJEbs7MhWaouaCNDU by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T13:09:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@paelse 4. The premise that being able to feel pain grants you rights is nonsensical. By this logic, certain plants have rights: https://www.itv.com/thismorning/articles/plants-scream-when-they-are-injured-or-need-water and humans who are unable to feel pain due to genetic disorders do not have rights. Ownership is not a social construct either, it is an extension of the undeniable fact that we own ourselves and that we have to mix our labor with resources in order to survive.
(DIR) Post #AUJFQ0ngh3AMJru3gO by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T13:18:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish Yes.It is a similar situation to children. They essentially need guardians to protect them & it is an act of aggression to violate their rights.Also, due to technological development, humans who are currently mentally disabled may be able to significantly improve their condition in the future to reach a point where they can overcome their issues. In general, mentally disabled people still have some capacity for rational thought so it's not fair to compare them to animals.
(DIR) Post #AUJGbzgAmtfcGsfKIy by paelse@mastodon.online
2023-04-04T13:31:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1) You had an article, I had 500 chars. Not enough space.2) Don't mess with crows. They get creative when they take revenge. And they get their friends to help them.I once knew a pig who figured out how to turn on the water.And so on...It comes down to a more precise definition of rational thought, which is tricky.3) Human rights as we know them today originate with the Enlightenment philosophers. It's a fairly new thing, in a historical perspective and we need to protect them.
(DIR) Post #AUJHPiF9t4vSfsjmj2 by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T13:40:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@paelse 1) You can reply more than once. I'm assuming you think that what I wrote about protecting lice & mosquitos is a strawman, but it seems to be a logical conclusion of principled ethical veganism.2) Yes it's certainly a definitional issue. But I still see no evidence of animals respecting property rights, even if they are capable of some interesting behaviors.3) Rights existed before anybody discovered & wrote about them. They're an inherent part of our nature.
(DIR) Post #AUJI2B03Q6y8rh0tns by paelse@mastodon.online
2023-04-04T13:47:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 4) I don't advocate the "capacity for pain" argument, I simply point out that it' used to be the standard argument (usually followed by a discussion of central nervous systems) when you talked about animal rights.I think it's too narrow - worms have rights too 😁There seems to be an ideology of human supremacy behind the things you write. I don't blame you, most people think like you.But it's an unsustainable position as seen by the global breakdown of ecosystems, and we need to evolve
(DIR) Post #AUJKJfMLzqyXr4uZQ8 by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T14:12:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@paelse 4) I see. Do you think all animals have rights? What do you think the basis of these rights are if not the "capacity for pain"?I don't agree that I am an advocate of "human supremacy": I clearly stated that any being that displays rational thought & action has the same rights that we do. Therefore I am not arbitrarily putting humans on a pedestal.
(DIR) Post #AUJQ2jIGiS2crIJ9MW by paelse@mastodon.online
2023-04-04T15:17:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue But are there other beings than humans in your philosophy who are capable of "rational thought and action"?I think "human/animal rights" is a wrong approach. I view the planet as one giant organism that we all contribute to. The more room we can make for diversity and free expression of all life forms, the better. Any living thing has a right to be respected.There are limits set by the need to survive, and prosper, but humans are way past those and seriously need to back down.
(DIR) Post #AUJQWu3lFj9Uw6uU0e by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T15:22:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@paelse I don't know if there are other beings that fit this criteria. There could be aliens that do.I don't look at it as "human/animal" rights, I look it at is "property rights". What about living things which are parasites? It is impossible to respect their "rights" as well as the rights of their hosts. The two are in direct contradiction to each other.
(DIR) Post #AUJRzC06F4SOdqFbV2 by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-04T15:38:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2017/november/11012017Buckner-Animal-Cognition.phpAlso, why is it a good criteria to give rights ? Since we talk about the rights of living or to not be killed. Sentience would be a more pertinant criteria.
(DIR) Post #AUJSW7AHF6KBCRi3E0 by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T15:44:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish Can these "rational" animals understand property rights? Rights are not given, they are simply consequences of the nature of specific beings. Since we own ourselves, we can derive that we can also mix our labor with resources and enter into contracts with each other.The same clearly does not apply to animals. Why is sentience a better criterion? Do people in comas have no rights? Do lice have rights?
(DIR) Post #AUJTKShVRkLeTIG9p2 by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-04T15:53:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue because with sentience come the experience of life therefore robing someone of it, is a right violation. I don't think there is a moral problem to kill someone in a vegetable state if there's no chance he'll wake up. There's attachment issue howerever. I'm not sure about the sentience of people in coma or lice. But all the animals we eat are sentient for sure.
(DIR) Post #AUJUGVkoFiSAjkU78a by paelse@mastodon.online
2023-04-04T16:04:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue I can see that you are interested in keeping this conversation going, but your questions are unfocused, and most of your statements are general and quite unfounded.In what sense do you use the word "property"? It can be a piece of land, it can be an attribute that is used to describe something, or it can be somebody's possession - like a sea lion can be owned by a circus or a zoo...,🎪🦭
(DIR) Post #AUJUo0qze4W6kOLsdU by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T16:10:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. By this logic, it is always wrong to cut down a tree. And it is wrong if an animal kills another animal to eat it. In other words, nature itself violates these "rights".2. I agree about the vegetable state case but I meant if somebody is temporarily not sentient.
(DIR) Post #AUJVDSfXMkyOFp80rQ by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T16:15:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@paelse Calling my questions unfocused and saying that my statements are general and quite unfounded is not an argument and does not further your case for 'animal rights' in the slightest.Property = any scarce resource that can be controlled by an individual through a process of original appropriation / voluntary exchange.
(DIR) Post #AUJmGpFLZtqUMo4H8C by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-04T19:26:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue no because plants are not sentient. Animals killing each others is wrong but may be permissible for survival, depends of your moral framework. Temporary state is not the same because you have to take account the futur possibilities.
(DIR) Post #AUJuwOqytcSSJ30RW4 by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-04T21:03:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. Recent studies have shown that plants "scream when stressed": https://nypost.com/2023/03/30/plants-scream-when-stressed-or-hurt-theyre-rather-noisy-study/2. My question to ethical vegans is: why should only humans be legally punished for violating the 'rights' of animals but not the other way round? Or why can't a non-human animal be held criminally liable for anything?
(DIR) Post #AUKZpnZOeW0S2tc9OC by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-05T04:41:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. That's a reaction not a proof of sentience. From your link : “However, it should not be interpreted as showing that plants are actively communicating by making sounds,” Karban added.2. Because they can't grab the concept of rights. That's the difference between moral agent and patient.
(DIR) Post #AUNTK3uDRTzRnzI0uG by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-06T14:12:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. Fair enough. If it is discovered that plants are sentient in the future, does this mean that we have to stop consuming them?2. That is true. But I don't see the logic in saying that animals ought to have rights, given that they are completely unable to grasp the concept of rights & will be unable to do so in the foreseeable future.
(DIR) Post #AUNcjp6hz6EL1cUXj6 by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-06T15:58:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. Since we can't starve ourself we have to choose the least harm and eating plants is killing less than feeding an animal and eating him or her.2. Why do they need to? As long as they value their lives and have interest in living, we can give them rights that protect their lives.
(DIR) Post #AUO6HMoyYT29oXXobw by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-06T21:29:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. But wouldn't starving be more in line with the idea that sentient beings have rights (i.e. assume that everything you can eat is sentient)? Otherwise, you are contradicting yourself ("I believe X has rights, but I will eat it anyway").2. Animals don't care about our rights, nor do they care about their own "rights". I disagree with the notion of "giving rights" (they are inherent). Animals also don't value the lives of other animals, for the most part.
(DIR) Post #AUOkW3ATu4RZN59xi4 by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-07T05:00:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. We have rights to live too, when 2 rights of beings conflicts you have to choose : starving yourself or violate right of others for your survival. It's the case of still wrong but permissible, seen before.2. Yes but humans cares because they are moral agents, as seen before it's the difference with moral patient who can have rights without understand it.
(DIR) Post #AUPbMIqkezFm6JF5xg by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-07T14:52:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. If it's wrong then it can't be permissible; it implies that what is right is impermissible which makes no sense.2. It's a nonsensical concept because there is nothing about the nature of non-human animals that suggests that they are even interested in "rights". It is a consequence of humans misunderstanding the innate nature of rights (and argumentation ethics) and trying to apply them to other beings for purely emotional reasons.
(DIR) Post #AUPgYZ6sWxv5mCS61A by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-07T15:50:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. Permissible in certains situations like selfdefense, survival. We already apply this to humans.2. They don't need to be interested, as long as they have an interest to live. Again we apply this to humans who are not in capacity to understand rights concept.
(DIR) Post #AUQ6GLeUQSM5dK9DEG by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-07T20:38:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. Using violence in self-defence is different to using violence for survival. Punching somebody in self-defence who initiated violence by punching you doesn't violate anyone's rights, but murdering somebody and eating them in order to survive clearly does.2. Why does their "interest to live" arbitrarily apply positive obligations upon humans? As for the last argument, read the last line of my article ("babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not").
(DIR) Post #AUQpl8fK0jsuMZXbjU by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T05:08:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. Punching is violating rights in my opinion but you can take killing in selfdefense if you want.2. Because when humans interfere with this interest it become a moral question for humans. I was not talking about babies. I'm sure there are humans without the capacity to understand the concept of rights and will never be able to but we still grant them some basic rights.
(DIR) Post #AURKoZCsstrU7xM1aa by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-08T10:56:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. If you start punching me, and I punch you back to defend myself, how am I violating your rights? Plus, killing to survive can't be taken in self-defence because the person you are killing did not aggress against you by merely existing.2. But ultimately other people are making decisions for such humans (e.g. people deciding whether the life support machine should be turned off). I don't see the leap between interfering with interest & the morality of the situation.
(DIR) Post #AURLd9itOMozrMRrrk by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T11:05:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1 You are violating my rights to physical integrity.2. Not people in coma. The less cognitive ability humans have a right to not be killed.
(DIR) Post #AURMCseYKqSrLKSB7Y by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-08T11:11:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. No I'm not, you temporarily ceded these rights by punching me in the first place. It's like if you steal my car and I come and take it back, I'm not violating your rights.2. These people still have some capacity for rational thought.
(DIR) Post #AURNpoGUgRc6yvKKRs by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T11:30:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1 I disagree with this but I understand your logic. In my view and in a hypothetical where plants are sentient, I'll choose to not starve but killing the less possible.2. I think there are people who can't. But for the argument what's your position in a hypothetical where humans have the same level of rational thought of animals. Do you grant them rights ? And if yes why? And why not animals ?
(DIR) Post #AUROLvo0BSQzdPJhb6 by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-08T11:35:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. So in your worldview, it is legitimate to violate rights for the purpose of survival. Can you be held accountable for this? For example if you eat a plant and violated its rights, how should you be punished?2. No - then there's no difference between the humans & animals and my answer would not be logical otherwise. But people may still treat beings with no rights as if they do have some rights and that's not a contradiction as long as they're not imposing things on others.
(DIR) Post #AURPpuissBxmv1mdtY by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T11:52:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. The punishment depends on the social agreement of society and therefor law. I'm saying that it is imoral but justify by the situation.2.So why not treat animals as if they have some rights if you do it with humans?
(DIR) Post #AURSIcdxN3k39WIOhc by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-08T12:20:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. I believe that justice is derived from self-ownership, so it is illogical for society to arbitrarily decide on what is law and what is not. In other words, if I kill an innocent person, I am a criminal regardless of the society that I live in.2. You can privatize animals and protect them in that way. If somebody hurts your dog they are committing a property violation. But you can't tell me I can't eat a chicken that I raised, for example.
(DIR) Post #AURalRccE9m106vHeq by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T13:54:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. It's not arbitrarily, the majority is agreed. Law doesn't equal morality but it's an indicator of the moral of the majority. Criminal is someone who break the law. But you can act immoraly regardless of the society. However it is the society who apply the punishment in accordance to the law.2.So hurting a dog is wrong only if it's not you're property? What about the suffering of the dog ?
(DIR) Post #AURcZqRaJUo8Q0MNVI by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-08T14:15:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. Who cares what the majority thinks? Then you can justify gang rape... And sure the punishment does depend on the society, but that says nothing about the legitimacy of the punishment.2. That's a personal judgment. Personally I wouldn't hurt a dog for the fun of it. But I don't think that people who do ought to be criminally punished because dogs don't have rights. Being able to suffer doesn't grant you rights.
(DIR) Post #AURggzs83ePhVFRRbc by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T15:01:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. Yeah I was just explaining my intake of morale and law.2. Why you wouldn't hurt a dog ?
(DIR) Post #AURhKvzVuFW539wIs4 by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-08T15:08:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish 1. 👍 2. Because I would feel bad if I did. There are also other consequences, like people not wanting to associate with you. The flip question is - why do some people treat animals nicely? Simply because they feel good by doing so, and there other benefits.
(DIR) Post #AURjH6MpaOpNys97XE by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T15:30:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue why you would feel bad? Yeah, why do they feel good treating animals nicely? What about the animals that they make feel good?
(DIR) Post #AURmb4ML3q91PK82gi by sue@liberdon.com
2023-04-08T16:07:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edwardkentish Plenty of reasons for feeling bad:- Empathy- Social conditioning (if you are raised to treat dogs well, you might feel bad going against this)- Evolutionary reasons: we can co-operate with certain animals for our benefit so it doesn't make sense to harm themBut ultimately all are linked with our immediate perceived self-interest
(DIR) Post #AVULi3DzE5VFwbUwmO by judgedread@freespeechextremist.com
2023-05-09T19:42:31.127235Z
5 likes, 1 repeats
@sue The beauty of fascism is that dogs do have rights and women don't.
(DIR) Post #AVUUAIwTBKncQtHvA8 by sue@liberdon.com
2023-05-09T21:17:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@judgedread Imagine unironically thinking that dogs have rights
(DIR) Post #AVUUCi6YbAOx3K9a4W by sue@liberdon.com
2023-05-09T21:17:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@judgedread Sounds like socialist nonsense
(DIR) Post #AVUUfzbUcIaXiraPmC by sue@liberdon.com
2023-05-09T21:22:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@judgedread The ugliness of fascism is that it's a logically incoherent philosophy. If you think that dogs have rights you might actually be mentally retarded.
(DIR) Post #AVWSy4Yr728WialYsS by judgedread@freespeechextremist.com
2023-05-10T20:13:16.320015Z
6 likes, 2 repeats
@sue Rights are legal constructs. I could give a carrot rights if I were sovereign.Even the present dispensation grants certain rights to dogs, cats and other pets. It even grants them to livestock.It's natural rights philosophy beloved by libertarians that's suffused with mystical nonsense.Rights are what the sword can enforce, nothing more.
(DIR) Post #AVWT3c7nkctWGIkoT2 by judgedread@freespeechextremist.com
2023-05-10T20:14:16.411748Z
4 likes, 0 repeats
@sue Imagine being so evil you don't think dogs have rights.Oh wait, libertarians think parents are under no obligation to FEED THEIR INFANT CHILDREN!