I follow Natural Law, as derived from Non Aggression Principal, which itself is observed through Argumentation (Argumentation Ethics).
In short my ideology is this.
The only way to find normative truths is through argumentation.
When we argue we presuppose norms, such as self ownership and Non Aggression Principal (there are more but only these are important here).
If non agression is true then natural law is true.
Through natural law we understand that rights are what can't be violated (or be called just when violated)
For example self ownership, we own ourselves, it's a objective natural right, no person can own another person and call themselves just.
But, these only work for humans, because rights are for humans, or those concerned with doing what's right.
Animals don't argue, animals don't consider other people's rights, which means they don't presuppose natural law to be true. Which means according to natural law they are not humans, hence they don't have self ownership rights.
Hence animals are just a means to an end.
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
This isn’t “natural law,” it’s a circular, self-serving abstraction built to excuse violence.
You claim rights emerge from argumentation, but that already smuggles in an arbitrary exclusion: only beings capable of philosophical debate count morally. By that logic, infants, severely cognitively disabled humans, people in comas, or humans with advanced dementia also lack rights because they don’t argue, don’t presuppose NAP, and don’t engage in ethics. You either accept that conclusion (which is morally grotesque), or your framework collapses.
Rights were never about who can argue, they’re about who can be wronged. An non human animal’s inability to articulate a moral theory doesn’t make its suffering irrelevant any more than a baby’s inability to argue makes infanticide acceptable.
“Animals don’t respect rights” is also meaningless. Neither do psychopaths, soldiers, or criminals, yet we don’t strip them of moral consideration. Moral worth is not conditional on moral behavior. Otherwise morality becomes pure might-makes-right.
What you’re really saying is this:
“Those who lack power, language, or philosophical tools can be used as resources.”
That’s not natural law, that’s moral domination dressed up as logic. It’s the same reasoning historically used to justify slavery, colonialism, and genocide. "They’re not like us, therefore they’re means to an end."
Your conclusion wasn’t discovered through argumentation. It was chosen first, then rationalized afterward.
It's called a tautology.
Rationality* rights are specially about how people ought to act the one who doesn't care about rationality isn't concerned about rights either.
Partial ownership, someone else has guardianship over them.
Yeah, someone who doesn't have any rights cannot be wronged.
They are suffering sure but why should I be concerned about their suffering?
We do, we kill them or lock them up. That's a violation of their rights. Which we do because atleast i don't consider them humans they too are just animals.
*Rationality
*Rational
Just to let you know your argument sounds AI, I'm not replying after this if it sounds AI again.
Accusing me of “sounding AI” isn’t a rebuttal. It’s what people say when the logic runs out. Which I can tell by your lazy one worded responses. We'll simply end this one sided conversation right here.
*Rational
the two are paragons of intellectual honesty.
Thank you.
I replied to all your arguments, at the last I said it sounds AI, if you can't make your arguments yourself then it's a waste of time.
*Assumptions
Sure buddy. You do you.
I do as the Romans do.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
*End
As you say my lord
You’re an overgrown child.
If you sound AI again I won’t reply? Jfc why would anyone waste their time?
Yeah I don't know why but I'm not getting any of your messages, I can see the notification but when I click on it it takes me here without any message.
What do you mean by that? Ive replied to all their arguments, I'm saying I won't reply further if I sense it to be AI.
As long as the argument are sound, why does it matter if its AI or not ?
Because then YOU aren't arguing. If I wanted to argue with AI i wouldn't be here.
What? If I'm using AI, the person behind the AI is still me. I'm still arguing. AI is just a tool to make the information/point clearer. Like a spell checker.
No you are not the person behind AI. AI makes it own arguments.
If you are using it as spell checker or to just format it better that's okay but how would I find the difference otherwise. To me it looks like you are wasting my time.
What changes about an argument depending on whose mouth it comes from?
If your argument is flawed and that's pointed out by anyone, it can be pointed out by everyone. AI or not.
Can you explain to me how veganism isn’t circular by your same rationality?
This too is smuggling in arbitrary exclusions and subjectivity. The argument implicitly assumes that animal exploitation is unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, I could find the unnecessary suffering of a cow to not be morally relevant and then you’ll claim I need a differentiating fact or trait, etc. but that too smuggles in the assumption that I must justify my treatment of cows ab initio, which itself smuggles in the very thing I am suppose to prove, that cows are or are not morally relevant as if I cannot, you assume de facto they ARE moral patients. Why?
Given your criticism, veganism is just as circular as their position.
You might be mixing up having basic moral starting points with circular reasoning. Veganism isn’t circular. It starts with simple moral ideas, just like every other moral view.
The argument doesn’t sneak anything in. It clearly says: non human animals can suffer, and causing suffering without a good reason is wrong. The conclusion doesn’t appear in the premises. If you call this circular, then all moral claims fall apart, including “hurting people for no reason is wrong.”
Saying “I don’t care about a cow’s suffering” isn’t an argument. Same as "I don't care about womens rights." It’s just a personal claim. If suffering doesn’t matter here, you need to explain why.
You also get the burden of proof backwards. If you harm someone, you must justify it. You don’t need special proof to justify not harming them. We protect babies and severely disabled people this way, even though they can’t argue or follow moral rules. Non human animals fit the same pattern.
“Unnecessary suffering” isn’t sneaky or assumed. It’s a fact about the modern world. People don’t need animal products to survive or be healthy. In fact we know that it's the opposite. If it were truly necessary, the moral conclusion would be different.
So veganism isn’t circular. It’s a simple and consistent idea that: if a being can feel pain, harming it needs a reason. If you reject that idea, you’re not just rejecting veganism, you’re rejecting the moral rule that protects the most vulnerable humans too.
Your argument assumes the very thing under debate, that nonhuman animals have moral relevance. You begin with
but this presupposes that animal suffering counts morally in the first place. Without defending why animals deserve moral consideration, the argument begs the question. Similarly, the claim that harming animals is unnecessary because people can survive on plant based diets smuggles in a normative assumption about what counts as “necessary” to justify harm, rather than establishing it independently. Analogies to babies or severely disabled humans are rhetorically compelling but fail as logical support, because they assume moral equivalence across species without argument, which is exactly what is contested. It’s appeals to emotions and not logical.
Further, the burden of proof is shifted improperly. Vegan reasoning treats harming animals as inherently requiring justification, but that only works if one already accepts that animals have rights or moral status. Someone operating under a human centric framework or natural law ethics or (like my social group does) a status and practice based ethical framework, could consistently and coherently reject this assumption. Dismissing disagreement as mere indifference (“I don’t care about a cow’s suffering”) ignores that moral relevance itself is debated. Finally, the appeal to “unnecessary suffering” and health sufficiency assumes a particular moral framework is universal, when in fact all these claims are presupposition dependent. In short, your argument is rhetorically strong in appealing to emotions but philosophically circular and thus illogical as it depends on premises that have not been justified outside the vegan moral framework and assumes that frame is universal. It is not.
Man I'm sorry but really the only response to all these frequent word soup posts here is "whatever helps you sleep at night".
Like, congratulations you arranged words in a way that justify harming innocent sentient beings!
These are not building off of any real philosophical theories nor do they address the decades old pretty simple arguments behind veganism.
What are we supposed to do with that?
I'm here for them, it's my first time arguing with vegans, give me your best counter arguments.
So do you acknowledge it's completely just to kill animals for your own purpose?
Maybe you can start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_(book)) ? Or the FAQ here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index/ ? and then address or acknowledge those? If you're coming here to make the bold claim that it's ok to harm animals to people who think that it's not ok, I think it's on you to have done some homework into why vegans believe what they do.
> So do you acknowledge it's completely just to kill animals for your own purpose?
no i'm saying the words you left here semantically equate to saying "it's ok to kill animals" but they are hollow and meaningless words jumbled together. Like if I said "it's ok to murder people" and expanded that to four paragraphs repeating that with different phrasing, it doesn't make it any more true.
Why are they meaningless? Which part should I clearly more on?
I will read your justification for veganism later as I'm replying to alot of people rn.
So you got no problem with me factory-farming golden retrievers?
Puppy mills exist and the majority already agree they’re wrong. The question is why you think scaling abuse makes it ethical.
I've got no problem.
Great. You realize you’re an animal, too, right?
Remember that if/when you find yourself at the receiving end of your “logic”.
Rights are granted. Some say that human rights are granted by a supernatural creator, but ultimately we just grant them to each other. If we grant non-human animals rights, they have rights. To say that they don't because we don't is just a tautology and doesn't explain whether they should have rights or not.
It's asymmetrical that non-human animals don't grant us human rights, but that's the special position that comes with our capacity to reason. With that comes responsibility, arguably also towards sentient beings of other species.
No. As I said rights are discovered from nature through argumentation. I disagree with your idea of rights, where do you get your rights from?
I get my rights from others. Rights are a social construct. I can only say that I ought to have rights, and equally I can say non-human animals ought to have rights.
Then I disagree, nature has granted you rights you have just not observed them yet.
For example, you are arguing with me, that means you already acknowledge you own yourself, for you are using your body as you will.
You acknowledge i own myself, for you believe i can use my body to reply to you.
You believe we should respect these rights because argumentation is the method to reach normative truth and violence is not.
You are not an animal you are a human with rights.
I do grant the exact same right to oneself to animals. In my sphere of power, animals do have rights, you cannot dispute that. Their inability to grant me rights in kind is irrelevant. I do grant humans that can't participate likewise the same right.
I am an animal with rights and a human with rights. You are stuck trying not to "discover" animal rights while I already constructed them and grant them, just needing to bring the majority to my side, so that these rights are backed up by power/violence just like any other rights.
Yeah you don't have power to grant anyone any rights.
Sure, i can't harm your property, but in that you believe those animals to be your property, as in those animals don't own themselves you do.
Privileges I would call them but sure.
I would not call you that but sure .
No you granted them privileges. What made you the arbitrator of rights?
That's not how rights are granted, in a village if all but one person believes that rape is just, does that mean it's just for someone to rape that person?
Any other privilege* true rights aren't backed by anything but always there, in nature.
It seems to me like you just want argue meta-ethics, restrict "rights" to a quasi-tautology. Ok, call it privileges what I advocate for, but that's what we vegans want. If you don't think animals ought to have privileges, argue that. If you have no opinion on that, this is not a debate in the realm of veganism.
I have no problem if you want to start a new nation where animals have privilege to not be eaten or hunted or whatever. As I matter of fact I'll respect you very much for that.
But if I'm in my house outside of your territory, you have no right to tell me what i should or shouldn't do with my property, i.e. my food.
In many jurisdictions, animals already have limited rights. You can't do everything to your property, even inanimate. I'm not sure what you mean, are you living outside and apart from society? Your right to private property is enforced by the same power that ensures your human rights aren't violated.
But we're speaking of different things. Abstract rights and actually granted and enforced rights.
Animals have privileges you mean.
I'm anarcho capitalist if that helps, I think the government we have is an exploitative and unjust hierarchy which needs to be abolished because it doesn't follow natural law.
And as long as I don't violate anyone's rights i.e. don't aggress i have the right to do whatever I want on my property.
Non Aggression Principal is also observed through argumentation.
I don't care what it's enforced by I care where it came from. Government didn't give me any rights. I had them all my life.
Some people don't argue or consider other's rights. Obvious examples: infants, severely cognitively delayed, severely brain damaged, end state dementia.
What is the trait those individuals have that an elephant or dolphin do not?
You haven't given proof that supports what you're calling "natural law" is indeed true. How do you know it is?
Do humans have 100% self ownership rights ? The government can kill or incarcerate you, and society generally agrees this is ok. If you're a woman, in a lot of countries you do not fully have ownership of your body: government dictates reproductive choices & owns the woman's uterus. Our "rights" are only as free as the society we live in.
Some believe people are, too. Question for you : Why don't you view people that way?
They have partial ownership, as in they at some point will get to completely own themselves or they did own themselves at some point. So their relatives etc are given guardianship over them, a guardian cannot act to destroy the life only acts which preserves the life.
We observe it through argumentation. For example you.
You are arguing, you believe you own yourself, for you are using your body towards your means of arguing.
You believe i own myself as I can use my body to reply to you.
You believe we should respect those rights as argumentation is how we can find normative truths and violence is not .
Yes
I don't care what society thinks.
According to nature law it's a violation of their rights.
No they are violated to the extent of the society we live in. You always have those rights, they just get violated alot.
Their arguments are?
Because they are capable of rationality.
Moral protections for non-human animals are a natural extension of the moral protections we already afford to human animals. The notion of animal rights is a simple abstraction of that idea.
Are you suggesting that we should only bestow rights on individuals who are concerned with doing what's right?
When universalized, the argument treats moral protection as a transferable abstraction rather than a practice grounded in agency, responsibility, and justification, thereby erasing principled limits and collapsing moral distinctions into incoherence. Is it your position that veganism is a personal pursuit and not something to judge other people as being ethical if that are? If not, how do you justify holding other people accountable to vegan ethics?
To the same extent as any other ethical principle. You and I have specifically discussed this question many times in the past. Why don't you save us all some time and acknowledge that you don't believe in normative ethics?
So if veganism is a personal pursuit, how is it that you judge anyone else’s ethics as being +/- any better/worse than your own? How is it more than your personal opinion that a meat eater is unethical? How is it any different than your taste in music being different than mine or anyone else’s?
BTW, as shown in your link, I do not endorse normative ethics as a theoretical enterprise; I treat ethics as embedded in forms of life and network of shared language, not as a system of justifiable moral laws.
The same way you can do it with any other personal pursuit. Everyone has their own ideas about the universe and society and how things should be done, and they act accordingly.
So that means you cannot judge someone as immoral from anything other than your personal opinion. That means veganism is equal to one’s taste in music. You may say that you hate Taylor Swift but my nine year old daughter is in love with her and going to floor seats for the show made her year. Who is right, you or her? Both, correct? Same with veganism vs omnivorism Under what you are agreeing to.
Exactly. Why do you think we've been arguing about morals and ethics and philosophy for as long as we've had the means to do so? It's all a construct, there's no objective right answer built into the universe. Some may believe there is, but that doesn't make any difference. What is considered "right" is only what most people collectively agree on at any given time, hence why we've seen it change throughout history.
That's the puzzle, isn't it? Again, if it were a matter of simple facts, it wouldn't be a debate. It's a difference in opinion and what people value.
Vegans typically believe animals have rights and deserve better treatment than they currently get. I think to most people, that makes sense, it's agreeable. But most people aren't vegan, because even if they may think otherwise, they don't value the lives of those animals as much, they don't want to put in the effort it takes to be vegan. And what do you do about someone who believes animals are entirely lesser than humans, and that they deserve to suffer if it benefits us? Nothing. They just have a different set of beliefs from the common person, and especially from a vegan.
So everyone judges, argues, protests, does whatever they can to promote what they believe is right for the world, like we've always done and always will.
What idea? Where did you get moral protections for animals from?
Yes. Those who are rational that is.
Would you advocate that we deny rights to humans who are unconcerned with doing what is right?
We already do that, we kill rapists or murders and lock other people up for other crimes.
Are you saying that people who commit crimes don't deserve any rights? As in, they don't deserve moral protections?
If it's proven they committed those crimes and will continue to do then yeah they don't have any rights, although I only believe in property rights, as the only rights you have are your body and your property everything else is a privilege.
But if they do develop rationality then their punishment can be toned down, maybe we wouldn't kill them but prison them for life.
So you're saying that anyone who commits a crime doesn't deserve rights. Do I have that correct?
Not completely but by violating someone's rights i.e. committing a crime you are proving that you don't believe in rights hence it's not a violation of rights if you don't even believe in rights.
But there are levels to this. If someone steals, they should pay a fine, because they don't believe in property rights.
If someone rapes or kills someone they should be killed because they don't believe is self ownership right.
Okay.
What about other humans who don't believe in rights or are otherwise not rational? Adults with dementia, or adults with intellectual disability, or children. Do they deserve rights?
Partial ownership, relatives etc can have legal guardianship over them. But in cases where they truly can't do anything, we treat them like animals, like fetuses.
For those who don't believe in those rights, they are also treated as animals, like criminals.
Yes, I think it makes sense to claim that rights are inherent to human reason and moral agency. But how does it follow that another sentient being does not have self-ownership? That's a physical property, surely, or do you want to say that human reason dismisses both physical truths and human duties? Can't we observe that all of nature is effectively vegan (free and not used unfairly) and this seems a preferable state, thus we have a duty to protect that state for other species?
Self ownership is a right, rights are inherently about what cannot be justly violated. Just unjust are nominal truths, nominal truths can only be found through argumentation, animals don't partake in any of these. Hence they don't have any rights.
In short, animals are not rational hence they don't have any rights.
I think much depends upon what you mean by "self-ownership". If you define it as the philosophical principle of bodily autonomy, I submit that only exists by virtue of our observation that humans have control of their own body and therefore freedom and liberty are qualities we should protect. In other words, it's an idea applied to pre-existing physical states.
As we can freely observe, this same state exists for many other animals, so it seems reasonable to argue that other animals also should be able to exercise bodily autonomy as is their nature. Discovering by argumentation that bodily autonomy is a physical state that we value might be a uniquely human activity, but it doesn't follow that it's ONLY a property of that action.
I don't understand what you mean by the first paragraph, but yes it is an observation we make that humans have always owned themselves.
Show me an animal arguing with a human.
It sounds that I can do whatever I want with my baby girl, she's my property and can't argue against this state of being. Do I understand this follows correctly from your position?
Your kids doesn't have complete ownership over themselves, that's why you are allowed to force them to do things for their greater goods, you cannot kill them or do them harm in the long term because they have partial ownership over themselves and in future will own themselves completely.
If I kill my kid before she reaches that age, that still ok, right?
Or what about the parent of a severely disabled child who will never get there?
Again it's not. They still partially own themselves, you don't own them. You are their guardian, a guardian can only act to preserve life not destroy it, because it's assumed the person who partially owns themselves wouldn't want to die.
Then how does this not equally apply to my dog?
It sort of does, because we did so much selective breeding we assume they have some base lvl rationality. Although it can't be proved with animals, it's better to assume for pets that have rights as to not violate them than to assume they don't and violate them.
It's overall a grey area.
Finally, if it applies to my dog, why doesn't it apply to a dog in a cage about to be slaughtered for meat?
Again grey area. The burden of proof would be on you or other activists to prove that the dogs are capable of rationality. If you can do that then there would be no difference.
Ok, let me reason the straight to the end.
Animals who are farmed for food have a burden of proof requirement, while pets and humans do not. All humans are included regardless of their mental state.
You say this is based on rationality. Let's test that. Science is clear that adult pigs' ability to reason is on par with human 3 year old humans and better than dogs (meets the burden of proof).
So with the same ability of human children, who get partial self-ownership and guardianship, adult pigs should get this too. Right?
I predict you are going to give a reason why this is not true. Probably by introducing a new argument. That new argument however will not change that humans by your reasoning get special status. And this is what it in the end boils down to, your axiom is "humans get rights and animals do not". So you're simply begging the question. Well, at least I predict that's what you'll do.
The person you're arguing with I believe is follows the Traditionalist view of Natural Law. So from the start, humans are going to get a special privilege. I liked that you pointed out potential issues with this world view. That's probably what he's looking for. I don't know that he actually holds this view.
I defined rationality as being able to argue for a normative claim i.e. being able to argue i don't care what scientist say rationality is. And 3yo also aren't rational as per that standard but they partially own themselves because they will develop that ability, a pig will not.
Come on, don't leave me hanging on this one! (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1ppkklb/comment/nupp47e/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button)
Didn't get a notification for that I think
Non human animals want to preserve their lives too. It’s a fact, proven by science.
And? They don't even partially own themselves. Maybe your pets do but most animals don't.
Well i can say they own themselves just like you can say they dont. Fact is, they are persons like humans. You defend the right to enslave and murder other persons, good for you. I will oppose that.
Then you are contacting yourself, you believe they own themselves but are making arguments for them? Not only that you don't even believe you own yourself as the "animals" are using your body for their will.
According to what? How do you define a person? A human? A animal?
No i don't consider them persons. But go ahead do what you want. Don't come for my property as I'll defend it as much as I can.
Sentient beings are persons. Sentience is the most objective scientific concept at our disposal to define a person.
I would disagree. You can have sentience and be a person yet not be a rational person who doesn't believe in right, that would make you an animal, who should be treated as one.
Babies also don't argue and don't respect others rights, do you eat them?
They partially own themselves, as in future they will completely own themselves, you have legal guardianship over them but can only act to preserve their life not destroy it.
What if its a mentally challenged baby that will never be smarter than a pig (a very smart animal btw).
Then you have the right to give them up/ let them go. Although it really depends and is a grey area. It really depends on how much they themselves want to live. I don't think those parents should be forced to take care of that child.
That's not what I asked? Lets assume you find one in the dumpster while dumpster diving, doesn't seem to have any humans that care about it.
Why can't you eat them?
You can. If they truly are mentally challenged to a capacity and ofc if we can prove that they are because for humans we can never be sure.
Then yeah it's nothing illegal to eat that thing. It will just be very gross thing to do.
If my moral framework would allow me to eat re****ed dumpster babies, I would start all over.
That's basically saying "I think I have the right to murder humans, why can't I murder animals as well."
Nice. This is probably what he's looking for. More reductios like this! I don't think he would actually hold this view.
What makes eating a cow immoral? Why is it wrong to eat them, that is?
That's a great question, I suggest you ask in r/debateAVegan (but I'd use the search function first, it might have been asked before).
I am in that sub asking you right now as you made a positive position and I am curious as to the consistency of it.
I don't see any problem with that. Can you point towards the problem?
It's true what they say, it's not hard being morally consistent when you're horrible person.
I think r/askphilosophy or a similar subreddit are a more appropriate place to ask this question, and probably have more people who are interested in debating the scope of rights we should give re****ed dumpster babies. Feel free to tag me if/when you post there.
[removed]
The problem is not a logical one, it's a moral deficiency
And my morals are wrong because?
Humans are animals. Animals don't have rights therefore humans don't have rights?
Never said that, what gives humans the rights is our ability to rationally come to normative understandings or truths through argumentation, those who can't do it i.e mentally challenged people or kids don't have full ownership but someone else has guardianship over them.
Humans are animals.
Animals only have whatever rights we give them, since the whole idea is a human construct. But I don’t really understand your argument.
So nothing makes a meat eater +/- moral contrasted with a vegan, correct?
Not for me to say
So what do you debate here?
Not who is the most moral
I'm a natural rights advocate, rights come from nature observed through argumentation. Animals can't argue they don't have rights. Humans can argue they have rights.
What does that imply? For example, is infinite torture of infinite amount of sentient animals okey If it satisfies your ends? (e.g. you just want such thing to occur).
Yes as long as they are animals not capable of rationality. Although I personally won't like that to happen.
I take that implication as about as clear a reductio ad absurdum as one can get for a moral theory.
But I am glad you won't like that to happen. You might consider veganism or something close to that then, although animals don't experience infinite torture, there are approximately 80 billion land animals killed for consumption every year, majority factory farmed, still an extraordinary (hardly comprehensible) amount of human-inflicted suffering.
I mean if it was possible for me to get my daily protein/caloric/vitamin intake at the same price as my normal food i wouldn't eat anything else at that. In not that much of a taste junkie.
But in not doing that out of any sort of duty, it's simply what I would prefer to do , and if someone doesn't do that, they have a right to eat meat.
I don't know where you live, but in general, I think it's possible to consume plant-based diet on similar budget as omnivore diet. And if you'd focus strategically more on some whole foods (e.g., beans), rather than fake meats etc. it might even get cheapier. For example, this study provides some evidence that plant-based diets might be cheaper, while this one suggests they might be similar to omnivore diet.
But it might depend on, for example, whether you live in lower or higher income country (see here00251-5/fulltext?mc_cid=0fed09be8b&mc_eid=34fdc625b6)). I don't know all your particularities, but what usually might be a bit difficult is the transitioning phase, but once you sort things out (like what's your target protein and how to get there; that you should supplement B12, which is generally pretty cheap), it's pretty easy.
Some people have also easier time when they start with gradual reduction.
No it's not. I've checked beans are still quite expensive here and I like variety and I don't choose my diet for now. I also don't earn much for now.
Again that's not the point of arguing here. Do you concede that animals don't have any rights?
No, they do on my view. At least the sentient ones.
I wasn't further commenting on the initial discussion (i.e., your theory) because it's totally absurd to me. For example, if someone had a theory that implied maximizing suffering for all people is good (and they weren't willing to revise/abandon their theory based on that) I would take that as a reductio ad absurdum and wouldn't further engage. Unless you want to revise your theory, I am not sure there is much to discuss further.
Do you agree that you are no long arguing for your position, which in general is assumed as agreeing that you think your position isn't worth arguing for/ is wrong.
I would always be open to explaining it more to you.
Don't know how that's important to this argument
No I'm fully confident in myself. And ofc there is always further things to discuss, as long as one of us isn't proven to be wrong that is.
I am not sure I understand, but I am not even sure it makes sense to say I was "arguing for my position" I just pointed out what I think is problem with your position (i.e., the reductio).
I don't see the point, I am not going to adopt a theory of rights with insane ethical implications.
I was trying to explain, why I don't think it makes sense to proceed further with the discussion. Sufficiently insane moral implications disqualify the particular moral theory, on my view.
Your theory of rights is wrong from my point of view. There isn't much else I could say.
Yeah I'm arguing with a lot of people here, what was wrong about it?
So you don't follow a philosophy which is logically consistent but rather one you feel isn't yucky?
If you aren't going to arguing in a logically coherent manner then it's a waste of time.
No person can own another animal and call themselves just.
Because you say so?
Some animals do, and some humans don't
According to natural law, I can.
No because that's what we observe in nature through argumentation.
I completely agree with some "humans" don't but I would slightly disagree with some animals do. I have yet to see a animal arguing for a normative truth.
Elaborate? According to Aquinas no you can't
How do you know? What would be some evidence you would consider to suggest one way or another?
That's my post, animals don't own themselves, I can own them, it doesn't violate anyone's rights hence it's just.
I have yet to see a human and an "animal" disagreeing on a normative claim, proposing their own claim, arguing about it in a logically coherent manner, and coming to find a normative truth. If you can show me that i will agree that that "animal" is actually a human with rights.
So are you suggesting you know more than St Thomas Aquinas on the subject of natural law?
I understand you're making statements. I'm wondering where you are getting them from.
Don't know who that is. But if he said that animals have rights under natural law then we are talking about different natural law. Mine is discovered in nature through argumentation.
Hans Herman Hoppa, argumentation ethics.
Perhaps you should use a different word than "natural law" if you don't know who St Thomas Aquinas is. And/or read up on who many academics consider one of the main developers of Natural Law Theory
How about Aristotle, Plato? John Locke?
If I'm logically consistent i don't need to know who anyone else is, they wouldn't be concerned with having their names known but rather their ideas and philosophies.
Also it was in my knowledge that John locke came up the with natural law and self ownership. I haven't read about him either because I don't need to.
And again, my philosophy is from HH hoppa, he came up with argumentation ethics.
Sure we can ignore whom most scholars consider the founders of the natural law theory and go with your three paragraphs I guess
....
You can be logically consistent without saying anything.
Just like I am logically consistent without saying the opposite.
Now what?
I don't care what scholars do or think.
Do animals have rights or not?
Do you want to argue about this or not?
What about children or elderly people who no longer can operate on their own?
Also a vegan would object that rights are only reserved for humans. Was this intended to be a argument against veganism?
What about mentally impaired orphans? If you find one in a jungle? Its represented by no one
Partial ownership, someone else has guardianship over them.
No this philosophy is on self ownership through natural law, it's pretty old, but can be used to justify why animals don't own themselves.
I've heard if Natural Law, but its been awhile. Partial ownership, right. Why would that not extend to non-human animals?
Using this philosophy, you could argue that rights should go to those who can be harmed. We share the same biological nature.
It does, pets. They are somewhat rational. That's why cruelty towards them is also somewhat wrong. But we still own them.
Biology has nothing to do with this, if in future some alien or animal develops the ability to argue which presupposes self ownership they would be considered humans, philosophical atleast.
Actually biology does matter here. This is a more modern view of Natural Law Philosophy. I understand the Traditional view would not grant this.
I don't care what's modern or traditional.
Why does biology matter?
Okay. I'm just telling you because it might make it easier. If you say hey this doesn't matter because in X, this is how it works. My response is yes it does, but in a more modern view of X. For the modern view, they believe biology matters rests on the idea that existence is not accidental. If nature built a creature with biological needs, those needs are what define is good for that creature. In this view, we give rights to babies and the elderly because they are vulnerable. This is a biological argument. Non-human animals share this vulnerability.
I'm not making a biological argument, I'm making an argument from natural law. Natural law does not concern itself with biology but rationality.
I'm responding to your question. And I'm telling you that it does, in the more modern view. In the traditional view, I understand that. I'm aware of what you're doing. Sorry for any confusion.
Then I'm not a follower of the modern view, im the follower of the view im arguing for, argue against my position or don't argue at all.
What's the argument for this view that animals do not possess any rights? We see that they clearly are given some legal protections based on some vague concept of rights.
The point about not being able to argue is strange. Many people do not possess the ability to argue, yet they are given rights by others who can. The same is true for animals.
This would be easier if you laid out your reasoning with a proper argument so we can see your deduction.
Pretty sure i was clear as I could get. As for those who can't argue we give them partial rights as kids who will get to own themselves in future or older people, who once owned themselves completely or mentally ill people with some rational ability.
For those who are able to argue but won't, we consider them criminals and also not worthy of rights.
Not really, it isn't a matter of being clear or not. You can be as clear as you want, you are just stating some things to be the case or not be the case. It is the fallacy known as the appeal to the stone: you are dismissing animal rights without actually giving any clear reasoning why it isn't the case. Simply stating a different case about natural rights and why humans have them doesn't give us reason to believe that animals do not, especially when you just conceded that we give those beings who are unable to argue partial rights, like newborn infants.
Also, the category "those who can argue but won't" doesn't include only criminals. You are right that some of them are criminals, but some people who can argue and do are also criminals.
They cannot argue and won't develop the ability to argue for all i know, if you think they can like human kids then show me an example.
It does, rights are what cannot be violated unjustly, just unjust are about what living beings should or shouldn't do, those who are not concerned with what someone should or shouldn't do, through argumentation aren't concerned with what rights are.
Again because they will get to own themselves in the future why are you ignoring this thing?
"They cannot argue and won't develop the ability to argue for all i know, if you think they can like human kids then show me an example."
It has already been shown to you that the capacity to argue is not necessary for being given moral consideration. You conceded that infants cannot argue, yet we treat them as moral patients which are afforded certain rights. The same is true for animals.
"It does, rights are what cannot be violated unjustly, just unjust are about what living beings should or shouldn't do, those who are not concerned with what someone should or shouldn't do, through argumentation aren't concerned with what rights are."
This doesn't respond to what was said. I stated that simply stating the case about natural rights and excluding animals is not actually compelling or an argument. It is a common fallacy, the reasoning is faulty. That is what is said here. I already demonstrated that the property "able to argue" is not enough to give a thing rights or take it away. You conceded that it is not the property when you said that we give those who are unable to argue rights anyways.
"Again because they will get to own themselves in the future why are you ignoring this thing?"
There are humans who will never develop the ability to speak or form complex thoughts as a result of mental disability. Therefore, they are born without the ability to argue and will never be able to argue. Yet, I am sure you will also concede that we give them rights and do not treat them like animals (in that we do not exterminate them for our use and pleasure). So, the property "able to argue and/or develop the ability to argue later on in life" is not the necessary property to have rights since we give rights to people who are unable to develop these properties at all.
I hope this answers all your questions:
Humans who will never develop rationality are also treated as animals.
I've already argued about this with someone that if we have genetically engineered "humans" which we are 100% convinced of that they won't develop rationality.
Then even if they are conscious throughout it wouldn't violate anyone rights if they were treated and farmed the same way factory animals are.
It would be very gross to think about it. But what I think of it has nothing to do with what someone can do with their property.
"Humans who will never develop rationality are also treated as animals."
Well, that's obviously false. People who are in that category (will never develop rationality) are not tortured like animals are. They are not confined in cages like animals are. They are not executed like animals are. They are not conceived with the intention of being killed like animals are. That statement is patently false.
"I've already argued about this with someone that if we have genetically engineered "humans" which we are 100% convinced of that they won't develop rationality."
OK? I'm not taking that position or presenting that as a hypothetical, that exists right now. Many humans will never develop rationality or the ability to argue.
Yeah they have the privilege of being from our species that doesn't mean they have any rights.
It's the same If you start your own nation, there you can give animals any privilege you want. That wouldn't mean the have right to live or anything, you just have them the privilege of living whatever life they want.
And yeah even now humans who don't possess rationality don't have rights under natural law.
Wait, so now the property is "being of the same specie"? This is just blatantly conceding the property you gave and moving to a new one. I mean, I guess if you refuse to defend the previous point and give up on it, we can move onto another one.
Why does the property "being a member of the human species" afford moral consideration? And how come we cannot treat non-human animals with moral considerations?
No as I said, that's a "privilege" that the humans have. Humans think it's yucky for even mentally insufficient people to not have any rights so we gave them the privilege that acts like rights.
In the same manner you could start a vegan nation where animals are treated as having self ownership but in reality they would just have the privilege of living in that area and wouldn't actually have any rights.
Eh, in principle, all rights are arbitrary and non inherent to any being. We came up with those, at first to establish a base line of what is acceptable (according to us anyway). Now some people are trying to extend those based off some flawed logic. It is the same slippery slope imo.
What I think they dont realize is, that "animal rights" is basically a bunch of rules created for us, once again, not some universal birth right that animals possess by virtue of existing. Case in point, "the right to life" only applies when we are involved, not when their natural hunter-prey cycle or same species casualties occur.
I disagree, rights are what cannot be violated, as observed in nature through argumentation. Do you disagree with that?
I do, who is doing the argumentation? Who is "observing" nature? Even our rights can and are probably violated in nature. Ever been to the jungle? You can call rights whatever you want, privileges are closer to what you are thinking of, definitely not independent of our meddling (which is something actual inherent things would have)
We both are
We both are
Yes. That's why it's called a violation of rights.
Natural law is not might makes right.
What we observe in nature through argumentation*
Nope, it's an objective right, what you think of when you say animals have rights is infact a privilege.
Lol is not up to us. You invoked argumentation before I even replied. What I was trying for you to acknowledge, is that the argumentation is done by people and coincidentally, the argument is rights (for people). So there, is just a jerk off. Like I said, it is arbitrary (although needed) but nothing like the likes of "natural" law. Putting that adjective preceding "law" (also man made and arbitrary) doesn't make it more solemn or "objective" as it is per whoever is arguing, right? (Your argument). If a sophist and a nihilist argue about a topic, and come to a conclusion, just the fact they are agreeing makes the conclusion valid? What would it be different then with you and me or you and your mom -arguing-?
Is not objective since the premise of observation brings in a bias. Can you observe CO gas in the air?
As a side note, what is your major lol (assuming you are done with school that is)
Because then I was the one making the argument, by replying you started arguing too.
Pretty sure i would have just agreed to that regardless.
How is that arbitrary? Who is doing the arbitration?
No, we observe reality which is objective, as far as we agree that we are observing reality that is, if you don't agree that we are observing reality then it's a waste of time to argue with you.
And natural law, which we observe through argumentation is again objective.
If the conclusion was logically valid and both the parties agreed the conclusion was valid then we have a normative truth, which we came to find through argumentation.
It would not be different at all. As long as it's an actual argument and not just pointless blabbering.
Then maybe this thread is pointless if you truly think just two dudes agreeing on something makes it a truth lmao. The validity would rely on these 2 dudes only, waaay far from being objective, as it depends on their skills (or lack of). Does the average person know what a fallacy is? How about SD? Sounds like you don't ubderstand what objective is. We can't observe all reality, and even certain observable events are misinterpreted bc of detection limits and/or bias so I wouldnt call everything observable "reality" either. Ever heard of mirages? How about eclipses?
Still waiting on your answer regarding your education. Not shocked if the dude that is trying to argue with a burner account won't share that though.
If it was also logically consistent that is.
Pretty sure i already answered it.
It's irrelevant to the argument, and i only care about arguments.
It wasn't answered. If you think you did, might as well addressed it again for clarification, quoting the very straight questions I made. Looks like you got lots of free time.
And you still dodging who validates the logic used if it is just two dudes -agreeing-?
I am arguing whatever sophomore liberal arts class you are taking has taken you on a misguided path regarding truth and argumentation. Feel free to argue :)
What do you mean validates? If it follows the laws of logic and isn't fallacious then it's correct.
Humans defined the framework you are arguing. With a limited understanding of nature and what animals think, you assume a lot. If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, you are the problem. All living things have the ability to exist and persistent at the expense of other living things. No animal, including humans, have a natural right to life or anything. There is no fairness in nature. The only law of the living is you must die. How you die can be delayed but it is inevitable. Humans are not special. We just have the choice to cause harm to others or to not. Vegans choose to cause less harm, it's that simple. Arguing why you think it's okay to abuse others is something you can either be proud of or dog deep into why you think it's okay
No we can observe self ownership is nature you are doing it right now, you are making an argument assuming I own myself and you own yourself, and that arguing is the only way to reach normative truth and violation of those rights is wrong.
Which means you are not an animal. Animals can't do this.
You can witness dogs arguing over a lot
That's what we call blabbing, they aren't seeking normative truths but doing meaning less gestures hoping to get a reaction, some do some don't.
Although I do grant dogs partial ownership because of how much selective breeding we have done. Im not sure but I can assume that.
Would you argue non-human humans have ownership?
They wouldn't be non humans at that point, but if you mean aliens, then i wouldn't need to argue for them, if they own themselves then they should be able to present it through argumentation.
Non human humans are a classification we give to animals that we consider to have human traits but not be fully human.Orangutans for example are classified as non human humans.
Oh, well I hope i answered your question still.
“Through natural law we understand that rights are what can't be violated (or be called just when violated)
For example self ownership, we own ourselves, it's an objective natural right, no person can own another person and call themselves just.”
-People have literally owned other people for millennia and called themselves just. Rights are just what we humans grant each other and some of us grant rights to non-humans as well.
Then calling themselves just doesn't make them just does it? Natural law states they were always unjust in doing so.
Can you demonstrate your objective, falsifiable proof that enslaving other humans is “unjust”?
Self ownership is a right.
We observe it in reality through argumentation.
You can't argue against it as it would be contradictory to you arguing.
Hence someone owning anyone else is unjust.
Self-ownership is a liberty right in so far as I can think, therefore I have the right to think and argue, but if someone stronger can just shove a gag in my mouth, I can’t really argue anymore can I? So where’s my natural right? Certainly don’t have a claim right. Furthermore, where is the ethical claim in all this? It sounds like you’re just describing something, not making any ethical determinations.
Furthermore, if you apply this logic to humans, you must also apply it to non-humans as they are capable of argument as well, albeit not in the same language.
You have the right to defend your property i.e. yourself, if you used violence then it would not be a violation because by violating your right the person is expressing that he doesn't believe in rights.
Self ownership is a natural right is a ethical claim is it not?
By the virtue of it being a right it automatically becomes unjust to violate that right.
So in terms of ethics it would be, it's unethical to violate someone's self ownership right.
I don't think so, give me one instance where a human and animal disagreed on a normative truth, argued on it using logic and came to an agreement, where one party was wrong and other was right
Sorry accidentally posted my response here
Roughly speaking, is your argument that only moral agents can have rights?
Rational, sort of same, rational does mean capacity to make moral arguments.
I’m not vegan but the arguments here are so dumb they almost make me want to become vegan tbh
“If non aggression is true then natural law is true.”
Nothing you said makes this logically follow and any text I’ve read attempting to make this leap has ever been able to do it. Do you have an argument
“The only way to find normative truths is through argumentation.”
“We own ourselves, it is an objective natural right .”
Provide an argument for this or anything you claimed.
This has a lot of unsupported claims followed by “if you accept every premise blindly animals don’t have rights” which is not very compelling as I reject most of what you said.
Non-human animals defend themselves and their property or territory. They have thoughts. They communicate. Therefore they have the same liberty rights you describe.
Why would they need to agree with a human on a normative truth? But since you asked, here’s an example anyway: I give one dog a treat. The other dog is accustomed to receiving a treat as well and they both agree to not fight over the treats as they are customarily dispensed equitably. If I don’t give the second dog a treat, he will nudge me to remind me that the situation is currently inequitable according to our established norms and I agree and give him a treat as well. It’s more apparent with monkeys when one receives a cucumber in exchange for a token and flies into a rage when he witnesses the other receive a grape for the same token.
Second, you’re observing someone’s ability to act and calling it a right. Wheres the ethical prescription based on your observation? You cannot claim something is objectively ethical or not because you witnessed behavior and called it a right. Furthermore, by this logic if I have the ability to murder someone, that’s ethical as well because you have not demonstrated any natural claim right, meaning no natural right exists to not be murdered by others.
Clarification: Why do I have to argue or suppose rights in order to have rights? Can’t someone argue or suppose on my behalf?
What’s the difference between arguing for the rights of cows and arguing for the rights of kale? Is it just a matter of personal preference?
For the purpose of what I was trying to clarify, I don’t think there would be any difference
Do you mean you think all beings, sentient or not, deserve equal moral consideration? Or are you just saying the distinction isn’t relevant for the point at hand?
The latter. I was just trying to understand the role of self-advocacy vs advocacy for another in op’s viewpoint
No then you don't believe that you have right over yourself.
Posaibly an interesting take but you will convince 0% of vegans.
What is interesting about it exactly?
The bit with the caterpillars mostly.
[removed]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
Then there arguments aren't logical. Only emotional.
Logic without emotion is psychopathic. Emotions are part of sound reasoning.
It's not. Emotions are subjective, logic is not.
Let me guess, 16-25 year old non-sexually active male going through their "facts don't care about your feelings" phase?
When it comes to moral or ethical reasoning, logic is subjective too.
The logical conclusion of your proposed arguments is that dog fighting is ethical.