NewsDaily reports:
A New York appeals court will consider this week whether chimpanzees are entitled to “legal personhood” in what experts say is the first case of its kind...A victory in the case could lead to a further expansion of rights for chimps and other higher-order animals, including elephants, dolphins, orcas and other non-human primates...I view the entire idea of natural rights as a dangerous idea. And as far as animal "rights,' we rule this planet. If that wasn't the case, chimps and elephants would be going to court to determine if humans have “legal personhood," not the other way around.
-RW
Here's an applicable quote from Murray Rothbard from "The Ethics of Liberty"; Last paragraph of section 21 titled: The "Rights" of Animals:
ReplyDeleteThere is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them." The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their "rights" is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings. And if it be protested that babies can't petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not.
First I'll say that I'm a hypocrite on this issue (as I'm a carnivore) but these arguments are a bit absurd to me. I wonder if the Rockefellers (and their ilk) also think "we are the rulers of this planet". And what about humans who are developmentally disabled? Do they not deserve rights since they can't petition for them?
ReplyDeleteAlso aren't rights "natural rights"? It's annoyingly self-serving to say "yes but only for humans". Remember that some people look at others as "sub-human" and that is used as the basis for mistreating them. Libertarians talk about being "philosophically grounded" but then they talk crap like "we rule the planet".
Very disappointing.
I thought this was the kind of "might makes right" argument that we're supposed to abhor.
ReplyDeleteMurray's "common quip" was, in fact, his own quip on numerous occasions when this issue arose. The best feature of the "animal rights" movement is that it at least implies that human beings have rights.
ReplyDeleteMises dealt with the matter in a rule utilitarian/non-natural rights way, by pointing out the distinction of competition in the market and competition in nature. As to non-human animals, human beings are thrown back into the state of nature and are not bound to respect their rights, especially when the issue is "dog-eat-dog."
Who is arguing this? The same people who deny unborn children personhood rights? OK, got it.
ReplyDeleteSupplement: As you might expect, Mises stated his point better than I did. From Human Action p.273 or so:
ReplyDelete"In nature there prevail irreconcilable conflicts of interests. The means of subsistence are scarce. Proliferation tends to outrun subsistence. Only the fittest plants and animals survive. The antagonism between an animal starving to death and another that snatches the food away from it is implacable.
Social cooperation under the division of labor removes such antagonisms. It substitutes partnership and mutuality for hostility. The members of society are united in a common venture.
The term competition as applied to the conditions of animal life signifies the rivalry between animals which manifests itself in their search for food. We may call this phenomenon biological competition. Biological competition must not be confused with social competition, i.e., the striving of individuals to attain the most favorable position in the system of social cooperation."
My interpretation from this analysis is that "rights" as among humans are the rules governing action which are compatible with a harmonious catallactic society. They are "natural" in the sense that they are based on and conform to a system of order which humans, in action, could actually realize should they take the steps to do so.
As for animals, the real debate is not over our continual fight in nature with, say, fire ants. It is the higher order animals that either have been incorporated (through the action of human beings) into our own catallactic society or or capable of generating a natural order which we see is similar to our own. However one comes down on these issues, it is not something based on the "rights" which are compatible with human harmony in a catallactic order.