Libertarianism & Animal Rights
That's what the Curmudgeonly Clerk argues:
Regarding his particular brand of libertarianism (i.e., a natural rights variety), Sandefur writes that, "[a]nimals do not have rights, because they do not have reasoning minds." Accordingly, Sandefur "suspects" that animal cruelty is not a proper subject of governmental interference, though he does indicate that it might be subject to regulation under a theory of "public goods" that would constitute a taking under the law and necessitate compensation. In another post, Sandefur candidly wrote that, in his view, animals do not have "a right not to be tortured." In a rather mild understatement in this second post, Sandefur frankly acknowledges that the application of a "public goods"-based injunction on animal torture is "kinda weird."
On Sandefur's account, [a] dog has no right not to be forced against its will to have sexual relations, notwithstanding its obvious lack of consent. That's what it means to have no rights. No wrong has been done to this creature, nor could any wrong be done to it. It has no more claim to our protection than an inanimate object. If a man wishes to set his cat on fire, the law must idly stand by. This is not to say that society could not make its moral opprobrium of such acts well known. But what would be the basis of societal condemnation other than moral disgust, which Sandefur rejects as a "meaningless" basis for condemnation? After all, if animals have no rights whatever, on what grounds can criticism of their maltreatment proceed. Indeed, one cannot coherently speak of their "maltreatment" or "animal cruelty" on Sandefur's understanding.
The problem here, as the Clerk observes, is that living beings are accorded the same legal and moral status as inanimate objects. "Cruelty towards animals" makes no more sense than "cruelty towards pencils." Even Sandefur acknowledges that we are dealing with a serious problem in his libertarian conception of rights and morality. Put quite simply, if there is no coherent means for libertarianism to allow for the legal prohibition of various forms of mistreatment of animals - indeed, if libertarianism cannot even recognize that animals can be "mistreated" - then libertarianism is intellectually and ethically unfit to be a guiding legal and political philosophy. That's not to say that it cannot contribute anything to legal and political discussions, but it can't be a guiding philosophy.
Read More:
Comments
You don’t seem to get the gist. A libertarian may find setting a cat on fire disgusting, and anyone engaging in such actions will be avoided.
What other answer is there? Put them in a prison cell? To what end? Take some of their property? To whom does it go, and why do they have a moral right to his other property? Likely it will end up in a bureaucratic account that won’t be properly accounted for and ultimately benefit no one but the brainless bureaucracy. Or send him to a reconditioning center? I’d rather not open that dystopian pandora’s box.
Abusing an animal may be reprehensible, but there is no sanction or action by any “body politic”, by force, that isn’t costly to implement. Given our $47 Trillion accrual basis debt, with most States in debt, and prison overcrowding and an over-extended bureaucracy, worrying about the welfare of animals is priority #10,012.
Using the State as the litmus test for every moral or ethical question is what leads to grinding Statism. If our socialist economic construct is the product of ‘good’ guiding philosophies, then I am a monkey’s uncle.
As a proponent of atheism, don’t make the mistake of making a Church out of State.
Yes, I get it that that’s the gist of many libertarian’s perspective. This is the basis of my conclusion: “then libertarianism is intellectually and ethically unfit to be a guiding legal and political philosophy”
The two concepts are not only logically distinct, but materially irrelevant to the issue at hand. A political or legal philosophy which cannot provide a basis for making it a crime to set a cat on fire is unfit to be a guiding philosophy in either politics or law. This is not to say that it has nothing to offer, but we cannot rely upon it as a primary or significant source.
Isn’t there a circularity in the argument? The worthiness to inflict force on people is measured by ones willingness to use force?
I guess if I refuse to hit people on the head with a hammer, I am ill suited to comment on the (apparently needful) practice of hitting people on the head with a hammer. That is, of course, from the perspective of someone he has an a priori belief that hitting people in the head with a hammer is justifiable.
It holds that those who believe that there is no sanction necessary by a body politic in cases of animal cruelty can be guiding philosophy when that philosophy is to abate the use of force unless it is protect ones life or property. What another does to their own property, or a feral animal, while vile, does not require force. That belief can wind its way through philosophy, economics, politics, nearly every aspect of life. It seems to be a valid PRIMARY stance on nearly every issue of the day. To think not seems to be a reduction of worth based on the dislike for the outcomes of that philosophy.
More specifically, what applies in the contracting between one human to another in providing mutual understandings of behavior toward one another, perhaps rising to a level of the use of collective force, does not apply to animals as they have no capacity to contract. If they have any capacity for loyalty, it to their owner, to whom they feel attached (and vice versa and hence is property of that person, but creating no obligation). Contracts cannot be onesided, and to be forcibly obligated to an animal, or to punish someone who has abused an animal, or being forced to fund an executive and judicial function on behalf of non-contracting parties must mean that I am held as an obligor purely be the beliefs held by others in some Universal morality. Also, a belief in sanction can be reduced to the absurd - will I be sanctioned if a step on an ant? Kick over a whole anthill? Pull the wings off of a fly? Or is just “higher order” animals? Who decides? PETA?
Ultimately I detect a hint of the fallacy that all non-libertarians hold about libertarians, that a refusal to sanction is tacit support. That is far from the nature of libertarianism. A libertarian would refuse to ask a third party to use force against someone when no human or their property is threatened. There is a strong likelihood that most libertarians would not voluntarily associate themselves with a horrible abuser of animals. But that will sort itself out through culture and voluntary association. I certainly believe that that IS a guiding philosophy of paramount importance, not just a source of shedding a curious light on the statutes of Regulators.
To think not seems to be a reduction of worth based on the dislike for the outcomes of that philosophy.
Exactly. When the outcome of a philosophy is immoral and/or unjust, that’s just about the best possible reason to reject the philosophy.
***Exactly. When the outcome of a philosophy is immoral and/or unjust, that’s just about the best possible reason to reject the philosophy. ***
Well I think your philosophy is immoral to force people to pay for the sanctioning people to protect animals. Confiscating people’s labor to pay for executive and judicial functions, pay for jails and prisons, and social services for cats. Am I just as valid in rejecting your perspective as a Guiding Philosophy?
Then we’ve pretty much gotten no where.
The premise I’m attacking is that “Libertarianism is not a valid primary philosophy”. Considering the amalgam of the various interventionist Guiding Philosophies has led to unimaginable debts and obligations (most one-sided and obliges each full time worker to the tune of $375,000 RIGHT NOW per the latest Financial Report of the United States - all made up people’s bright ideas of what is moral) and a rotted socialist culture where people are ambivalent whether cats are getting frickaseed or not because “someone must be doing something about it” (apply the concept in general of course), I think mine IS moral in the extreme. Libertarian/non interventionist philosophy IS primarily necessary to have a tension pulling BACK the Statist inclination that has led to the most laws in the history of the world, a contradictory, unwieldy set of Code that would make Justinian quail. Republicans, Democrats, Progressives, etc etc ALL have “moral” reasons to toss more laws on the books, and while there certainly tensions between them, the net result has been a huge pull in favor of Statism. There simply are travails in life that do not require State intervention for ‘morality’ to be held up, or at least attempted.
Too long those with “moral high ground” have been ramping up the State, damaging real wealth, obligating people unnecessarily and unfairly, and implenting bad laws that feel good and with disregard to economic realities.
I guess I’ll leave it at that. Respond if you need, I likely won’t read it (not to be a pissant, just think we’ll never have a meeting of the minds). Just be aware that Libertarians, by and large, have made their peace with some degree of Statism. But setting up processes to assign one-sided rights to animals is hardly a priority. And there ARE moral reasons for doing so that hardly exclude it from a set at the table….
Only if you think that what you are objecting to is just as morally abhorrent as setting a live cat on fire. If you do, then you merely underscore the impression that libertarianism is morally bankrupt.