ok, first of all Richard Dawkins is a moron statheist.
Second of all, I'm a vegetarian, almost vegan and dont eat any animals or seafood.
Your arugment I find illogical, you say babies aren't an arguments because they are potential adults. Well what else could they become? Yet you weave a tangled web with Richard Dawkins crappy metaphor, and talk about rothbards argument being flawed on potentiality? Rediculous lol!
Anyways, love your channel and am subbing, mises ftw!
Natural rights is species bound, so all members of a species will have the same rights. So the cut-off would be the ancestor that could not mate with current humans, provided that ancestor was not denied fertility.
Agreed. Rothbard is off the mark in his argument. I also made a vid about this chapter a little while ago: you can find it at: 'rothbard on animal rights bitbutter'
Meh, "rights" is just a concept that lets arbitrary opinions seem objective.
"It's my opinion that people shouldn't kill other people, therefore it's every persons right to not be killed". Can't we just leave it at "it's my opinion"?
It's my opinion that we should be nice to animals. That doesn't grant them "rights"
Not exactly earth shattering. Humans use animals as source of food. If we say animals have rights (not to mention morality or ethical system) we can not use them as such, because it would be murder. Which it is not. We use their meat to feed ourself - to survive.
My argument against animal rights would be that they don't protect human rights. Most humans protect human rights and the ones that don't lose their rights unless they have allot of power. I find it illogical to enforce rights without any benefits to humans while it is all at humanity's expense. The only animal I would find to have rights is bottle nose dolphins that routinely protect humans from sharks. I think you have it the other way around why should animals have rights?
Good job Austro! Very fair. I have been questioning Animal Rights since the 80's having not come up with an HONEST reason why animals should not have rights. The mentally handicapped human is the example I have been using for a long time. In the end, I think we just have to agree that it is purely arbitrary to make the "line of demarcation" between our species and others. Baboons care for baboons, and people care for people. That's about it.
Yes, animals may well have "animal rights," but they do NOT have "human rights" -- for the obvious reason that they are a different species from ours.
ok, first of all Richard Dawkins is a moron statheist.
Second of all, I'm a vegetarian, almost vegan and dont eat any animals or seafood.
Your arugment I find illogical, you say babies aren't an arguments because they are potential adults. Well what else could they become? Yet you weave a tangled web with Richard Dawkins crappy metaphor, and talk about rothbards argument being flawed on potentiality? Rediculous lol!
Anyways, love your channel and am subbing, mises ftw!
fleursdumal11 3 months ago
great vid. agreed that it wasn't Rothbard's strongest point and that his reasoning was uncharacteristically weak on animal rights.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
have you read A Libertarian Replies to Tibor Machan's 'Why Animal Rights Don't Exist' by David Graham?
praxe0l0gist 1 year ago
Exposing an argument as poor and disagreeing with it are two different things, it's our intellectual responsibility to understand this.
Garboth 1 year ago
Agree 100% with Rothbard critique. Rothbard laid forth a complete nonsequitur.
Sepero1 1 year ago
Natural rights is species bound, so all members of a species will have the same rights. So the cut-off would be the ancestor that could not mate with current humans, provided that ancestor was not denied fertility.
DevinBigSeven 1 year ago
Very well spoken, Austrolibertarian!
ormnotme 1 year ago
Agreed. Rothbard is off the mark in his argument. I also made a vid about this chapter a little while ago: you can find it at: 'rothbard on animal rights bitbutter'
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter I mean you can find it by googling those terms heh!
bitbutter 1 year ago
Meh, "rights" is just a concept that lets arbitrary opinions seem objective.
"It's my opinion that people shouldn't kill other people, therefore it's every persons right to not be killed". Can't we just leave it at "it's my opinion"?
It's my opinion that we should be nice to animals. That doesn't grant them "rights"
Mastikator 1 year ago
@Mastikator
Not necessarily. You could simply just explicitly acknowledge that rights are human constructs. Thus they are not objective.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer What do you mean not objective just because it's a human construct? Cars are human constructs and they're pretty objective, right?
Mastikator 1 year ago
@Mastikator
I should've clarified "mental construct"
lol, i'm pretty sure you know what I meant since most people use it this way
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
Interesting video; I'm uploading a video response (which graphics!) to the Dawkins aspect of your video here.
qtronman 1 year ago
Not exactly earth shattering. Humans use animals as source of food. If we say animals have rights (not to mention morality or ethical system) we can not use them as such, because it would be murder. Which it is not. We use their meat to feed ourself - to survive.
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
My argument against animal rights would be that they don't protect human rights. Most humans protect human rights and the ones that don't lose their rights unless they have allot of power. I find it illogical to enforce rights without any benefits to humans while it is all at humanity's expense. The only animal I would find to have rights is bottle nose dolphins that routinely protect humans from sharks. I think you have it the other way around why should animals have rights?
evilcrabsitchalways 1 year ago
I love Rothbard, but the whole deontological natural rights stuff is crap.
TotalAnomy 1 year ago
Good job Austro! Very fair. I have been questioning Animal Rights since the 80's having not come up with an HONEST reason why animals should not have rights. The mentally handicapped human is the example I have been using for a long time. In the end, I think we just have to agree that it is purely arbitrary to make the "line of demarcation" between our species and others. Baboons care for baboons, and people care for people. That's about it.
BfSkinnerPunk 1 year ago
Yes, animals may well have "animal rights," but they do NOT have "human rights" -- for the obvious reason that they are a different species from ours.
herne 1 year ago
Get rid of all rights and morality in general. Problem solved.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
good stuff
theVAGINAntichrist 1 year ago