In Defence of Ayn Rand #8: "nor sacrifice others"

[LiberatedPrometheus]

Hi johnnowak. I know your comment is 4 months ago and was directed at Paul, but I'd like to share my input, as I've been thinking of this idea recently. It'll be a little long, so I hope you don't mind.

I'm generally fond of animals,but I've come to the conclusion that the government is not justified in making laws to protect the lives of non-human animals, as such, within the Objectivist philosophy. My reasons for this are as follows in the next comment:

[LiberatedPrometheus]

(continued, pt 1)

Rights are moral principles, and morality is only possible to a conceptual consciousness. A conceptual consciousness is an attribute distinctive to man; therefore, rights are only possible and applicable to man.

Specifically, they identify the requirements of man's survival in a social context. If this is true, then their inapplicability to other organisms is obvious: the requirements for man's life is not the same as that of a jellyfish's, and vice-versa

[LiberatedPrometheus]

(continued, pt 2)

And  whether or not an organism experiences pain is irrelevant to the issue; man doesn't have these rights because he feels pain, he has them because they identify actions he needs to take in order to survive.

So, while I think a person abusing their animals for irrational reasons is abominable, it doesn't look like the government is justified in creating laws to prevent it as such. But...

[LiberatedPrometheus]

Note: I meant, above, to say "in order to survive --among other men--.".

(Continued, pt 3)

I think I've thought of a way individuals can protect their animals without undermining the government's purpose or violating others' rights. That's through the use of contracts..

[LiberatedPrometheus]

(continued, pt 4)

I think citizens could create organizations specializing in the breeding, raising, caring, and selling of animals as pets. This organization could then create a legal contract that includes objective criteria for the proper care of a given animal for a given amount of time (including the animal's lifespan), with recourse to legal action if violations of this criteria are found, to which the consumer must agree before buying an animal from the organization.

[LiberatedPrometheus]

(continued, pt 5)

Then, if evidence is found to show that the consumer is violating the terms of the contract, the government can step in. It seems like this method could help reduce animal abuse legimitately, as enforcing this would be a case of defending the property rights of the animal organization.

This could be a "free market" solution to the problem, which I certainly think is possible within the Objectivist philosophy...

[LiberatedPrometheus]

(continued, pt 6)

It'd be difficult to organize, and like any other business, it'd have to acquire the ability to take a majority of the market to be very effective, but it could work. There's enough support for animals to create such a market and, unlike other "pro-animal" activities, this wouldn't involve violating the rights of man.

Those are my thoughts on the issue; feel free to correct me if you think I'm mistaken. Sorry to take up so much space, but I wanted to share the idea.

[olvew]

Good commentary. I very much agree.

[LiberatedPrometheus]

Nice video.

[PaulMcKeever]

johnnowak: you ask a good question, and it has come up before at all-candidates meetings during elections. I cannot say that I have a well-thought-out philosophical response at this point. I can only say that there must be something seriously wrong with the mind of a person who causes an animal to suffer pain without a rational purpose (e.g., such purposes as: slaughtering animals for food, controlling violent or destructive actions by animals, medical research).

[fortunatus]

Soilent green is people!

[Sw33tLiberty]

Hey, thanks for this response. I think people watching this probably think I'm either an Ayn Rand critic of some sort or new to Objectivism. But that's not true. I have read Virtue of Selfishness and most of her other works, and I agree. I just had a problem with the way the argument was formulated in that particular article. Thanks for the response though- I love your videos!

[PaulMcKeever]

Hi SL: I'm enjoying your videos too. I also think it was a great idea to split your channel into 3, as you did. They're all good, but a good argument is quite different from a great dance routine. Cheers.  P.

[PaulMcKeever]

Thanks, all, for your kind words.

[aaron0883]

Out of all the videos I have seen ... yours are my favorite. Spectacular. Keep em rolling along

[marneedear]

Whoa, the article wasnt written by Rand? No wonder it was confusing. I thought it sounded familiar so I assumed it was Rand but I wasnt getting the whole picture. Glad to see this cleared up.

Cheers.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

Hmm, how are we sacrificing animals and plants to ourselves(our value is higher)? I"m still new to Objectivism, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

That is phrased wrong, to me it seems any sort of sacrifice is immoral by her concept. What do you mean by sacrificing an animal or plant to a human?

[PaulMcKeever]

Most generally, I suppose, sacrifice is something which harms or ends life. If I chop down a tree to build a house, I sacrifice the tree unto myself. However, the tree is not an "other" to which Rand was referring when she said that it is wrong to sacrifice others unto oneself: she meant other human beings' lives, liberty or property.

[blujesus]

"However, the tree is not an "other" to which Rand was referring when she said that it is wrong to sacrifice others unto oneself: she meant other human beings' lives, liberty or property."

how about sacrificing "others" -as in innocent iraqi lives? (you know, the people YOU don't seem to have a problem sacrificing) maybe you don't see them as "human"?

[PaulMcKeever]

The question is not whether to sacrifice humans, but WHO did the sacrificing. If the sacrifice was the result of terrorists using innocent people as human shields, the terrorists are the people doing the sacrificing, not those who are trying to take out the terrorists.

[PaulMcKeever]

BTW: A really good starting point for people who are new to objectivism is "The Objectivist Ethics", which is an essay in Rand's book, "The Virtue of Selfishness". Cheers, PM.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

I have "virtue of selfishness"(havn't read the whole thing yet). Cutting down a tree to build a house does not seem like a sacrifice to me, because the house has a higher value to one's self than the tree. I think it's more than just to other humans, it seems to apply to our decisions.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

Maybe my view of other life forms is different. I will have to get "The Objectvist Ethics", but I have many books I'm reading atm. I plan to read all her stuff. So far Objectivism has helped me enforce my philosophy and correct mistakes. I very much appreciate your videos, and I'm just trying to understand.

[PaulMcKeever]

I believe in billions of creators, each a human individual.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

Hah, nice :) .

[marneedear]

Awesome!

[Aynology]

Recognition, - ( !fAynally! )

[ProudAmerican8]

5 stars...do u believe in a Creator?