Tibor R. Machan: The Myth of Animal Rights 1/5

[philnoll]

Why 30 dislikes? Whether you agree with the speaker or not, you should give a thumbs up to the user who uploaded this material and other lectures on animal rights.

[itchynights]

i don't need rights theory to know why killing a human is wrong.

same story for nonhuman animals.

this guy's as boring as regan.

[philnoll]

@itchynights Yeah, but you need rights theory if you're going to convince others that killing animals is wrong.

[itchynights]

@philnoll

i doubt that. peter singer has arguably done more for nonhuman animals than anyone else, ever, and he does not take a rights-based approach.

if you recognize a being can live a pleasurable life, there are certain actions that thereafter follow if you want to act morally. you don't need rights to respect sentience and sentient life.

[philnoll]

@itchynights So its Singer I should be listening to?

[itchynights]

@philnoll

i'm sure your own heart is fine :)

[Mike10four]

When using science to prove our unalienable Rights are from the Laws of Nature, it becomes clear these Rights apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems (see my channel video). Most realize the Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live

[ashcangrind]

A bug is an animal. An animal feels, so a bug feels. If there were a choice to kill a baby or a bug, which would be right? THE BUG. So everyone should stfu about animal rights. Animals should be considered, just like Singer says. But it's only up to that point which he is correct. Animals are not equal to human beings. Animals don't even know what the hell is going on. Animals should just be treated in a more human way (I'm referring to livestock) and that is all.

[DiogenesofMilwaukee]

@ashcangrind It is apparent you haven't read Singer because in the very beginning of Animal Liberation he addresses that point. Leaving that aside, I find it very amusing that you lump all non-humans into the same cognitive, physiological, and emotive realm of insects.Do you think a pig is more similar to a moth or human? What about a chimpanzee?Change your though experiment to a normal adult pig, or an irreversibly brain damaged infant whose cognitive capacities will never surpass a normal pig.

[cnt66]

This man must not really believe humans are are animals yet. If he did he would understand that there really is no "animals rights", per se. There is only the extension of rights for other animals besides ourselves. Animals that also feel pain. He also uses the word "consciousnes" as a quality only the human animal has. It is obvious by this video he is not as conscious as some other humans. So I say we take some of his rights away... Or better yet, let's just experiment on him.

[cnt66]

This man must not really believe humans are are animals yet. If he did he would understand that there really is no "animals rights", per se. There is only the extension of rights for other animals besides ourselves. Animals that also feel pain. He also uses the word "consciousnes" as a quality only the human animal has. It is obvious he is not as conscious as some. I say we take some of his rights away...

[whywontwe123]

i love animals and they are all my friends! anyone who hurts an animal will go to hell!

[CambridgeHeights]

@whywontwe123 Really?

[like2bonree]

Humans suffer too. In fact the whole world is suffering, 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[CambridgeHeights]

@like2bonree 2nd law of thermo has nothing to do with suffering. Quit that New Age bullshit you've been imbibing.

[tomheppy]

oh god not another moron...

[wwohlgem]

not so sure he's a moral agent

[jonathantosio]

The Utilitarian position in the Animal Rights is CERTAINLY NOT the only position within the movement.

[MookJa12]

Agreed, aren't arguments based on intrinsic rights more inline with a deontological approach in the end anywho?

[itsabomberscope]

Humans are animals. The only reason we can justify cruelty to animals, is because they cant talk back to us, by way of our intellectual development. In others words we are cruel because the other "animals" intellects can not fight back against us. A superior alien species could use that argument to kill us for food, on account of their superior minds

[royalcrown]

False. If the criterion for demanding moral treatment is that "they can talk back," then we can still decry our being mistreated by Martians. Conversely, animals are not capable of any form of language. Humans are unique in the sense that we can linguistically represent the world. That said, I would argue that the reason we can eat animals is not that they can't talk back, but that they have no moral accountability. How can you give animals rights if you can't punish them for their wrongs?

[itsabomberscope]

I dont you think you can apply a human concept of morals to animals, and just because they are animals blame them for having no moral accountability. I dont think thats a solid justification for eating them. Also I'm not quite sure its true that animals display no moral attributes, or language ability. They are clearly capable of suffering. I think the moral charge falls on us. Thanks.

[like2bonree]

Actually the human concept of morals IS what separates us from animals, not to mention critical thinking,ethics,imagination,et­c.

[Locrian08]

I watched the Orthorexia video. It has nothing to do with being vegan for moral reasons. It's about people who have obsessive compulsive disorder and fixate on eating healthy. Interestingly, a woman Stossel used as an early example ate chicken and fish (as seen on her spreadsheet tracking her diet). I've been vegan for 15 years and eat a wide variety of foods (including a lot of junk food and processed food). There's no necessary connection between being vegan and fixating on eating healthy.

[filmjunkie03]

This guy should work in a slaughter house before he says another word about the "non-existent" rights of animals. "the question is not can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer?" Bentham

[fromseedtoweed]

I think it's great that there's an opinon from this side of the coin, but this is way more stupid than I imagined... Veganism can't be beaten :)

Peace and Love to everyone.

[philotymology]

If I had this guy as a professor, I'd have to shoot myself. The monotony is physically painful.

[davfritz]

I think this guy is actualy a bit crazy. If he thinks his waffle realy establishes anything he is deluded at the very least. Mind you, he is sharpening his weopon.... the weopon of killing with boredom! Certainly his audience look pretty dead...

[beaelliott]

I quit! His style is torturous - I'm certain I disagree with him after the use of his term of viewing animals as "perspective nurishment". If you've got a problem saying the word *meat* or *flesh* because it's really what it is - and it's so awful... You can't argue a single step passed that. Thankfully the cause and arguments for Animal Rights are in much more capable hands and minds than this bozo - Go Vegan.

[dangeresque429]

@beaelliott "You can't argue a single step passed that." .... "that" being that animals are made of meat? That's not even an argument. This is one of the most anti-intellectual statements I've ever read. You basically just stated your belief and said that no one can ever argue against it. Real nice, bud.

[beaelliott]

@dangeresque429 ... No, what I said was since the speaker could not even name the "perspective nourishment" as what it is commonly called "meat" - That he lost all credibility. Of course anyone is free to argue their position, but if one lacks the courage to call a "thing by it's name" - Am I really obligated to be swayed? Or even to invest the time in the debate? The first rule with captivating your audience: Honesty... Which this speaker lacks to a pitiful degree.

[tmertube]

So what? Okay, animals don't have "Rights"; what's your point? Offer us something instead, don't be another useless philosopher.

[Locrian08]

For 25 years, the argument from marginal cases has been the primary challenge for those opposed to the notion of animal rights.

Yet Machan's remarks regarding the argument from marginal cases are confined to a few minutes of meandering comments declaring (not arguing) that the argument makes a category mistake, and a parrotted account of a family resemblences approach to meaning. He in no way establishes that his view of rights apply to 'marginal' humans who will never reach moral agency.

[socionomic]

Great point! Machan also has a book on this subject, and he does even less to address the argument from marginal cases in that text. In fact, he introduces and dismisses it in a single paragraph.

[atentso]

The book is simplistic and badly written. His reply to the marginal cases argument is very weak. On his view, only moral agents have natural rights. Now, a retarded human is not a moral agent, but it still falls into the same "category" the way "broken chair" falls into the category "chair." And what "category" is this? He's not very clear on that point. It would be logically contradictory to call the category "moral agent" if someone is not a moral agent. The category is Homo sapiens.

[socionomic]

You nailed it. It's strange that Machan is considered a serious opponent of animal rights when his critique is so superficial. Whatsmore, Jan Narveson (who appears to be an excellent philosopher) follows almost exactly the same line of argumentation as Machan!

[tomheppy]

i agree, narveson's ideas are seriouslu warped in that area and bring serious disrepute to his pol phil. honestly, there is no moral difference between a dog and a wall?

[tohidefromourways]

@tomheppy I think that saying an animal with a central nervous system is no different than an inanimate object is saddening and sick. I think you agree.

[portugalreis]

Animals should be treated and used to the benefit of the Human race, more especifically individual nations, if killing animals with crude machetes is cheaper than using electrucution then we should do it, you should go live in Ghana or Congo, and wen you are starving because your crops failed let's see if youl feel sorry for animals

[atentso]

All of the grain we waste on livestock could be used to feed people overseas.

[ColtBarrettUSA]

Yeah, it should...

Oh wait! It is, already; only there's one problem, though I doubt you care to know anything about it. The truth is that, in the US alone, our farmers produce enough grain, rice, wheat, and corn to feed the world easily. However, the world doesn't want it; you see, if we give all our excess food to poor nations, their farmers have no means to make money. They are finished, and their livelihood is destroyed. You should study economics, my friend.

[hectorflamebo]

that grain is a low, low quality grain, and as far as i know, it's grain you would not eat. Anyways, if the grain is yours, you do whatever you want with it.

The money you monthly spend on internet could be used to feed a children or two, right?

[atentso]

I'd also like to add that an overwhelming cause of famine in Africa isn't bad farming conditions. It's generally corrupt and indifferent leadership. Read "The Fate of Africa" by Martin Meredith. He explains the continent's problems quite lucidly.

[portugalreis]

The Catastrophicaly corrupt goverment's of post-colonial africa are also part of the problem, but even if the goverment is abel to deal with corruption, like in Kenya a few years of failed harvest's are enouth to plunge a whole region in to hunger, and let us not forget the future proxy wars that will keep happening in the continente, before it wase soviet supported communist millitias vs westren backed millitias, now it will be between american backed millitias vs chinesse backed millitias,

[atentso]

Well then...

I believe it's acceptable to eat meat in certain circumstances where human life is at stake. I also don't condemn impoverished people from using it as a food source when there is no other economic option available. But just because some people have to eat meat does not make it okay for everyone to eat meat. Someone might be forced into cannibalism, but that doesn't mean that just anyone can be a cannibal.

[atentso]

PS. Instead of saying "impoverished" I should have said "less aflluent." My mistake.

[socionomic]

I'm with you, atentso. It's illogical (and pretty condescending) to says that vegetarianism or veganism is a universal moral prescription. The case for avoiding meat is based on the availability of tasty and healthful alternatives. And portugalreis, I hope you'll admit that in the developed world many (perhaps most?) of us DO have affordable access to tasty and healthful alternatives.

[snarge]

You're assuming that the "rights" of the human are greater than the "rights" of the animal. Why are you making this distinction? Why wouldn't the rights of the animals be greater than the rights of the starving people? This is just speciesism. Sure, your example (starvation) Might be less common, but how is this really any different than what a normal meat eater does? You're making an unjustified distinction between the species (human life being more special) and so are they.

[RPenta]

Can you go live on another planet?

Can you take the Bush family and Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and Sean Hannity with you?

[ega1mann]

"rights are founded on the moral nature of human beings, specifically on their moral agency."

So I'll have some babies and retarded people for dinner, should be okay with that guy ^^

[snarge]

@ega1mann As long as they don't suffer in the process, Singer would be okay with that, right?

[illidan333]

An argument against this theory is to say that the human Well-being are more important than animals Well-being because they are Rational.

[DanielALomax]

What's meaningless about "animal guilt"? There's no categorical mistake there.

Singer doesn't use "right" in the Lockean sense; he simply uses it to mean, whatever "should" be done.

As Bentham said, the question is not "can they talk?" or "can they reason?"; it is "can they suffer?". You can espouse as much political theory as you like, but if you don't mind the intense suffering inflicting on animals, it is simply due to a lack of empathy.

[Makyui]

Animal suffering isn't a rights concern, though, but a welfare one. We can give animal welfare consideration without having to give them rights.

For that matter, animal welfare isn't automatically included in the concept of rights. "Animal rights" fully allows animal suffering, so long as it isn't at the hands of humans.

[DanielALomax]

I agree, but Machan is pretending he's dispelling Singer's theory; he's not. He's just missing the point of it. People like Machan are just looking for excuses to abuse animals, because it makes life easier for themselves. It doesn't matter whether an individual can comply to the social contract; making that individual suffer is cruel nonetheless.

[snarge]

@DanielALomax Then why aren't you calling for the police to stop animals from killing other animals? The animals that kill may not be doing something immoral by killing, but according to Singer's theory (based on the amount of pain something receives) aren't we immoral by allowing animals to brutally torture and kill other animals? And if the animal absolutely can't live without meat, wouldn't it be more moral to exterminate the species entirely (painlessly, of course)?

[DorianGrayism]

@snarge

"aren't we immoral by allowing animals to brutally torture and kill other animals? And if the animal absolutely can't live without meat, wouldn't it be more moral to exterminate the species entirely (painlessly, of course)?"

That is an interesting point. I had never thought about it that way.

[utubephilosopher]

Once again, Thanks man.

[rainerebert]

You are welcome!