Freedomain Radio

I don't understand how one can say that UPB magically applies to only humans and not other animals. To me, that seems to be pretty close to saying that UPB applies to whites but not blacks. If a retarded human is just as intelligent as a chimpanzee, then why is the retarded human granted rights but the chimpanzee isn't? Shouldn't UPB at least have a say on how it is universally preferred to treat sentient life forms of lesser intelligence?

 A member of this board said he will discuss the none agression principal with a white shark. We are still waiting for his news to answers your question.

So because an animal cannot speak english means that it has the same moral value as a rock?

UPB is not a moral theory, rather it validates (or invalidates) moral theories.

If you would like to suggest some moral theories which pertain to animals, please feel free.

Howzabout . . . "murdering animals is wrong." . . . ?

JacobSpinney:

Howzabout . . . "murdering animals is wrong." . . . ?

Page 91 of UPB discusses something very similar to what you are asking. Did you read the book and forget this section or have you not read the book?

Thanks for the reference. I don't remember listening to this part in the audiobook. But upon looking it up, the examination seems rather brief. I like how Stefan brings up the fact that if avoidability is impossible, there can be no morality. But avoidability IS possible with humans at least. We have no biological requirement to eat animals in order to live or even to be perfectly healthy.

Surely more moral value should be placed on sentient life forms over non-sentient. Thus can it not be said that sustenance gained from non-sentient life is universally preferable to sustenance gained from the murder of sentient life?

I agree with you. 

Animals that do follow the non-aggression principle should have their life respected.  The ones that do not, obviously have made their decision.  However, simply eating something cannot be immoral.

 I have struggled with this issue for a while.

I've been vegetarian on/off for most of my teenage years because I can't quite put it to rest in my mind.

 Animal torture/killing as a child is a well known indicator of severe sociopathic behavior in adulthood, yet we pay people to kill animals so that we can eat them... ? ? ? also I am pretty sure that 99.9% of people would feel horror and revulsion at the thought of killing an animal themself. the "survival" argument would make sense, prehaps if we were still hunter-gatherers who had to travel long distances for poorly nutritious food, but this is not the case anymore. "They're different from people" is also not a very strong argument I think.

JacobSpinney:

So because an animal cannot speak english means that it has the same moral value as a rock?

Animals do not speak at all. And a rock is not nutritious and delicious.

i bet you're pretty tasty Ricky.

Nojus Arturas Namajunas:

I agree with you. 

 

Animals that do follow the non-aggression principle should have their life respected.  The ones that do not, obviously have made their decision.  However, simply eating something cannot be immoral.

Does this meen the non-aggression principle only applies to people that respect it themselves? Also, is it therefore moral to eat a human?

Animals that do follow the non-aggression principle should have their life respected.  The ones that do not, obviously have made their decision.

Nojus, I know you are a smart guy but this thesis falls apart really quickly under scrutiny. Just think about the application of what you're talking about here. It might 'feel good' but it does not function. I'm not sure why you would assume animals are moral agents to begin with.

If you want to show an example of how this theory would work I'm sure it would lead to greater understanding.

If you claim the moral right to kill anyone who hunts or traps wild animals in unclaimed territory, I await your crusade into the lands of indigenous people around the world.

If you want to protect animals set up a nature preserve, OK?

PS. If readers are confused there are previous threads where this is discussed in greater detail.

If a dog kills another dog should we lock the dog up in jail? Should we fine a wolf for trespassing on another wolfs territory?