Comments on: Animal Rights

By: Is/Ought and the Objective Morality of Property – Anarcholife

Is/Ought and the Objective Morality of Property – Anarcholife — Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:31:57 +0000

[…] Morality is a human phenomenon, to the extent that we can know, because we are the only species that can communicate the ideas of morality to us. It isn’t a fact of nature, but a fact of human nature. Morality exists, to the extent that we know, to humans only and human morality is the only morality that we can know. It is not a phenomenon of the physical world, like gravity, that applies to all things, but of our genetic coding (I know, DNA is actually a physical thing, but you get the point), that applies only to us. Because all species have different, or at least, unknowable levels of propertarianism, and objective morality stems from property, inter-species rights can not exist. […]

By: Unknown

Unknown — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:48:19 +0000

Okay. I see your point.

By: zrated

zrated — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:27:24 +0000

the turtle could have been made my property, if i wanted it. the whole point is that there are no rights between species. there's no ethical problem with one species initiating force against another species.

rights are purely intraspecies. humans cannot initiate force against other humans. i'm not sure that rights of property work the same way or at all with non-human animals, but humans need not worry about that.

rights, as we know them, are a purely human phenomenon and can only be ascribed to humans.

By: Unknown

Unknown — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:07:18 +0000

Yeeeaaah, I'm struggling with this one. I'm all about disclaimers. But, was the turtle your property to move out of the road? You interfered with nature when you moved the turle out of the road. Did you not initiate force? Interception. You, being a turtle's natural enemy, intercepted in an attempt to hinder or prevent it from carrying out it's mission.

By: zrated

zrated — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:45:32 +0000

ostracism, as you say, would be useful, but the difference is that child abuse is a violation of the person and property of others, namely the child. in that case, it would be the same as any other crime against any person, the fact that the victim is a child is more or less irrelevant.

in any case where a person's rights are violated, there is claim against the property of the offender. in other words, there is a justification for the use of force against the offender, because he has initiated force against his victim.

this post argues that there are no inter-species rights, but that argument is made in support of rights between humans, which, of course, includes children.

By: Unknown

Unknown — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:55:02 +0000

Child abuse is also an unacceptable form of social behavior.

Would you say the proper way to deal with offenders is to alert the public and have them ostracized? For example, to have sex offenders register after the crime has been committed? Or provide an online website like familywatchdog.us? Both are examples of ostracizing and demonizing which claims to give knowledge to the public but also creates panic and fear. However, The usual ploy of a parent or guardian (offender) when being called out on something is to pick up and move and move again. I've seen it too many times to count. It's a continuous cycle. Ostracizing and demonizing may be useful, but it is ambiguous and only a lateral shift.