Your superhero analogy is entertaining 😆 now, I want to read a science fiction story with that premise.
Even if animals don't have a concept of property rights as such (meaning through contract law), they definitely have a sense of property, and a desiref to defend and utilize their property toward higher ends. Most human affairs are not explicitly contract-based (mediated by a large body of common law), either, historically or in the present. That's a specific artifact/innovation of post-Westphalian culture.
I even question your claim that animals don't know how to enter property agreements. Wolves that occupy the same biome carve out specific hunting grounds for their clans, and learn not to cross into other territories. Hornets (somtimes wasps, too) and bees are notoriously known for getting into death matches over hive space and food.
Also, humans are not the only ones who engage in cruelty toward lesser beings. Orcas are known for toying with their prey, or even killing for fun without eating their victims.
As we learn more and more about the detailed & particular nature of intelligence, sentience, and sapience—the minutae of which will only be further exposed as the age of computation races forward—it will become more & more difficult to conceive of a comprehensive moral paradigm that encompasses all human behavior toward other humans, let alone animals, or non-human entities; and vice-versa.
None of our moral intutions are calibrated toward the present, in which we have ancient evolutionary software running alongside ridiculously fine-tuned control over both our own natures and the larger environment, both embedded in a network of instant global communication.
I certainly agree with you that torturing bugs seems wrong, but it is impossible to parse out whether that's primarily because, (1) I'm a sensitive individual, (2) I spent thirty years as a committed vegetarian on religious (dharmic) grounds, or (3) I've grown up in a society that teaches & values mercy toward the weak as a moral good.
Say I defined "contract" as "an agreement between two or more parties, that can count on enforcement from external parties (non-signatories of the agreement)". Contracts by this definition seem pretty unique to humans, and also near universal among them. Even in stateless societies you can alert your fellow tribesmen about someone that broke an agreement between the two of you, and that person will face at least social ostracism.
Say I also distinguish between "possession" and "property" in a similar manner. Where the former is mere control over something, and the latter is a situation where I can count on third parties to enforce my claim on the thing. For example: If I stole the Mona Lisa, it's in my possession, but it wouldn't be my property. Humans have property, but it seems as if animals only know possession.
1. Animals don’t have rights because rights are a product of duties. They have no duties to us or other animals; therefore, they don’t have rights from us or any animal.
2. If animals are our moral equivalents, then they don’t have rights since no animal has rights from any animal. If we are morally superior to animals, then animals don’t have rights from us because they are morally inferior.
Animals don’t have rights no matter how you slice it.
Came here to say the same thing. Animals *absolutely* have a sense of property, and get into constant territorial squabbles. Birds chase off other birds from their tree. Every dog on earth knows precisely the boundaries of its home, and flips out barking his ass off if sees another dog or intruder near the border. Hell, my dog has a beef and hatred with another dog that lives a few blocks away, such that they can't both walk on the same block bc they mutually flip out upon sight of each other, yet that dog specifically makes sure to poop on the sidewalk in front of our house and our house only, just because he hates my dog so much (the owner picks it up so nbd, but it nevertheless entertains me that this dog purposely does this). And forget about what happens if one dog or cat finds the other in "his" bed or favorite spot.
I would also say that at least some animals have a sense of a contract that can't be enforced by a third party. At least, I live with both dogs and cats, and they have somewhat of a mutual enmity or at least would prefer the other isn't there, but they have mutually agreed to leave each other alone, and can be trusted to do so even though they would ideally like to harass each other and steal each other's food, because they understand that I will be enforcing said contract and that they're all getting in trouble for breach.
They are prima facie absurd. Rights for (non-human and non-person) animals (call them all “beasts”, here including “bugs”) is a category mistake: it’s like calling a beast’s territory its “property” (an inherently legal concept). But the fact that beasts don’t have rights, doesn’t mean that morality can’t apply to them. It’s just that libertarianism in its moralised form (it has a positive content that need not be moralised) is not the whole of morality. In this case, many people—including libertarians—would accept that gratuitous cruelty to sentient beings is immoral. However, this standard is more or less only breached if one’s overall treatment of a beast unnecessarily causes it to experience overall negative utility: its life has more suffering than enjoyment. Not a very high bar. The most libertarian way to deal with this issue is possibly also the most efficient: propagandistic persuasion and market choices (boycotting, private-property rules, etc.). All that said, it’s not clear that “bugs” can even experience pain as they have no nociceptors.
Are rights for Hottentots also a category mistake?
Also, most human interactions with birds and mammals result in negative utility for the animal because most of that interaction takes place on factory farms.
Rights are the things one needs in order to exercise his responsibilities. No responsibilities? No rights. That means there is no right to life for anyone, including for innocent life, but there is the responsibility to protect innocent life, which reverses the conversation. I realize that's almost completely backward to how we look at things today, but that seems to me to be the line of argumentation we should be pursuing.
Your superhero analogy is entertaining 😆 now, I want to read a science fiction story with that premise.
Even if animals don't have a concept of property rights as such (meaning through contract law), they definitely have a sense of property, and a desiref to defend and utilize their property toward higher ends. Most human affairs are not explicitly contract-based (mediated by a large body of common law), either, historically or in the present. That's a specific artifact/innovation of post-Westphalian culture.
I even question your claim that animals don't know how to enter property agreements. Wolves that occupy the same biome carve out specific hunting grounds for their clans, and learn not to cross into other territories. Hornets (somtimes wasps, too) and bees are notoriously known for getting into death matches over hive space and food.
https://www.voyageurswolfproject.org/about-the-project
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240206-the-bees-learning-to-fight-off-invasive-hornets
Also, humans are not the only ones who engage in cruelty toward lesser beings. Orcas are known for toying with their prey, or even killing for fun without eating their victims.
https://www.livescience.com/63622-orca-spins-sea-turtle.html
As we learn more and more about the detailed & particular nature of intelligence, sentience, and sapience—the minutae of which will only be further exposed as the age of computation races forward—it will become more & more difficult to conceive of a comprehensive moral paradigm that encompasses all human behavior toward other humans, let alone animals, or non-human entities; and vice-versa.
None of our moral intutions are calibrated toward the present, in which we have ancient evolutionary software running alongside ridiculously fine-tuned control over both our own natures and the larger environment, both embedded in a network of instant global communication.
I certainly agree with you that torturing bugs seems wrong, but it is impossible to parse out whether that's primarily because, (1) I'm a sensitive individual, (2) I spent thirty years as a committed vegetarian on religious (dharmic) grounds, or (3) I've grown up in a society that teaches & values mercy toward the weak as a moral good.
Say I defined "contract" as "an agreement between two or more parties, that can count on enforcement from external parties (non-signatories of the agreement)". Contracts by this definition seem pretty unique to humans, and also near universal among them. Even in stateless societies you can alert your fellow tribesmen about someone that broke an agreement between the two of you, and that person will face at least social ostracism.
Say I also distinguish between "possession" and "property" in a similar manner. Where the former is mere control over something, and the latter is a situation where I can count on third parties to enforce my claim on the thing. For example: If I stole the Mona Lisa, it's in my possession, but it wouldn't be my property. Humans have property, but it seems as if animals only know possession.
1. Animals don’t have rights because rights are a product of duties. They have no duties to us or other animals; therefore, they don’t have rights from us or any animal.
2. If animals are our moral equivalents, then they don’t have rights since no animal has rights from any animal. If we are morally superior to animals, then animals don’t have rights from us because they are morally inferior.
Animals don’t have rights no matter how you slice it.
Came here to say the same thing. Animals *absolutely* have a sense of property, and get into constant territorial squabbles. Birds chase off other birds from their tree. Every dog on earth knows precisely the boundaries of its home, and flips out barking his ass off if sees another dog or intruder near the border. Hell, my dog has a beef and hatred with another dog that lives a few blocks away, such that they can't both walk on the same block bc they mutually flip out upon sight of each other, yet that dog specifically makes sure to poop on the sidewalk in front of our house and our house only, just because he hates my dog so much (the owner picks it up so nbd, but it nevertheless entertains me that this dog purposely does this). And forget about what happens if one dog or cat finds the other in "his" bed or favorite spot.
I would also say that at least some animals have a sense of a contract that can't be enforced by a third party. At least, I live with both dogs and cats, and they have somewhat of a mutual enmity or at least would prefer the other isn't there, but they have mutually agreed to leave each other alone, and can be trusted to do so even though they would ideally like to harass each other and steal each other's food, because they understand that I will be enforcing said contract and that they're all getting in trouble for breach.
*CAN be enforced
“Bug Rights are not prima facie absurd”
They are prima facie absurd. Rights for (non-human and non-person) animals (call them all “beasts”, here including “bugs”) is a category mistake: it’s like calling a beast’s territory its “property” (an inherently legal concept). But the fact that beasts don’t have rights, doesn’t mean that morality can’t apply to them. It’s just that libertarianism in its moralised form (it has a positive content that need not be moralised) is not the whole of morality. In this case, many people—including libertarians—would accept that gratuitous cruelty to sentient beings is immoral. However, this standard is more or less only breached if one’s overall treatment of a beast unnecessarily causes it to experience overall negative utility: its life has more suffering than enjoyment. Not a very high bar. The most libertarian way to deal with this issue is possibly also the most efficient: propagandistic persuasion and market choices (boycotting, private-property rules, etc.). All that said, it’s not clear that “bugs” can even experience pain as they have no nociceptors.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/animal-rights-and-animal-welfare
Are rights for Hottentots also a category mistake?
Also, most human interactions with birds and mammals result in negative utility for the animal because most of that interaction takes place on factory farms.
As the Khoekhoe are human persons they have moral rights.
It is not clear that all factory farms are worse for the animals than never existing. But where they are, that should be improved.
Rights are the things one needs in order to exercise his responsibilities. No responsibilities? No rights. That means there is no right to life for anyone, including for innocent life, but there is the responsibility to protect innocent life, which reverses the conversation. I realize that's almost completely backward to how we look at things today, but that seems to me to be the line of argumentation we should be pursuing.
I'm just arguing that all sentient creatures including animals and bugs have at least some moral status.
You can reframe any moral intuition as “physical revulsion.” That’s not an argument against objective morality.