As Americans, we have inherited a certain expectation of equality under the law where no man/woman/president/policeman are neither above nor exempt from its rule. Also known as the ‘rule of law’, it has been a mentality that has dominated our courts, our legislatures, and our everyday lives as human beings. Granted, many laws of late pervert this by forcing Lady Justice to peak behind her veil and determine such things as an individual’s ethnicity for enforcing hate crime laws or even an individual’s socioeconomic status for enforcing income tax brackets. But in this example, we can assume that all human beings are equal under the law.

However, this very assumption begins to get muddled and quickly becomes ridiculous when it is applied to the “rights” of animals. Before one can delve into the subtleties of animal rights, a definition of a right is in order. It can be said that everyone has only one right: the right to do as they wish so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another person. Conversely, something cannot be claimed as a right if it obligates another person to accommodate it. Operating under this assumption, can animals enjoy these rights?

The fundamental problem of the concept of animal rights comes straight from the name itself: “animal rights”. Unlike the all too commonly heard equivalent phrase, “human rights”, the difference is that this classification expands these perceived “rights” to everything in the animal kingdom. What people need to realize when addressing animal rights is that we cannot apply the inherit blindness of the rule of law to animals as we do to humans. We cannot assume inalienable rights to all animals. Why? Animals are far different than humans and even other animals, and are therefore treated differently: tuna fish have different rights than dolphins, dogs and different rights than cows, and cats have different rights than rabbits. But this still begs the question: can animals even have rights? Can animals be abused because they are simply one’s property? No and No. The intention in which one owns property must come into play in this situation. If one intends to keep a dog as a pet, one cannot then slaughter it for food the next day. If one intends to keep chlorine tablets for their pool, one cannot then use them to create chlorine bombs the next day. Conversely, if one intends to keep a cow for slaughter, then it is justified. The mere fact we have the right to property should not extend to the improper handling of it, such as abusing animals.

© John Russell for UNR Students for Liberty, 2009.
Permalink | 4 comments

That is the goal of the Analog Dilemma series. It is so named for a variety of reasons: 1) it is an anagram of “diagonal lemma” which is near and dear to my heart as it establishes the existence of self-referential sentences, the heart of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. 2) these will all be dilemmas in the sense that there will be at least two mutually exclusive “correct” answers. 3) and the point of “analog”? Well even that has a few reasons: a) you find something better using “agonal” (and “go anal!” doesn’t count). b) analog means a variable that is continuous in time and amplitude for an engineer. As these problems are not just merely what’s wrong with the world “today” but rather, stretches back and forth through time in, I found it appropriate. c) analog means an concept, situation, etc that resembles a different concept, situation, etc in some way to a writer. While the world reflected in the looking glass of your computer screen in these weekly problems might look like something else, I’m not entirely sure what that may be. Coda: at the very least Analog Dilemma is analog of Diagonal Lemma, or is it?

Situation:

To your left you see your neighbor’s dog strapped to a chair. Nails through the paws, staples through loose skin. Eyelids cut away so the dog has to watch everything. Hammers, hachets, chisels, handsaws, all caked in fur and gore. You’ve never seen what a blow torch could do to flesh before now.

To your right you see your other neighbors and their dog. Trying to potty train it. Dog in hands outstreteched, urinating, while the couple tries to keep nature from calling indoors, you see them whack it on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. They say something stern, something like “no, not inside” they point toward the house, “outside” they point outside. “Bad dog.”

In front of you, you take a long look at the cattle ranch, it stretches to both sides of your periphery. As chance would have it, the ranchers are rounding up their cattle. They seem nice, the cattle and the ranchers, a nice bond. No harsh words, only gentle guiding. It seems though that these ranchers are guiding them to the processing plant. Nicely.

This seems a bit much, you head to the backyard. Turns out your neighbor behind you is out on his porch with his dog. His dog. Dog was born there and looks liable to die there. It never had to do a second of work its whole life, everything’s been provided to it by your neighbor. Loving guy that he is. Though you once knew, you are no longer certain that the look on the nearly-always sleeping dog isn’t a melange of contentment and resignation.

Questions:

Should any of this be legal? Are animals property? Are animals only property? Are animals more like little children or chairs? Can property have property rights? Do animals have any rights? Should viscious, disgusting, over-the-top, part-of-Dahmer’s-worst-nightmare torture be legally allowable? What about housebreaking? What’s the difference, where’s the line? If you can’t torture, why can you kill? What laws should be in place concerning animals? What is the point of law? To protect people? To limit suffering? Whose suffering? Are rights natural? And what are natural rights? Who gives and receives them? Who says? Do laws/rights apply to everyone? For instance, Americans could survive completely without using animals for meat, but many in the Third World could not, is it immoral/should it be illegal for some and not others? What about animal skin or fur? Should law be interpreted in context or must it be derivable from first principles?

These and many more questions can be asked and possibly even answered. Feel free to discuss them for yourselves.

© Barry Belmont for UNR Students for Liberty, 2009.
Permalink | No comment