libertarian take on rightist and utilitarian morality

A consistent anarchist would, I think, favour rights and reject utility.

Good, because when pushed to their logical conclusion mean the abolition both of property and of such exploitations as wage labour. Nozick and the others were though I think blatant hypocrites, only personally advocating those arguments because they were convenient to capitalist propaganda at the time, rather than through any genuine commitment to human rights or liberty. They were deploying rights based arguments in a cynically utilitarian way - the ends justified the means.

That, in its absolute form, it is abhorrent, inhuman, monstrous. That said, whilst I reject Peter Singers avowed utilitarian base I identify with the rest of his thought - his final arguments - much more than I do with any other philosopher. Singer is the great philosopher-partisan of socialism, despite his (supposed) utilitarianism.

my problem with "rights" is that they are contingent on other people providing them to me (this seems counter to the quotation you have which places rights in the individualist tendency).

when i am talking to my friends about what i want or expect, i am not talking about what i deserve, but what i hope for, what i will fight/negotiate for.

the idea that i "deserve" something from some amorphous pre-existent body has all kinds of implications that i reject.

i guess i also just don't like using the same language that the left uses. too confusing.

similar issue with morality (i believe it is associated with religion) i.e. imposed from without - generalized vs. situation-specific...

just my take.

Indeed, dot, 'rights' are something that are guaranteed by authority, e.g. a state. No consistent anarchist/lib com would support a rights based philosophy -- although many of us support campaigns for certain rights, e.g. housing, helath and safety, etc as a short term tactic.

If 'rights' are given by an authority, then what we are looking for instead is a system whereby people's freedom is guaranteed by social solidarity, mutual respect, mutual aid and inter-dependence.

So I think it's possibly to apply a similar argument towards animal liberation. I don't want to give animals 'rights', I want to act in their interest because I am moved by sympathy for their pain. This is therefore a respect-based philosphy.

I'm sure someone will come along in a bit and say that animals can't be part of a system of solidarity and mutual aid, but IMO wild animals are part of a mutually supprtive eco-system, and we depend on their free existence for our own.

And what about dophins helping people, eh? 8)

Basically, the work I do for animals comes from my own motivation, and my own desires (including my desire to not have animals in pain) rather than from some kind of adherance to a law of rights that stands over me.

Same for the rest of the non-human world. I don't think anyone here would disagree that ecology is essential to an understanding of the world and that the ecosystem/ecosystems needs to be protected in order for humans to survive adequately (apart from cantdo, and maybe Jack). Identifying specific animals outside of this analysis doesn't necessarily help much.

Well, if we're still talking about wild creatures, then yes, specific creatures are part of this. If we're talking about domesticated animals, then their exploitation disrupts the eco-system (huge tonnes of shite, etc) and there's also the argument about sympathy with suffering.

Yes, some individual species are important, individual animals I don't think warrant lots of time spent on them except on a personal level - and the RSPCA and other organisations do that, but species yes.

This doesn't excuse AR activists concentrating on guinea pigs or beagles to the exclusion of flood plains in Louisiana or their equivalent. Hackney Marsh for example doesn't have any endangered species on it, but it'll be concrete during the olympics, and probably for some time afterwards - it's probably fairly important for flood prevention on the Lea River as well, what with massive reservoirs upstream.

The overall survival of certain species, humans included, depends on a general ecological approach - unless they're going to be extinct outside of captivity. Animal Rights outside of a general ecological approach (much like socialism which ignores ecology), doesn't mean much.

Yes, I agree -- AR activity focuses far too much on 'cute' creatures at the expense of other mass animal killings/suffering due to habitat loss and factory farming.

Unfortunately it's got a strong tradition of 'help the fluffy animals' in it. The guinea pigs question was also because breeding animals for torture is a particularly nasty branch of animal abuse -- people tend to concentrate on extreme case. Compare the way that leftists do work on sweatshops in Indinesia, but do nothing about the people in their local supermarkets.

Hi

It’s best to adopt a value system that favours the maximisation of your authentic leisure. Striving for a state of complete relaxation and pleasure is the primary evolutionary imperative. The point of ethics is to express your value system through behaviour.

It’s difficult to relax in a hostile environment, so a viable system of ethics must take into account the best interests of the species as a whole. Flagrant disregard for humanity’s aggregated desires severely increases the risk of the human evolutionary process removing you as a liability.

The point of politics is to develop a social configuration that is compatible with your ethics. However, each to their own, anyone who exhibits friendly behaviour is cool. Whether they reach that position by utilitarianism, by gifting me rights or through religious devotion doesn’t matter. Just as long as their actions mitigate risks to my happiness rather than exacerbate them, all is well.

Love

LR

Inhuman, Monstrous

Oh come on - "breeding for torture", particularly hysterical and emotive wording there laz. I thought better of you than that.

*shakes head*

Do you want to put forward a corrected version of what the GPs were being bred for?

Medical testing might be more accurate?

Only if it didn't involve torture at all, and was just recording the guinea pig's opinions on what taste cough syrup they liked.

'tis almost as stupid yes.

You try to act all primmo, but your reasonable self comes through in the end woodbine.

Hi

Is it possible to be a “on our side” but still enjoy hurting animals for fun? How far do you have to stray morally before being excommunicated? Is having a flutter on the horses OK?

Chris

chris, what/who are you responding to?

are you thinking of morality as what causes people to act appropriately?

Why? I disagree - here's a fovourite bit of Malatesta of mine:

Hi

The notion that hurting animals for entertainment may be bad, cleverly woven in with gambling's taboo status.

Not as a headline issue. I think the total utility derived from animal welfare is currently well above its cost. Overall I encourage it. I think as a species the sense of well being we gain from acts of inter-species compassion balances the unpleasantness of letting animal rights advocates partially implement their agenda.

Love

Chris

Rights are not given by authority, are not contingent on other people providing them to you. Your rights, and the rights of others, are what you hope/fight for.

No one will argue against the "good of mankind" as such, except that it has the defect of being an amorphous concept, subject to interpretation. Break it down more precisely and you end up with rights.

but rights imply a higher authority, you appeal about your rights.

I hate human rights shit because it means nothing in reality. It also reinforces bourgeois notions of the self contained individual.

As for utilitarianism well thats just capitalism in an ethical form really, an account book morality, and taken to it's logical ends it becomes a pleasure accumulator, like the thrifty capitalist who never spends anything he accumulates.

Ultimately ethics are produced via human interaction and communication. I find myself drawn to Habermas communicative model.

Sorry, I meant to say "Jack when he's being a contrarian", or similar, but the last five words never made it into the post. I wonder about cantdo though - liquid burgers for example, errgh.

Chomsky has, he is a proponent in particular of von Humboldt.

For some people maybe that is the case, But not, I think, for many. Apologists of capitalism might be the exceptions, at least if your take their arguments as sincere.

For me, the enforcer of my rights is:- myself, no one else, and certainly not the state. As well as having rights, I believe people have a duty to protect both their own rights and those of others. So you have a right to life, liberty, for example; but also a duty to protect your own life and liberty; and, going further, a duty to protect the lives and liberties of others. No state, no external body, just you.

but how can you have a duty to youself?

Hi

You can have a duty to yourself. What about your health?

I share most of your appraisal of "rights", revol68.

Love

Chris

yeah but it's not a duty. A duty is something you have to do outside of your own feelings and choice.

If you reduce duty down to self defined self interest then you should just drop it.

Hi

Fair enough.

Love

Chris

this just doesn't work for me.

i don't have a duty to some generalized group to protect them in any way. my life is better when i am part of a group of people that is looking out for each other, but part of that "looking out" is absolutely NOT taking things for granted (like, what if i have a friend who is making a clear-headed decision - to the extent that her friends are able to judge - to kill herself? or a friend who is happiest in a relationship in which i think he is treated like shit?) this stuff has to be contextual. and this is one of the problems of "rights."

the point of the word is to gloss over subtleties, to mass-ify and generalize.

you making it a thing about it being up to you to enforce your rights is pretty much a semantic point - not addressing the idea of "rights" as ahistorical, and externally defined.

I don’t suppose you can. But I think you have a duty to others to take reasonable efforts to defend your rights before/in parallel with expecting them to come to your aid. For example, a trade union member should be expected to attempt to resolve many types of issues themselves before seeking assistance from fellow members. So: “I am in under serious threat which requires joint action from the rest of you to save” would be fair enough, but: “Go and find out what my holiday entitlement is, because I can’t be bothered getting off my fat arse to ask HR, so you go and do it for me.” would not.

If liberty was chosen as the fundamental right, or at least as a fundamental right, then people would have the right to commit suicide and choose their own relationships. Absolute utilitarianism in contrast would allow society to intervene in relationships if doing so would increase the general happiness level. Puts me off utilitarianism.

Ethical rules I think are, almost by definition, going to be general, not specific; and for the masses, if people are to live by them. Utilitarianism is even more generalised than rights based moralities. A third alternative is to reject formal ethical systems altogether, let your conscience be your guide in each instance.

Yes I think a lot of this forum may be a difference over the meanings of rights we’re using rather than real difference.

Yes rights are defined, but not (ideally) by external agents, may be by the community. I haven’t thought through how rights would be ahistorical.

Are not morals value judgements inferred or dictated by an outside third party? Church, state, family?

Are not ethics a personal, subjective value judgement arrived at relatively by the individual?

Are not rights the fundamental constituent of identity politics, implying something that can be conferred or removed, thus dictating the political juxtaposition of individuals and their relation to each other, capital and the state?

Is not the fact that you may or may not have a right to do or have something immaterial in an unmediated anarchist relationship?

Ultimately, codifying certain concepts as universal rights smacks of an ideology, which can of course then be manipulated and applied as a form of social control.

Applying what your common-sense and consciense advise you in any given situation would seem to be the ideal solution, although, unfortunately, in a society increasingly based upon the delegation of responsibility and thought of action to a third (usually institutional) party, most people require some kind of framework with which to relate their personal value judgements to.(including me sometimes-i'm not trying to be elitist!)

To believe in rights is to believe in liberty as a multiplicity, as a matrix containing said rights, with the more rights conferred on or taken by the individual or group determining the level of liberty attained.

They can be seen as a kind of negative liberty(you can be free only if you exercise the rights currently perceived as either 'just' or beneficial to society). They are also based upon a discourse ranging from the moral absolutism of the Church back in the day right up to civil rights, gay rights, womens' rights, all of which compound the necessity of capitalism to break things up and repackage them as roles.

In short rights are shite - word!