Free will [was: Canine combustion [was: God, man and morality]]

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Sun, 2013-01-13 20:01

How great are his signs,
    how mighty his wonders!

His dominion is an eternal dominion;
    his kingdom endures from generation to generation.
All the peoples of the earth
    are regarded as nothing.
He does as he pleases
    with the powers of heaven
    and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
    or say to him: “What have you done?”

Book of Daniel (NIV)

[Cross-posted from Eternal Vigilance.]


( categories: )

ergo...

Damien Grant's picture

So what stops me from sayyyy stalking Damien and breaking his legs? And what stops me from hunting Richard down and snapping his neck Or raping Rosie? Is it fear of getting caught? I have no fear. Is it fear of being killed? I am not afraid to die. What stops me from stealing, robbing, blowing up buildings and in general being enemy #1 to society? Could it possibly be because I have morals?

You do not do these things because your DNA and the influences upon you since your conception give you a bias against committing such acts. It is not your 'free will'. There is no such thing. You are a product of your DNA, which you cannot control, and you are a product of everything that has happened to you up until this instant, none of which you can now control.

If you face a decision, to eat an apple or not to eat an apple. If I was omniscient, knowing everything about your DNA and everything in your body, every molecule and how they all interact, I could predict (quantum theory notwithstanding) what decision you will make.

 ergo: no free will. 

 

Morality is a theoretical construct that humans have devised to help us regulate our behaviour. Unlike gravity, it is not a naturally occurring thing in the universe, it is the product of human thought. This does not invalidate it, indeed I think it elevates it. It is the product of the most incredibly rare element in the universe; reason. You can have objective morality, actions can be good or bad, but that does not mean that you have free will in deciding which path you will choose.

A person may live a moral life in the same way they live a productive life, morality and productivity are objective truths, but the decisions that lead to those lives being lead are driven by forces outside free will.

obligation

Damien Grant's picture

The obligation lies with the moral agent burning the puppy. If symmetry is right, the moral right not be be burnt by a moral agent lies with the puppy.

Using Richard G's logic, as I understand it, as a bystander I have no obligation to act on behalf of the puppy but I do have a moral right to do use force to do so.

Asymmetry

reed's picture

Do I have a moral obligation to put a stop to my wife's adultery? (5)
No.
Do I have a moral right to put a stop to my wife's adultery? (6)
It depends on the contract.

You have a moral right to do anything that is not unjust.
You do not have a moral obligation to do everything that is not unjust.

You have a moral right to get justice.
You do not have a moral obligation to get justice.

If someone owes me money I have a moral right to get it but no obligation.

It wasn't just a license for

Richard Wiig's picture

It wasn't just a license for you to intervene, it was also an obligation, according to Richard. I wonder if you are obligated in all circumstances, and if so, why.

forceful

Damien Grant's picture

I like it. The moral agent using force to commit an action that is both objectively immoral and violates the moral rights of another creates a license for me to use force to intervene.

I have not initiated force, I am using retaliatory force. This allows a moral and logical Yes answer to questions 1,2,3 and 4. As no force is being used, it allows the same for a No answer to 5 and 6.

I can understand all that. I like the idea of moral symmetry, is there a set line of thought on this issue somewhere? Nothing came up in google.

Thanks Richard.

Even if morality does derive

Richard Wiig's picture

Even if morality does derive from your idea of a supernatural being, how can it have any meaning to a creature that does not have a choice? If man does not have the power to choose between alternative courses of action, then morality loses any meaning. It would in fact be impossible to be moral or immoral no matter what you did. Jeffery Dahmer, Mother Theresa, Bill Gates, John Wayne Gacy, Jesus, whoever, would all be equals.

O really?

Jules Troy's picture

So because one does not believe in god he has no claim on freewill or a claim to morality?

So what stops me from sayyyy stalking Damien and breaking his legs? And what stops me from hunting Richard down and snapping his neck Or raping Rosie?  Is it fear of getting caught? I have no fear.  Is it fear of being killed? I am not afraid to die. What stops me from stealing, robbing, blowing up buildings and in general being enemy #1 to society?

Could it possibly be because I have morals? According to Richard I have none.  According to Richard I have no freewill so I suppose I would not be able to stop myself.

For arguments sake let us assume I have all means of traveling and full capabilities of carrying out these acts as well as the opportunity.

Take your time. My own

Callum McPetrie's picture

Take your time. Smiling

My own intuition on this matter is that some tangible harm must be involved before retaliatory force can be morally justified.

Callum

Richard Goode's picture

Would it therefore be immoral to throw, say, Bernie Madoff in prison, or to confiscate some of his ill-gotten wealth to compensate defrauded investors, on the basis that he committed fraud, and not force?

Excellent.

I need to think on that.

"You are licensed to use

Callum McPetrie's picture

"You are licensed to use force against the Jihadists. You are licensed to use force against the opera lovers. But, in the case of the wicked wife, no force has been initiated, only fraud."

So presumably, you are licensed to use force against someone who has committed force against yourself, but not against someone who has committed fraud. This raises some interesting questions. Would it therefore be immoral to throw, say, Bernie Madoff in prison, or to confiscate some of his ill-gotten wealth to compensate defrauded investors, on the basis that he committed fraud, and not force?

Commander

Richard Goode's picture

It amazes me how Richard can buy into such a massive contradiction.

It amazes me how you can buy into both free will and morality, neither of which you have any good reason to believe in.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

However, when we look at my right to intervene, I have no moral right to intervene to stop my wife being immoral, yet I have a right to intervene to save the Commander. Why?

Why is the Commander's rights not to be assaulted significant enough that it warrants intervention but my right to a faithful spouse not?

Now you're asking the right questions.

I think the right answer is the NIOF (non-initiation of force) principle.

The initiation of force licenses the use of force in retaliation.

You are licensed to use force against the Jihadists. You are licensed to use force against the opera lovers. But, in the case of the wicked wife, no force has been initiated, only fraud.

Better late than never I

Richard Wiig's picture

Better late than never I guess, Linz. And yep, a lack of freewill obliterates any notion of morality. It amazes me how Richard can buy into such a massive contradiction.

The Six

Damien Grant's picture

I instinctively agree with you on all six if by giving aid you mean using force. However, I can only logically justify the last two. For 1,2,3,4 I am confident that I can justify in terms of giving aid, but I am not confident I can find logic that will allow me to use force. (I'd still use force in both cases, I am just uncertain that I could justify doing so.)

I need to think on that.

I think your reasoning means that the moral right is created by the moral obligation.

The dog has no right against a lion, but he has one against a moral agent. So, if your symmetry holds, it is the moral obligation that creates the moral right. It seems circular but I cannot fault the logic, maybe in the morning I will.

However, when we look at my right to intervene, I have no moral right to intervene to stop my wife being immoral, yet I have a right to intervene to save the Commander. Why?

Why is the Commander's rights not to be assaulted significant enough that it warrants intervention but my right to a faithful spouse not?

Is it because the cheating involves another moral agent who has no obligation to me? But if we change cheating on to suicide, then I do not have a right to use force to prevent a spouse making a rational decision to end her life even though she may have a moral obligation not to do so and I have a moral right to expect her not to do so, so it is not the third party that changes the nature of this obligation.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

Are you saying that the moral right of the dog and the moral right of the Commander are equivalent?

No. What I'm saying is ...

To every moral right there corresponds a moral obligation (or moral obligations).
To every moral obligation there corresponds a moral right (or moral rights).
Everything you want to say about moral rights you could couch in terms of moral obligations.
Everything you want to say about moral obligations you could couch in terms of moral rights.
Moral rights and moral obligations are but two sides of the same coin.

... that's what I mean by the symmetry thesis. E.g.,

The Jihadists are morally obliged not to assault the Commander.
The Commander has a moral right not to be assaulted by Jihadists.

I tend to assume that the symmetry thesis is true. But perhaps it isn't. Can you (or anyone else) think of a counterexample?

What are your answers to the six questions? (You have mine already.)

symmetry

Damien Grant's picture

Are you saying that the moral right of the dog and the moral right of the Commander are equivalent? If they are, and we accept 1 and 2 as being Yes, then by symmetry then 3 and 4 are also yes?

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

There's a lot of background noise on this thread.

I'll get straight to what I think is the heart of the matter.

Let's assume what I call the symmetry thesis.

Suppose that I'm walking down the street and see the Commander being assaulted by Jihadists.
The Jihadists are morally obliged not to assault the Commander.
The Commander has a moral right not to be assaulted by Jihadists.
Do I have a moral obligation to come to the aid of the Commander? (1)
Do I have a moral right to come to the aid of the Commander? (2)

Suppose that I'm walking down the street and see a dog about to be set on fire by opera lovers.
The opera lovers are morally obliged not to set the dog on fire.
The dog has a moral right not to be set on fire by opera lovers.
Do I have a moral obligation to come to the aid of the dog? (3)
Do I have a moral right to come to the aid of the dog? (4)

Suppose that I discover that my wife is having sex with another man.
My wife is morally obliged not to cheat on me.
I have a moral right not to be cheated on by my wife.
Do I have a moral obligation to put a stop to my wife's adultery? (5)
Do I have a moral right to put a stop to my wife's adultery? (6)

Now ...

I think the answer to question (1) is YES.
I think the answer to question (2) is YES.
I think the answer to question (3) is YES.
I think the answer to question (4) is YES.
I think the answer to question (5) is NO.
I think the answer to question (6) is NO.

... am I right?

Schmorality

Richard Goode's picture

empathy combined with rationality perfectly suffice for establishing an ethics.

Wrong.

The best that "empathy combined with rationality" can deliver is a faux, or Claytons, ethics.

False 'either-or' package deals

Xray's picture

Submitted by Richard Goode on Mon, 2013-01-14 04:30.
You can have either God + morality or you can have atheism + moral nihilism. Your choice of package deals. (I argued exactly this in my doctoral dissertation.) end quote
But there is no need to choose between the above "package deals".

For empathy combined with rationality perfectly suffice for establishing an ethics.

Richard

Damien Grant's picture

I do not agree that there can be no morality if there is no free will, but that is another debate. If we start with the axiom that there is morality, you believe that there is, and let's not get lost in the different classes of morality but try and stay with a classic normative version, then there are good moral acts and bad moral acts.

Let’s also accept as an axiom that burning a puppy for the pleasure it gives you is a bad moral act and try and ignore the side issues. The quagmire of minutiae around these issues is so vast that you can spend several lifetimes just getting to the starting gate of any debate and as I am not Hindu I only have one life and I cannot devote too much of it to these issues, especially as I need to spend some of it apologising for Islam, Jihad and beheadings.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

Whereas I claim that there can be no morality and no moral agency if there's no God, Linz claims that

There can be no morality and no moral agency if there's no free will.

It's an interesting parallel.

Also note that, whereas Linz believes in free will but not in God, I believe in God but not in free will. Of course, the notion that there is such a thing as free will is an absurd-on-its-face proposition to be accepted on faith, which is why Objectivism is a religion.

The issue of free will is another entire universe of debate I’d like to get into, indeed, it was the very issue that caused me as a young man to abandon Catholicism; how can you have an omnipotent, omniscient God co-existing with free-will? The logical inconsistency was insoluble but it led me to some curious intellectual paths before i finally realised that I did not need to believe in either God or free will. I now think neither exist, but that is a debate for another day.

I have been thinking.

The view that there is no free will but that there is, nonetheless, morality and moral agency has a name, viz., the doctrine of original sin.

You're born bad, and yes, it's your fault.

Repent!

(Feel free to discuss free will here.)

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

What's funny about this thread is that the Islamapologist is taking seriously Baade's wind-ups. Baade, qua pomowanker, maintains there is no free will. Then, qua Goblian theocrat, he comes on here and says there can be no morality without Gobby (an absurd-on-its-face proposition to be accepted on faith) and speaks of humans as "moral agents." There can be no morality and no moral agency if there's no free will. If there's no free will, then humans are the same as dogs, which is undoubtedly true of Baade - but he should not pretend to be barking for anyone other than himself. Apart from anything else, it's unkind to dogs, to associate them with a cosmic view that includes Hell, the ultimate in beyond-barbarism in which Baade revels. Filth, not mitigated by the fact that Islamogoblinism is also filth.

I've never read such a steaming pile of FITH.

All the peoples of the earth
    are regarded as nothing.

Know your place.

free will eh?

Damien Grant's picture

The source of Richard's morality does not invalidate his logic beyond that assumption, so long as it is internally consistent. It may render his conclusions invalid if his underlying premises is incorrect but, because I understand the basis of his morality I can adjust what he says to suit my own axioms, (even if that is a nonsensical use of the word).

The issue of free will is another entire universe of debate I’d like to get into, indeed, it was the very issue that caused me as a young man to abandon Catholicism; how can you have an omnipotent, omniscient God co-existing with free-will? The logical inconsistency was insoluble but it led me to some curious intellectual paths before i finally realised that I did not need to believe in either God or free will. I now think neither exist, but that is a debate for another day.

Belittling Richard was naughty I admit and I have no defence but I am not going to apologise. His lack of intellectual rigor, although hardly uncommon here, was deserving of ridicule. I did try and avoid him but at some point the pleasure I got from smacking him was too great to resist and he did put himself in harm's way. Besides, the bus line, like the Afghan music line (which I also got into much trouble for) was irresistible.

I considered not posting it, but then I thought: This above all, to thine own self be true, although what that says about my own self is perhaps unpleasant. Anyway, better to be considered filth than to resort to the level of un-reason needed to reach the limits of purity required.

Now that we have established that I am what I am, can we return the issue of stopping the burning of puppies? I may be filth, but I want to debate this issue and if Richard is the only one willing to debate it then how about everyone else go back to praising some classic Airhead candidate from Nevada for his moronic rant because some of his incoherence happened to coincide with the views of some here despite his complete lack of objectivity, reason, or grounding in reality.

Irony

Jules Troy's picture

The immoral dynamic duo bantering about morality in a most decidedly subjective way.

On an objectivist site were the founder as well as pretty much anyone believes that morality is not the providence of god this is rather insulting.

Carry on..

Commander

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"Get fucked" is, finally, the appropriate response from you to Damien, an amoral apologist for Islamofilth. It distressed me to see you taking his wind-ups so seriously for so long.

What's funny about this thread is that the Islamapologist is taking seriously Baade's wind-ups. Baade, qua pomowanker, maintains there is no free will. Then, qua Goblian theocrat, he comes on here and says there can be no morality without Gobby (an absurd-on-its-face proposition to be accepted on faith) and speaks of humans as "moral agents." There can be no morality and no moral agency if there's no free will. If there's no free will, then humans are the same as dogs, which is undoubtedly true of Baade - but he should not pretend to be barking for anyone other than himself. Apart from anything else, it's unkind to dogs, to associate them with a cosmic view that includes Hell, eternal combustion of humans, the ultimate in beyond-barbarism in which Baade revels. Filth, not mitigated by the fact that Islamogoblinism is also filth.

Why is it always left to me to point these things out??!! Where the hell are the rest of you??!!

Gobby, the awesome burden of running SOLO!! Eye

Damien

Richard Wiig's picture

Get fucked!

I was, but after reading Rand

Richard Wiig's picture

I was, but after reading Rand it became harder and harder to maintain my faith.

woof woof phoof

Damien Grant's picture

Are you a Goopist?

He isn't but he met one on a bus in Indonesia once so he knows all about them. Ignore my stalker, (like a puppy he follows me across different threads, I am eyeing the petrol can as I type) and lets get back to St Schnauzer of Aceh before the puppy goes phoof. 

Commander

Richard Goode's picture

It requires faith to believe that morality comes from Green Goop. It's not right to lump it in with Objectivism.

Fair enough.

Are you a Goopist?

It requires faith to believe

Richard Wiig's picture

It requires faith to believe that morality comes from Green Goop. It's not right to lump it in with Objectivism.

thanks

Damien Grant's picture

Damien If we do, this makes causing unnecessary harm to dogs objectively bad, so here comes the stretch. Do i have any right to prevent someone else doing unnecessary harm to the dog?

Richard Yes, I think so

Why?

If I am not obligated to help a drowning man, even though it may be immoral if I do not, then, by the logic of modus tollens the drowning man has no right over my actions. Hold that thought.

I like your analysis that a dog has a right not be by burnt by a moral agent. You articulated nicely a loose concept in my head, thanks. I am not sure that this is really a right, the wording seems too strong, but conceptually you are correct. But, where is my right, as a moral agent, to interfere with the immoral actions of another moral agent?

My intervention can be considered a moral act, but the dog has no right over my actions to save him from drowning, so, (not quite modus tollens) no right over my actions to act morally in other areas.

The dog has no right over me to save him from the immoral actions of a moral agent. I have no right to prevent another man committing an immoral action (such as being unfaithful to their partner), so where is the link that allows me to initiate force over another moral agent who is choosing to commit an immoral act that violates the rights of the dog, given that the dog has no moral claim over me to intervene? 

Take your pick

Richard Goode's picture

Morality comes from Green Goop, not from man, nor from God.

Your meta-ethical options are faith (e.g., Christianity), delusion (e.g., Objectivism, Goopism) or nihilism (e.g., honest atheism). Take your pick.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Consider the self-evident truth that you are endowed by God with the unalienable right to life.

Suppose that there is a massive earthquake and you are fatally injured by falling masonry, or drowned in the ensuing tsunami. Has your right to life been violated? No.

Or suppose that you are mauled to death by a lion while strolling in the savanna. Has your right to life been violated? No.

But suppose that I take a gun and shoot you dead. Has your right to life been violated? Yes.

The difference is that I am a moral agent. Earthquakes and lions are not moral agents.

Now consider that for every moral right there is a corresponding moral responsibility or obligation. For example, if I have a moral right to a free lunch, then someone else has a moral responsibility to provide me with a free lunch. Libertarians use this principle of symmetry to argue by modus tollens that no one has a right to a free lunch.

(P1) For every moral right there is a corresponding moral responsibility.
(P2) No one has a moral responsibility to provide me with a free lunch.
Therefore, (C) I do not have a moral right to a free lunch.

More generally, libertarians argue that we have negative rights (rights not to be treated in certain ways) but not positive rights (rights to be treated in certain ways). Here is where confusion can arise. For example, if I go on general strike and refuse to work for a living, does the fact that I have a moral right to life mean that others have a moral responsibility to provide me with the necessities of life? No, because the right to life is a negative right—'right to life' is something of a misnomer—really, your right to life is your right not to be wrongfully killed.

Dogs have a moral right not to be burned alive.

So, perhaps I should have been clearer, and said that dogs have a moral right not to be burned alive by moral agents.

But let’s come back to the issue, do I have a moral obligation not to cause the dog unnecessary harm? Yes, morally, it is clear that I do, let’s take that as given for a moment.

If you have a moral obligation (responsibility) not to cause the dog unnecessary harm, it follows that the dog has a moral right not to be unnecessarily harmed by you. That's symmetry.

If we do, this makes causing unnecessary harm to dogs objectively bad, so here comes the stretch. Do i have any right to prevent someone else doing unnecessary harm to the dog?

Yes, I think so. Smiling

Morality comes from Green

Richard Wiig's picture

Morality comes from Green Goop, not from man, nor from God.

do they?

Damien Grant's picture

Is it a moral right?

We may have a moral obligation not to burn dogs, but does the dog have a moral, or any, right not to be burnt. I am unsure there is a symmetry here. If a lion kills a dog, for whatever reason, there are no moral issues for the lion in how much pain the dog suffers in the process. The dog has no right when facing pain from a lion, why should it have any right when facing pain from a human?

The lack of rights of the dog, however, does not create license for a human to torture it. There is also no symmetry there either. Humans have morals, god given or otherwise, and they guide our actions.

If I need to eat, I have a right to kill the dog for food, and I may have an obligation not to cause the dog unnecessary harm in the process of killing it, (unlike a lion) but I cannot see that the dog has any right, moral or otherwise, not to be burnt alive.

But let’s come back to the issue, do I have a moral obligation not to cause the dog unnecessary harm? Yes, morally, it is clear that I do, let’s take that as given for a moment.

If we do, this makes causing unnecessary harm to dogs objectively bad, so here comes the stretch. Do i have any right to prevent someone else doing unnecessary harm to the dog?

The obvious answer is yes, it is instinctive. If I see someone pouring petrol over a dog I am going to try and stop them. This is an innate human reaction, but if I see a lion doing a similar thing, causing the dog pain, although I may feel pity for the dog, I do not feel the same moral compulsion to act.

So, is my intervention on behalf of the dog justified? Is the dog right to be protected from pain only if the thing causing them pain is doing so for their own pleasure? That does not make logical sense, the suffering by the dog is the same, but it leads me to the point that I do not have a right to prevent a human from burning a dog alive, which is at odds with my own, innate, morality.

OK, let's start with this

Richard Goode's picture

Dogs have a moral right not to be burned alive.

Sounds reasonable.

not at all

Damien Grant's picture

When you talk of "morality," do you actually have the faintest idea what you're talking about?

I just like the sound of my own voice

God + morality or you can have atheism + moral nihilism. 

This is a debate for another day. I do not want to debate every issue, just one at a time. I only want to look at a discrete, narrow issue, and this one, animials, is useful because it serves as a proxy for a lot of other issues in my head.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

Do you actually have a moral theory that informs your moral thinking? E.g., utilitarianism, Kantianism, ethical egoism.

When you talk of "morality," do you actually have the faintest idea what you're talking about?

No

Richard Goode's picture

Let's start on the basis that there may or may not be a god, but that morality is a seperate thing. Even if you do not believe it, lets work from that basis; Allah be praised.

No, Damien. Let's not do that.

You can have either God + morality or you can have atheism + moral nihilism. Your choice of package deals. (I argued exactly this in my doctoral dissertation.)

"The plain fact of the matter is that, without God, there is no morality."

This is a subjective opinion.

Of course, it's a subjective opinion. Mine. It's also the plain fact of the matter. My subjective opinion is a bloody good one.

Is the burning of dogs the price that must be paid for liberty, and if it is, is it moral that I ask that the dogs bear the cost of my liberty?

If you're asking this question, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Check your premises.

more bat-shit crazy!

Damien Grant's picture

"The plain fact of the matter is that, without God, there is no morality."

This is a subjective opinion. Not a fact, plain or otherwise. Get back to the non-burning of dogs.

I am looking for a solution to, on the one hand my view that the state has no right to interfere with how a man treats his own property, a dog being property, and my desire to punish and deter those who wish to commit unnecessary suffering to animals, and by extension children, seeing as I prefer the former to the later.

I thought I would think about protecting what I like ahead of protecting what I think I should. It gets more complex because I do not believe that I have a moral obligation to protect other people’s children, although perhaps I have a right to protect someone else’s children if I choose to get off my fat arse, but then we have competing rights. Let's start on the basis that there may or may not be a god, but that morality is a seperate thing. Even if you do not believe it, lets work from that basis; Allah be praised.

Is the burning of dogs the price that must be paid for liberty, and if it is, is it moral that I ask that the dogs bear the cost of my liberty? I am pretty sure it is not moral to ask a third party, dogs or otherwise, to pay for my liberty.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

Animals cannot trade, in the Objectivist sense, not consciously anyway, and have, likewise, no rights.

Objectivist ethics is certifiably bat-shit insane. It's no place to start when considering moral issues, as your line of thought makes clear. It's no place to start, and heaven help those who end up there.

Do not be deceived. The possession of rights has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to trade, nothing to do with contracts or the entering into of same, and nothing to do with the ability to conceptualise.

Libertarianism is a political ideology. It is not a philosophy, as such. Some consider that libertarianism needs a philosophical underpinning. Whether or not it does, Objectivism is not it.

Morality comes from God, not from man. That is the main point that my "goblin rant" (or, as I prefer it, Word of the Day) was intended to emphasise. The plain fact of the matter is that, without God, there is no morality.

God gave us dominion (stewardship) over all other animals. This does not, however, license us to burn dogs alive.

A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel. (Proverbs 12:10)

Naughty Goode. Back to dogs

Damien Grant's picture

I have been thinking.

Animals cannot trade, in the Objectivist sense, not consciously anyway, and have, likewise, no rights.

There is a line of thought, that seems to originate with Rand herself, developed by Thomas and others, is that the creation of children is a from of contract, creating self-imposed obligations on the parents, and that children, on their maturity, can sue for breaches of that contract.

Almost all animals under our human control were created by humans, or exist as a direct result of our intervention. So, do we, as a species, have a self-imposed obligation to these creatures?

If someone wants to burn dogs alive, is this permissible within a libertarian construct? Is this a breach of our contract with the animals? If this contract exists, is it limited to those, the farmer say, who created the creatures? Is this activity that can, or even should, be illegal in a libertarian regime?

Do something useful, Richard, (when you sober up) and answer me this rather than winding up Lindsay with goblin rants.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.