SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Machan's Musings - Back to the Animal Rights Folly

Tuesday
November 22, 2005

Machan's Musings - Back to the Animal Rights Folly by Tibor R. Machan

As the author of a book on this subject, Putting Humans First, Why We Are Nature’s Favorite (2004)—which, surprise, surprise, was not reviewed in The New York Review of Books (even as they dutifully review Peter Singer and other animal liberation and rights promoters), I find it especially peculiar that the magazine’s chosen reviewer of Coetzee’s pro-animal rights work offers no criticism of the Nobel Prize winning novelist’s ideas. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (14 messages)

Post 0

Tuesday, November 22 - 9:59am

Link

Edit

Machan writes:

It is too paradoxical that while so many animal rights and liberation advocates lament this—indeed, roundly morally condemn human beings for being like other animals—they at the same time deny that we are any different from them. Well, if we aren’t different, then why not accept our cruelties just as the cruelties of the lion, the bear or the fish that devour their young are accepted? Why insist on the equality of non-human and human animals but also treat the human kind as if its life had a moral dimension missing from the lives of non-humans? Or if it isn’t missing, then why not also chide the non-human villains?

Absolutely brilliant! I've always thought the same but haven't seen it put to words that well! Bravo.

Post 1

Tuesday, November 22 - 1:32pm

Link

Edit

I agree, Pete. And another ...

Human beings are in fact fundamentally very different from other animals—they can choose between right and wrong, can govern their own conduct, and are not prisoners of their hardwiring, instincts or drives. (If they are, what is wrong with what they are doing to rabbits, rats, etc. anyway?)

Machan is simply tearing it up!

Great reasoning, Tibor.

Ed

Post 2

Tuesday, November 22 - 1:43pm

Link

Edit

And a damn fine book too - Putting Humans First, by Tibor Machan -- that I for one can't recommend too highly.

Post 3

Tuesday, November 22 - 10:01pm

Link

Edit

I've written an article about Magnificent Machan—this is a good opportunity to underscore the sentiment. Bravo, Tibor!

Linz

Post 4

Wednesday, November 23 - 8:45pm

Link

Edit

Make sure you vary your diet. Don't just eat rabbits; they are too lean. And remember "The Silence of the Lamb Chops?" Great movie. Especially with some chianti and flava beans. "Smack, smack."

--Brant

Post 5

Saturday, November 26 - 11:53am

Link

Edit

You people don't understand. We are concerned with animal PAIN. Kill as many as you want as long as you're not torturing them. Would you deny that animals feel pain at all? Factory farm animals are are pumped full of antiobiotics from the day they were born because they are prone to sickness and stuffed into places they can't even walk by the BILLIONS every year. KFC cuts off their beaks (which have nerves). American businesses profit from chinese farms who skin animals alive. Some Americans make foie gras by force feeding ducks with pounds of meat daily until their liver enlarges by a factor of 5. In 2004 the u.s. slaughtered 8.9 billion chickens many of whom were conscious when their throat was slit because companies turn down the electricity that stuns them to save money. Millions of chemicals are put into the eyes and stomachs of animals to make sure they are fit for consumers.

Post 6

Saturday, November 26 - 4:20pm

Link

Edit

Brian,

What in the foregoing post suggests to you that Dr. Machan, or those responding to his post, have no concern about animal pain?

I recommend that you read pp. 18-23 of his book, "Putting Humans First," before making that accusation. It IS a concern and he covers the subject quite nicely without shying away from realities.

But, for you to rattle off a litany of unsubstantiated allegations directed at mostly unnamed American businesses, as you have done, is characteristic of someone doing nothing more than parroting a leftist political tract. I see nothing to suggest that you either have any personal knowledge of such practices or have expended one iota of thought on the matter.

It appears that you gained membership for the sole purpose of leaving this post, If so, I doubt you will even bother to return to read the reactions. But if you do, do yourself a favor, take some time off from acting as a PETA shill and get a good education in critical thinking instead.

Post 7

Saturday, November 26 - 5:05pm

Link

Edit

Yes - definitely a Petarded person wandering here...

Post 8

Tuesday, November 29 - 11:22am

Link

Edit

Dr. Machan seems to have a strong following here; I wonder whether rational discussion about this topic is possible.

Dr. Machan's opinions regarding animals seem to be based on the claim: "Human beings are in fact fundamentally very different from other animals—they can choose between right and wrong, can govern their own conduct, and are not prisoners of their hardwiring, instincts or drives."

Apparently, assuming that Dr. Machan is intellectually honest, if his claim could be shown to be erroneous -- was based on a misunderstanding of the facts or else simply a limited understanding of the facts -- Dr. Machan would reverse his position and begin to advocate for the rights of the animals that can choose between right and wrong, can govern their own conduct, and who are no more prisoners of their hardwiring, instincts, or desires, than are humans.

If Dr. Machan's position remained steadfast in light of evidence that suggests his claim is false, then his position would necessarily be irrational and his opinions could be dismissed as nothing other than the rants of a bigot. Experience has taught me that when a specific claim of a "fundamental" difference between humans and other animals is falsified, there is a strong tendency to claim other fundamental differences, and thus the argument goes round and round.

Before offering evidence that Dr. Machan is indeed wrong or misinformed, I would like to know in advance that my above observation regarding the consequences of falsifying his claim is deemed reasonable here among his supporters. If his claims could be cast in serious doubt based on peer reviewed scientific evidence, would even one of his supporters here seriously reconsider their own opinion regarding the relationship between humans and other animal species?

Post 9

Tuesday, November 29 - 12:32pm

Link

Edit

Oh my - another Petarded being, with as much respect for truth and facts as an eco-freak... Sorry charlie, but all the supposed 'peer' reviewed 'evidence' on non-humans having cognitive ability has been so far shown to be just that, suspect and wide opened to many interpretations - in other words, nowhere conclusive to supporting your views... and no, this is not a belief statement, but one expressing the facts of reality, whether your beliefs hold otherwise or not...

and yes, this issue has come up before, more than once, and been thrashed over from both sides, so it is not as if engaging in anything new..

(Edited by robert malcom on 11/29, 12:34pm)

Post 10

Tuesday, November 29 - 1:12pm

Link

Edit

Rick, I don't know what the precise foundation of Dr. Machan's animal rights position is - I have not read a systematic treatise on the subject from him. My own view on the matter is premised on the following axioms:

- An objective look at nature shows that lifeforms sustain themselves at the expense of other lifeforms. Ever since life on earth has existed, this is how things have always been. In this regard, humans are no different than any other creature - some sort of plant or animal resource must always be available for our consumption in order for us to survive. We're all part of the same ecosystem.

- In the same way that a big fish is not immoral for gulping up a small fish, humans are not immoral for eating steak, chicken etc. If you disagree with that, you can only do so on the grounds that humans are fundamentally different due to our capacity for choice.

- Force, fraud theft etc prevent humans from fully using their independent mind to achieve to achieve rational values, so 'rights' exist as political principles to enable us to act freely and voluntarilly with one another (trade and cooperation in fact enable humans to flourish instead of merely survive). Animals are incapable of learning and abiding by a complex moral code, and therefore no concept of 'rights' as understood by humans can be applied to them.

If you present scientific or philosophical evidence to the contrarty, I would be willing to revise my stance. But I think these are pretty sturdy foundations...

Post 11

Tuesday, November 29 - 4:22pm

Link

Edit

Thank you for your response Pete.

Yours seems to be a different propostion than Dr. Machan's.

You wrote: "... lifeforms sustain themselves at the expense of other lifeforms ... We're all part of the same ecosystem." I concur.

You wrote: "In the same way that a big fish is not immoral for gulping up a small fish, humans are not immoral for eating steak, chicken etc. If you disagree with that, you can only do so on the grounds that humans are fundamentally different due to our capacity for choice."

You say: "In the same way that a big fish is not immoral for gulping up a small fish..." It is not clear to me that the behavior of a fish can be termed moral or immoral. I believe that some human behaviors can be so termed. But there is no scientific evidence one way or the other on which to base a claim about fish. All that can be said with certainty is that some fish have complex behaviors, some of which are species-specific while others seem to be situational and spontaneous.

My moral choices are not generally driven by others' choices. Humans are different from fish just as every species is different from everyother species. But we are clearly not the only species capable of making choices. Our "capacity for choice" is not unique. And of course, there are many examples of many people making choices that we might both agree are immoral. Making immoral choices is unlikely to necessarily eliminate any claim of rights we might make for ourselves or others who have acted such. My morality is not defined by fish behavior.

You wrote: "Animals are incapable of learning and abiding by a complex moral code, and therefore no concept of 'rights' as understood by humans can be applied to them."

Why should the ability to learn and abide by a complex moral code be the gatekeeping characteristic? And what would qualify as a "complex moral code"?

At this point in time, we have little good information concerning the mental details of animals' interactions with each other, so really can't say with certainty why they might act one way or another with each other. In rhesus troupes, interactions between members is strongly influenced by matrilineage; in some large troupes the relationships are complex multi-generational affairs. Fights do break out occasionally with old alliances called into play; it is impossible to explain all the motivational factors or to say what social or 'moral' norm was violated that precipitated the fight.

Or how would one differentiate between a simple and a complex moral code? The fact that I will not push you out of line or shove you off a bar stool is a fairly simple idea, yet this might be said to show an appreciation of the Golden Rule. Is one simple and one complex?

I'm not sure that I understand your position clearly enough to be able to point to specific papers that might cause you to rethink your position. In the case of Dr. Machan's claims, I can.

(Are you claiming that only humans can and do make choices? Evidence to the contrary abounds.)

Post 12

Tuesday, November 29 - 7:15pm

Link

Edit

Rick,

Please post a link (or a mere expert quote, if that is all you can/will muster) to evidence of animal deliberation. I would like to examine (and discuss with you) this evidence that abounds.

Ed

Post 13

Tuesday, November 29 - 7:40pm

Link

Edit

Rick writes:

It is not clear to me that the behavior of a fish can be termed moral or immoral.

My selection of fish was an arbitrary one, and I didn't mean the argument to be 'fish-specific'. My point is that creatures act according to their nature, and we are no different. Humans sustain themselves by eating plants and/or animals, depending on their preference.

Why should the ability to learn and abide by a complex moral code be the gatekeeping characteristic?

Rights protect our ability to go about our business peacefully and without undue interference from others. They therefore exist in a political context. Animals are absolutely incapable of being independent actors in a political system, and are therefore excluded from any rights afforded by it.

Are you claiming that only humans can and do make choices?

Animals have on-the-spot reactions based on instinct and/or conditioning. This is not choice in the special human sense. Humans have the ability to ponder the pros and cons of any decision. When someone says they want to "sleep on" an idea, that means they want to take the time to look a situation from a variety of angles before they decide their course of action. I'm not aware of any animals with this capacity.

Also, the concept of choice is ultimately what allows us to make moral evaluations of other human beings. We have a choice not to murder someone, we have a choice not to burglarize someone's home etc. We are able to hold others accountable for these transgressions since these are chosen acts that the transgressor (presumably) knew violated anothers' rights. To use your barstool example, if you were to push me off the stool, you're guilty of a wrongdoing. But you would be innocent if you had no choice in the matter, for example if you were mentally ill (and this is why people who are mentally ill to the point of harming innocent others forego certain rights and liberties). On the other hand, as you correctly pointed out in the fish example, we can't morally judge the actions of animals.

It is anthropomorphic fallacy to try and apply the concept of human choice onto animals.

(Edited by Pete on 11/29, 7:43pm)