Saturday, February 14, 2004
Gospel of Marque
The following comment left at heidi bond's site would make more sense if i enabled links to the posts in question, but I'm lazy and might not get back to that.
Heidi (Letters of Marke? doesn't sound right. Marque.) Poor chickens!
Tim Sandefur, freespace, goose-stepping.
Curmudgeonly clerk, poor geese.
Will Baude, cres-cat, libertarianism as goose torture.
I wrote:
As of 2-14 the link goes to a pic of a fat woman breastfeeding twins, but i think i get the general idea. At the moment I am annoyed with Will for siding with freespace vs curmudgeonly clerk re torturing geese to make pate. That is, I am annoyed with Wil for describing the pro-torture position as the libertarian one. I think that many people will tend to respond, poor geese! and tend to associate libertarian bloggers with heartless goose-torturers, which doesn't exactly help in the stuggle to win hearts and minds of the people. Sandefur's "rational basis" test fails in fact and theory. That is, he argues only rational animals can have rights. This is unworkable. Some gorillas have more reasoning ability than some republicans. I think the standard has (should have) more to do with awareness. The geese certainly know they are being tortured.
(it's also possible to derive rules against cruelty to animals based on the idea that such actions are practice for cruelty to humans. design of concentration camps borrowed from university of delaware research on efficiently housing and killing chickens.)
So far the geese lack a Fredrick Douglas to tell their story. As an aardvark, I am in solidarity with the geese.
---
later thoughts: freespace isn't so much making the argument as pointig to it. he admits there's a potential argument some animals reason to some extent.
I want to connect my argument about awareness rather than reason as the criterion, with some of the bentham-mill discussions.
Which ties in fully to epstein and consequentialist justifications for policy regimes.
Bentham said that a dog (or a goose) has some ability to experience happiness.
Bentham's utilitarianism urged maximizing overall happiness.
The marginal happiness to the goose liver eater does not outweigh the unhappiness of the goose.
(i got interupted at this point. it will take several more grafs to move from
Bentham's act-utilitarianism to Mill's libertarianism as rule-utilitarianism, and apply that to the geese.)
The following comment left at heidi bond's site would make more sense if i enabled links to the posts in question, but I'm lazy and might not get back to that.
Heidi (Letters of Marke? doesn't sound right. Marque.) Poor chickens!
Tim Sandefur, freespace, goose-stepping.
Curmudgeonly clerk, poor geese.
Will Baude, cres-cat, libertarianism as goose torture.
I wrote:
As of 2-14 the link goes to a pic of a fat woman breastfeeding twins, but i think i get the general idea. At the moment I am annoyed with Will for siding with freespace vs curmudgeonly clerk re torturing geese to make pate. That is, I am annoyed with Wil for describing the pro-torture position as the libertarian one. I think that many people will tend to respond, poor geese! and tend to associate libertarian bloggers with heartless goose-torturers, which doesn't exactly help in the stuggle to win hearts and minds of the people. Sandefur's "rational basis" test fails in fact and theory. That is, he argues only rational animals can have rights. This is unworkable. Some gorillas have more reasoning ability than some republicans. I think the standard has (should have) more to do with awareness. The geese certainly know they are being tortured.
(it's also possible to derive rules against cruelty to animals based on the idea that such actions are practice for cruelty to humans. design of concentration camps borrowed from university of delaware research on efficiently housing and killing chickens.)
So far the geese lack a Fredrick Douglas to tell their story. As an aardvark, I am in solidarity with the geese.
---
later thoughts: freespace isn't so much making the argument as pointig to it. he admits there's a potential argument some animals reason to some extent.
I want to connect my argument about awareness rather than reason as the criterion, with some of the bentham-mill discussions.
Which ties in fully to epstein and consequentialist justifications for policy regimes.
Bentham said that a dog (or a goose) has some ability to experience happiness.
Bentham's utilitarianism urged maximizing overall happiness.
The marginal happiness to the goose liver eater does not outweigh the unhappiness of the goose.
(i got interupted at this point. it will take several more grafs to move from
Bentham's act-utilitarianism to Mill's libertarianism as rule-utilitarianism, and apply that to the geese.)
Comments:
Post a Comment
