In a way, yes. It seems that nowadays, we have all kinds of groups, mainly radical, that attempt to provide arguments for and against our right to use animals as our own property.
Well, in studying some early modern philosophy, it seems that there are various ideologies and arguments about private property that have been in debate for hundred of years that seem to lend some words to such a debate.
Going to an old favorite, we can look at John Locke's foundation as an attempt to study private property. For Locke, private property is a relationship between people and objects, or so it seems. My ownership of my house is a relationship between me and my house. And in nature, it seems we do not have anything above communal ownership until we make some sort of an agreement.
Another philosopher who looked at this would be Poofendorf. In his view, private property involves the relationship between people and other people (with respect to property). Like for instance, I have a relationship with you, in that I can prohibit you from entering the house which I own.
We have a natural right to things, because, by nature we NEED certain things in nature for our survival and it could not be a "sin" to thus use those resources.
So the question is, do we need animals? Do we have the right to them because we need them? Realistically, we could argue that we need other humans in the same way as we need other animals, and intuitively, we do not have the right to other humans.
Poofendorf would argue that in order to have certain outlined principles, we need a sense of consent. Unfortunately for animals, we are incapable of entering an agreement with them as we cannot effectively communicate with them. Therefore they are not in the same moral community as them, and thus do not owe them any rights.
So... let's eat 'em!
But what if we look at this from the other side? Poofendorf, Grotius, Locke and Hobbes all seem to agree that there is a level of consent necessary before we can exercise certain rights. So can't we say that because of our inability to have consent from the animals, and our inability to make an agreement with them, then we have no real rights over them.
Poofendorf views us as being at war with the animals due to our inability to consent with them. If a tiger is going to kill me, I am in a state of war, and thus have the right to kill... and eat it. But surely we cannot be said to be at war with cultivated chickens! I would be tempted to doubt that a solitary cultivated chicken would be a regular threat to my life.
This is an interesting debate. It's not so much the literature itself that I find interesting... more the fact that we can date this debate far back to times before Pam Anderson told us she's rather go naked than wear fur.
Thoughts?
0 comments:
Post a Comment