Private property and workers rights

[The Feral Underclass]

I never said that they were. I am merely saying that attempts to base some kind of morality on feelings, even "moral" feelings, are dangerous...I mentioned gay people, not because I think gay sex is comparable to rape (if anything, heterosexual sex is much more "suspicious" as far as its relation to rape goes), but because everyone mentions the things that bother them first.

The way you articulated your opinion was very poor. In future you should probably take better care of how you express that view.

[Tim Cornelis]

My point still stands: basing public policy on any sort of subjective attitude or emotion is dangerous, particularly to specially oppressed groups. "Pro-life" fascists are supposedly guided by empathy toward fetuses.

Because it's the only basis. Policy is a product of the aggregate of subjective evaluations, or social sentiment and attitudes.

But to assume otherwise doesn't make any sense - it would be analogous to assuming that currency and M-C-M' will continue to exist in communism. Rape isn't just physical assault, it's physical assault in conditions of structural oppression of women, young people, sexual minorities etc. If these conditions still persist, communism has not been achieved. If they do not, rape as such is impossible.

I'm skeptical of the claim that rape is exclusively a feature of the structural oppression of women. I also don't buy that communism can be defined by these standards.
You do and cannot object to rape, which is not limited to adult women, but also includes a woman raping a child (which I doubt is a product of the structural oppression of women).

Of course, physical assault is still something that we should oppose, and in a communist society, mechanisms will exist to prevent such occurrences.

Based on social attitudes toward assault.

And of course, I do very much abhor rape and other forms of physical assault of innocent people. But my abhorrence is not sufficient to determine the communist attitude toward these phenomena - we need a firmer basis. I would also highly dislike sleeping with my brother, but I don't think that my abhorrence of that needs to be made binding, in fact I think consensual adult incest should not be prosecuted at all, and the participants in such relationships should not be discriminated against.

What would "a firmer basis" be on which to oppose physical assault then? I also don't understand your point about consensual incest.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The way you articulated your opinion was very poor. In future you should probably take better care of how you express that view.

Fair enough.

Because it's the only basis. Policy is a product of the aggregate of subjective evaluations, or social sentiment and attitudes.

Then, would you say that Bolshevik authorities had a positive attitude toward the German War Office, NEPmen, concessionary capitalists etc.? That sounds, well, suspicious to say the least.

Policy has, up to now, always been an expression of class interest, even when the class interest is presented as "objective", "common" morality etc., and will continue to be an expression of class interest until classes are no more, at which point policy will become an expression of global community interest.

I'm skeptical of the claim that rape is exclusively a feature of the structural oppression of women.

[...]

You do and cannot object to rape, which is not limited to adult women, but also includes a woman raping a child (which I doubt is a product of the structural oppression of women).

Perhaps you should re-read my post, since I explicitly mentioned the special oppression of young people (which leads to child abuse etc.), sexual minorities (leading to "corrective" rape) etc., in addition to the special oppression of women. But yes, I don't think rape is somehow "blind" to the realities of economic, women's, gender, age and sexual oppression.

I also don't buy that communism can be defined by these standards.

Communism implies a stateless, classless society - and the forms of special oppression I have listed are tied to the class structure of society.

Based on social attitudes toward assault.

So if prevailing social attitudes sanction or condemn something, that should be the basis of public policy?

What would "a firmer basis" be on which to oppose physical assault then?

The material interest of the proletariat and oppressed groups (in the present society and in the dictatorship of the proletariat - of course this does not mean that physical assault on cops, the bourgeoisie etc. is "bad", quite the contrary), and of the free workers in the communist society.

I also don't understand your point about consensual incest.

Many people have strong negative feelings about consensual adult incest, which does not mean that people who engage in such acts should be persecuted (as they are at present).

[argeiphontes]

So where do rights come from? What part of material nature obliges people to act in a certain manner towards other people?

I'm a Kantian when it comes to ethics. I'm not going to get anywhere arguing that position on this board, though. Ultimately, it doesn't matter where the notion of rights comes from. If I conducted a survey of 1000 people, 995 of them would probably profess a belief in rights.

The problem with framing the abortion debate in terms of a "right to choose" is that this "right" then becomes relative, competing with other rights (indeed, someone could invent a "right" of the fetus to this and that). It is better to avoid rights and ethics altogether.

Absolutely, not all rights are equal. The right to your personal possessions doesn't outweigh somebody else's right to eat, for example. There's always an ethical calculus going on. Just because it's impractical doesn't mean it should be discarded altogether.

Animals don't have desires.

Sure they do. Turn on Animal Planet. Or run them through a functional MRI.

You keep operating within the paradigm of 'rights.' There is no such thing as "women's rights," that is a liberal construct.

Just because something originated out of Classical Liberalism doesn't make it wrong. I sure do keep operating within the paradigm of rights, and I have no intention of stopping.

But if you avoid rights and ethics altogether, what are you left with? What can you base a claim that something is just or that it isn't on? Might makes right? That is of course what human relations boil down to in the end, but codes of conduct have great power, in that they unify people and allow for greater groups to work together in a coordinated manner. I don't see how you can avoid ethics and still be able to talk about what society should look like.

Me neither, but that is something a lot of people seem to want. Why is it wrong to extract surplus labor from people, without the idea of ethics or rights? If it just comes down to power, then we are back with one of Plato's shill characters who proclaimed, "Why, Justice is simply the might of the stronger, Socrates." I don't believe that.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I'm a Kantian when it comes to ethics. I'm not going to get anywhere arguing that position on this board, though.

Well, at least you admit that there's no basis for any sort of normative ethics in materialism.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter where the notion of rights comes from. If I conducted a survey of 1000 people, 995 of them would probably profess a belief in rights.

Possibly. But then, most people are not communists, and in any case many of them would also profess a belief in ghosts, gods, or the "belief" that women need to be chained down and forced to give birth in certain circumstances.

Absolutely, not all rights are equal. The right to your personal possessions doesn't outweigh somebody else's right to eat, for example. There's always an ethical calculus going on. Just because it's impractical doesn't mean it should be discarded altogether.

No, it should be discarded because it is not in the interest of the proletariat and the oppressed that women ever be forced to give birth.

Me neither, but that is something a lot of people seem to want. Why is it wrong to extract surplus labor from people, without the idea of ethics or rights? If it just comes down to power, then we are back with one of Plato's shill characters who proclaimed, "Why, Justice is simply the might of the stronger, Socrates." I don't believe that.

Or rather, there is no justice, justice is nonsense - there is only the class struggle and class power. That is all communists need.

[argeiphontes]

Well, at least you admit that there's no basis for any sort of normative ethics in materialism.

If you're right, then how do you deal with the obvious problems this causes? And why do most people on this board, communists, behave as if there were ethical considerations to their behaviors?

the "belief" that women need to be chained down and forced to give birth in certain circumstances.

For example, reactions to this. Most people--it seems like both you and me, at least--are going to behave as if this were unethical. Yet, you claim that this is perfectly fine because there's no normative basis for claiming otherwise.

No, it should be discarded because it is not in the interest of the proletariat and the oppressed that women ever be forced to give birth.

It could be in the interest of the proletariat in some circumstances. Would it become OK then? edit: It creates more proletarians, thus shifting the balance of power, for one thing. edit2: And what do you mean, "the oppressed"? Isn't that just a normative term?

Or rather, there is no justice, justice is nonsense - there is only the class struggle and class power. That is all communists need.

What's the point? Why not go to business school and be happy? The calculus of self-interest is clearly on the side of not engaging in radical politics. Or cooperating with others when you could just benefit yourself at the expense of others.

[Baseball]

Yes really, private property is coercive monopolisation which alienates wider society and sets the ground for their consequent exploitation.

A nice chant, which has no basis in reality.

A socialist community will also need to "wall off" or "fence-off" areas of production. ALL people can't work wherever one wishes, nor can all people take whatever they wish from production. At least not in an rational community or one professes to produce for "need."

[The Feral Underclass]

Sure they do.

No they don't. Now either you think non-human animals are able to self-conceptualise or you don't understand what desire is. Either way, non-human animals do not have desires.

Turn on Animal Planet. Or run them through a functional MRI.

You have no idea what you're talking about. What do you imagine I will learn from watching Animal Planet or scanning a non-human animal's brain?

Just because something originated out of Classical Liberalism doesn't make it wrong.

Actually it most likely does, since ideology tends to be self-affirming. The concepts of 'rights' developed specifically to reinforce the paradigms of prevailing systems. They are a mediating tool designed to de-escalate conflict within societies. By embracing those concepts and refusing to look upon them critically, you simply serve the interests of those attempting to maintain that framework.

I sure do keep operating within the paradigm of rights, and I have no intention of stopping.

Then you are no use to proletarian struggle.

[argeiphontes]

No they don't. Now either you think non-human animals are able to self-conceptualise

Yes, I do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_intelligence

edit: But "desire" may be different than knowledge of that desire in the abstract, in reference to a temporally continuous being known thru the experience "I".

I'm not going to fall for some kind of human exceptionalism. It's been a long time since Des Cartes. Where would such a sudden difference between human and non-human animals originate? The brains of animals are similar to one another in many ways. There's no evidence that animals don't have desires.

edit: I think animals have rights, too, by the way.

Then you are no use to proletarian struggle.

I don't believe you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, I do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_intelligence

Name one animal that is able to understand what existence is other than humans.

edit: But "desire" may be different than knowledge of that desire in the abstract, in reference to a temporally continuous being known thru the experience "I".

Desire is a human concept articulated by human language. Applying human characteristics onto non-human animals simply reinforces the anthropocentric world view, which, while not being at all surprising, since you are a massive liberal, has fundamental problems associated with it, for obvious reasons.

I'm not going to fall for some kind of human exceptionalism.

Good, because I'm not presenting any.

It's been a long time since Des Cartes. Where would such a sudden difference between human and non-human animals originate?

Human beings are the only self-conceptualising animals on the planet.

The brains of animals are similar to one another in many ways.

But their cultural, social and physiological responses to their existences are fundamentally different. You cannot apply human concepts to animal behaviour because they are not humans. Your attempt to do so betrays your underlying anthropocentric framework.

There's no evidence that animals don't have desires.

As I say, desire is a human concept, and in any case requires self-awareness.

edit: I think animals have rights, too, by the way.

That's because you're a liberal.

I don't believe you.

It's not a question of belief.

[argeiphontes]

That's because you're a liberal.

It's your right to say that.

[Tim Cornelis]

Then, would you say that Bolshevik authorities had a positive attitude toward the German War Office, NEPmen, concessionary capitalists etc.? That sounds, well, suspicious to say the least.

I don't get your point.

Policy has, up to now, always been an expression of class interest, even when the class interest is presented as "objective", "common" morality etc., and will continue to be an expression of class interest until classes are no more, at which point policy will become an expression of global community interest.

Agreed, mostly, with the first. Disagree with the last part. There is no global community interest.

Perhaps you should re-read my post, since I explicitly mentioned the special oppression of young people (which leads to child abuse etc.), sexual minorities (leading to "corrective" rape) etc., in addition to the special oppression of women. But yes, I don't think rape is somehow "blind" to the realities of economic, women's, gender, age and sexual oppression.

Child abuse is not connected to oppression of young people. Child abuse is the product of the sexual pursuit of pedophilia. Rape, on the other hand, is assault, and so the argument that is a component or effect of structural oppression of women can be made. The same cannot be said for child abuse. Moreover, rape does not always target women. To me, then, rape is partially a facet of oppressive social structures and norms, which are deconstructed through social revolution, but not completely.

Communism implies a stateless, classless society - and the forms of special oppression I have listed are tied to the class structure of society.

I disagree.

So if prevailing social attitudes sanction or condemn something, that should be the basis of public policy?

Not necessarily but it is inescapable, and communism breeds new social attitudes.

The material interest of the proletariat and oppressed groups (in the present society and in the dictatorship of the proletariat - of course this does not mean that physical assault on cops, the bourgeoisie etc. is "bad", quite the contrary), and of the free workers in the communist society.

"The material interests of free workers in a communist society" is nonsensical. How is opposing child abuse to take shape in communism? By arguing that it impairs the productivity of the child in the future or takes up resources in counseling, unnecessarily, apparently. What you advocate, disguisedly, is ethical egoism.

Many people have strong negative feelings about consensual adult incest, which does not mean that people who engage in such acts should be persecuted (as they are at present).

Agreed. But that non-persecution has no basis in your axiom that "the material interests of the free workers in the communist society" should be the basis for custom, norms, or customary law.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

To make the distinction even more clear we might speak of private property and personal belongings (like inhereted jewelry, photoalbums and your toothbrush).


About private property and expropriation, i think Kropotkin said it best when he wrote:

Fixed

[Sabot Cat]

Name one animal that is able to understand what existence is other than humans.



Desire is a human concept articulated by human language. Applying human characteristics onto non-human animals simply reinforces the anthropocentric world view, which, while not being at all surprising, since you are a massive liberal, has fundamental problems associated with it, for obvious reasons.

Why does it matter if animals are able to self-conceptualize or have self-awareness? All humans don't possess these abilities as newborns, yet it would be morally wrong to kill or seriously injure a newborn.

I don't believe all animals have rights, or anyone else; these are convenient fictions. But I do find it evident that there is something it is like to be a mammal*, and that they have lived experience of pleasure and pain, and as such they are applicable subjects for felicific calculus.

*It would be implausible for myself to be a human if there was something it is like to be an insect, bird, fish, etc. because of their disproportionately sizable numbers. Humans, however, are one of the most populous mammals in all of known history, especially in this current age. However, this kind of self-sampling statistical analysis is controversial for numerous reasons and I acknowledge these difficulties. There is some correspondence with neurological research that suggests consciousness, understood to be the ability to experience qualia, is grounded in broadly ranged cortical-to-cortical responses in the context of a well organized thalamo-cortical system (endemic to mammals).

[The Feral Underclass]

Why does it matter if animals are able to self-conceptualize or have self-awareness?

Well because desire is a human concept and requires self-awareness and since non-human animals are unable to achieve that level of sapience they can not have 'desires.'

All humans don't possess these abilities as newborns, yet it would be morally wrong to kill or seriously injure a newborn.

I have no interest in your morality.

I don't believe all animals have rights, or anyone else; these are convenient fictions. But I do find it evident that there is something it is like to be a mammal*, and that they have lived experience of pleasure and pain, and as such are applicable as subjects in felicific calculus.

*It would be implausible for myself to be a human if there was something it is like to be an insect, bird, fish, etc. because of their disproportionately sizable numbers. Humans, however, are one of the most populous mammals in all of known history, especially in this current age. However, this kind of self-sampling statistical analysis is controversial for numerous reasons and I acknowledge these difficulties. There is some correspondence with neurological research that suggests consciousness, understood to be the ability to experience qualia, is grounded in broadly ranged cortical-to-cortical responses in the context of a well organized thalamo-cortical system (endemic to mammals).

I have no idea why you're telling me this.

[Sabot Cat]

Well because desire is a human concept and requires self-awareness and since non-human animals are unable to achieve that level of sapience they can not have 'desires.'


I have no interest in your morality.


I have no idea why you're telling me this.

argeiphontes appears to be arguing that (nearly?) all animals should be considered as moral agents, those we should be concerned about when making decisions. You appear to be arguing against that on the grounds that almost all animals but humans have no self-awareness and self-perception, which somehow disqualifies them from that status. Unless you generally agree with argeiphontes' point, but are disagreeing with the way with it was arrived at (namely through 'rights', which isn't really a necessary concept to make argeiphontes' point).

[The Feral Underclass]

argeiphontes appears to be arguing that (nearly?) all animals should be considered as moral agents, those we should be concerned about when making decisions. You appear to be arguing against that on the grounds that almost all animals but humans have no self-awareness and self-perception, which somehow disqualifies them from that status. Unless you generally agree with argeiphontes' point, but are disagreeing with the way with it was arrived at (namely through 'rights', which isn't really a necessary concept to make argeiphontes' point).

My argument is three fold: A) animals don't have desires because desires are a human concept and requires self-awareness, which no non-human animal possesses. B) rights are a liberal construct that specifically reinforce the paradigms of prevailing systems. They are a mediating tool designed to de-escalate conflict within societies. By embracing those concepts and refusing to look upon them critically, you simply serve the interests of those attempting to maintain that framework, and C) that argeiphontes liberal animal rights views are actually covert anthropocentrism.

[Sabot Cat]

My argument is three fold: A) animals don't have desires because desires are a human concept and requires self-awareness, which no non-human animal possesses.

I don't know if desires require self-awareness, but if you believe desire to mean the wish for a certain outcome it does require complex conceptualization of the future that some animals may be incapable of. However, if you equate it to the general feeling of longing for something, animals can definitely experience that. In terms of feeling, animals desire to live, to eat, etc. If one has a dog, you can usually tell they want the food and thus, desire it. I'm not sure why the capacity to have desires is relevant though.

B) rights are a liberal construct that specifically reinforce the paradigms of prevailing systems. They are a mediating tool designed to de-escalate conflict within societies. By embracing those concepts and refusing to look upon them critically, you simply serve the interests of those attempting to maintain that framework,

I have no disagreements here, and I think your analysis is spot-on. Property "rights" are particularly insidious.

and C) that argeiphontes liberal animal rights views are actually covert anthropocentrism.

But this argument relies upon the notion that only humans should be moral agents, which is a premise argeiphontes fundamentally disagrees with. Therefore, I don't think argeiphontes can be justifiably attributed with a anthropocentric perspective, because of their disagreement with that premise, and because any 'covert' viewpoint is functionally unfalsifiable.

Furthermore, what is the premise common to these three arguments? What are these points intended to prove, aside from refuting argeiphontes? I find all three points superfluous to the central question of whether or not we should consider certain animals in our ethical decisions, but I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to assess at all.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't know if desires require self-awareness, but if you believe desire to mean the wish for a certain outcome it does require complex conceptualization of the future that some animals may be incapable of. However, if you equate it to the general feeling of longing for something, animals can definitely experience that. In terms of feeling, animals desire to live, to eat, etc. If one has a dog, you can usually tell they want the food and thus, desire it. I'm not sure why the capacity to have desires is relevant though.

Desire is a human concept, applied to various aspects of human behaviour in all instances of its definition. Trying to apply human characteristics and concepts to animals is precisely the anthropocentrism.

The social, cultural and physiological experiences that non-human animals have cannot be understood in the framework of human experiences and language.

But this argument relies upon the notion that only humans should be moral agents, which is a premise argeiphontes fundamentally disagrees with.

No, the anthropocentric framework relies upon the understanding that human beings are central to the world and the most significant species on the planet. While I'm sure argeiphontes has 'moral' views about non-human animals and supports their 'rights', he does so within the framework that human concepts and language should form the basis for understanding how non-human animals operate and how they should be treated. The issue of desire being one example and the idea of morals being another.

In my experience this view is ultimately defended on the basis that non-human animals cannot "speak for themselves", as if speaking were so profound and significant and central to everything it endowed us with primacy over the existence of other species; since humans have sapience we are somehow the automatic guardians of non-human animals, a view which further reinforces the anthropocentric world view.

On the specific issue of rights, it is the arrogance of humans to assume a non-human animal requires this concept to be privileged with its own existence. Animals do not require human concepts to legitimate their lives. Even if these so-called 'rights' exist solely to manage human behaviour towards non-human animals, it fundamentally fails to address the fact that there is a world view that states humans are the most significant species in the first place. It does nothing to address these intra-human dynamics or the human assumptions about ourselves (that we are somehow better than animals and more capable of defending them because we can make tools and speak) and merely attempts to codify human concepts and understandings.

Furthermore, what is the premise common to these three arguments? What are these points intended to prove, aside from refuting argeiphontes? I find all three points superfluous to the central question of whether or not we should consider certain animals in our decisions, but I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to assess at all.

This discussion developed from an intervention by argeiphontes in which he disagreed with my assessment on the nature of 'rights.' It had nothing to do with non-human animals as 'moral agents' or how we consider them, these are things you have introduced into this discussion. I have simply followed argeiphontes's train of thought and rejected his liberal and anthropocentric views.

[argeiphontes]

argeiphontes appears to be arguing that (nearly?) all animals should be considered as moral agents, those we should be concerned about when making decisions.

Actually, I would argue that we are moral agents, who should consider the well-being of animals based on their ability to suffer or other qualities by virtue of which they have rights. Basically, I agree with Peter Singer that the capacity to suffer confers a right not to be made to suffer (unnecessarily). He bases rights in capacities, which sounds good to me.

As for desire, I don't see why the kind of self-understanding that's present in humans, chimps, dolphins, and other animals is necessary for desire. Desire is the feeling of wanting something. My cat has plenty of desire. When he wants food, he comes and plays on my emotions to get it. If he's unsuccessful, he changes tactics, like changing the tone of his meows to be more kitten-like and plaintive. If he's unsuccessful for too long, he becomes frustrated and may even attack me out of frustration. That's emotional desire if I've ever seen it.

I threw out the article about animal intelligence to show that some mammals and birds do have an idea of themselves and are able to take up a 3rd person view of themselves, like in the mirror test. So even if desire did require self-consciousness, it's present in at least some animals. Gorillas that have been taught sign language are able to make complex statements. Birds use tools and show creativity. Etc.

The reason I said "It's been a long time since Descartes" (who thought animals were just biological robots and conducted live dissections in front of audiences) is because I think that human exceptionalism in terms of consciousness and emotion could just be due to historical and religious baggage, e.g. the notion that only humans have souls, and maybe an ideology of justification of animal slaughter and abuse. Just because an animal is less intelligent, does not mean that it has less emotion or even, *gasp*, consciousness. Not all cultures across time have assumed that animals don't have consciousness, and I don't see that ours was actually based on science rather than conjecture. So I'm willing to give some animals the benefit of the doubt.

edit: Just saw the anthropocentrism comments. How is the above anthropocentrism? It's the opposite.