> It sounds like you're conflating legal arguments with moral ones. You're saying animals lack rights so it's morally okay to enslave/make use of them?
I am not conflating moral and legal arguments, though the legal is a determination of the moral (contra something stupid and tyrannical like legal positivism). Genuine law is not arbitrary or established by fiat. There are general moral principles, and the law plays a role in determining their particular, contingent application in a circumscribed and prudential manner within the given circumstances. That is why an unjust law is not a real law and why within one jurisdiction something may be legitimately legal while it is legitimately illegal in another.
So I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
As for enslaving animals, I would reject that it is possible to enslave non-human animals as a matter of metaphysical fact. Non-human animals can be held in captivity or employed for labor, but this is not slavery. To be enslaved presupposes the properties I explained. However, the absence of rights does not mean a right to do whatever you please with animals. It is immoral to torment or to abuse an animal, even if the animal doesn't have rights in this regard.
> I'd argue it's much baser than that. Animals have feelings and often feel very bad when kept in enslaved conditions. Since humans can understand the pain they inflict on enslaved animals, then it's wrong of us to continue enslaving them when we have alternatives that are just as healthy for us, if not more healthy.
We have to make distinctions here. First, one I already used above, is the distinction between rights and morality. That is, the absence of a right does not entail a total absence of moral constraints or considerations in the relevant respect. I have no problem with criticisms of the contingent and particular conditions of, say, factory farming. I would agree that conditions in which animal welfare is better is preferable, but on moral grounds and by prioritizing human good. But these are matters of prudence, not principle. Whereas it is intrinsically evil to employ people in chattel slavery[0], it is not intrinsically evil to hold animals in captivity or to use them for labor.
> I would also say your assumption that pigs do not comprehend their actions and cannot choose between alternatives is false.
Okay, and I would disagree with you - it is an inference, not an assumption on my part - because pigs lack the kind of language that entails the kind of intentionality that would make rationality possible (which is what understanding presupposes), something free choice presupposes. That is, they "choose" based on sense impressions and appetite (in the broad sense of the term).
[0] Emphasis on chattel. Some forms of servitude are not immoral.
I am not conflating moral and legal arguments, though the legal is a determination of the moral (contra something stupid and tyrannical like legal positivism). Genuine law is not arbitrary or established by fiat. There are general moral principles, and the law plays a role in determining their particular, contingent application in a circumscribed and prudential manner within the given circumstances. That is why an unjust law is not a real law and why within one jurisdiction something may be legitimately legal while it is legitimately illegal in another.
So I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
As for enslaving animals, I would reject that it is possible to enslave non-human animals as a matter of metaphysical fact. Non-human animals can be held in captivity or employed for labor, but this is not slavery. To be enslaved presupposes the properties I explained. However, the absence of rights does not mean a right to do whatever you please with animals. It is immoral to torment or to abuse an animal, even if the animal doesn't have rights in this regard.
> I'd argue it's much baser than that. Animals have feelings and often feel very bad when kept in enslaved conditions. Since humans can understand the pain they inflict on enslaved animals, then it's wrong of us to continue enslaving them when we have alternatives that are just as healthy for us, if not more healthy.
We have to make distinctions here. First, one I already used above, is the distinction between rights and morality. That is, the absence of a right does not entail a total absence of moral constraints or considerations in the relevant respect. I have no problem with criticisms of the contingent and particular conditions of, say, factory farming. I would agree that conditions in which animal welfare is better is preferable, but on moral grounds and by prioritizing human good. But these are matters of prudence, not principle. Whereas it is intrinsically evil to employ people in chattel slavery[0], it is not intrinsically evil to hold animals in captivity or to use them for labor.
> I would also say your assumption that pigs do not comprehend their actions and cannot choose between alternatives is false.
Okay, and I would disagree with you - it is an inference, not an assumption on my part - because pigs lack the kind of language that entails the kind of intentionality that would make rationality possible (which is what understanding presupposes), something free choice presupposes. That is, they "choose" based on sense impressions and appetite (in the broad sense of the term).
[0] Emphasis on chattel. Some forms of servitude are not immoral.