AC and anthropocentrism

[latefordinner]

If someone wants to, I would like them to provide justification for the anthropocentric nature of AC and how that jives with the principle of non-coercion. Specifically dealing with animals as ownable commodities in the AC worldview, (and also plants, and also children if you want since I think children in ACworld can be tangentially related philisophically here)

If this discussion has already happened, I'd be happy to just read that thread instead.

If you want to argue that anthropocentrism is irrelevant because market anarchism is not anthropocentric, you can do that as well.

You can use some natural selection justification if you want, but then you have to explain how you can extrapolate outwards from a biological process to a system of morality.

[Brainwalter]

Humans are biological creatures, and as such our only biological imperative is to ensure our own survival and that of our progeny.

It also appears that humans are the only self-aware beings in existence. This enables only humans to act as moral agents. Discussing morality as it relates to livestock or nature is irrelevant, as animals and plants cannot return moral judgment, and quite possibly have no awareness when they are "wronged".

In a similar vein, only humans act purposefully based on reason, therefore only humans can be engage in economic activity.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
and quite possibly have no awareness when they are "wronged".

[/ QUOTE ]

can you expand on this point? do you mean that if an animal is in an undesirable psychological state (say I'm a cruel bastard and I poke a dog's eye out with a stick) that it doesn't place any moral judgement on me ("this bastard is poking me with a stick for no reason") and simply responds in an instinctual way to the presence of an undesirable stimulus? therefore I don't have to be morally concerned with how I treat an animal because it doesn't have the cognitive capacity to place a moral judgement on me for having hurt it.

if so is there a biological line where this changes (okay to rip the tails off shrimp, not okay to light a gorilla on fire)? I can think of cases where it would be possible for another human being not to have any concept of the fact that it is being "wronged", simply that it is in pain. Is it morally okay if I cause that human being pain?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
You can use some natural selection justification if you want, but then you have to explain how you can extrapolate outwards from a biological process to a system of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolutionary Game Theory FTW!

Evolutionary Game Theory

[ QUOTE ]
In the preface to Evolution and the Theory of Games, Maynard Smith notes that "[p]aradoxically, it has turned out that game theory is more readily applied to biology than to the field of economic behaviour for which it was originally designed." It is perhaps doubly paradoxical, then, that the subsequent development of evolutionary game theory has produced a theory which holds great promise for social scientists, and is as readily applied to the field of economic behaviour as that for which it was originally designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionary Game Theory FTW!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You can use some natural selection justification if you want, but then you have to explain how you can extrapolate outwards from a biological process to a system of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

naturalistic fallacy?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionary Game Theory FTW!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You can use some natural selection justification if you want, but then you have to explain how you can extrapolate outwards from a biological process to a system of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

naturalistic fallacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

The naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy. Oof, that felt very meta.

Accusing something of being a naturalistic fallacy is being rather anthropocentric. You are implying that human behavior can't be studied scientifically. Humans are animals, their behavior (including their ethics) can and have been studied scientifically.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone wants to, I would like them to provide justification for the anthropocentric nature of AC and how that jives with the principle of non-coercion. Specifically dealing with animals as ownable commodities in the AC worldview, (and also plants, and also children if you want since I think children in ACworld can be tangentially related philisophically here)

If this discussion has already happened, I'd be happy to just read that thread instead.

If you want to argue that anthropocentrism is irrelevant because market anarchism is not anthropocentric, you can do that as well.

You can use some natural selection justification if you want, but then you have to explain how you can extrapolate outwards from a biological process to a system of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke?

This is a completely serious question, if it isn't obvious.

[Borodog]

Also, if this is not a joke, I again ask you, instead of just bashing capitalism, why don't you expand upon how un-"anthropocentric" anarcho-socialism is, and how it would operate in a completely egalitarian fashion towards all species (and all natural resources, I have to presume).

Just typing this I feel like I'm getting levelled though.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
It also appears that humans are the only self-aware beings in existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say my cat is most definitely self-aware.

[ QUOTE ]
Discussing morality as it relates to livestock or nature is irrelevant, as animals and plants cannot return moral judgment, and quite possibly have no awareness when they are "wronged".

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words: "We're not smart enough to communicate with them, so it must be impossible." And if you think animals have no awareness of when they've been "wronged", you've obviously never had a pet cat.

[ QUOTE ]
In a similar vein, only humans act purposefully based on reason,

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence?

[latefordinner]

so so far we have three rough positions right?

1) anthropocentrismis morally justifiable because an animal cannot feel wronged

2) morals are irrelevant to the question at hand because all species act in such a way as to maximize their biological imperative to suvive and there is nothing "moral" or "immoral" about the process of natural selection

3) it is impossible to act in a non anthropocentric way therefore any human socioeconomic system would have an antrhropocentric basis

any others?

--

also boro: in answer to your question, you invite all the animals to your planning committee meetings. you might need a translator for some of the invertibrates though, they don't speak human langauges that well