About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 4:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
First off I should admit that I am an animal lover.  I think that dogs in particular have several human "qualities" and make excellent pals.   One thing I hate to see is people needlessly harming animals in order to burn off anger or to engage in some sadistic pleasure.  I recall a few years ago coming upon a group of kids stabbing at a cat with some sticks and chasing them off.  Luckily the cat wasn't hurt too badly but I recall thinking that if they had been older I probably would have done more then just chase them away. 

So here's my question.  On what ground is this type of act immoral and should such actions be criminal offenses?  I am in agreement that animals do not have individual rights but it seems to me that needless animal torture is something that deserves some kind of punishment.  Are there grounds for this or am I overstepping my bounds in wanting to punish people for acts that don't violate anyone's rights?

 - Jason


Post 1

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a good question Jason.  It is one I have often grappled with from a framework of objectivism.  I hope to see it discussed here in an intelligent manner.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 5:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think it's more a matter of empathy, honestly. We don't like to see "cute", domesticated animals hurt, like dogs and cats. But would you free a frog or lab rat from dissection? Would you stop a chicken from becoming Mcnuggets? An alligator from becoming a shoe?

One reason we don't like to see dogs and cats tortured is because, through domesticity, they've become somewhat helpless. Sure, they can bite and scratch, but they are still at a disadvantage compared to gators and tigers. It's needlessly cruel to kick a cat for fun.

The empathy issue comes down to the "Muttnik" principle, as Branden calls it, or the "projection theory," as Jung calls it. Jason, you point to a dog's "human"
qualities, which are based on the above. It's easier to project human qualities onto a dog because of the reciprocal relationship. Harder to do with a reptile or fish.

(I have a theory of my own that relates, one of the eyes of the creature. The more human like the eyes, the more we can relate. Some creatures don't have white's around their eyes, or don't have the same expressive capacity that others do with more developed eyes. That's why we use phrases like "puppy dog eyes.")

When was the last time anyone felt emotional towards a clam or cricket? And don't get me started on spiders, with their multiple eyes...creepy...


(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/30, 5:07pm)


Post 3

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 5:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe-
Good points.  I'll admit that for the question to be valid, it has to apply beyond what we find 'cute' and encompass all lifeforms that feel pain.  Be it puppy, kitten, or fish, is it wrong to needlessly inflict pain on a living creature?


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 5:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

In moral terms, if needless pain is to be despised on principle, then so are those who cause it, regardless to what species (or at least their acts of cruelty are to be despised).

In using dead animals for human consumption products, the progress of human history has upheld this moral view of despising needless pain and has tried to make the act of killing animals quick and without them suffering - as much as possible.

Legally, the only way I can see punishment is on the grounds of property rights. Animals are personal property. A person torturing one's animal is the same as causing damage to one's property and should be punished accordingly. The grey area is if a person owns animals and tortures them. It's hard to set rational legal parameters for that, but it is not a hard thing to despise.

Unfortunately, stray dogs and cats get pot luck - if a good guy comes by, they are protected, if not, well... so it goes.

Life's a bitch sometimes.

Michael


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As the friend and 'father' of three Golden Retrievers who are more important to me than any other mammals on the planet I can confidently say that I don't regard them as 'property'. I value my property highly and firmly believe in my right to dispose of it as I choose, but I don't see my canine companions that way. I would sue someone who deliberately cut down my trees for their own firewood, but I would kill anyone who deliberately shot my dogs.

And I don't believe in animal 'rights'.

Jeff


Post 6

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 6:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

I really like you. Bravo.

Michael


(Edit - I should mention that I am applauding the attitude, not the legal stance.)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/30, 6:49pm)


Post 7

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 6:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff-

What do you think it is that causes this emotional reaction?  If you were to rationally reflect upon that emotion you just stated, what would you say?  I'm not being antagonistic, I would react the same way.  I think you have opened up a deep vein in this discussion.  Actually, I'm sure MSK will love this topic as it has to do with psycho-epistemology in a way.


Post 8

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff-
In discussing this, I would also like to harken back to a point that Joe made;  would you feel the same way about the denizens of your aquarium(if you have one)?  Why or why not?


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If there is going to be rational discussion on this, I suggest some terms be defined - empathy, transference, and so forth - nature of, causes, validity issues, and so forth - then can begin further discussion...

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK, definitions are good.

This isn't a definition, but Jeff, I have a observation on property rights.

You may not consider your dogs as your property, but from the sound of it, others damn well better.

Michael


Post 11

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You may not consider your dogs as your property, but from the sound of it, others damn well better.
Good point Michael-LOL


Post 12

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody,
"That's none of your business." ... Just kidding. (Referring to the 'privacy lies' thread, for those who may not get it.)

You ask an excellent question and I can give you a lengthy answer, but I'm going to let that wait until tomorrow. I have 'thought rationally' (which, to me, includes awareness of one's feelings as data and 'provider of hints') on the subject for many years.

The short answer is: they are my dearest friends and among the top five or ten mammals I have known personally in my life.

No, I wouldn't feel that way about fish or even cats. (And I'm fond of many individuals of different species.  The deer that come to eat apples off my tree in the back yard and the snowshoe hare that eat my grass are welcome anytime. The bear was welcome for a while until she climbed up the apple tree, stripped it bare and scraped the bark, then got a little too uppity when I complained. I feel sad when the neighbors shoot them, though I don't try to interfere.)

A longer, more psychologically insightful and philosophically grounded response will have to wait a bit.

Jeff


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,
I appreciate your humor, but let me ask you a semi-serious question. Is Kat your property? Is her daughter? Granted, they are humans and have rights, among which are the right not to have harmful force initiated against them, is this really the reason you would protect them and (at least want to) strike back at anyone who threatened them with serious injury?  I doubt it.

Anyone who cares for their animal companions has similar feelings and for similar reasons.

Jeff



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The moral issue comes when suffering is being inflicted for its own sake.  Someone who celebrates animal torture is celebrating anti-life values, they are worshipping destruction.  Most of the time these things happen, boys in their early teens are the perpetrators, and they eventually come to realize the moral repugnancy of their actions.  I know this because I blew up a toad with a firecracker when I was about 11 or 12.  It was a peer pressure type of situation, and I regret that it happened. 

Currently, I do a lot of fishing.  Most of the time, I practice catch and release, and I don't even think twice about yanking a hook into a fish's mouth and then bringing it temporarilly into an environment where it can't breathe.  I often wonder on what philosophical grounds I can justify this given that I'd be appalled by the equivalent treatment of a dog. 


Post 15

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 8:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

As the papa of a gorgeous little Miniature American Eskimo dog, I’m in total agreement with the spirit of Jeff’s post.

 

We value pets because they provide us with a level of visibility, much like friends and lovers do, but obviously not to the same extent and degree of richness (but sometimes pretty close!)

 

Mammals such as cats and dogs have a greater range of responses, expressions and actions and are therefore able to provide a greater level of visibility compared to, say, a goldfish. In other words: what Joe M. said.

 

Causing of needless harm and pain to an animal for its own sake is surely a symptom of serious psychological problems. What are they gaining from the animal’s pain? What are they reacting to? Sickos clutching the “animals don’t have rights” straw to rationalize their own psychosis give me the creeps. (There was actually someone who used to post on SOLO exactly like this – “they have no rights, I can do what I want” – can’t remember their name, though.) Unfortunately, apart from the “property rights” angle, there is no recourse for these psychos apart from richly deserved public exposure and contempt.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,

You asked, "Is Kat your property? Is her daughter?"

To paraphrase myself, I may not consider them that way, but others damn well better. Don't take my word for it, though. Look at Kat's description on Solo. You will find this phrase:

"Property of the Colonel. If found, please return to the kitchen... purrrrrrrrrrr"

//;-)

Michael



Post 17

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 8:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff hints at the related topic of hunting which inevitably comes up here. Like Jeff, I don't interfere with hunters so long as they're monitored by the Game and Fish folk to make sure they're population thinning rather than exterminating a species, but I couldn't bring myself to hunt unless I needed the food.

Oh, and I have been fishing once as well and I did empathize with the fishies and haven't been fishing since. I suppose I can do this because my sci-fi background has left with me the image of an evolutionarily advanced race visiting Earth and treating humans however they please because we don't have certain biological capacities they do. I'm then the fish to their fisher. Make the evolutionary difference even greater to become the ant to their jogger.

I'm left wondering, how does minimizing the harm one does to a sentient being equate to granting it rights? Certainly anyone who has studied the concept of rights would think it absurd to become an advocate of animal rights. Perhaps it needn't even be a question of rights, but simply compassion. Certainly not grounds on which to enact laws. That would make animal cruelty laws akin to the "decency" laws of the FCC, would it not?

Ah, well in my stream of consciousness writing it seems I've simply restated Jason's original question. Well then. Away!

Sarah

P.S. This topic is representative of one flaw I see in Objectivism and I have serious doubts as to Oism's ability to answer this question without making people feel like crap.

Edit: clarity
(Edited by Sarah House
on 10/30, 8:42pm)


Post 18

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 8:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

Are you a Vegan?

gw


Post 19

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 9:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gary,

No, but I'm considering vegetarianism (not ethical, but I suppose compassionate vegetarianism?). Given a source of non-animal nutrition that can maintain my health and doesn't taste like crap, it would seem superfluous to have a creature killed for me to eat. As of now, however, I'm limited to a cafeteria which provides only one type of meal for vegetarians unless I want to pay to grocery shop on top of the required college meal plan. Stupid bureaucracy. :/

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 10/30, 9:39pm)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.