Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anizi

Regulars
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Anizi's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Anizi

    Animal rights

    No, I do not, but nor do I have any desire or intention to do so. I was asking a question, hence my confusion at your statement that I was being emotional. Jake's argument (external assessment of mental health via medicinal standards) is valid. As I cannot reasonably postulate the existence of someone who desires to torture animals but who is also in good mental health, I accept that argument. There are some additional, but largely tangential questions - mostly to do with how psychiatry is a fairly subjective field (particularly with respect to diagnosis). I don't think those questions actually contend with what Jake is saying, though. I would certainly state that the desire to torture an animal or the ability to derive direct pleasure from it is evidence of mental damage, regardless of whatever the medical consensus is. Is that a rational statement? Probably not, but I'll leave it up to those hypothetical getting-pleasure-from-kicking-kittens individuals to defend their own sanity.
  2. I've always compared it to a highway. If you're ever sitting a few hundred feet off the ground and watching traffic, it looks amazingly coordinated, controlled, and efficient. However, each driver has his own source, his own destination, his own car, his own ideas about when and how to advance through traffic, and, fundamental to all of this, he has complete control of the vehicle. Who could honestly believe that he or another person is capable of creating and executing a plan to dictate the actions of every driver on every road in this country from now until forever? When you consider the number of transactions and valuations that occurs in a free market and liken it to that of the road, it is amazing to me that people argue in favor of government control and regulation.
  3. Anizi

    Animal rights

    "So it's pretty straight forward: if one's judgment is impaired by psychological issues, that person is sick and in need of medical attention." Alright, that makes sense, and I'll accept that. On a tangent, (and this one is emotionally based, but still a valid question): is there moral or rational argument, for or against, the use of unnecessary (beyond the minimum required or, at the other end of the spectrum, in dire excess of that required minimum) harm (causing physical pain) to an animal during its raising and subsequent butchering for food? Given that... Returning to our good friend, Mr Hypothesis, is there a generally moral or rational argument for or against an animal-farm-and-butchery that uses a method which results in better, cheaper beef, but makes use of extremely cruel methods (methods which cause a great deal of physical pain [perhaps in excess of current methods] to the animal throughout the process)? I am not postulating that such a thing exists, ever has existed, or ever will. Edit: I realize my hypothetical situation does sound like I am trying to derive a position on the meat industry and such. I'm not. I am genuinely trying to understand the argument which I think is fundamental to the original post, even though I am not trying to ascertain the validity of vegetarianism.
  4. Anizi

    Animal rights

    "Anizi, you're acting on emotions rather than from reason.." Assert that. "If a person really does derive pleasure from the suffering of animals, that's a sign of psychological corruption, and indulging instead of addressing and correcting it is immoral. " Are there any Objectivist pieces on this (the premise of psychological corruption), particularly pertaining to something like the ability to derive pleasure from suffering? I agree that it is certainly immoral, but I'm curious about the premise of corruption within the context of rationality. I.e., can it be a rational action, and can you be rational even if you are, as I said before, "several thousand fathoms below 'normal'?" (Side: where in the **** does the question mark go here?) "As an aside, people often leap to the conclusion that someone enjoys torturing animals when that's not necessarily the case. You can "harm" animals for the sake of nothing but fun (hunting, fishing), without necessarily deriving pleasure from the animal's pain." I agree - and it's an easy accusation to make because people have very strong emotional ties to the subject (animal torture). I agree with the second statement, as well. I should probably expound on my first post: I have no interest of taking this discussion or attempting to derive from it a position in terms of the meat industry. I'm just curious. Returning to this, "Happiness is a valid goal for ethics, but a proper ethics can't be to act on whatever just happens to make you happy." Aside from (what I would call the "obvious") psychological damage in an individual who derives relaxation and pleasure from torturing an animal, what would be the fundamental difference between that and someone who enjoys sitting in a comfortable chair and sipping vodka? That is, if you're arguing against the question I am asking (presuming my stance is defending the rationality of pleasure-through-animal-torture), by what means could I defend the enjoyment of the chair-and-vodka premise?
  5. Anizi

    Animal rights

    Hm.. ok, I should probably clarify, but I think the latter end of what you wrote fundamentally addresses the issue. Nonetheless, Can the act be moral for the aesthetic pleasure derived from the act itself, and the selfish gain of pleasure in doing so? In defense of the question, I postulate that there acts where are pleasurable just in their own doing, not necessarily within the reasons for doing them or the results. For example, I enjoy rolling cigarettes - I'd enjoy it even if not for the end product, and I'd enjoy it even if lacking the reason of desiring the end product to begin with. I find pleasure in the process itself. Extending that, I can imagine an (hypothetical, of course, but my argument is largely hypothetical and can probably be dismissed on those grounds) individual who derives pleasure from causing pain in an animal capable of feeling it. Maybe he likes the sounds the animal makes, maybe it's just the process itself is enjoyable. I would, I think obviously, contend that the psychology of the individual is probably something several thousand fathoms below "normal," but I'm not sure I can assert one way or the other that such a psychology is indicative of the inability or unwillingness to reason. To summarize, I postulate that you can enjoy the act of something itself - the act of doing - bereft of its results or the reason for doing it. Actually, I'll stop there. Is this a reasonable hypothesis, or am I just missing something here?
  6. Anizi

    Animal rights

    I'm sort of reiterating what I believe to be the fundamental question for this thread (via a first post, I know - I apologize) or, at least, an implicit question that has, for the most part, gone unanswered: Is it moral, in and of itself, to cause pain to an animal capable of experiencing it (pain) for the reason of pleasure, be that pleasure: A) Direct (you enjoying causing the suffering in and of itself) Indirect (you enjoy products of that suffering) I am disregarding all elements of vegetarianism here, the actual butchering process, etc. I should elaborate on that second clause ( a bit: By "enjoy products of that suffering," I am postulating a hypothetical situation in which getting a particular product (meat, for example) required that a creature capable of suffering suffers? I am not stating or advocating that this is the case, so please, for the love of fried chicken, don't ream me on odd tangents.
×
×
  • Create New...