Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
m0zart

Question About Animal Cruelty

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What is immoral - and, more than that, mentally deranged - is the mere fact that a grown adult derives pleasure from the suffering of another living creature.

Well said.

[Edit - Abbreviated Quoted Section - RC]

Edited by RationalCop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If life, as such, is not a value - then why should one regard a human life as being of value? And why would one subscribe to the notion that man has rights in the first place if human life was not a value?

I agree with most everything you have said, and I think I understand the intent of what you are trying to get across. If perhaps I have misunderstood you, I certainly welcome clarification/correction. Below are my thoughts on the parts with which I am having difficulty.

Life (as such) is not a value without context anymore than any other "thing" is a value without context. One other reason why one would subscribe to the notion that man has rights in the first place is not necessarily because human life (in and of itself) is a value, but because their life is a value. By extension, some other specific human lives have value to them as well, but not necessary human life in general. Now I would agree that "human life in general" certainly can be a legitimate value and probably is for a great many people. From my own point of view, the world would be a lonely place if I was the only one in it.

I can think of quite a few humans I would like to see dead. Their lives have NO value to me. In many other instances, the life or death of many individuals is of no noticeable consequence to me. I do not wish them death, nor would I endeavor to bring about their death, but I will not feel loss if they die. In fact, many human deaths are actually a valuable reminder to me about just how much I love my own life and why "is/ought" is so important. On the other hand, there are other lives that hold quite significant value to me, such as my son and my wife.

I hold valuable the death of many animals that provide food for my table. I grew up hunting animals, and my father taught me not to kill senselessly or needlessly so I take no pleasure in torturing animals. (though admittedly I'll tease my cats and dogs sometimes :) ) Now since the time my father taught me this, I have since evaluated these ideas on my own so that I didn't just act on "how I was brought up".

I can also agree that such senseless or needless torture is indicative of some serious psychological issue and/or should be morally judged. I would say that such behavior is not necessarily indicative of the person not valuing human life (or life) in general so much as they do not properly value their own life.

I can relate to "respectably" killing animals when there is a need. However, the main reason why I think the killing should be respectably carried out is because I empathize with what it would be like if I (or someone I loved) were to be killed in some torturous manner. But in the end, dead is dead. No matter how respectably one might have killed the animal, the "value" of it's life is extinguished. Whoever killed it didn't value it's life that much. One obvious exception to this would be the pet owner who euthanizes a long time pet who is now suffering through what's left of it's existence.

Edited by RationalCop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that animals do not have rights does not mean that their lives are without value. Life itself is a profoundly precious value
This sounds like intrinsicism - a value to whom? The life of the average spider is of no value whatsoever to me, and I suppose other people feel the same about cats/cows/whatever.

Having such respect does not mean that a person should refrain from killing animals when there is a purpose for doing so - i.e. food, clothing, removal of pests and, yes, even sport.
What if my purpose is simply because I derive pleasure from it? Some people derive pleasure from hunting rabbits or (painfully) killing fish - why cant I derive pleasure from tortuning a cat?

Those who would take pleasure from the suffering of an innocent creature - well, the very psychology that would make such pleasure possible is profoundly twisted.
No - a lot of children derive pleasure from (eg) pulling the legs of spiders or hurting the family dog, and I dont think this is grounds for sending them to a psychiatrist. When they grow older, they learn that we, as a society, tend to frown upon that sort of thing and hence stop doing it. But in the absence of an animal rights framework, this cant be said to be objectively correct - its just what we happen to do as a culture.

. If life, as such, is not a value - then why should one regard a human life as being of value?
The life of the average human is of no value to me - I couldnt care less about the deaths of people I do not know. However, I refrain from initiating force against others because I believe that all humans have a basic set of rights regardless of whether I value the individuals in question. Buf if animals have no rights, theres no obvious reason why theres a problem with torturing them if it brings you pleasure (hunting or fishing for instance, or just pulling the legs off cats, which is pretty much the same thing).

Values exist in a hierarchy. To say that a human life is infinitely more precious than an dog's or cat's is not to say that the dog or cat's life is without value and not morally worthy of respect.
Again, this is intrinsicism. You cant have it both ways.If nothing is intrinsically valuable and animals have no rights, there is no good reason to view torturing them as immoral, unless you can show that this is likely to have negative effects on the torturers. And if you want this to be objective, then youre going to need something a lot more substantial than vague notions of being 'psychologically twisted' or whatever. Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*Agrees* [about stealing the cat]

Again, why not just put a gun to his head and pull the trigger?

What if he were skeet-shooting priceless artwork? Would you steal that? Is this urge to violate rights based on the fact that it's an animal, or that he is wasting his property?

Edited by Inspector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Life (as such) is not a value without context anymore than any other "thing" is a value without context.

I agree completely. I hold that life is a profound value. But there are certain living beings whose existence in my proximity is a huge disvalue to me and I would have no problem killing such a being. My only point was that I would not wish for it to suffer a painful and tortuous death.

One other reason why one would subscribe to the notion that man has rights in the first place is not necessarily because human life (in and of itself) is a value, but because their life is a value.

I agree completely. And, to take it further, the bond that I have with all other living creatures is that I profoundly value my life - and, in the same way, I have a profound RESPECT for life, as such. Having such respect does not mean, however, that I equate all forms of life or even all human lives with my own. Nor does it suggest that I attach value to particular lives, human or otherwise.

By extension, some other specific human lives have value to them as well, but not necessary human life in general. Now I would agree that "human life in general" certainly can be a legitimate value and probably is for a great many people. From my own point of view, the world would be a lonely place if I was the only one in it.

I can think of quite a few humans I would like to see dead. Their lives have NO value to me.

Again, I agree.

SOME human lives are a disvalue and are best extinguished - for example, terrorists, dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Castro etc.

In many other instances, the life or death of many individuals is of no noticeable consequence to me. I do not wish them death, nor would I endeavor to bring about their death, but I will not feel loss if they die.

True, you would not feel loss if they die because you do not know them - they, in particular, are not of value to you personally. I have mourned the death of my cats - but I don't mourn the death of some random stranger I read about on the obituary page. My doing so, of course, has zero implications that I somehow hold cat lives over human lives.

However, my guess is that when you read of some innocent stranger who is brutally murdered and when you hear of terrorist attacks on completely innocent strangers you are profoundly outraged. Why? Because you recognize the profound value of human life and the potential that is open to all human beings. Thus you are outraged because such murders are a profound act of injustice.

It is the same thing when a person tortures an animal for no reason other than to make it suffer - it is a profound injustice to a living creature. This is true even if the continued existence of the living creature is a disvalue.. Let's say that I am a farmer and a wolf is killing off my livestock. I obviously would get rid of the wolf. But to stand over it while it twists in agony after I have given it a disabling but not immediately lethal wound and get some sort of satisfaction out of it is profoundly sick - even if I am still upset about the loss of my valuable livestock. A wolf does not know right from wrong - going after livestock is in its nature. Because of that nature, I must kill it. But it does not justify my wanting to see it suffer.

I can also agree that such senseless or needless torture is indicative of some serious psychological issue and/or should be morally judged. I would say that such behavior is not necessarily indicative of the person not valuing human life (or life) in general so much as they do not properly value their own life.

I agree. The ability to value other human beings and life in general derives from our love of our own lives.

I can relate to "respectably" killing animals when there is a need. However, the main reason why I think the killing should be respectably carried out is because I empathize with what it would be like if I (or someone I loved) were to be killed in some torturous manner.
Indeed.

But in the end, dead is dead. No matter how respectably one might have killed the animal, the "value" of it's life is extinguished. Whoever killed it didn't value it's life that much.

Sure. But to not value something "all that much" does not mean that one regards it as worthless or completely without value. Values are hierarchical. If you are a hunter and shoot a deer, the life of that particular deer is not of value to you in the sense that you place a vastly higher value on its carcass and the things you will get from it than you do its life. For you, that particular deer is a greater value dead than it is alive. On the other hand, if, when you take it down, you have merely wounded it to the degree that it will take a few minutes before it dies a very painful death, you are most likely going to put the creature out of its misery even though doing so is going to cost you the money it took to purchase the extra bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if my purpose is simply because I derive pleasure from it? Some people derive pleasure from hunting rabbits or (painfully) killing fish - why cant I derive pleasure from tortuning a cat?

Because doing so is a profound injustice - and, more importantly, because deriving pleasure from suffering is psychologically SICK.

No - a lot of children derive pleasure from (eg) pulling the legs of spiders or hurting the family dog, and I dont think this is grounds for sending them to a psychiatrist.
Children don't know any better and do not fully realize the degree to which animals or even other people can suffer. It is the task of parents to teach them better. The only time one would send a child to a psychiatrist for such a matter is if it becomes habitual or they derive joy from suffering - and then it is very important to send the child to a psychiatrist because that is a major early warning sign of an emerging criminal personality.

When they grow older, they learn that we, as a society, tend to frown upon that sort of thing and hence stop doing it. But in the absence of an animal rights framework, this cant be said to be objectively correct - its just what we happen to do as a culture.

No - there is more to it than mere social convention.

The animal rights framework goes back in this country only so far. People who lived in the wilderness were the exact opposite of animal rights types - yet they were humane in their treatment of the animals they killed.

The life of the average human is of no value to me - I couldnt care less about the deaths of people I do not know.

Please re-read what you just wrote. If this is so and not merely a very badly worded passage - then you are a SICK-O and I see no point in further interaction with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having such respect [for animal life]does not mean that a person should refrain from killing animals when there is a purpose for doing so - i.e. food, clothing, removal of pests and, yes, even sport.
Having a purpose justifies killing an animal. Why is killing for pleasure not a valid purpose, but killing for sport is?

Those who would take pleasure from the suffering of an innocent creature - well, the very psychology that would make such pleasure possible is profoundly twisted. It is to hold with disregard the value of life itself.
It seems quite possible to me to value one's own or other human's lives without valuing the life of nonhumans.

Voting against it might perhaps be such a sanction. But abstaining from such a process most certainly is not. There are many reasons why a person might abstain.
But voting against it would definitely be a sanction, wouldn't it?

And as for abstaining, if abusing/torturing/severly mistreating animals is a right of man that it is improper for the state to violate, what is the difference between the man who abstains from protecting the right to torture animals, and the man who abstains from protecting the right to abortion or IP? Even granting that there can be things more important, is a person morally justified in picking and choosing which rights he believes are important enough to protect?

If animals have no rights, theres no obvious reason why theres a problem with torturing them if it brings you pleasure.

If you want this to be objective, then youre going to need something a lot more substantial than vague notions of being 'psychologically twisted' or whatever.

Agreed.

Again, why not just put a gun to his head and pull the trigger?
Well, I would hesitate to equate preventing a man from torturing an animal to preventing him from living. And I wouldn't prevent someone from destroying nonliving property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because doing so is a profound injustice - and, more importantly, because deriving pleasure from suffering is psychologically SICK.
Well... if you say so.

("not giving money to the poor is a profound injustice, and people who dont feel sad when they see homeless people are psychologically SICK"/"homosexuality is psychologically SICK"/etc. What any particular person personally happens to find sick is philosophically uninteresting, since I'm only interested in what can be consistently defended.)

Children don't know any better and do not fully realize the degree to which animals or even other people can suffer.
Its more likely that they dont care until they are taught to do so. Children who grew up in (eg) ancient rome, mongol civilisations, etc probably realised the degree to which slaves/enemies suffered when beaten, yet they dont seem to have considered this very interesting. Children (and adults) will generally pick up the values/morality of their surrounding society, and people will base their ideas of what is 'sick' on what they have been taught since childhood. But the question isnt what a particular group of people happen to think is acceptable/'sick' - its what things are capable of objective defence. And if animals objectively dont have rights, there doesnt seem to be any reason why torturing them is immoral (although since our culture frowns upon it, most of us will find it distasteful, myself included. But then I also find the thought of eating sheeps eyeball/octopus distasteful, and I dont think there anything objective involved in this judgement - its just how I've been brought up).

No - there is more to it than mere social convention.
Then, assuming animals have no rights, what else is there? Theres no obvious connection between torturing animals and being 'psychologically damanged', because in the past we have had entire societies where torturing humans was perfectly alright, and it seems strange to say that everyone who lived in them was 'damaged' somehow. However, we are able to say that these human-torturers were wrong, because we have an objective theory of human rights. But without an objective theory of animal rights, where can we stand to condemn animal-torturers? The disgust you feel animal torturers kicking cats is probably similar to the way that PETA activists feel when they see you eating a hamburger, but I dont see why your position can be called more objectively correct than theirs if animals are simply property.

I think the attempt to reconcile "animals have no rights" with "it is wrong to torture animals" is an attempt to both have your cake and eat it. Once you agree with the first statement, you have nothing left with which to consistently defend the second.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also question the idea that a coherent distinction can be drawn between 'torturing for pleasure' and 'torturing for a purpose'. Cosmetic testing is a good example here - animals are routinely tortured for the purposes of testing products (blinding is fairly common), yet the results are things like lipstick and shampoo which do not help to keep humans alive - these products simply exist for the sake of our vanity/pleasure. So it seems that its acceptable to torture animals for (non-essential-to-life) pleasure, as long as the pleasure isnt the actual tortuting itself?

To put it in a slightly more exaggerated way, does it really make that much of a difference that the person pulling the legs off his cat is doing so because he thinks that warm cat-blood looks nice on his face, rather than because he enjoys watching the cat suffer?

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I would hesitate to equate preventing a man from torturing an animal to preventing him from living. And I wouldn't prevent someone from destroying nonliving property.

Too bad, because they are one in the same, if the animal is his property. Principles aren't things you get to give up when things get ugly... that's when you need them the most. If you're willing to deprive a man of his right to property, you are depriving him of his means of living.

I suggest you retract your statement.

To put it in a slightly more exaggerated way, does it really make that much of a difference that the person pulling the legs off his cat is doing so because he thinks that warm cat-blood looks nice on his face, rather than because he enjoys watching the cat suffer?

Yes, although either way there is something wrong with him.

Someone who enjoys watching pain qua pain is somebody with a psychological problem. (i.e. "sicko") It doesn't matter that the particular thing in pain doesn't have rights: the problem isn't that an animal is being tortured... it's that someone is enjoying being a torturer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, although either way there is something wrong with him.

Someone who enjoys watching pain qua pain is somebody with a psychological problem. (i.e. "sicko") It doesn't matter that the particular thing in pain doesn't have rights: the problem isn't that an animal is being tortured... it's that someone is enjoying being a torturer.

I dont know what a 'psychological problem' is, other than that it seems to apply to people who do things that the user of the the term disapproves of. Do we have some sort of objective criteria for determining which sort of behavior constitutes having a problem? Is there a proven link between torturing animals and (proper) mental illnesses such as schizophrenia? Why is torturing animals that dont have rights any worse than deriving pleasure from killing enemies in violent computer games such as Grand Theft Auto (apparently people who play these games are sickos too according to certain tabloid newspapers...)?

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know what a 'psychological problem' is, other than that it seems to apply to people who do things that the user of the the term disapproves of. Do we have some sort of objective criteria for determining which sort of behavior constitutes having a problem? Is there a proven link between torturing animals and (proper) mental illnesses such as schizophrenia? Why is torturing animals that dont have rights any worse than killing enemies in a computer game?

Torture is a specific act: that of inflicting pain through the use of physical violence. The psychological problem is that a person should be averse to pain qua pain; that there is no way it would, qua pain, bring them pleasure. (This is not to say that a person can't derive pleasure from justice, if that happens to involve someone being in pain; i.e. you're not a sicko if you smile upon hearing that Osama Bin Laden just got shot in the b*lls)

As for your question of the computer game, that depends: just what sort of killing is this? (the topic isn’t: is killing animals a sign of psychological problems… it is: is deriving pleasure from torturing animals a sign of psychological problems.) If the game had a sufficiently graphic representation of torture and the person were enjoying it qua torture, then yes I would say that was an indicator of problems. To actually torture animals is only worse than that because it shows the resolve of the individual to not be deterred by the inconvenience of the mess, possibility of contracting some disease, etc. (i.e. he REALLY likes torturing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Torture is a specific act: that of inflicting pain through the use of physical violence. The psychological problem is that a person should be averse to pain qua pain; that there is no way it would, qua pain, bring them pleasure.
Again, I would argue that the fact kids very often seem to derive pleasure from the pain of animal suffering calls this into question - pulling the legs off spiders and killing ants with a magnifying glass are fairly common things to do in childhood. Left to develop on their own, I dont think the average child would ever reach the conclusion that there's anything wrong with hurting animals - it seems to be more a consequence of his socialisation into a society which condemns that sort of thing. As such, I dont think theres any real basis for equating enjoyment of torture with psychological problems - it does seem to be fairly natural.

As for your question of the computer game, that depends: just what sort of killing is this? (the topic isn’t: is killing animals a sign of psychological problems… it is: is deriving pleasure from torturing animals a sign of psychological problems.) If the game had a sufficiently graphic representation of torture and the person were enjoying it qua torture, then yes I would say that was an indicator of problems. To actually torture animals is only worse than that because it shows the resolve of the individual to not be deterred by the inconvenience of the mess, possibility of contracting some disease, etc. (i.e. he REALLY likes torturing)
Thats fair enough, at least youre consistent. If you really dont think theres much difference between enjoying incredibly graphic (fake) violence in videogames/films, and torturing (real) animals then I can accept that, although I disagree. Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I would argue that the fact kids very often seem to derive pleasure from the pain of animal suffering calls this into question - pulling the legs off spiders and killing ants with a magnifying glass are fairly common things to do in childhood.

My answer is the same as others here: a child does not necessarily know what he/she is doing. Furthermore, you do not know for a fact that they are enjoying torture qua torture. Perhaps they are just exploring how the things in their environment work by taking them apart. Maybe they just think bugs are icky things that should die. (I know I do…) You can’t just switch the context from an adult with full knowledge who is enjoying torture qua torture to a child who may not know what they are doing and may be doing it for any number of reasons.

Thats fair enough, at least youre consistent. If you really dont think theres much difference between enjoying incredibly graphic (fake) violence in videogames/films, and torturing (real) animals then I can accept that, although I disagree.

Indeed I do not think there’s much difference. As I said, it is only then a question of how far the sicko is willing to go to indulge in his pleasure that he derives from inflicting pain.

This evaluation of “sicko” is one based on a rational assessment of their consciousness and evaluated on the basis of: “how much of a threat does this person pose to me, those I love, and my property?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My answer is the same as others here: a child does not necessarily know what he/she is doing.
What knowledge is the child lacking? (dont say "that its wrong to torture animals"; this just begs the question). Its not as simple as saying he doesnt know that the animals suffer, because there are plenty of cultures where people are taught that inflicting suffering is ok. Theres no obvious reason why the child should care about the suffering of animals unless he is made to, perhaps by being shouted at whenever he kicks the family cat.

Furthermore, you do not know for a fact that they are enjoying torture qua torture. Perhaps they are just exploring how the things in their environment work by taking them apart.
You could say the same about adult torturers.

This evaluation of “sicko” is one based on a rational assessment of their consciousness and evaluated on the basis of: “how much of a threat does this person pose to me, those I love, and my property?”

Is there any real evidence linking animal cruelty to human cruelty? Animals apparently dont have rights, whereas humans do, so the two things seem as different as chalk and cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the attempt to reconcile "animals have no rights" with "it is wrong to torture animals" is an attempt to both have your cake and eat it. Once you agree with the first statement, you have nothing left with which to consistently defend the second.

So, would you agree then that attempting to reconcile "You have the right to take hard drugs" and "It is immoral to take hard drugs" is also trying to have your cake and eat it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What knowledge is the child lacking? (dont say "that its wrong to torture animals"; this just begs the question). Its not as simple as saying he doesnt know that the animals suffer, because there are plenty of cultures where people are taught that inflicting suffering is ok.

Yes, it is as simple as saying he doesn’t know that the animals suffer. If he knows that they suffer and he’s doing it for no other reason than to inflict suffering, then he’s a sick little bastard. And cultures that teach that inflicting suffering for its own sake is okay are sick, sick cultures.

Theres no obvious reason why the child should care about the suffering of animals unless he is made to, perhaps by being shouted at whenever he kicks the family cat.

It’s not that he should care about the suffering of animals. It’s that he should not derive pleasure from the inflicting of suffering qua inflicting of suffering. If he were totally indifferent to animal suffering and felt no pleasure at all from it, then there wouldn’t be this problem. Again, this isn’t about animals suffering; it’s about a person enjoying the inflicting of pain.

You could say the same about adult torturers.
Except that they are adults and are expected to know better. If I saw an adult eating grass or wandering into the street, I would treat him as more likely to be insane (i.e. threatening) than a child who did the same.

Is there any real evidence linking animal cruelty to human cruelty?

Yes, if not causally, then at least correlatively.

Animals apparently dont have rights, whereas humans do, so the two things seem as different as chalk and cheese.

Yes they are. But again, it’s not about the animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, my guess is that when you read of some innocent stranger who is brutally murdered and when you hear of terrorist attacks on completely innocent strangers you are profoundly outraged.

This is still contextual for me. In some cases I may be affected, and in some cases not. I have seen many brutal murders up close and personal and articles about "innocent" people are frequently inaccurate. I have to admit to some degree of skepticism about what I read in the papers or see on the news. While no one deserves to be murdered, some people live lives that habitually place themselves in situations that are conducive to being murdered (and even that is contextual to any sympathy I may have). However, as I said, generally the feeling I would get would be "man, what if that were me?" In the cases of children suffering horrible deaths, instead I would probably think "what if that were my son?"

In the police "sub-culture", the death of a law enforcement officer causes an immediate and profound emotional reaction among the majority of police officers I know. Frequently, this is devoid of any concern or knowledge of the context of the LEO's death. I on the other hand want to know more about why and how the LEO died before I determine how I feel about it. Now, if it is an LEO I know and value, it would be more likely that I would have a significant emotional reaction right away and then take a deep breath and ask how and why.

Because you recognize the profound value of human life
Okay, perhaps I should approach this a different way. What do you mean by "the profound value of human life"? How do you differentiate this "profound value" from intrinsic value?

I value human life "in general" to some degree for specific reasons. I do not see this to be the same thing as life having some "profound value" in and of itself. However, I would distinquish having no general value for life from deriving value from the destruction of life (solely for the sake of destruction or pleasure from misery). Having no general value for human life does not mean that one would engage in actions to bring about the destruction of life just for the sake of torture or destruction. It takes a "special" person to actually enjoy the purposeless or needless pain, misery or torture of another life. I agree that that is indicative of some serious psychological issue, generally relating to control, and that control aspect is generally NOT limited to animal life. I would not trust individuals like that around my life, nor the life of anyone in my family.

Anybody else who doesn't see anything wrong with deriving pleasure solely from torturing and/or destroying life is certainly free to invite such people over to their houses for dinner, play their "reindeer games" with them (in so much as they wish to risk the penalty of the laws that do exist) or what have you, let them babysit their children, etc. I'm sure they have nothing to worry about.

I think the attempt to reconcile "animals have no rights" with "it is wrong to torture animals" is an attempt to both have your cake and eat it. Once you agree with the first statement, you have nothing left with which to consistently defend the second.

This is fallacious. There is nothing that requires immorality to be inextricably linked to rights violations. There are any manner of immoral acts that have nothing to do with rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that that is indicative of some serious psychological issue, generally relating to control, and that control aspect is generally NOT limited to animal life. I would not trust individuals like that around my life, nor the life of anyone in my family.

Anybody else who doesn't see anything wrong with deriving pleasure solely from torturing and/or destroying life is certainly free to invite such people over to their houses for dinner, play their "reindeer games" with them (in so much as they wish to risk the penalty of the laws that do exist) or what have you, let them babysit their children, etc. I'm sure they have nothing to worry about.

Well said. That matches, almost word for word, what I had planned out to reply to Hal if he once again asked for "proof" on that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too bad, because they are one in the same, if the animal is his property. Principles aren't things you get to give up when things get ugly... that's when you need them the most. If you're willing to deprive a man of his right to property, you are depriving him of his means of living.
If protecting a man's right to property requires protecting every use of property...

why doesn't a right to property being moral require every use of property be moral?

Don't you need "principle" for both?

So, would you agree then that attempting to reconcile "You have the right to take hard drugs" and "It is immoral to take hard drugs" is also trying to have your cake and eat it?
:) Good point. Considering an act legal doesn't automatically eliminate any basis for considering it immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, would you agree then that attempting to reconcile "You have the right to take hard drugs" and "It is immoral to take hard drugs" is also trying to have your cake and eat it?

No, because the immorality of hard drug use (in particular contexts) is founded on the argument that it is bad for the life of the user in the long term. As I've said though, I dont think theres any such demonstrable link when it comes to animal torturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If protecting a man's right to property requires protecting every use of property...

why doesn't a right to property being moral require every use of property be moral?

Don't you need "principle" for both?

Are you actually asking this? I ask because I find it hard to believe that you would ask such a question. Are you truly that ignorant of the basis and application of rights? If so, let me know and I will treat that question seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm. Sharp words, those are.

But I do not see my error, so please treat it seriously.

Very well, I shall treat the question seriously.

Rights are conditions required for man to survive in a society. Man’s nature requires that he be free from the initiation of force.

Men do not require other men in their society to be entirely rational or entirely moral. It certainly helps, but it is not a requirement that, if not met, deprives man of his means of survival. But man DOES require that force is not initiated.

Since any attempt to force other men to use their property only morally would be destroying a requirement of life for the sake of a minor perk, then NO a right to property does not require every use of property to be moral.

Are you totally ignorant of Objectivist politics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×