Pets and Responsibility

[Zedic]

I'm currently trying to learn the principles of Objectivism and trying to understand how my old, long held beliefs transfer over. One long held belief is that when a person accepts, say, a dog into his life, it's his responsibility (ie, "duty") to keep them healthy and well cared for. But in the Objectivist philosophy, the Kantian morality of "duty" (ie, it's my "duty" to help a person in need simply because he has a need) is renounced (and for good reason in my opinion). Is this "responsibility" to take proper care of your pets that was instilled in me as a child any different than the Kantian ethics of "duty"? Additionally, if any of you notice any kind of misunderstanding in my reasoning, please feel free to point it out.

Edited June 14, 2008 by Zedic

[Zip]

You own the dog. You value it as a pet and as a possession. Why would you not take care of your property (the dog) as you would for any other piece of property (your car/house or whatever)?

[Kori]

I think the Kantian might say that it was one's duty to accept and care for the dog whether they wanted to or not. Strictly out of duty. Like Zip said, if you value the dog you will care for it.

[Zedic]

Thanks Zip and Kori, that makes sense. I'm perhaps thinking how it applies to our current situation of pet over population and abuse. What if someone did feel compelled, for what ever reason, to be hurtful to his dog? What if abusiveness is some sort of strange value for an individual. And since taking care of his dog would be considered a loss, he gets a sick pleasure in letting the dog slowly waste away. It really makes me feel sick when that sort of thing happens. In the framework of Objectivism, is there any basis for having a "responsibility" on the individual to not do that to animals which can be backed up by animal welfare laws? Such as, confiscating the dog from the person to bring back to health and adopting to a more loving home.

My first thought is to think that if the person did treat his dog that way, he certainly didn't value the dog. The only thing he'd be sacrificing is the sick pleasure he gets out of abusing the dog, a sickness which he possibly wont reserve to just his own dogs (as forensic scientists have found).

I find this to be a moral cross roads for me. In Objectivist terms, it all comes down to what I value. But I find it hard to just let people do that simply because it's a difference in values. Thoughts?

[Kori]

Something relating to this that I've always wondered about is this: It seems to me that Objectivist ethics would allow someone to torture an animal or kill it simply because an animal is considered property. I cringe at the thought of animal rights laws, but I also cringe at the thought of the kind of guy you see on the news that set his dog on fire.

[Qwertz]

The Objectivist ethics rightly condemns the puppy-owner who tortures and kills puppies for the sake of torturing and killing puppies, not for what he does to the puppies, but for the fact that he finds what he does to puppies pleasurable or beneficial or something worth doing. Objectivist ethics condemns anyone who destroys for the sake of destroying.

~Q

[DavidOdden]

It seems to me that Objectivist ethics would allow someone to torture an animal or kill it simply because an animal is considered property.

Do you generally have a problem with the fact that, in contrast to libertarianism, there is a distinction in Objectivism between "moral action" and "legally allowed action"?

[JASKN]

Something relating to this that I've always wondered about is this: It seems to me that Objectivist ethics would allow someone to torture an animal or kill it simply because an animal is considered property.

All ethical principles that apply to torturing people also apply toward animals. There is nothing gained from torturing an animal, it probably indicates a messed up mental state, there is no conceivable reason why someone would enjoy and spend his time doing such a thing, and so forth. So that guy on the news, you treat him like you would someone who tortures people, because he may as well be.

It's not illegal, however, because animals have no rational faculty, no ability to understand right from wrong, they cannot participate in a society of people (where rights arise), and so they have no rights. They are outside of our legal system, which only protects rights.

So, in practice, someone who tortures animals gets everything he deserves, based on what he is torturing. Everyone who knows about it is appalled and shuns him, and the legal system is not concerned with it because it doesn't involve a person.

EDIT:

To think of it another way, when a racehorse breaks its leg and its owner decides (sadly or not) that it is worthless, he ends the horse's life quickly and painlessly. The horse cannot decide one way or another, and could no longer keep itself alive. In this situation, it is easy to see that a human deciding to kill an animal is the right thing to do.

Furthermore, the ethical support against animal torture does a pretty good job already, as there are very few animal torturers out there, and the legal system actually helps, too. Consider, a man who tortures animals is probably doing other horrible things, but to people. Our legal system takes care of that, and in doing so the torturing, too.

Edited June 15, 2008 by JASKN

[Zedic]

The Objectivist ethics rightly condemns the puppy-owner who tortures and kills puppies for the sake of torturing and killing puppies, not for what he does to the puppies, but for the fact that he finds what he does to puppies pleasurable or beneficial or something worth doing. Objectivist ethics condemns anyone who destroys for the sake of destroying.

That's good to hear because otherwise I wouldn't be able to be an Objectivist. Do you have any links or references to books which explain the reasoning in detail?

[JASKN]

Do you have any links or references to books which explain the reasoning in detail?

I don't know a reference dealing with destruction as such (perhaps another member could help you out, there), but you can extrapolate the necessary principles from this Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on Rand's idea of values to get your answer.

In essence, all men must take certain actions to maintain their lives and wellbeings. Destruction just to destroy never helps in that regard, so it is always wrong to do so. Destruction for some other end, some other value that adds to his life, makes destroying a good thing. But in the broadest context, the destruction is really a gain. An example would be war, tearing down a building for a new one, or shoving one's shoulder back into its socket.

[Inspector]

What if abusiveness is some sort of strange value for an individual.

The Objectivist ethics rightly condemns the puppy-owner who tortures and kills puppies for the sake of torturing and killing puppies, not for what he does to the puppies, but for the fact that he finds what he does to puppies pleasurable or beneficial or something worth doing. Objectivist ethics condemns anyone who destroys for the sake of destroying.

~Q

That is really the key to understanding the Objectivist ethics, as opposed to merely the political principle that men must be free to do that which does not violate rights. Ethics speak to right or wrong, and the Objectivist ethics speak to what is good or bad for man qua man - i.e. man as a rational being.

Ethically speaking, you can and must judge whether actions are rational or irrational - good for the life of a rational man or bad. Proper law makes a clear line at what irrationalities it may intervene in and which it must let alone with the concept of rights but that is by no means the dividing line for ethics.

So is the act of torturing puppies because one gets pleasure from torture good or bad for the life of a rational man? Leaving puppies entirely out of the question, one might simply ask: is getting pleasure from torture for its own sake good or bad? You don't need animals at all to ask or to answer that question. Obviously it's bad - it represents downright insanity, which as you described almost certainly means that his emotional wiring is all kinds of messed up and he would be something that rational men would want nothing to do with at all. They would condemn him and watch him like a hawk. This would apply whether he was doing it to dogs, insects, or robots. It's not a question at all of the rights of his property (animals have no rights), but instead a question of the man's mentality. Which as I said is simply sick and dangerous.

But there would be no basis, morally or legally, for taking away his property. That would be a greater evil - the formerly righteous would themselves become the violators of rights. Kind of a "don't sink to that creep's level" thing.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Inspector

[richlyblessed]

There is a clear difference between duty and responsibility,like love and hate.you could be forced to perform a task, or you could do it out of love.

That is really the key to understanding the Objectivist ethics, as opposed to merely the political principle that men must be free to do that which does not violate rights. Ethics speak to right or wrong, and the Objectivist ethics speak to what is good or bad for man qua man - i.e. man as a rational being.

Ethically speaking, you can and must judge whether actions are rational or irrational - good for the life of a rational man or bad. Proper law makes a clear line at what irrationalities it may intervene in and which it must let alone with the concept of rights but that is by no means the dividing line for ethics.

So is the act of torturing puppies because one gets pleasure from torture good or bad for the life of a rational man? Leaving puppies entirely out of the question, one might simply ask: is getting pleasure from torture for its own sake good or bad? You don't need animals at all to ask or to answer that question. Obviously it's bad - it represents downright insanity, which as you described almost certainly means that his emotional wiring is all kinds of messed up and he would be something that rational men would want nothing to do with at all. They would condemn him and watch him like a hawk. This would apply whether he was doing it to dogs, insects, or robots. It's not a question at all of the rights of his property (animals have no rights), but instead a question of the man's mentality. Which as I said is simply sick and dangerous.

But there would be no basis, morally or legally, for taking away his property. That would be a greater evil - the formerly righteous would themselves become the violators of rights. Kind of a "don't sink to that creep's level" thing.