whYNOT Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Government intervention? No way!! I wouldn't suggest anything even approaching that. My point is when and if interposing oneself between animal and brutal owner, one, say, trespasses - or a fight broke out between you, one would likely be charged with interfering with his individual rights. Either, as I think, a court would be extremely lenient - or one would have to prepared to face some gaol time going in. No, the government must stay out until that point of your infringement. But it doesn't mean we all have to tip-toe around getting involved ourselves, in something we find insupportable. The principle is that the abuser/torturer is acting in a sub-human fashion, and a captive, non-rights-carrying animal suffers. I'd do my time, if it came to that, and I think many rational egoists would do the same. SapereAude 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 I am with you there. The first time I ever roundly thrashed someone when I was a kid (I was, I believe 12) was when a neighbor kid was beating the tar out of a cat that was cornered. It was their cat and as I was kicking the crap out of him he kept protesting that the cat was his. I said it didn't matter, that if he was going to pick on defenseless things he needed to learn how it felt to be defenseless. I'm fortunate that this was 30 years ago. Today I'd probably be in juvie for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 I like how these mushy-headed emotional arguments always assume that humans are eeevul, and the poor helpless cute fuzzy animals have to be protected. What happens when a 3-year-old gets mauled by a vicious dog? I'm not sure I understand your point correctly here... in these cases what generally happens is the dog gets destroyed and their owner gets sued for millions and/or jailed..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Dragon Lady. " Concepts like innocent and guilty don't apply to animals because they do not possess a conceptual consciousness--they do not possess the capacity to "know better". But they very well apply to human psychopaths who torture and kill animals just for kicks. We do lock up such a creatures first of all for our own safety. Do you really think that they could be part of the healthy human society? Edited June 12, 2012 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 The problem Leonid is that in an Objectivist society people would only be incarcerated for crimes that violate rights. Since an animal has no rights it can't be done on the basis you are talking about. It *could* be done based on it being a violation of the animals' owners' rights. Just as someone could get jail on top of having to pay compensation for stealing a car or burning down a house. It could even in some cases come down to breech of contract with a breeder/seller if the person kills their own animal as many breeders now put many stipulations in the bill of sale about how the animal must be treated or returned to the breeder- mine contained such a clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) "The problem Leonid is that in an Objectivist society people would only be incarcerated for crimes that violate rights." Really? And what about psychopaths, sadists, who represent a clear danger to others? People who in principle disregard any living being, human or animal? Should we wait until such a creature will burn a child instead kitten in order to isolate him? What if the owner of the animal is the one who submit it to the torture? Such a people act against the very human nature, deny the core of standard of value and morality and effectively exclude themselves from the human species. They should be removed from the society to some deserted island where they can torture each other. Edited June 12, 2012 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) If one it to use it as a basis for law, one cannot simply assert that people who are cruel to animals are a danger to humans. One needs some pretty strong proof. I don't see why such a person is a danger. For all I know, someone kicks his dog because he's too wimpy to express his anger some other way. Edited June 12, 2012 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) "The problem Leonid is that in an Objectivist society people would only be incarcerated for crimes that violate rights." Really? And what about psychopaths, sadists, who represent a clear danger to others? People who in principle disregard any living being, human or animal? Should we wait until such a creature will burn a child instead kitten in order to isolate him? What if the owner of the animal is the one who submit it to the torture? Such a people act against the very human nature, deny the core of standard of value and morality and effectively exclude themselves from the human species. They should be removed from the society to some deserted island where they can torture each other. Leon, Your emotion I believe I understand, and I think is fully valid. With me, cruelty gets to me in two parts: Here is a monster who shares with me the existence of "rational being", who has momentarily debased my own value in my life, and of life itself. Then there is the trusting,uncomprehending animal, accepting its owner's cruelty and authority, still - after all it suffers, with no escape, or recourse to law. I reckon your reaction is close to that(?). So much for 'emotionalism': it's a lightning fast evaluation of reality confronting our principles and "value judgments"- as AR wrote - after all. If these are rational, one's emotions are true and dependable. However, the argument that a vicious animal owner should face criminal charges for what he 'might' do in future to humans, is definitely invalid or subjective. (Notwithstanding the corollary psychiatrists found in such cases.) Rand warned, in another context, that the potential cannot be equated with the actual - which applies here too, I think. Edited June 12, 2012 by whYNOT SapereAude 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) If one it to use it as a basis for law, one cannot simply assert that people who are cruel to animals are a danger to humans. One needs some pretty strong proof. I don't see why such a person is a danger. For all I know, someone kicks his dog because he's too wimpy to express his anger some other way. It's not that difficult to recognize the pattern. And I refer to the special unusual cases of cruelty. The rest of the people who mistreat their animals should be prohibited to own them. An animal is not simply a commodity. Edited June 13, 2012 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Tony, This is a rationality beyond emotion-you won't let a sadistic psychopath to run amok freely. He is a clear and present danger to everyone. Sometime a preemptive measures against certain people are fully justified as they justified against certain countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 The rest of the people who mistreat their animals should be prohibited to own them. An animal is not simply a commodity. Please provide reasoning for these statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Please provide reasoning for these statements. Animal is a living being -that is a self-sustained entity which is able to generate a goal-orientated action when the goal is its own life and wellbeing. In this regard animals and men share common values. Any action which undermines this ability in fact undermines the standard of value which is life itself. This is true that there is a hierarchy of values and man's life takes a preference over the life of animal. However it is difficult to see how the mindless brutality against animals could promote man's interests and goals. If anything-it does the exactly opposite. Edited June 13, 2012 by Leonid CICEROSC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Animal is a living being -that is a self-sustained entity which is able to generate a goal-orientated action when the goal is its own life and wellbeing. In this regard animals and men share common values. Any action which undermines this ability in fact undermines the standard of value which is life itself. This is true that there is a hierarchy of values and man's life takes a preference over the life of animal. However it is difficult to see how the mindless brutality against animals could promote man's interests and goals. If anything-it does the exactly opposite. All fine and good, but why should people be prohibited from owning animals, and why are animals fundamentally different to humans than any other human commodity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Leonid, I understand your emotions in the matter but they are simply not rational. The arguments you are using are the same ones used by radical animal rights activists. They are the arguments used against eating meat, wearing leather, wearing fur. You say that it is the senseless vicious murder of animals for pleasure that you are against. An animal rights activist would say that since as a society we are able to clothe and nourish ourselves without using animal products that we are commiting senseless vicious murders for the pleasure of eating a steak, or having leather shoes, or the warmth of a fur collar.... I'd suggest looking up the lawlessness and jackasssery of the anti-foie gras protests for a good look. There are plenty of ways in an Objectivist legal system to discourage and punish acts of criminality commited on animals (I named several a few posts back) - notice I am saying "on" not "towards" as animals cannot possess rights to be broken. You know that cliche about the road to hell being paved with good intentions? Your intentions are good Leonid, but what you suggest is not proper for a free and rights respecting society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 It could even in some cases come down to breech of contract with a breeder/seller if the person kills their own animal as many breeders now put many stipulations in the bill of sale about how the animal must be treated or returned to the breeder- mine contained such a clause. This is actually quite interesting. Under a government without animal cruelty laws, I could definitely see such clauses becoming widespread, even ubiquitous in pet sales. That might actually be a way for civil society to erect animal protection without rights-violating legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 Exactly! Any decent breeder, shelter or rescue org could have a contract pertaining to accpetable treatment of their animals. Rental units could have it in their leases if they so chose, the list goes on... The rescue I worked for had a pretty extensive contract to be permitted to take an animal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 Exactly! Any decent breeder, shelter or rescue org could have a contract pertaining to accpetable treatment of their animals. Rental units could have it in their leases if they so chose, the list goes on... The rescue I worked for had a pretty extensive contract to be permitted to take an animal Yes, I'm certain privatization could be highly creative about reducing animal abuse, short of transgressing rights. A nation-wide register of offenders linking vet clinics, breeders and stores, under some association. Private animal rescue teams unsubtlely pitching up at people's homes with PET RESCUE on their trucks, for a little chat and some professional advice for the homeowner. Dedicated online newsletters reporting on cases of cruelty with photos and details. The worst culprits might not be embarrassed or completely prevented from buying and stealing animals, but a culture of non-tolerance of abuse would grow, and ignorance would become a lesser factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) All fine and good, but why should people be prohibited from owning animals, and why are animals fundamentally different to humans than any other human commodity? I didn't say that people should be prohibited from owning animals-only those subhumans who torture and mistreat animals. Animals are different from all other commodity because they are alive and we share some values with them. Edited June 15, 2012 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 Leonid, I understand your emotions in the matter but they are simply not rational. The arguments you are using are the same ones used by radical animal rights activists. They are the arguments used against eating meat, wearing leather, wearing fur. You say that it is the senseless vicious murder of animals for pleasure that you are against. An animal rights activist would say that since as a society we are able to clothe and nourish ourselves without using animal products that we are commiting senseless vicious murders for the pleasure of eating a steak, or having leather shoes, or the warmth of a fur collar.... I'd suggest looking up the lawlessness and jackasssery of the anti-foie gras protests for a good look. There are plenty of ways in an Objectivist legal system to discourage and punish acts of criminality commited on animals (I named several a few posts back) - notice I am saying "on" not "towards" as animals cannot possess rights to be broken. You know that cliche about the road to hell being paved with good intentions? Your intentions are good Leonid, but what you suggest is not proper for a free and rights respecting society. Leonid, I understand your emotions in the matter but they are simply not rational. The arguments you are using are the same ones used by radical animal rights activists. They are the arguments used against eating meat, wearing leather, wearing fur. You say that it is the senseless vicious murder of animals for pleasure that you are against. An animal rights activist would say that since as a society we are able to clothe and nourish ourselves without using animal products that we are commiting senseless vicious murders for the pleasure of eating a steak, or having leather shoes, or the warmth of a fur collar.... I'd suggest looking up the lawlessness and jackasssery of the anti-foie gras protests for a good look. There are plenty of ways in an Objectivist legal system to discourage and punish acts of criminality commited on animals (I named several a few posts back) - notice I am saying "on" not "towards" as animals cannot possess rights to be broken. You know that cliche about the road to hell being paved with good intentions? Your intentions are good Leonid, but what you suggest is not proper for a free and rights respecting society. You should pay more attention to my arguments. I never said that animals have rights. I also clearly stated that there is a hierarchy of life and man's life takes a preference over that of animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 You should pay more attention to my arguments. I never said that animals have rights. I also clearly stated that there is a hierarchy of life and man's life takes a preference over that of animals. At no point did I claim you did. I was specifying with utmost clarity the meaning of my word choices to prevent anyone from going on a semantics tangent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 At no point did I claim you did. I was specifying with utmost clarity the meaning of my word choices to prevent anyone from going on a semantics tangent. Then why you said "The arguments you are using are the same ones used by radical animal rights activists. They are the arguments used against eating meat, wearing leather, wearing fur."? As for rationality I presented rational reason why we cannot allow psychopaths to roam free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 This is actually quite interesting. Under a government without animal cruelty laws, I could definitely see such clauses becoming widespread, even ubiquitous in pet sales. That might actually be a way for civil society to erect animal protection without rights-violating legislation. And how do you propose to enforce breeders to include such a clause? What if they refuse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 Yes, I'm certain privatization could be highly creative about reducing animal abuse, short of transgressing rights. A nation-wide register of offenders linking vet clinics, breeders and stores, under some association. Private animal rescue teams unsubtlely pitching up at people's homes with PET RESCUE on their trucks, for a little chat and some professional advice for the homeowner. Dedicated online newsletters reporting on cases of cruelty with photos and details. The worst culprits might not be embarrassed or completely prevented from buying and stealing animals, but a culture of non-tolerance of abuse would grow, and ignorance would become a lesser factor. And what to do with psychopaths and sadists who don't give a damn ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 As for rationality I presented rational reason why we cannot allow psychopaths to roam free. The problem is that it wasn't rational. You proposed imprisoning/institutionalising people for things they *might* do. That there is a correlation between torture of animals and future violence towards people there is no disagreement. But a just society does not imprison people based on things they are statistically likely to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 And how do you propose to enforce breeders to include such a clause? What if they refuse? I think that is a fundemental problem in the argument here. You keep wanting to find justifications for use of force. If one is an Objectivist one believes in the power of the free market. That means that since the majority of people who have animals have them because they like them, enjoy them and at times find them useful the majority of people who purchase animals and animal related products would be interested in using breeders, stores and shelters that have these clauses. The majority of landlords would find it in their interest to have a clause in their leases that abuse of animals on premises would result in eviction. A majority of employers would find it in their interest to fire someone who kills animals for pleasure in their spare time. A majority of storeowners and barkeeps would not want to allow such people to patronise their businesses. There are so many free market ways to deal with this, will they end the abuse of animals altogether? Of course not! The thought is silly! NOTHING will end it altogether. But you cannot justify the violation of a person's rights based on theri treatment of something that doesn't possess rights. Members of society would justly shun these people and as people get used to a free market solution and start putting these clauses in contracts legal action could be taken on basis of breach of contract. This is the just and rational way to deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.