Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Do sagging dorsal fins equal evil treatment?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

 

 

 (Since it is waying a consideration of financial benefit again a consideration of justice, and is thus equivalent to the "accepting money from a sadist scenario.)

 

How and why is it a consideration of justice? Justice typically deals with the breach of a person's rights. Does the animal have rights that could, in this case, be breached? If so, how do you justify the next paragraph:

 

 

 

On the other hand, it is also possible that a competitor might be able to drive me out by torturing an animal, so if that was a significant risk then I might make an exception. But I would prefer to appeal to the moral sentiments of my customers to encourage them to boycott my competitor.

 

If the abuse of animals is a matter of justice, then by what means does adding a component of material compensation now make it okay to abuse the animals?

 

 

I'm not trying to get a point across here as yet, I'm just not seeing how this sort of logic works. Typically I consider matters of justice to be irrespective of a component of material compensation - a breach of someone's rights is a breach of someone's rights, regardless of if you were compensated for breaching that person's rights or not. I've always understood justice to be properly focused on correcting a breach of someone's rights, so I'm not seeing how animal abuse could fall under the purview of justice and also be made entirely okay just by providing material compensation to the person conducting the abuse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether compensation justifies an action is a weird distinction. It'd make more sense to say that the return on value being sufficiently high makes some actions moral. If, for instance, you had skills as a doctor but were not given a sufficient trade, treating someone would be immoral and unjust to yourself. Other actions aren't a matter of a sufficient trade as some are against one's nature. Peter Keating is a great example of someone seeking material gain at the cost of acting against the nature of man, reason and independence! Nothing is "worth" that cost unless you forgo that nature. Is there a "sufficient" trade for animal torture or mistreatment, or even a positive pay off in some way? I'd say it is against the nature of man to abuse animals in ways that abuses the animal's nature. It is destruction for its own sake, which is only a disvalue if compared to any sensible value.

The question is then what one ought to do in regards to moral transgressions. I'm kind of unsure how to treat it legally, but I'm partial to saying animals that people abuse may be forcibly taken from them. Not because animal rights per se are violated, but because it is a quality of destruction unlike someone breaking their own property. That is, animals are a borderline case of what is property or not, so in the case of pets, we can treat the destruction differently.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether compensation justifies an action is a weird distinction. It'd make more sense to say that the return on value being sufficiently high makes some actions moral. If, for instance, you had skills as a doctor but were not given a sufficient trade, treating someone would be immoral and unjust to yourself. Other actions aren't a matter of a sufficient trade as some are against one's nature. Peter Keating is a great example of someone seeking material gain at the cost of acting against the nature of man, reason and independence! Nothing is "worth" that cost unless you forgo that nature. Is there a "sufficient" trade for animal torture or mistreatment, or even a positive pay off in some way? I'd say it is against the nature of man to abuse animals in ways that abuses the animal's nature. It is destruction for its own sake, which is only a disvalue if compared to any sensible value.

The question is then what one ought to do in regards to moral transgressions. I'm kind of unsure how to treat it legally, but I'm partial to saying animals that people abuse may be forcibly taken from them. Not because animal rights per se are violated, but because it is a quality of destruction unlike someone breaking their own property. That is, animals are a borderline case of what is property or not, so in the case of pets, we can treat the destruction differently.

Animal rights are a stolen concept. You adding "borderline" in there, before using the stolen concept to justify government involvement in the matter doesn't make you any less guilty of that logical fallacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Animal rights are a stolen concept. You adding "borderline" in there, before using the stolen concept to justify government involvement in the matter doesn't make you any less guilty of that logical fallacy.

I said borderline for property. Not borderline for rights. I SAID that my reasons were NOT that animals have rights. To consider a "borderline" case of property that does not involve right violations in the thing harmed may be something as extreme as blowing up the moon to see the pretty fireworks. No owns the moon but I'm inclined to say it is proper to forcibly stop that destruction. People can own animals, but I think it is fair to say that legally speaking we can't use the same rules as we would for owning objects. Please read carefully, don't go off thinking I'm advocating animal rights. I was careful to say borderline about treatment as most property is treated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said borderline for property. Not borderline for rights. I SAID that my reasons were NOT that animals have rights.

I assumed you agreed with the Objectivist position that the government's sole job is the defense of individual rights. My mistake.

 

Still, based on what principle do you then advocate for government intervention against animal abuse? If the use of force in human interactions isn't based in the principle of individual rights, what principle do you suggest it should be based in?

 

No owns the moon but I'm inclined to say it is proper to forcibly stop that destruction.

Yes, it is. Because blowing up the Moon would cause havoc on a massive scale on Earth. You're applying the principle of individual rights: a government that stopped the destruction of the Moon would be stopping genocide. Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I've almost always agreed with you, your sarcasm and rudeness get old. Fast.

 

That's Nicky for you, apparently. 

 

 

Eiuol said:

 

 

 

Whether compensation justifies an action is a weird distinction. 

 

I agree. However, it makes sense in the context that we're treating actions as immoral if they don't offer a benefit of some kind to the individual committing the action. 

 

 

 

but I'm partial to saying animals that people abuse may be forcibly taken from them. Not because animal rights per se are violated

 

The issue is that, from an Objectivist point of view, the only role of the government is to defend individual rights. If the animal has no rights, then the government has no place to be taking the animal from an individual, especially if we view all animals as purely property (a practice I highly question based on the demonstrated intelligence of many animals). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said the government had to remove animals from abusive situations?

It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

-Collectivized Rights by Ayn Rand

 

Just because I have the right to take an animal out of a demonstrably abusive situation does not mean that I must, nor that I must pay for someone else to do so.  There are children being slaughtered at this very moment, in various third-world countries, and I have no duty of any sort to stop that.  It's a horrible thing, yes, but it's not required for (nor would it even be moral of) me to sacrifice my own pursuits to it.

 

There aint no such thing as a free lunch.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I've almost always agreed with you, your sarcasm and rudeness get old. Fast.

 

Nicky raised a perfectly good point which was addressed to Eiuol.

 

Eiuol should address it.

 

Eiuol, can you remind us, what is the Objectivist position on the proper role of government? Is it, as Nicky says, that government should be limited in its role to protecting individual rights? If so how does this position apply to the use of property which does not harm any people, e.g. animal abuse?  

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed you agreed with the Objectivist position that the government's sole job is the defense of individual rights. My mistake.

Nope, it's totally impossible that I can think about a topic without thinking deeper about individual rights. Obviously there is nothing to say about wanton destruction except it is their legal right to annihilate anything. Nothing else at all. I have the right to buy dogs then proceed to drown them just as I can burn all my books if I wanted - it may be dumb, but animals are equivalent to objects. Therefore there ought to be no legal repercussions for using property as I wish. After all, there is nothing threatening about torturing animals for fun and has no impact whatever on our rights-respecting society. The ability to choose to abuse or not abuse animals is much like racism: it is irrational, but it is important that we all are able to deem to be rational, save for initiating force. Indeed, it is up to each of us individually if grabbing a brick and beating a friendly dog to death is rational. No person should make that decision for us regarding animals, land, or objects. Clearly, the choice to kill animals depends on how you want to run your life.

 

Astounding response Nicky, I realize my error now.

 

***

 

Come on, really, it's only wrong to blow up the moon if it rains fire on Earth? It's okay if I managed to divert the debris? The point is that the act of destruction is at a level beyond even regular criminal behavior. Someone willing to destroy for mere entertainment is in fact a threat even in this unusual and improbable case that doesn't involve rights. It involves the foundation of rights where we establish what is necessary to live in a society. Abuse and torture of animals I propose is a threat to us with the sort of irrationality involved. Government protects rights, yes, but I don't think it precludes some psychological cases of violent behavior towards living things that are intelligent enough, like orcas, intentional or not. Remember, we're talking about harming animals for pleasure/enjoyment, not for consumption or medical experiments. It is possible to kill and torture animals, but not objects. At the least, the legal topic of animal abuse ought to be treated differently than self-abuse or damaging one's own objects.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, it's totally impossible that I can think about a topic without thinking deeper about individual rights. Obviously there is nothing to say about wanton destruction except it is their legal right to annihilate anything. Nothing else at all. I have the right to buy dogs then proceed to drown them just as I can burn all my books if I wanted - it may be dumb, but animals are equivalent to objects. Therefore there ought to be no legal repercussions for using property as I wish. After all, there is nothing threatening about torturing animals for fun and has no impact whatever on our rights-respecting society. The ability to choose to abuse or not abuse animals is much like racism: it is irrational, but it is important that we all are able to deem to be rational, save for initiating force. Indeed, it is up to each of us individually if grabbing a brick and beating a friendly dog to death is rational. No person should make that decision for us regarding animals, land, or objects. Clearly, the choice to kill animals depends on how you want to run your life.

 

Astounding response Nicky, I realize my error now.

 

***

 

Come on, really, it's only wrong to blow up the moon if it rains fire on Earth? It's okay if I managed to divert the debris? The point is that the act of destruction is at a level beyond even regular criminal behavior. Someone willing to destroy for mere entertainment is in fact a threat even in this unusual and improbable case that doesn't involve rights. It involves the foundation of rights where we establish what is necessary to live in a society. Abuse and torture of animals I propose is a threat to us with the sort of irrationality involved. Government protects rights, yes, but I don't think it precludes some psychological cases of violent behavior towards living things that are intelligent enough, like orcas, intentional or not. Remember, we're talking about harming animals for pleasure/enjoyment, not for consumption or medical experiments. It is possible to kill and torture animals, but not objects. At the least, the legal topic of animal abuse ought to be treated differently than self-abuse or damaging one's own objects.

I'm confused. Are you thinking "beyond individual rights", or are you using individual rights to try and justify taking away an animal from the owner, for abusing it?

 

And how exactly would taking away an abused animal protect us from a psychopath? If your motivation was to protect humans, wouldn't you want to arrest or kill the abuser, instead of re-directing his sadism by taking away the animal from him?

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone willing to destroy for mere entertainment is in fact a threat even in this unusual and improbably case that doesn't involve rights.

If we start locking up sociopaths, on the premise that they already pose a threat (which I would actually agree with, in and of itself) then it stands to reason that we should do the same to Communists, environmentalists, mystics, et cetera.

After all, if the kid who butchers dogs for fun is a threat, then the guys who talk about a "return to nature" must also be.

 

Now that actually strikes me as an accurate assessment. . .  But isn't that the road to "thought-crime" and ultimately dictatorship? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused. Are you thinking "beyond individual rights", or are you using individual rights to try and justify taking away an animal from the owner, for abusing it?

I said "deeper", not "beyond". Less than a paragraph is shallow and rationalistic (If I don't directly harm you, I should legally be allowed to do whatever I want, QED). Deeper is actually talking about the purpose of rights. So far, I don't think you're being Socratic, if you have a reply, type it out. I don't wanna chase you to find your argument. I'm not talking yet about what the punishment should be.

 

Read my reductio argument carefully, it is a chain of reasoning that seems to be the best I have to say we may do ANYTHING we wish to animals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you asking me? Clarify it yourself. I can't get more precise until you make counter-arguments. I'm not sure what you oppose.

 

That the proper role of government is to protect rights in no way change or contradict what I said.

 

Harrison, it wouldn't be thought-crime, because I'm talking about people who have shown themselves as animal abusers and is itself a threat. Verbal threats aren't thought-crime, and the threat in an animal abuser is more demonstrable than that even.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivism holds that Government's sole responsibility is protection of individual rights.

 

Objectivism holds that in a proper society the citizen's delegate the right of retaliatory force to the Government in order for it to fulfill its sole function.

 

If Government acts in any way other than to protect individual rights, and in particular, if it initiates the use of force against any individual (instead of in retaliation) for any reason, it is to that extent immoral and invalid.

 

 

For clarification, an imminent threat of physical harm by A on B constitutes initiation of force by A on B, which the Government must respond to protect the rights of B.

 

In your example, to the extent, that a person's action of killing a Dog for fun, are indicative or provide evidence of the mental instability of the individual and the actual threat they may pose to other individual's, such information may have weight in determining if people are in actual danger.  Coupled with other evidence such as gruesome drawings of people on leashes being killed, diary entries planning to treat people like dogs... etc. the killing of Dogs could be a fact which leads to a conclusion such that the Government would have to step in.  The MERE fact of a person killing a Dog for kicks does not amount to evidence of an actual threat to other human beings and the Government must not intervene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...