Question About Animal Cruelty

[The Wrath]

Okay, so it is immoral, but what is it that makes it immoral?

[Concerto of Atlantis]

Okay, so it is immoral, but what is it that makes it immoral?

Quite simple. The moral is that which is in your rational self-interest. Torturing an animal for the sake of torture can never be in one's rational self-interest. In fact, it's usually a sign of psychological illness. I don't have any solid figures on hand, but many psychopaths, murderers, rapists, etc have had histories of animal cruelty.

[LauricAcid]

We may torture them if we wish, but one would have to ask what value you could gain from it.  If you gain a value (like scientific knowledge or whatever) it would not be immoral.

What are the Objectivist definitions of 'a right', 'moral', and 'immoral'? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions upon which an act is a violation of rights, an act is moral, and an act is immoral?

Is an act moral if and only if it is selfish of the person doing it and not in violation of rights? Or is it moral if and only if it is thought to be selfish by the person doing it and not in violation of rights? Or neither of those? Also, is there a difference between selfishness and rational selfishness?

Is it immoral just to kick a pebble if one has no scientific knowledge to gain from doing so nor any gain other than the merest wisp of amusement in watching it move? If it is not immoral to kick a pebble, then why would it be immoral to torture an animal?

If you define duty as 'moral obligation' then the only duty you have is to yourself.  You have a moral obligation to sustain your own life by your own effort.  If you define duty as 'an action required of you for no reason' (as most of us understand the term used today) you have no duties whatsoever.

Usually in the field of ethics, 'duty' is meant in the first sense you mentioned. So, does one have a duty (to oneself) not to violate the rights of others?

The problem I think you are having here is differentiating between have and should.

What about my posts makes you think that?

You have to sustain your life by some means.  You should sustain your life through your own work and effort, but that is a choice you have to make.  You can be a producer or a leech.  Objectivism holds that the only moral way to live is by your own effort.

I take it that 'should' is synonymous with 'have a moral obligation'. And I take it that one's moral obligations are to promote one's (rational) selfishness (but does Objectivism hold that there is a moral obligation not to violate rights of others as a corollary of one's moral obligation to oneself?). Now, what is the proof that it is not in one's (rational) self-interest to live off others if it were economically rewarding to do so? For that matter, how does anyone determine the rationality or selfishness of another person's decisions about how to promote his own survival and happiness? If someone decides on a certain set of enjoyments or a lifetime of them, then how does another person decide that that program of enjoyments and the means to them is irrational? If the program gets the person the pleasures, enjoyments, benefits, or utility the person wants, then how would it be irrational? And if the program turns out unsuccessful, then how is that not just a mistaken calculation, just as a mistaken financial investment is not a mistake of morality? Or is a mistaken investment also an immoral act?

Edited May 11, 2005 by LauricAcid

[ex_banana-eater]

This forum is really a supplement to Ayn Rand's writings, LauricAcid, where these issues are addressed over and over in VOS, CUI, and OPAR.

[LauricAcid]

Thank you, ex_banana-eater. I found FaSheezy's post to be lucid and helpful. I am hoping that he or someone else will shed light on the questions as I have focused them, if you'll forgive the unmixed metaphor.

Edited May 11, 2005 by LauricAcid

[Iakeo]

Okay, so if animals do not have rights, does that mean that it's morally okay to torture them?

What do you mean by "torture"..?!

The flaky use of language around here is very bizarre to me.

What is the purpose of a human beings action on an animal? If it's purpose is to

simply inflict pain then it's immoral, unless pain measurement for some other

purpose is the goal.

If simple sadism, the enjoyment of another beings pain, is the goal, then your

being a sadist, not an objectivist.

Your freakin' fuzzyheadedness in asking this NON-QUESTION is amazing.

Now,.. ask a real question Moose.

-Iakeo

[Tragdor]

http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.co...les/return2.htm

I put in "I think therefore I am" in Google and I got that horrible essay. I wanted to scream at my computer when I got to the "what good has thinking done for us anyway" parts. I just can't belive people can say this stuff with a straight face.

[tommyedison]

Have a look at this clip from Trading Spouses (http://www.break.com/articles/tradingspouses2.html).

[JMeganSnow]

A man was recently arrested in Dayton for leaving his dogs outdoors during a cold snap: they froze to death. Now, I like dogs (well, the nice kind), so I think this is sad, but he's already lost his dogs, he doesn't deserve to go to jail. It's like putting someone in prison because they left their Christmas lights on and burned their house down.

[Hal]

A man was recently arrested in Dayton for leaving his dogs outdoors during a cold snap: they froze to death. Now, I like dogs (well, the nice kind), so I think this is sad, but he's already lost his dogs, he doesn't deserve to go to jail. It's like putting someone in prison because they left their Christmas lights on and burned their house down.

I suppose that depends on whether you believe that choosing to purchase an animal for a pet constitutes a responsibility to look after it. Someone who mistakenly left their children outside would probably face legal penalties involving negligence, although I'm not convinced that this is justified since there was no intent and noone can be compensated.

[RationalBiker]

I suppose that depends on whether you believe ....

Well, let's look at a key difference here within this context;

Children (not property, volitional being with rights)

vs.

Pets (property, no rights)

House (property, no rights)

[softwareNerd]

For my take on animal rights, see this post in an earlier thread.

[dark_unicorn]

http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.co...les/return2.htm

I put in "I think therefore I am" in Google and I got that horrible essay. I wanted to scream at my computer when I got to the "what good has thinking done for us anyway" parts. I just can't belive people can say this stuff with a straight face.

I just finished reading "The Ominous Parallels" and I found the part about emotionalism in the Weimar Republic rather intriguing, and I now know why, because every time I have encountered people whom write garbage like this I was thinking exactly what Peikoff described, I am speaking to future intellectual advocates and storm-troopers for what could be the future tyrant of Fascist America. The unfortunate thing about this is that you can not force-feed logical thought into people, because that would probably be the only way to solve a problem like this.

The greenfreaks, enviro-mystics and animal nazis get these kids when their early, and the result is "I think therefore I am not". May Mother Gaia burn in hell, and may all her worshippers discover their true nature, as my emoticon reveals it to them.

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Some fool who burns his house down is a wee bit different conceptually from someone who leaves living beings outside to freeze to death because of his incompetence. In one respect, he is only harming himself. In the other, he is harming other sentient creatures. It's a very bad analogy.

Non-sentient property is different from sentient property. You have a duty to care for living creatures you purchase. It really doesn't matter whether or not they are volitional or in possion of "rational" attributes. He shouldn't even be an animal owner. He's not responsible or intelligent enough. Quite often, killing something that can feel is worse ethically stand accidentally destroying your own property.

Dogs, like many other animals, have interests of avoiding pain and death. Freezing to death by someone's ineptitude is contrary to that. A house has no interests. It's not even possible because it lacks fundamental sentience as a prerequisite. You ought to value sentient beings more than inanimate objects. You can always buy another identical inanimate item.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Technocratic_Utilitarian

[RationalBiker]

You ought to value sentient beings more than inanimate objects.

This sounds as if you are saying that "sentient beings" are intrinsically more valuable than inanimate objects. How do you objectively determine which has more value to everyone, in every situation?

[dark_unicorn]

This sounds as if you are saying that "sentient beings" are intrinsically more valuable than inanimate objects. How do you objectively determine which has more value to everyone, in every situation?

As far as I can gather this can't be done, such values are relative to the individual in possession of both types of property, hense any laws past would be irrational. I reserve the right to my opinion that people who irrationally destroy their own property are immoral because of their actions, but there is no way I can justify "any opinion" being made into law without becoming a tyrant in the process.

[RationalBiker]

hense any laws past would be irrational.

I didn't ask anything about any laws. He made the moral evaluation;

You ought to value sentient beings more than inanimate objects.

Why does "sentient" property intrinsically have more value than inanimate property?

To take this a step back, does all sentient life have greater value than all inanimate objects merely because of their sentience?

The reason why rational faculty comes into play is because that is part of what determines rights. Dogs have no more rights than houses.

Edited February 11, 2006 by RationalCop

[JMeganSnow]

Indeed. I don't drink much milk, but I eat meat, so cows are more valuable to me dead than alive, and my computer is more valuable than any cow because it enables me to more easily pursue my work. Property is property, regardless of any ancillary properties of that property. The ability to feel pain is not essential to rights, only rationality confers rights.

[DavidOdden]

Non-sentient property is different from sentient property. You have a duty to care for living creatures you purchase

No, you only have a duty to the extent that the creature advances your life. This would be true for creatures purchased or found, and for inanimate objects as well. The difference between living and non-living objects is that a non-living object can't die, but of course it can rust. The real issue is how robust the entity is. Cars can take more neglect than houseplants, which can take more neglect than cats. Dogs and milk cows are comparable, I'd say, in their neediness. I would bet that the guy in Dayton simply was clueless about his particular dog. I am happiest when it gets to be well below zero and we have lots of snow -- I can stay in my pen outside for weeks if I need to. Emmilou Harris should be ashamed for advocating cruelty towards some dogs. OTOH my annoying Chihuahua colleague next door can't stand the cold for more than a couple of minutes. As Helli Hansen says "There's no bad weather, just bad clothing" (loses a bit in translation, I guess). I don't even think it's reasonable to criticize the poor guy for his cluelessness.

At any rate, animals have the same rights as lampposts, namely none. We tend to like animals (especially mammals) because they're so cute and fun, but that doesn't confer rights on them.

[Hal]

If I knew that my neighbour was torturing his cat then I would have no problem taking the cat from him, and I certainly wouldnt class this as being theft. I'm not sure how to interpret this in terms of animal rights, but meh.

[dark_unicorn]

I didn't ask anything about any laws. He made the moral evaluation;

True, but I've often found that such views lead to the "there ought to be a law" discussion, and I was just launching a pre-emptive strike to knock that out of the water. As far as a moral evalution, I guess I can say that I don't fit into his moral standard then because I value my leather jackets more than a cow bred and slaughtered on a far in the Mid-West.

[JMeganSnow]

If I knew that my neighbour was torturing his cat then I would have no problem taking the cat from him, and I certainly wouldnt class this as being theft. I'm not sure how to interpret this in terms of animal rights, but meh.

It's not theft, it'd be a mugging or robbery. My suggestion would be to offer an inducement to buy the cat from him if it bothers you so much. Either that or go inside. Nothing else is within your rights.

[RationalBiker]

If I knew that my neighbour was torturing his cat then I would have no problem taking the cat from him, and I certainly wouldnt class this as being theft. I'm not sure how to interpret this in terms of animal rights, but meh.

Well, it's his property and presumably you are taking it against his will, so it doesn't matter that you don't think it's theft, it still fits the elements of theft. Aside from that, the morality of the law aside, many if not all jurisdictions in the US have laws against "torturing" animals (perhaps the UK does too). Therefore, you would also be taking the law into your own hands rather than calling the appropriate third party (the police or animal control) to conduct an (hopefully) objective investigation to verify what you "knew" to be true.

Would you use (additional) force against him to take the cat? Would you break in to his house to take his cat?

[DavidOdden]

If I knew that my neighbour was torturing his cat then I would have no problem taking the cat from him, and I certainly wouldnt class this as being theft.

How about if the neighbor was feeding the cat cheap catfood? If not, why not. Or, if he didn't pet the cat enough. If not, why not?

[EC]

When we were about ten me and one of my buddies would take these kittens and toss them as high in the air as we could to see if cats really landed on their feet all the time (his idea). We were having fun with the annoying little furballs until my Mom came out and saw what we were doing. Let's just say that ruined our fun for quite awhile.