Private Property vs Animal Cruelty - Where's the Line?

[exaltron]

GoldMonkee,

I agree with the others that animals have no rights, and that animal abuse laws should not exist. If those laws did not exist, then it would be very possible that any reputable seller of animals would require you to sign a contract stating that you would not abuse the animal. In fact, I believe some shelters and pet stores do make customers sign such a contract now. In this case, the animal abuser would be in breach of contract, and the animal could be taken away from him. As usual, the existence of unjust laws clouds the issue.

--Dan Edge

On the money as usual, Mr. Starfish The possibility of contracts in a completely privatized laissez-faire context takes the wind out of most socialist arguments.

As for what can be done with our current situation (without supporting animal rights laws), I've got one word for you: youtube. Or perhaps a local alternative would be to paste flyers with a photo of this guy all over town with the words "Animal Abuser" scrawled underneath. I guess the risk is that he comes after you (though in my experience people who beat animals are the biggest cowards). In any case between this, which I guess is a form of active "shunning" as David mentioned, and the contracts example above, I think there is a lot out there to ensure that which offends us (and rightfully so I might add) can be actioned without abusing the rule of law.

[hunterrose]

Perhaps a local alternative would be to paste flyers with a photo of this guy all over town with the words "Animal Abuser" scrawled underneath.

What then if society similarly shuns you for the animal abuse of salting slugs in your garden, or for knocking over an anthill in order to get the choicest picnicking area?

[Inspector]

What then if society similarly shuns you for the animal abuse of salting slugs in your garden, or for knocking over an anthill in order to get the choicest picnicking area?

What if a society shuns selfishness? Oh, wait...

[John McVey]

Remember the distinction between power over nature - which is good, and power over men - which is bad. Yes, both involve "killing," but they are very, very different things. Yes, I understand someone can be sick and use the former, good thing, as a kind of sick "practice" for the latter (in his mind). But that is a sick, sick individual and it is improper to paint other, rational men with the same brush. And until you have good reason to suspect that someone has bad motivations in hunting, then you are not justified in condemning him or his hobby.

I don't consider recreational hunters and fishermen as in anywhere near the same league as those who get a kick out of hearing squeals of pain and exercising the power over life and death as an end in itself etc. I know very well there can be hunters and fishers, say father and son going out on a pleasant trip, who will always be upstanding citizens and respectful of other human beings. In many such cases I would say that it hasn't even fully sunk in that they are killing things for fun, and likely wouldn't ever do so without someone (such as me) making a minor issue out of it. I usually do not pass judgement on these people, though I retain my judgement of the act. I let them go on their way without saying or doing anything, and only give my opinion where it has been asked for or is an appropriate place to offer it (such as this forum and this type of thread).

I am saying that once it has sunk in then psychologically there's no going back. We Objectivist know that every single action that is the consequence of a choice we make, from the tiniest to the most life-important, has both moral and psychological import. The days when we can act without thinking fully about what actions will accomplish, blithely considering such actions as ordinary and oblivious to or only semi-aware of what it is that is actually being done, are coming to an end. Thus my questions stand: why the need to have fun in killing things? Why the need to feel superior and achieve a victory in such a manner?

Unfortunately, I think you have an incorrect concept of "killing" which includes hunting and rights-violation in the same category, whereas they are not at all the same thing. Yes, a hunter can be a creep but that does not make all hunters creeps. Just because someone takes pleasure in hunting does not mean he is a death-worshiper; most hunters take pleasure in the life-affirming skills involved in successfully hunting animals. ... It is an affirmation of your power over nature - the power of your mind. And if that involves killing mindless things that have no rights, then you should not despair.

You see no distinction between power over say a rock and power over a living creature? Neither has rights, but destroying one is not of equal moral consequence of destroying the other. I do indeed have a concept of killing-for-fun that lies within the one category. Again I grant you easily that a hunter isn't up there with a torturer etc, but hunting is on the same continuum of a 'celebration of power and life' that has animal fighting, bare-knuckle dust-ups and similar atavist pursuits up at the other end. As you can imagine, I am not a boxing fan either.

As to the snails, I take as much pleasure in killing them as I do in raking leaves. It's just something that has to be done to maintain a good garden.

JJM

[Inspector]

In many such cases I would say that it hasn't even fully sunk in that they are killing things for fun, and likely wouldn't ever do so without someone (such as me) making a minor issue out of it. I usually do not pass judgement on these people, though I retain my judgement of the act.

I believe that judgment is improper and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the act.

We Objectivist know that every single action that is the consequence of a choice we make, from the tiniest to the most life-important, has both moral and psychological import.

Agreed, but there is nothing improper with the act.

Why the need to feel superior and achieve a victory in such a manner?

Man's means of survival is to triumph over nature. Everything that we eat - plant or animal - must be killed by us. This is our nature.

You see no distinction between power over say a rock and power over a living creature?

No, I don't.

Neither has rights, but destroying one is not of equal moral consequence of destroying the other.

Yes, it is. The only problem is that animals are made of flesh. Some people, if they are depraved, will seek power over men. They will see destroying something that is made of flesh as a kind of analogue through which they can exercise their sick fantasies.

But absent those fantasies, no, there is no moral difference. The problem is entirely within the heads of those people who are sick. It is not at all in the act itself.

If a sicko was sitting there picturing blowing up people as he blew up empty boxes, he would be exactly as wrong as if he blew up, say, boxes of mice. He wouldn't be any more wrong.

I do indeed have a concept of killing-for-fun that lies within the one category.

And that is your mistake. It's an anti-concept, like the leftists' idea of "violence," in which is lumped both rights-violating aggression and rights-protecting self-defense.

As to the snails, I take as much pleasure in killing them as I do in raking leaves. It's just something that has to be done to maintain a good garden.

Then you ought to take more pleasure in your ability to maintain a good garden in defiance of the way untouched nature would eat and destroy it. If it's just a chore to you, then I suggest a new hobby.

(i.e. In your power over nature, which in this case just so happens to include killing snails)

Edited April 7, 2007 by Inspector

[DavidOdden]

Am I not harmed by the sounds and sights of that animal torture so that I could get legal redress against it?

I now understand, thanks to the censorship point you raised (thanks a load ), that Objectivism does actually assert a "right to not perceive". What this comes down to is that you may not publically present sights, sounds and smells that would be loathsome to others, without consent. Rational men would find the sight and sound (especially the latter) of a dog being tortured loathsome, and that fact should be codified as a legal restriction -- not against abusing the animal, but against involuntarily confronting the public with loathsome sights and sounds. In the privacy of your basement (and assuming decent sound insulation to keep the sounds out of the public), you have the right to acts as depraved as you want. You simply do not have the right to confront others with your depravity. It's unclear to what extent this applies to goldmonkee's case.

[FeatherFall]

I'd also be curious to see a link or reference to an official Objectivist position. I would think it would echo many of the sentiments here, that animals don't have rights, and that sadism is morally objectionable even when carried out on animals. But maybe I just think that's the Objectivist position because that's what I believe.

Those are powerful sentiments, John. That's one reason why I am not a big fan of hunting. But, even in a world with industrial farms, I still think hunting something you plan to prepare and eat is more akin to picking apples than sadism.

[DavidOdden]

I'd also be curious to see a link or reference to an official Objectivist position.

GB quotes the relevant position here. As I said, this principle can be applied to the concrete case of sights and sounds of dogs being tortured, though Rand only stated the principle at the broadest level, in terms of a right to no be confronted with things that you regard as loathsome.

[John McVey]

Man's means of survival is to triumph over nature. Everything that we eat - plant or animal - must be killed by us. This is our nature.

Remember that it is not the killing that bothers me, but why. There is an enormous difference between killing something as a necessary but otherwise incidental part of some process that serves human self-interest and a killing that is partly or wholly an end in itself. I hold "I'm better than creatures like you and will prove it by killing you" to be a detestable sentiment. It is second-handedness as applied to interspecies relations.

Yes, it is. The only problem is that animals are made of flesh. Some people, if they are depraved, will seek power over men. They will see destroying something that is made of flesh as a kind of analogue through which they can exercise their sick fantasies. But absent those fantasies, no, there is no moral difference. The problem is entirely within the heads of those people who are sick. It is not at all in the act itself.

The acts in question is all the variants of killing-for-fun, not merely killing, and so the matter is not exclusively in the external act itself. There is a moral component built into the concept of killing-for-fun, and as such, as I said, it does lie on a single continuum whose position is determined on the nature of the fun sought and why. A recreational fisher who pays little or no mind to recognition of what he's doing or why is right down at the lowest degree of moral culpability, but is nevertheless still on it.

I mused more about this earlier today, and a regular practice around where I live came to mind. It is common for kids to take special nets on hoops with them down to the jetty and try to catch blue swimmer crabs. I see no hint of glee at outsmarting the crabs as inherent in catching them as the fun is the day at the jetty in the sun and water along with getting fresh crabmeat for free, so I would not place such actions on that continuum at all. That's the same category I'd place featherfall's apple-picker in. Any kid who actually likes causing the deaths of the crabs itself gets moral blame personally for that, not merely for killing the crabs as such.

If a sicko was sitting there picturing blowing up people as he blew up empty boxes, he would be exactly as wrong as if he blew up, say, boxes of mice. He wouldn't be any more wrong.

What have I written to dispute this? As I have said repeatedly, it is precisely the action linked to this kind of motivation, explicit or implicit, that I hold as immoral.

And that is your mistake. It's an anti-concept, like the leftists' idea of "violence," in which is lumped both rights-violating aggression and rights-protecting self-defense.

Your complaint is totally upside down - what I am doing is unlumping types of killing precisely on the basis of different moral statures. I see it as quite legitimate to differentiate the broader concept of 'killing something' into 'killing for fun as an end in itself' on the one hand and 'killing as means to something else' on the other. How one judges those who kill will differ markedly depending on which of those two categories a particular killing falls into.

Then you ought to take more pleasure in your ability to maintain a good garden in defiance of the way untouched nature would eat and destroy it. ... (i.e. In your power over nature, which in this case just so happens to include killing snails)

But we are not talking about a case of 'just happening to include killing snails,' are we? The question is about the motivation for the act: is killing for its own sake, or part of what is needed for another end? This is what I meant when I said that I was not even opposed to killing baby seals for fur yet would still bounce out the sadist. Let me add another in this vein: legalise the trade in ivory, I say!

even in a world with industrial farms, I still think hunting something you plan to prepare and eat is more akin to picking apples than sadism.

I disagree, both with your particulars and the principle. There is nothing inherently wrong with industrial farming at all, suffering to the animals notwithstanding. The normal battery manager - or more forcefully, the lead product developer in a cosmetics testing lab - isn't going to work every day with a gleam in his eye that says "now now, my pretties, har har har!" Industrial farming, or animal testing, is just what needs to be done, where any switch to other practices are a matter of what works and the suffering caused is not a reason in itself to change those practices. For a hunter, by contrast, the point is to demonstrate a superiority over the animals, to take pleasure in outdoing another living thing, by taking a life. That is most certainly not a motivation guiding the apple-picker! The degree of suffering of the animals has little bearing, if any, on the morality of what is done.

JJM

(Edit: added direct reply to Featherfall)

Edited April 8, 2007 by John McVey

[Inspector]

I hold "I'm better than creatures like you and will prove it by killing you" to be a detestable sentiment. It is second-handedness as applied to interspecies relations.

Why? We are better than creatures like that. One way of many to demonstrate and exercise our superiority is to use our minds to triumph over them. That could involve killing them.

The acts in question is all the variants of killing-for-fun, not merely killing, and so the matter is not exclusively in the external act itself.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. "Killing-for-fun" is not a valid concept, as it lumps in the life-affirming triumph over nature with the nihilistic killing-as-power-over-men fantasy.

What have I written to dispute this? As I have said repeatedly, it is precisely the action linked to this kind of motivation, explicit or implicit, that I hold as immoral.

I see, yes. They're both trumped be the man-killing fantasy and so thus the example doesn't really say anything.

Your complaint is totally upside down - what I am doing is unlumping types of killing precisely on the basis of different moral statures.

But you're nevertheless lumping together un-alike things: the life-affirming act of man's mind over the tooth-and-claw of nature and sickos engaged in man-kill fantasies.

I see it as quite legitimate to differentiate the broader concept of 'killing something' into 'killing for fun as an end in itself' on the one hand and 'killing as means to something else' on the other. How one judges those who kill will differ markedly depending on which of those two categories a particular killing falls into.

I reject this division as not sufficient. "Killing for fun" is too broad a concept that lumps unalike things. A proper conceptualization would have "killing for the fun of man triumphing over nature" versus "killing for the 'fun' of fulfilling nihilist, misanthropic fantasies" versus "killing as a means to something else."

Let me add another in this vein: legalise the trade in ivory, I say!

Always good. Don't worry; I don't misunderstand you.

There is nothing inherently wrong with industrial farming at all, suffering to the animals notwithstanding.

I don't think he meant that there was - only that with such farms, hunting was no longer necessary for sustenance.

For a hunter, by contrast, the point is to demonstrate a superiority over the animals, to take pleasure in outdoing another living thing, by taking a life. That is most certainly not a motivation guiding the apple-picker!

Agreed, although without an indictment of the former.

The degree of suffering of the animals has little bearing, if any, on the morality of what is done.

Agreed, although if someone did it specifically in order to cause suffering for its own, nihilistic, sake, that would be a separate category, which I don't approve of.

[exaltron]

What if a society shuns selfishness? Oh, wait...

ha, ha! precisely. Even under a completely moral LF capitalist system, voluntary collective action would only be as rational as the individuals who undertake it. There could still be irrational individuals acting in tandem to evil ends, the only difference is that without the enforced complicity of the good, that evil would be impotent.

As far as the anthills and slugs go, I would shun those idiots way before it occurred to them to shun me