Objectivist view on Animal Abuse Laws

Questions about Objectivism
61

And what to do with psychopaths and sadists who don’t give a damn ?

What happens to such people anyway? I don’t know whether they get their just desserts - or not.

One way or other, they can’t cheat reality, or disvalue life, and not pay - somehow.

We should remember too, that studies found it was children (who tortured animals) who showed some

probability of becoming murderers later; adult animal-torturers, I’d guess, are seldom killers.

Who knows which ones practised cruelty on animals as youngsters, except their families? what could and should those families do about it? and after the fact, it’s easy to for someone to say “Ah, I knew Johnny had it in him to be a killer.” In another 99 cases, he wouldn’t be one.

(And I know you’d oppose social workers visiting homes to find tell-tale signs of psychopathic behaviour.)

We can’t say for sure how anybody will turn out: statistics are a dangerous tool to rely on.

What I am sure though, is that pre-emptively restricting people’s rights on the basis of what they could be capable of doing under certain circumstances, is a highly suspect, slippery slope, which can only lead to more restrictions for all.

If freedom comes with such a price - that we are never completely without risk, and have

to be aware and self-responsible - wouldn’t you still gladly pay it?

Individual rights, essentially, are one’s last line of defence against immoral, irrational

and evil people, but they are not a guarantee of security.

1 Like
62

Lets put it this way:

Several psychiatric and criminal studies show that just over 30% of children who were sexually abused end up being sexual abusers themselves later in life.

Studies vary from 1/4 to 1/3 of children who are abused in some way turning the abuse on animals.

By your logic, because of that correlation we would preemptively jail children who are found to have been abused.

Or do you say no?

Then, at what percentage does your preemptive jailing begin?

When it hits 40%, 60%?

When?

Not to jail, but definitely to provide corrective measures, mandatory if necessary. There are many forms to use a retaliatory force except incarceration.

63

If he has a “proven record” he has actually committed the crime of arson or something of the sort- that would be what a “proven record” would be. Your argument makes no sense. You can’t have a “proven record” without having done something and having it be illegal, therefore a matter of record.

If someone commits an activity that often correlates to people who commit arson you cannot punish him in advance based on that correlation.

I have never claimed that the drunk driving laws in the US are just- random tests and checkpoints are absolutely a rights violation.

If one is driving completely intoxicated, driving 120 miles per hour in a business district while swerving wildly through oncoming traffic he is not a potential danger, he is an imminent danger.

This is also beside the point because we aren’t discussing what exists as though it were just- we are discussing what is just.

What you do with a pyromaniac who burned his own house couple of times? Would you just leave him to be? Does this make sense? And drunk driver who drives 60 in the quiet suburb could easily kill a pedestrian. Is that just? And I repeat-we are talking about prevention, not punishment.

64

What happens to such people anyway? I don’t know whether they get their just desserts - or not.

One way or other, they can’t cheat reality, or disvalue life, and not pay - somehow.

We should remember too, that studies found it was children (who tortured animals) who showed some

probability of becoming murderers later; adult animal-torturers, I’d guess, are seldom killers.

Who knows which ones practised cruelty on animals as youngsters, except their families? what could and should those families do about it? and after the fact, it’s easy to for someone to say “Ah, I knew Johnny had it in him to be a killer.” In another 99 cases, he wouldn’t be one.

(And I know you’d oppose social workers visiting homes to find tell-tale signs of psychopathic behaviour.)

We can’t say for sure how anybody will turn out: statistics are a dangerous tool to rely on.

What I am sure though, is that pre-emptively restricting people’s rights on the basis of what they could be capable of doing under certain circumstances, is a highly suspect, slippery slope, which can only lead to more restrictions for all.

If freedom comes with such a price - that we are never completely without risk, and have

to be aware and self-responsible - wouldn’t you still gladly pay it?

Individual rights, essentially, are one’s last line of defence against immoral, irrational

and evil people, but they are not a guarantee of security.

By definition psychopaths don’t carry about what others think and don’t even try to hide their activities. To the contrary they often put it for display to show how they don’t mind. And of course “pre-emptively restricting people’s rights on the basis of what they could be capable of doing under certain circumstances, is a highly suspect, slippery slope”-any use of force will cause the same effect, unless it done under the supervision of objective law. Remember, we are not discussing people who occasionally slap their dog or even child. We are talking about subhuman creates who submit an animal to the horrendous sadistic torture just for the pleasure of it. Such a people have no respect for anything living, man or animal. They are inherently dangerous and have to be dealt with-this way or another.

65

It seems the further we go, the more there are two separate (but slightly over-lapping)

topics here: What to do about severely brutal animal abusers? and,

What to do about psychopaths - who have not so far hurt a human - in an O’ist society?

66

It seems the further we go, the more there are two separate (but slightly over-lapping)

topics here: What to do about severely brutal animal abusers? and,

What to do about psychopaths - who have not so far hurt a human - in an O’ist society?

In fact that could be treated as one topic: what to do with the people whose actions are deeply immoral and potentially dangerous but who haven’t yet violate the rights of others. Could retaliatory force be used preemptivly? is there a place for the preventive action and to what degree? If yes, on what objective basis? Should deeply immoral act-like severe animal abuse-which doesn’t involve violation of rights be punished? Can society decide that it doesn’t want to be associated with such a people and will not tolerate them in its midst? Can society for example exile them with full and just compenasation for any loss of property and income? I must confess that I don’t have answers for all these questions-this is uncharted territory. Hope that you or anybody else can contribute.

67

Going back to the original topic, “animal abuse laws”, let me share with you this reflection:

We underestimate the power of social ostracism and economic boycott as tools to fight immoral people without violating their rights.

If you happen to know a neighbor wh tortures his pet, show your community what this son-of-a-bitch does.

Without trespassing, take photos or videos. Post them in Facebook and Youtube. Write a letter to the newspaper, to other neighbors, to his friends of family.

Do not buy from that person. Do not sell him goods.

Do all of this, of course, in accordance to the failure of his character and considering not to put yourself in danger.

Treat him with justice, which means, give him the treatment he deserves.

1 Like
68

I don’t think that social ostracism and economic boycott will work on the real psycho-sociopath who doesn’t give a damn about anything or anybody. And yet he’s inherently dangerous person.