About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"It may interest Solohq to know that Ayn Rand said that she could not justify ascribing rights to animals, but that she hoped someone would come along one day who could do so."

That was an evasion on her part. She had to know that any such justification would completely discredit the basic assumptions of Objectivist philosophy and Objectivism itself.


Post 41

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
People have certainly since come along and ascribed rights to animals.  And they are wackos!  Careful what you wish for, Ayn:

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/

http://www.peta.org/


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marcus,
Could you please cite where Ayn Rand said this?
Thanks


Post 43

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
DJ,

Marcus was using a quote from one of Barbara's earlier posts in this thread.  I think Barbara was recalling the statement from her own personal dealings with Rand.


Post 44

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

People have certainly since come along and ascribed rights to animals. And they are wackos! Careful what you wish for, Ayn:


Well, they may have done so, but they certainly haven't justified it, have they?

Post 45

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nature, they certainly have not justified it.

Post 46

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 7:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete wrote: An individual purchases a litter of puppies.  For his own twisted enjoyment, he brings them home, mutilates their genitals with garden shears, and then douses them with gasoline and lights them on fire.  Is such an action not a concern of morality?

It is a concern, because this person is causing animals pain for no other purpose than to cause pain.  Causing others pain, human or animal, does nothing to promote any life-affirming value and may detract from them.  This is different from a slaughter house or sport hunting.  The essential purpose of a slaughter house or hunting is to provide us food and clothing.  It is possible to subsist on a vegetarian diet and to wear only synthetic clothing, but why?  Why sacrifice the happiness of those who enjoy a good steak or a fine wool sweater for the sake of animals who, being non-volitional beings, have no political rights?

Furthermore, I find it distasteful that others presume to know Robert Bisno's psychology because he holds this view.  It is a stretch of the imagination to claim that one who has no problem describing what goes on in a slaughter house (my father used to operate one so I can tell you he does not even go that far in describing it) would have no problem engaging in mass murder.  This is something I would expect from the Sierra Club, PETA, or Greenpeace.  This is not what I would expect from an Objectivist forum!  And he never, ever mentioned anything about harming anyone's pet, i.e. anyone's personal property.  It is surprising that others would think that since he has continually joked about the value of his pet cat!


Post 47

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 11:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete:

"An individual purchases a litter of puppies. For his own twisted enjoyment, he brings them home, mutilates their genitals with garden shears, and then douses them with gasoline and lights them on fire. Is such an action not a concern of morality?"

Remember, all objectivist ethics is based on rational egoism. Thusly, there are actually two moral questions here:
What is the moral status of the person himself?
And what is the moral status of you or I hanging around him?

Based on this, we can quickly conclude that, for the sake of our own egoism, no matter what the torturer's level of morality for himself is, our own ethic, our own rational self interest, compels us to completely shun and stay away from this person. Even if it turns out he is doing nothing to harm himself, watching someone engage in wanton gore can't be good for one's psychological health, nor can socializing with types who get off on that sort of thing.

Now, onto his own moral stature. On the above principle, we must ask to what extent he is harming or benefiting himself. Grotesque does not immediately translate into Immoral. His own immorality is harder to grasp onto. One can immediately say that there is something pathological about his love of suffering, but this presents problems in that it suggests mental illness. Being insane, as it is not a matter of choice, is not an immoral act. Essentially, to call him immoral, you would have to somehow substantiate the odd, paradoxical standard of saying he is to some extent both deranged and sane at the same time, sufficiently sane that he can choose, of his own will, such derangement.

Post 48

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I saw on the news that England has officially banned hunting with dogs.  Watch out English fishermen - your "cruel" practices are next on the list for the animal rights wackos.  Mark my words.   
(Edited by Pete on 11/19, 11:38am)


Post 49

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 9:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

You'd be surprised to find "Objectivists" here who will not shed a tear for the hunters.  They think it is too cruel.  I think these Vegans watched "Bambi" one too many times. 

Post 50

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 11:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron,

Funny you mention that: I went on a date the other night with a woman who didn't care for the practice of hunting and she cited the movie Bambi as an influential reason for her position...
 
For the record, I don't hunt personally, but I am an avid fisherman.  I respect hunters in that they, like me, enjoy the act of harvesting a resource from its natural state.  I worry about attacks on hunting because I know fishing will soon be the next target.


Post 51

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 11:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
DOUBLE POST DELETED

(Edited by Pete on 11/19, 11:59am)


Post 52

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 1:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete, Byron,

The clamour for the ban on hunting foxes with hounds was driven largely by the socialist wing of the Labour Party (as I believe Marcus suggested in his article). They (wrongly) seem to think that fox hunting is an exclusively upper class persuit, so I suspect this had far more to do with outdated notions of "class war" than honest concern for animal welfare. I'm not sure there'll be as much support for a ban on fishing, as it doesn't have those same (false) associations, though some in the "animal rights" lobby here certainly see a fishing ban as the next step.

Ironically, there is a pretty strong case that killing foxes with trained hounds is, in the vast majority of cases, actually less cruel than the alternatives (a fox that is wounded by being shot, for example, may live for some days in extreme pain before dying, whereas a properly train hound can kill a fox by biting its neck within a second or two of catching it). In addition, once this ban comes into force, many if not all of the fox hounds will probably have to be put down. So, anyone genuinely concerned with animal welfare ought to have opposed this thing!

MH


Post 53

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 1:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I like hunting, and with everything from rifles to a bow and arrow.  The only people who could say hunting is "savage" without being hypocritical are people who eat a diet of berries and mushrooms (and have no wool sweaters in their closets).  It is unfortunate the abuse Robert Bisno had to go through for talking plainly about facts like these was never rectified.  What was even worse was the absurd straw man these Vegans cooked up (pun intended) . . . that he wants to go to their homes and kill their pets (i.e. their private property)!

Note: Edited for grammar.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 11/19, 1:34pm)


Post 54

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 1:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've never hunted in my life (I'm gun-illiterate so it is probably better this way) but fished a little in my childhood. And if I were ever to hunt somethnig, it wouldnt be a fox-- they are, in appearance, too similar to cats for me to personally hurt one. But if anyone else wants to hunt them, go for it. To demand anything else is environmentalist slave morality, altruism in the name of lower life forms.

And I'm still flabbergasted by some of the things said about me on this thread. I never expected objectivists to have so much in common with PETA.

Post 55

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 1:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good points Byron. 

Regarding using dogs, I don't see what all the fuss is about.  Dogs are predators by their nature, and they even kill just for fun sometimes (I've seen it).  Why not let them act according to their nature every once in a while? They enjoy it after all.


Post 56

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have just found out that pro-hunting campaigners here are mounting a legal challenge to the ban on the basis of a rather startling contention that the 1949 Parliament Act is invalid (the act establishes that where the House of Commons and the House of Lords are unable to reach agreement on a bill, as was the case here, the will of the Commons must prevails after two years). If this works (and frankly, I doubt it will), the potential consequences for the British parliamentary system are absolutely seismic!!

Post 57

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I, too, see this as a class war issue, Matthew.  Is the ban on hunting foxes with dogs, or hunting foxes entirely?

Pete, I hope you immediately ordered a rare venison steak while on your date.  :)  I bet she would feel quite differently if her car plowed into a few deer.  I wish deer hunting would become an overnight sensation and rid the woods (and my roads) of those damn things. 

Bambi my ass.  If anyone wants to take up deer hunting as a sport, I'll buy the bullets.


Post 58

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 9:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew, I read the link you provided.  Not knowing much about the Brittish legislative process, can you briefly explain to me why the pro-hunting lobby's effort (if successful) would be a significant occurence?

Post 59

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 11:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The only people who could say hunting is "savage" without being hypocritical are people who eat a diet of berries and mushrooms"

I'm a level 6 vegan; I don't eat anything that casts a shadow...

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.