Animal Torture

As I see it, property rights are the only way to handle animal abuse issues from a legal standpoint. Ostracization (and perhaps intimidation) are probably the only means available for us to handle animal abuse of creatures that are unowned. This may not sit well with people (myself included), but it's the only objective line in the sand I can determine. I am open to other ideas, but someone would have to put together a pretty exhaustive and consistent treatise on the subject, the likes of which I have yet to see.

The problem one runs into is in identifying which creatures are worthy of protections. Are flies not sentient beings that feel pain? If the law is designed to eliminate needless suffering of animals, then you would have to have a totally objective basis for refuting an absurdity such as someone getting punished by the law if he swats a fly (instead of capturing it live and releasing it outside). These laws would either boil down to an arbitrary preference about which animals you feel comfortable or uncomfortable harming, or else all sentient beings would have to be included in the regulations.

(Edited by Pete on 10/30, 9:08pm)

Post 21

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 9:18pm

Pete,

The problem one runs into is in identifying which creatures are worthy of protections.

Perhaps having a nervous system? Aversion to stimuli itself doesn't seem like a reasonable sign of suffering as then even bacteria would suffer. Don't know about making it illegal though, but then that's the whole point of this thread, no?

capturing [a fly] live and releasing it outside

I do that. :)

Sarah

Post 22

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 9:21pm

Do flies have a central nervous system?

Post 23

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 9:24pm

Pete,

Google search says.... yes.

Sarah

Post 24

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 9:47pm

I find it absurd the animal-cruelty perp is prosecuted for such, while the environment that fosters and inculcates domination and degradation, government school, is not held liable for the lessons they teach.

It's always the parents fault, even though they only spend a couple hours a day with their kids, while the government school has 10 hours to poison, abuse and brutalize them!

Scott

Post 25

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:15pm

Robert: "If there is going to be rational discussion on this, I suggest some terms be defined - empathy, transference, and so forth - nature of, causes, validity issues, and so forth - then can begin further discussion..."

Empathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Empathy is the experiential recognizing and understanding of the states of mind, including beliefs, desires and particularly emotions of others without injecting your own. This concept is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or experiencing for oneself the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself. In this sense it might be described as a sort of emotional resonance. (Also see the related concept theory of mind.)
However, this metaphor is ambiguous concerning whether one imagines actually "being" the other person, with all their beliefs and character traits, or simply being in their situation (such as being the prime minister).
One must be careful not to confuse empathy with either sympathy, emotional contagion or mind reading. Sympathy is the feeling of compassion for another, the wish to see them better or happier, often described as "feeling sorry" for someone. Emotional contagion is when a person (especially a child or a person in a mob) identifies with strong emotions others are showing and becomes subject to the same emotions themselves. Mind reading is a controversial paranormal phenomenon and differs in that empathy is based (so far as we presently know) not upon the paranormal but upon sophisticated processing of what is seen and heard in the usual way.

Post 26

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:17pm

"Sympathy is the feeling of compassion for another, the wish to see them better or happier, often described as "feeling sorry" for someone."

So, when someone comes to the aid of a tortured animal, is it sympathy or empathy?

Post 27

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:19pm

Why not both?

Sarah

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:36pm

Because then Joe Rowlands wouldn't get to write an article on the false dichotomy of sympathy and empathy. ;)

Seriously, why not? Could be both.

Post 29

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 11:06pm

Empathy - or projection, the wishful imparting to another one's imaginedness, an anthropomorphicness...

Post 30

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 4:31am

I have always taught my kids not to hurt people, animals or things. People come before animals and animals come before things. Cruelty is wrong, whether is it directed toward hurting other people, animals or just breaking stuff. It is a values lesson that works for us.

A couple of weeks ago there was a spider in the house and since it was inside the house it was fair game for squishing. Tina would have none of that. She rescued the spider, took him outside and set him free. It was a good solution.

It's good to have a healthy respect for nature, and some people become vegetarians because they don't want animals killed for food. That is their choice and I can respect it as long as they don't get preachy. Me, I'll take sizzling flesh anyday! My view is that the animals have been raised by people for the purpose of feeding people, so I don't have an issue with eating meat. I would not hunt though.

Kat
"Property of the Colonel. If found, please return to the kitchen... purrrrrrrrrrr"

Post 31

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 6:37am

The moral issue comes when suffering is being inflicted for its own sake. Someone who celebrates animal torture is celebrating anti-life values, they are worshipping destruction.

I think Pete is going in the right direction with this statement. I don't believe it should ever be a legal issue, but it certainly seems that it is a moral issue.

Post 32

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 6:54am

Joe: So, when someone comes to the aid of a tortured animal, is it sympathy or empathy?

Joe, I personally think that is not the animal per se that we are concerned, but because man is good by nature.
Abraham Lincoln and a companion were riding a coach and discussing this very topic.As they were near a streem, Lincoln
could see that some piglets had wondered to near the muddy shore, and had been entrapped in it, and so in the peril of drowning. Lincoln got out the coach and went to their aid. The price for the rescue of the piglets from the mud was a very good set of good clothes
Upon his return to the coach he was all covered with mud and exhausted, his companion gloated, thinking that Lincoln's rescue of the piglets compromised his position as egoist, but the future President continued calling the act selfish and egoistic:" I couldn't sleep tonight knowing that those pigs might have drowned, and I saved their lives for the sake of a good night sleep"
Ciro
.

Post 33

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 9:51am

anti-life values

I can keep silent no longer. Go watch the wonderfully bad movie Abraxas, starring Jesse Ventura, in which the bad guy is looking for the "anti-life equation." Watch that and see if you can see "anti-life" used over and over in Oism and not giggle.

Sarah

Post 34

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 11:03am

Heh, the "anti-life equation" was the goal of Darkseid in Jack Kirby's 4th World series...

Post 35

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 11:04am

Sarah, when have you been known to keep silent? (From one outspoken mind to another ;) ).

So why does it make you giggle?

Post 36

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 12:08pm

Has anyone thought of the initiation of force angle? There may be a subset dealing with animals?

Another angle to think about is AR's ideas on property rights? Its not so much about possession but of use.

Post 37

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 1:58pm

Joe,

Sarah, when have you been known to keep silent?

:P

I giggle because of the context of the movie. It's really, really bad. Bad to the point of being fun to poke fun at. Had MST survived for another 10-20 years, I've no doubt they would have featured it. Think Terminator 2 on a $20 budget.

Sarah

Post 38

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 2:39pm

Sarah House said: "Like Jeff, I don't interfere with hunters so long as they're monitored by the Game and Fish folk to make sure they're population thinning rather than exterminating a species."

That's a bit odd, because it presumes so much. Whenever I think of such issues, I think how things should be, not how things are today. As an Objectivist, I'm pro-freedom, so I take it as a no-brainer that government Game & Fish departments should not exist. More fundamentally, government shouldn't own and operate national parks and forests, where these Game & Fish guys presumably do their thing.

It's interesting to think how things will shake out when we privatize all these lands, and what impact that will have on hunting and other wilderness activities. It could end up being an analog to the way it works now, just with privately owned forests that charge market rates for the right to hunt, etc. I could see cooperatives of hunters perhaps participating in the auctions and buying forests here and there. I could also see groups like the Nature Conservancy buying up lands.
------------------------

A dude singularly named "Pete" got it right when he said: "...property rights are the only way to handle animal abuse issues from a legal standpoint. Ostracization (and perhaps intimidation) are probably the only means available for us to handle animal abuse of creatures that are unowned."

Animal abuse cannot be properly thought of as a political matter.
-------------------------

Wayne Dam said: "Has anyone thought of the initiation of force angle? There may be a subset dealing with animals?"

Negative. The initiation of force principle is based on a whole subset of realities regarding human nature. It's meaningless when applied to animals, plants, or footballs. You can't just ~start~ with non-iniation of force. You ~end~ there.

Post 39

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 2:53pm