True; they don’t care for chocolate or roses and good luck keeping those candles lit.
Waiiit… Dolphins love Liberace, right?
Type two alcoholism increases the chance one will be violent after consuming alcohol. Is that a good reason to criminalise the consumption or possession of alcohol?
The violence against humans that can result from that is criminalized. Not only that, but alcohol consumption IS regulated. Third, what does that has to do against direct violence towards something else? Last I checked, alcohol is not an animal. Apples and oranges?
Not by the federal government in private as far as I’m aware. The law covers one symptom of a violent predisposition and not another.
I’m showing that it’s a non sequitur to punish someone for displaying behaviour which may indicate they may harm humans in the future. No-one has posited why other animals should have the legal right to avoid pain but not death (inflicted by humans, that is). Death is the cessation of all future pleasure.
The animal abuse I was talking about, the kind I see, IS death. That is the culmination of abuse and cruelty.
Even physical abuse and inflicting pain and gross mistreatment of production animals is not allowed, and is considered a very bad thing by the industry. If anything, if you’re going by a purely economical sense, the healthier and less stressed out the animals are, the more they produce and the more money the owners make off of the animal. Heck, there are even studies done on how to make the animals less stressful (while still economically sound) on their way to slaughtering. Happy cows may not come from California, but they do produce better.
Even in hunting, nobody can take up a gun and go shooting Bambi and his mom every day. That practice is also regulated. And nobody is talking of taking Bambi and kicking it to death, or bashing its brains out against a concrete wall.
Thirdly, killing animals for food is considered different from inflicting pain. Unless you are a vegetarian, you will need meat in your diet. Being an omnivore is the default, eating meat has been part of humanity. Granted, the type and quantity of meat needed can be debated, but animal consumption is different from gross mistreatment and negligence.
Again, studies have shown that animal abuse can hide other types of abuses. Perhaps the abuser is/was a victim of abuse, or perhaps the abuser has also comitted violence against humans or is very much predisposed to comit violence against humans. Both have been very well documented. In both cases perhaps the penalties and fines are not the best “punishment”, but again, something is not quite “right” with them.
And I’m not talking about sheer ignorance neglect, which does happen (as mentioned by Jasper). I’m talking about smashing brains out on concrete, on starving a dog until all body fat is completely gone and its reduced to eating trash that provides no nutrients, about throwing a newborn kitten out the window, on kicking a dog to death, and on shotting a non-prey animal while it is running away from the shooter. All of those are the last final example of animal cruelty. I’m sorry, I have a hard time thinking the people doing those things are A-OK otherwise.
Right, but we don’t punish people that display other behaviour that has a high correlation with physical abuse agaisnt humans unless that behaviour is in itself criminal. While animal abuse itself is criminal, I’m questioning whether it deserves to be criminal of itself.
This isn’t substantiated. Two examples I’m aware of are rBST and chicken obesity, where profits are independent of and often opposed to the animal’s welfare. More examples are given here or expanded here (couldn’t find neutral or academic sources). Edit: That said, there are studies which show that there are methods of execution which do not activate the pain receptors of the animals and there are methods of rearing (not widely practiced, if at all in the US) where the animals probably undergo far less stress than without human involvement. I’m not interested in debating whether animals can be raised humanely, I just see no reason to reverse the pain standard for humans (if inflicting pain is bad, inflicting death is worse, except in cases of euthanasia of benefit to the sufferer of pain) for other animals.
This is tautological.
This is the naturalistic fallacy.
We’re hardwired with empathy. There’s nothing about this instinct that says it is meant for humans only; that’s a value judgement on your part.
We can talk about how/why the instinct evolved, but it’s irrelevant here. What evolution was actually “trying” to do is not the boss of me.
And in any case, it’s not purely the emotion that guides my, or many people’s, morality.
If I hear about a guy shooting dead some civilians in afghanistan, I might not feel much because it’s far away (so difficult to relate to), and it’s a common event on the news etc. But I would still believe it morally wrong – my moral position is not dependent on my emotional state.
After reading through the thread this AM, I have two questions:
- Why is it hard to understand that we have laws against domestic violence but not adultery?
- What’s with all the dolphin sex?
The monkeysphere thesis comes to mind here.
I’d make an argument that our morals/ethics are already derived from normative base emotions. When a moral issue crops up that doesn’t necessarily mean these hardwired emotions will always come into play.
-
honestly, I think it’s more or less testing the fences. See if these legal divides are arbitrary, and if so, how far can you push the lines to see if they reveal some “truth” or dissolve into nonsense.
-
U know, theyre free mammals n dont care if U make 2 little income.
And a side note which, to me, is amusing:
I was recently talking to a lady who has purebred dogs and sometimes breeds them. She was talking about how she has to be very careful to not let the female out of the house when she’s in heat, or some random dog might “rape her.” She was quite serious.
What got me was that if dogs do what they naturally do, then it’s “rape.”
If it’s prearranged(sometimes forced) for profit by humans, then it’s perfectly okay.
I don’t have a problem with responsible dog breeders. I just thought that her distinction was funny.
That’s pretty ironic. I wonder how she might’ve reacted had you pointed that out.
Still not taking your point. You are now making a distinction between thinking something should happen, and actually accomplishing it. Of course these are different. But your post made a distinction between two “should” situations that amount to the law being different versus it changing. Not much of a distinction there. So what are the lawyers inexplicably incapable of understanding?
The charge, Napier, was that it was incumbent upon those who want the law changed to make their case for it. But the question is not whether we would change the law, but what the law should be. Do you suppose it is reasonable for me to say, “I don’t believe the law should be what it is, and here is why, but this justification is insufficient to motivate changing the law”? I would not argue that we change our laws regarding animals. I don’t believe they should be what they are. I am willing to defend either position, or both. I am not willing to suggest that because I don’t believe the laws should be what they are that this necessarily entails I should want to change the law.