Developing the Case for Animal Cruelty Laws

[Richard Wiig]

Can you think of anyone living in a civilized country who would defend cruelty toward animals as moral?

Vivisection is arguably cruel, but I defend it as moral if it leads to an enhancement of human life.

[Brant Gaede]

No ways, though, in a rational society, can 'Animal Rights' be implemented; it is a meaningless and self-contradictory concept.

The concept makes a mockery of individual rights - so it is not surprising to see it gain traction in nations that uphold 'Human Rights'.

But of course 'Animal Rights' can (and alredy have!) been implemented! They include things like e. g. an animal's right to be protected from human cruelty.

The concept Animal Rights is neither meaningless nor self-contradictory. On the contrary, it is extremely rational, even from an Objectivist standpoint:

If the moral is the rational, and cruelty toward animals is regarded as immoral, then a law against such immorality is rational.

We are discussing rights in the context of the Objectivist natural rights' philosophy, not some laws passed by some governments. This makes your argument basically a non sequitur. Also, what is moral doesn't necessarily make for a moral law. In this case we can posit it does but we are dealing with what should and shouldn't be a law re this philosophy. And as I've stated, there are anti-animal cruelty laws on the books. Let those charged with those crimes go to court or the legislature with their own moral and philosophical arguments. I won't be there to hear them. I won't break a lance for them.

--Brant

I hate to reply to myself--that's a lie for I'm obviously a narcissist--but basically rights are a human philosophical invention, valid for their correlation to human nature, put into law. That a law establishes a "right," however, doesn't necessarily correspond with the aforementioned human rights' philosophical theory. Such a law could state it's right to rob Peter to pay Paul, which is very descriptive of what is going down now, and contradicts Ayn Rand.

--Brant

objectivity in human nature and rights justifies resultant monopoly in law and minarchism as long as continuous reference is made to the nature of human nature respecting the law and the law is not maintained contra non-initiation of force: what the minarchist is doing with his monopoly is preventing the bad guys from moving in and taking over by his using rationality and moral suasion (because the government is--filled with bad ideas and bad guys acting badly--the minarchist is justified in moving in and moving them out [ O U T! ] and the consent of the governed does not apply unless the bad guys move in and push the good guys out [ O U T! ]--ergo: WAR!: the government is a horse always with us--help it not to be a STATE!--put a bridle on it and ride it off to pasture)

dreamin'

Edited September 1, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[anthony]

Animals can be either private property, or wards of the State, or sovereign beings.

Pick one.

Which is rational?

Since no one would make the mistake to think that "animal rights" include things like e. g. an animal's right to vote, we can disregard your last point.

Re: "rational": a living being that is private property and has rights is no challenge on rationality. Instead it is challenge on a specific connotation with the idea of private property: that the owners can do as they please with what they own.

"That the owners can do as they please with what they own."

Exactly.

("Without property rights, no rights can exist."AR)

However, I don't think you are arguing for the rights of animal owners - you mean for the rights of their animals to supersede their own rights, not so?

Also, if we need Animal Rights, then why not 'Children's Rights'? (I forgot, we already have those.)

Under statism, quite apparently, every group has rights, but the individual.

Again, it must be repeated that with anti-cruelty laws in place, what is the need - or morality - of Animal Rights? They surely are a redundancy.

Unless, that is, you have a citizenry that has no confidence in itself; that presumes everybody to be immoral and irrational; or that is so tamed, that it cannot exist without state regulation and intervention - in all walks of life.

This confirms that beneath the sham, in reality 'progressives' hate or distrust other people.

My understood belief is that animal cruelty is an anomaly, not the norm. That men are more rational, than not. And, practically, if one likes animals, they will be much better off in the hands of individuals than under State regulation.

Tony

Edited September 1, 2011 by whYNOT

[Xray]

("Without property rights, no rights can exist."AR)

But this does not mean that property rights "top" all other rights.

However, I don't think you are arguing for the rights of animal owners - you mean for the rights of their animals to supersede their own rights, not so?

I'm arguing for the right of a helpless, living, feeling creature to non-cruel treatment.

Also, if we need Animal Rights, then why not 'Children's Rights'? (I forgot, we already have those.)

Thank goodness we do. Look what's happening in societies that don't have them.

Under statism, quite apparently, every group has rights, but the individual.

Children are individuals too.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Angela:

The key to law is simplicity, clarity and understandability.

When law protects each individual sovereign citizen, all children are protected. When you create a second overlay of unnecessary "law," you, essentially, create conflicting rights between individuals.

For example, you assault individual X and injure, or kill them. A crime has potentially been committed and shall be proven in a court of law, using objective standards of evidence and proof before a jury of your peers, or, a judge.

Now, because of some special status, you label this crime a "hate" crime because the person was a "Y" class person, and therefore deserves some special treatment.

This is absurd and creates class and group conflicts and, by the creation of that conflict, injustice.

"Domestic" violence is another classic example of non-objective law. A spouse assaults their partner and we have the ability to forum shop because it is "domestic" violence. Violence is violence. A is actually A. The crime should be prosecuted as an assault in the criminal courts.

Now, when there are, as Tony points out, animal cruelty laws, those laws are sufficient to punish sovereign citizens who act cruelly towards that animal.

If you wish to see that animal as "property," the principal that you cannot deface, break or destroy a piece of property would apply. Where the animated property differs from the inanimate property is addressed by the cruelty laws.

At least this is how I see this issue.

Adam

[Xray]

Angela:

The key to law is simplicity, clarity and understandability.

When law protects each individual sovereign citizen, all children are protected. When you create a second overlay of unnecessary "law," you, essentially, create conflicting rights between individuals.

For example, you assault individual X and injure, or kill them. A crime has potentially been committed and shall be proven in a court of law, using objective standards of evidence and proof before a jury of your peers, or, a judge.

Now, because of some special status, you label this crime a "hate" crime because the person was a "Y" class person, and therefore deserves some special treatment.

This is absurd and creates class and group conflicts and, by the creation of that conflict, injustice.

"Domestic" violence is another classic example of non-objective law. A spouse assaults their partner and we have the ability to forum shop because it is "domestic" violence. Violence is violence. A is actually A. The crime should be prosecuted as an assault in the criminal courts.

Now, when there are, as Tony points out, animal cruelty laws, those laws are sufficient to punish sovereign citizens who act cruelly towards that animal.

If you wish to see that animal as "property," the principal that you cannot deface, break or destroy a piece of property would apply. Where the animated property differs from the inanimate property is addressed by the cruelty laws.

At least this is how I see this issue.

Adam

These are convincing arguments. And if anti-cruelty laws are extended to animals as well, these laws protect them. It is the protection aspect that is important to me.

So whether one calls it a right to non-cruel treatment or a protection from cruel treatment amounts to the same imo.

[Selene]

Angela:

The key to law is simplicity, clarity and understandability.

When law protects each individual sovereign citizen, all children are protected. When you create a second overlay of unnecessary "law," you, essentially, create conflicting rights between individuals.

For example, you assault individual X and injure, or kill them. A crime has potentially been committed and shall be proven in a court of law, using objective standards of evidence and proof before a jury of your peers, or, a judge.

Now, because of some special status, you label this crime a "hate" crime because the person was a "Y" class person, and therefore deserves some special treatment.

This is absurd and creates class and group conflicts and, by the creation of that conflict, injustice.

"Domestic" violence is another classic example of non-objective law. A spouse assaults their partner and we have the ability to forum shop because it is "domestic" violence. Violence is violence. A is actually A. The crime should be prosecuted as an assault in the criminal courts.

Now, when there are, as Tony points out, animal cruelty laws, those laws are sufficient to punish sovereign citizens who act cruelly towards that animal.

If you wish to see that animal as "property," the principal that you cannot deface, break or destroy a piece of property would apply. Where the animated property differs from the inanimate property is addressed by the cruelty laws.

At least this is how I see this issue.

Adam

These are convincing arguments. And if anti-cruelty laws are extended to animals as well, these laws protect them. It is the protection aspect that is important to me.

So whether one calls it a right to non-cruel treatment or a protection from cruel treatment amounts to the same imo.

Good than we are in an general agreement zone.

By the way, this website should be close to orgasmic for you...Angela's Dream Website B)

As I was researching something for another thread, I came across this illustration on that website...

Texas seeks to join 20+ states by adding pets to domestic violence protection orders. HB 323 would allow a court to prohibit a person named in a protection order from harming or removing a pet owned by the petitioner. Also see the Update to states that allow pets in personal protection orders for domestic violence cases.

Good grief!

Adam

[Xray]

Good than we are in an general agreement zone.

<...> Angela's Dream Website B)

But this is only a logical consequence of the convincing arguments presented by you and Tony.

Where the animated property differs from the inanimate property is addressed by the cruelty laws.

Since the law no longer equates animals with inanimate property (for a long time, this had been the case, at least here in Germany until 1990), the protection from cruelty extends to them as well.

This is a good example of what Peter Singer called "the expanding circle" in ethics.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

This is a good example of what Peter Singer called "the expanding circle" in ethics.

Angela:

Ironically, the man who claimed to be conquering the last domain of discrimination was offending his readers precisely because of his penchant for discrimination (and even in failing to discriminate). A number of statements that appeared in the first edition of his

Practical Ethics

were expurgated from the second edition. They include his demeaning of persons with Down syndrome, reviling mentally challenged individuals as "vegetables," rating the mind of a one-year-old human below that of many brute animals, and stating that "not ... everything the Nazis did was horrendous; we cannot condemn euthanasia just because the Nazis did it."

You are comfortable with this position?

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

Why have my comments not been allowed on here? Please enlighten me. I know that I'm on moderation, but surely if that's the the case you've got a responsibilty to be fair about it? If you'd rather just ban me, then please ban me rather than leaving me in limbo effectively treated as banned.

Richard

[Xray]

This is a good example of what Peter Singer called "the expanding circle" in ethics.

Angela:

Ironically, the man who claimed to be conquering the last domain of discrimination was offending his readers precisely because of his penchant for discrimination (and even in failing to discriminate). A number of statements that appeared in the first edition of his

Practical Ethics

were expurgated from the second edition. They include his demeaning of persons with Down syndrome, reviling mentally challenged individuals as "vegetables," rating the mind of a one-year-old human below that of many brute animals, and stating that "not ... everything the Nazis did was horrendous; we cannot condemn euthanasia just because the Nazis did it."

You are comfortable with this position?

Adam

No, I'm not.

And it looks like the (justified) backfire Singer got for his statements made him check, rethink, and correct his premises.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Any interested party can develop a case for animal cruelty laws. That's why they exist. The trick is to do that not only in the context of natural rights' theory but Objectivism itself, which, as I understand it, Rand couldn't do though she wanted to. But I don't see the need. It's like the Quakers in Pennsylvania appropriating money for one thing knowing it would be used for another: fighting the Indians. Let the animal cruelists defend their animal cruelty as they are dragged off to the slammer. I've got other things on my mind, like the world going to hell and back over the next thirty years.

--Brant

[psychoanaleesis]

I suppose the only way to stop the bastards who torture animals is to let others know what they do and you could desist from any business interest with them. There are a lot of people who are disgusted by this kind of behavior since it is very irrational and inhuman especially given the present means of living we have. I'm opposed to animal rights and I think that only the torture should be stopped but if you're gonna eat it, at least do it in the quickest way possible as recognition and respect to life - man's (rational animal's) primary standard.

Well, the most I could do if I saw someone being cruel to an animal is to call his attention and have a "chat" with him (if possible) at that moment. I could also record the act and show it to my community in a formal gathering so people could judge for themselves whether they would want to further transact with someone who enjoys making lower, defenseless life forms suffer. Hey, telling on someone publicly and formally is well within my rights too.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why have my comments not been allowed on here? Please enlighten me. I know that I'm on moderation, but surely if that's the the case you've got a responsibilty to be fair about it? If you'd rather just ban me, then please ban me rather than leaving me in limbo effectively treated as banned.

Richard

Richard,

I just haven't had time to play with it the last few weeks, especially under the way the former version of the forum software notified queued posts. It actually did a very poor job.

The new forum layout makes this much easier. So now I can go through everything and look at old moderated posts I have not seen so far, which I am gradually doing.

Otherwise, sorry, but you're feelings are not too high on my priority list.

Michael