Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is a fallacy.

It's not my fallus.

 

[Loss Leader]

Okay, I'm glad we have that much common ground at least. Now why can't you go from "I feel compassion for that animal being tortured for no reason" to "It's immoral what's being done to that animal"?

Might you try to stop the person from doing it? Might you advocate to others that they shouldn't do it either? Might you support laws meant to reduce this kind of thing? Might you feel a sense of injustice, anger, etc on observing it?

If "yes" to most of the above, then for all practical purposes isn't it fair to say you consider it to be "wrong"?

"Wrong" and "morally wrong" are two different things. I think there are good reasons to criminalize animal cruelty, but my reasons are based on implicit assumptions about democracy and capitalism built into my psyche. I know of no objective reason why such social structures are morally necessary.

And you seemed to take as a presumption that morality has nothing to say about how we treat other species, but does have something to say about how we treat humans. On what grounds do you justify this?

Incorrect. I don't presume there to be an objective morality at all.

 

[mumblethrax]

These discussion always get bogged down with difficulties dealing with 'objectivity' of morality. It's suspect that this happens almost exclusively in discussing our treatment of animals, given that exactly the same problem exists with any question of practical ethics.

I just don't see that this matters very much for the topic at hand. What does matter is having a coherent moral perspective, which doesn't necessitate moral realism. We can establish inter-subjective values, and proceed from there.

As for why at least some non-human animals are morally considerable, the short answer is that they appear to have everything necessary to make moral claims upon us.

 

[Meed]

"Wrong" and "morally wrong" are two different things. I think there are good reasons to criminalize animal cruelty, but my reasons are based on implicit assumptions about democracy and capitalism built into my psyche. I know of no objective reason why such social structures are morally necessary.

Is there a practical difference between "wrong" and "morally wrong"? I agree with you that philosophically speaking, we cannot prove that anything is objectively morally wrong. However, in the affairs and dramas that make up life, I think pretty much all people make moral judgments. We also advocate for or against moral positions on the basis of these judgments. This is demonstratably not an empty exercise. Just look at the change in values that has taken place in the US over the past 150 years. Or even the past 20 years. There may be no way to prove that certain values should be held, but they will still be debated and advocated and real changes will occur as a result.

Incorrect. I don't presume there to be an objective morality at all.

You said :

I would say that the only moral reason to treat animals well is that it helps condition the mind to treat other people well.

Which seemed to suggest that you believe in a morality in which only things that harm humans can be considered immoral. But if you now say that that is not your position then I will take your word for it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That we are biologically capable of obtaining nutrients from animal products has no moral dimension that I am aware of. Obligate carnivores have a case, but not omnivores.

But, as I said, I'm fine with being an omnivore. And people who don't like that can bleed to death, if they do it quietly. And the meat isn't wasted.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Allow me to bring up a few specific animal abuse cases with which our shelter has been involved.

The most famous case made headlines. Back in May of this year, a stray cat was brutally beaten to death by a group of Paterson children. They hurled bricks and rocks, and tortured the cat without mercy. The case caused controversy because of the young age of the perpetrators, against whom animal cruelty charges were filed. Some people were saying, you do not prosecute children that young for killing a stupid cat. Others were saying, it's just a stray cat, so what does it matter? Residents of Paterson were saying, their community and their children come first; a cat is a low priority.

Again, my question. Why should we care? Why should these children be punished, if at all? It's not like Quattro belonged to anyone, so he wasn't even anyone's property. It's not like these boys caused any human suffering, and there's no evidence they'll move on to humans, so why not let them run free? It's just a cat, so why do they need psychiatric counseling?

(Note: This is still a developing case. More details are coming out every day.)

Another abuse case involves a cat who was taken in a few years ago. She is named Turnpike, after where she was found after some ****** threw her from the window of a moving vehicle on the New Jersey Turnpike. Nobody ever caught the perpetrator, because obviously they drove away after disposing of the cat. She is difficult to approach, growling and hissing if you try to pet her, because she has a very hard time trusting humans after what happened to her. We are trying to rehabilitate her so that she's adoptable, but it's going to be a long uphill struggle.

A more recent abuse case is of a cat named Maggie who was found this past summer. She was being forced by her owner to live outside on a thin strip of roof, the sloped area outside the second floor window. She had only a litterbox and a cat carrier duct-taped to the roof, as that was all the owner felt like providing her, and she was not allowed inside the house. Because of her mistreatment and the conditions in which she was forced to live, her muscles atrophied. The owner was taken to court and is now serving jail time for animal cruelty, and our shelter is now taking care of Maggie. She's one of the friendliest cats you'll ever meet, and it boggles the mind how anyone could ever abuse her.

Unfortunately, stories like this are more common than you'd think, and animal rescues like ours deal with these cases on a regular basis. Most of the cats at the shelter (it's a no-kill shelter) are there because people simply didn't want them, or decided they were too much trouble to take care of, or couldn't keep because they were moving and the new landlords didn't allow pets.

Obviously I care because of who I am, but I still don't have anything but subjective reasons and emotional appeals to back up my stance on how animals should be treated.

 

[luchog]

We are natural omnivores. I'm fine with that.

That's the problem with veganism. Humans are not natural omnivores; they are obligate omnivores. There are essential nutrients that are difficult to obtain from non-animals sources; and one, B12, is impossible to obtain without the aid of modern technology (unless you really like the idea of eating large amounts of herbivore feces). Human beings require animal products to survive.

Speaking as someone who was a vegetarian (not vegan) for roughly twenty years; and did a lot of study.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

But, as I said, I'm fine with being an omnivore. And people who don't like that can bleed to death, if they do it quietly. And the meat isn't wasted.

Humans evolved eating meat as part of our diet. While it's true that modern humans in industrialized nations don't need it to survive, it can also be difficult to remove it from one's diet, depending on one's overall health and dietary needs. I tried it once myself and my system did not react well to an all-vegan diet, to which it turns out I was intolerant.

I'm not for forcing people to follow a particular diet just because I have a certain set of beliefs. There has to be a compromise in there somewhere. As I said, I don't want livestock animals to be tortured, and I don't want any part of them to go to waste. They give their lives to sustain us, the least we can do is treat them well while they're alive.

 

[commandlinegamer]

When we are talking farming, the more fear and pain an animal suffers, the worse it's meat is, so treating them well means that they will produce better meat.

At least some involved in the dog/cat meat trade in Asia believe that torturing the animal improves the flavour, I learned many years ago from a Channel 4 documentary (can't find a link at moment, possibly back in 2001).

 

[Dessi]

That's the problem with veganism. Humans are not natural omnivores; they are obligate omnivores. There are essential nutrients that are difficult to obtain from non-animals sources; and one, B12, is impossible to obtain without the aid of modern technology (unless you really like the idea of eating large amounts of herbivore feces). Human beings require animal products to survive.

Except for the ones who don't. Going on 9 years of veganism and I'm not dead yet. Cain and mumblethrax have been vegan longer than I have, and they seem very much not dead either.

If modern technology makes it easier for people to become vegan and minimize the harm they cause to others, that would be an argument for veganism, not against it.

 

[mumblethrax]

Again, my question. Why should we care? Why should these children be punished, if at all? It's not like Quattro belonged to anyone, so he wasn't even anyone's property. It's not like these boys caused any human suffering, and there's no evidence they'll move on to humans, so why not let them run free? It's just a cat, so why do they need psychiatric counseling?

The fact that you had to qualify "suffering" with "human" hints at the answer to this question: you should care because cats are capable of suffering, and there's no reason to discount their suffering just because they're cats. To do so is to be complicit in a long-standing and irrational prejudice.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If modern technology makes it easier for people to become vegan and minimize the harm they cause to others, that would be an argument for veganism, not against it.

That's far from being certain.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Except for the ones who don't. Going on 9 years of veganism and I'm not dead yet. Cain and mumblethrax have been vegan longer than I have, and they seem very much not dead either.

If modern technology makes it easier for people to become vegan and minimize the harm they cause to others, that would be an argument for veganism, not against it.

While I don't want to take sides in the vegan debate, the subject of dietary changes for the sake of personal health and well-being does interest me. I mentioned above that my system did not react well the last time I tried, because it turns out I can't process foods like beans and soy products very well. However, animal products have their own problems, like saturated fats, which I can certainly live without, seeing as how I'm trying to lose weight. So how exactly does one with a sensitive system implement such changes?

 

[Dessi]

As I said, I don't want livestock animals to be tortured, and I don't want any part of them to go to waste. They give their lives to sustain us, the least we can do is treat them well while they're alive.

All other things being equal, it's better to be killed painlessly than tormented beforehand.

All other things being equal, if we aim to minimize the harm we cause to animals in all the areas where its reasonable and easy to do so, then reducing dependence on animal products to the point of eliminating animal products entirely -- veganism, animal liberation -- is the logical end and most straight-forward way to satisfy that objective.

It seems to me that veganism and vegetarianism follow from the animal welfarist views that you already hold.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I work with wolves. I like them better than humans. There's no ******** with a wolf.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

Best argument I found yet:

I would suggest that a culture that views its animals in that type of disrespectful, arrogant, manipulative standpoint will view its citizens the same way...and other cultures" Joel Salatin

 

[Donn]

Yeah. What goes around, comes around.

 

[Cain]

I would say that the only moral reason to treat animals well is that it helps condition the mind to treat other people well.

I love the mental contortions people make to convince themselves that this argument somehow works. Hey, if we tolerate African slavery, then it can lead to white slavery. Everyone watching Dexter (when it was good) feared the protagonist might enjoy killing bad guys so much that he would just start murdering regular people. If we treat gays poorly, then it means we'll treat non-gays poorly as well.

Your semantic wanking allows you treat a prohibition against animal cruelty as something that is in effect a moral principle, which is great because authentically fake moral principles are way, way cooler than real moral principles (which don't exist). This means you can favor limiting property rights and freedom of expression based on what seems like little more than a hunch. I strongly suspect that if anyone suggests simulated violence against humans (in the form of movies or video games), or real violence against animals (in the form of hunting, farming or medical testing), can serve as a gateway to human-on-human violence... then you're going to demand far more evidence.

Yeah. What goes around, comes around.

I'm sure there's a lot of chuckling whenever that comes up in phone conversations between Cheney and Kissinger.

 

[bit_pattern]

If modern technology makes it easier for people to become vegan and minimize the harm they cause to others, that would be an argument for veganism, not against it.

This. There are some meat products that so well replicated using vegan ingredients it beggars belief that we still insist on eating the meat. In Melbourne there is a burger chain which I was surprised to learn is 100% vegan, not that you'd know it from eating their food. They do a chicken burger that tastes better than real chicken. I was shocked when I found out it wasn't chicken.

 

[DarthFishy]

All other things being equal, it's better to be killed painlessly than tormented beforehand.

All other things being equal, if we aim to minimize the harm we cause to animals in all the areas where its reasonable and easy to do so, then reducing dependence on animal products to the point of eliminating animal products entirely -- veganism, animal liberation -- is the logical end and most straight-forward way to satisfy that objective.

It seems to me that veganism and vegetarianism follow from the animal welfarist views that you already hold.

This is something that's a bit of a personal problem for me.

I agree with your argument that veganism is the logical end to a belief in minimizing harm to animals. But I doubt I'd be able to give up meat.

And more critically I don't want to give up meat (arguments about nutrients not withstanding). This causes a bit of cognitive dissonance for me and I feel rather hypocritical. For example I'm generally opposed to hunting (especially trophy hunting), but when a family member comes back from a hunt and offers me a piece of Kudu meat I'll definitely take it.

It's a bit of an uncomfortable position to be in.