Philosophical Question

[Eddie]

This thread is meant for philosophical discussion. It is not meant to condone any sort of behavior but rather to explore the logic behind certain laws. Here goes:

We have a pet dog named Rocky. He isn't a guard dog or a hunting dog. He doesn't really do anything useful. He is just a pet that my wife and kids enjoy having around. It is okay for us to own an animal.

My friend Arrie raises chickens. He controls whether or not they reproduce. He eats their eggs. When he chooses he kills one of them and eats them. It is okay for us to kill an animal that we own. It is okay to eat an animal that we own.

Deer season is starting. There are lots of deer out there. I do not own them, but if I lie in wait and kill one, then I can claim its carcass as my own. I can cut it up for meat and take its skin and skull as trophies. It is okay to kill an animal that we don't own. It is okay to kill it, eat it and make trophies from its body.

So, we can own pets. We can modify our pets by doing things like removing their claws or sexual organs to suit our purposes and make them more enjoyable pets. We can keep animals for the sole purpose of killing and eating them. We can even lie in wait for animals that no one owns and kill them in order to make food and trophies.

Our state has a law prohibiting cruelty to animals. Here is a link to the code section:

Indiana Code 35-46-3

It is not legal to torture an animal.

Yep, we can kill them, eat them, hang their skulls and skins on the wall, remove their claws and sex organs, but if my neighbor wants to torture an animal just for the pure fun of inflicting pain on a helpless animal, he can't do that.

Here is my dilemma: I'm okay with pets, ok with farming and ok with hunting, but I am not ok with cruelty to animals. But if I am ok with hunting and farming, how am I logically opposed to torture? My gut is telling me that torturing animals is wrong, but my brain is having trouble reconciling it with my other beliefs.

Please discuss.

 

[phylodog]

The difference is humane vs inhumane treatment

 

[RichardR]

The difference is humane vs inhumane treatment

I was thinking more along the lines of "malice" or "malicious intent" or "malum in se".

 

[Eddie]

The difference is humane vs inhumane treatment

I was thinking more along the lines of "malice" or "malicious intent" or "malum in se".

Ok, take it step by step and explain logically why killing and eating is ok but torture is wrong. If I had to choose between being killed and eaten or just being tortured I would choose torture. Why is it ok to kill and eat animals but not ok to torture them?

 

[PatriotPride]

Ok, take it step by step and explain logically why killing and eating is ok but torture is wrong. If I had to choose between being killed and eaten or just being tortured I would choose torture. Why is it ok to kill and eat animals but not ok to torture them?

I would say that it's ok because it is condoned in a certain ancient tome. Said tome also explains why animals were specifically created.

 

[Eddie]

I would say that it's ok because it is condoned in a certain ancient tome. Said tome also explains why animals were specifically created.

Yes, I've read Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals but I find his explaination unsatisfying, like one of those diet meals that looks good but ultimately doesn't fill me up.

 

[RichardR]

Ok, take it step by step and explain logically why killing and eating is ok but torture is wrong. If I had to choose between being killed and eaten or just being tortured I would choose torture. Why is it ok to kill and eat animals but not ok to torture them?

One is a natural instinct, killing for food is simply what we are genetically programed to do, we are predatory animals, our eyes are set in the front of our skull for one reason & one reason only .. to accurately gauge the distance to our prey.

The other .. torturing/tormenting another living creature for one's own personal self-gratification or pleasure is just evil & twisted, there is absolutely no rational or natural reason for it.

Sorry but that's the best I can do in describing the difference.

 

[redneckmedic]

I don't understand why you can't eat your dog by that logic. And I know most folks have a problem kill'n there own pet. Even if it is the best thing for the animal.

 

[PatriotPride]

Yes, I've read Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals but I find his explaination unsatisfying, like one of those diet meals that looks good but ultimately doesn't fill me up.

I can understand that. I've always been ok with hunting as long as you kill the animal quickly and humanely. Don't shoot it in the leg and let it bleed out. I suppose if we can justify killing human beings without any method that's been deemed "cruel and unusual", we can do so with animals.

 

[paddling_man]

Hmmm... excellent way to pose the question. I'm not sure I will answer the question as much as add some more fuel to the fire.

Keeping companion animals is not a warning sign for mental illness.
Being a sporting hunter is not a warning sign for mental illness.
Farming/ranching livestock is not a warning sign for mental illness.

The torture of animals is a warning sign for mental illness. Specifically, the triad in combination of animal torture, bedwetting and firestarting - the warning signs of a serial killer.

Clearly, sadistic torture of living things is bad juju to the human psyche. Not so being a farmer, hunter or pet owner.

 

[gage]

The difference...to me

Torture is the opposite of nurturing.

Nurturing reveals unimaginable potential and involves having an appreciation for life.

Torturing is the absence for an appreciation of life.

Taking a life can be done with respect. Being aware and grateful of a sacrifice afforded by one life to fulfill the need for another.

Pets offer a way to nurture and a provide protection. There is the element of being grateful for the animals you take care...and the acknowledgment of the sacrifice of their claws, reproduction organs etc for their companionship for food, shelter etc.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Ok, take it step by step and explain logically why killing and eating is ok but torture is wrong. If I had to choose between being killed and eaten or just being tortured I would choose torture. Why is it ok to kill and eat animals but not ok to torture them?

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Animals and the right to make use of and enjoy them is a gift from God. To deliberately waste and abuse them is an insult to Him the same as if you gave some thing meaningful to you, that you were proud of, and your beneficiary deliberately demonstrated they had no appreciation of your gift or intent.

You are human, you KNOW right from wrong or you wouldn't care to even be asking the question. Along with that knowledge and position on Earth come the responsibility to behave accordingly.

 

[Jack Ryan]

The torture of animals is a warning sign for mental illness. Specifically, the triad in combination of animal torture, bedwetting and firestarting - the warning signs of a serial killer.

Says who?

The same people saying this today were feeling people's heads for bumps and pokeing ice picks in people's eyes for treatment 60-70 years ago.

Mental illness is a relative term defined by parameters that change to suit the whims of those who profit from it.

 

[Eddie]

Hmmm... excellent way to pose the question. I'm not sure I will answer the question as much as add some more fuel to the fire.

Keeping companion animals is not a warning sign for mental illness.
Being a sporting hunter is not a warning sign for mental illness.
Farming/ranching livestock is not a warning sign for mental illness.

The torture of animals is a warning sign for mental illness. Specifically, the triad in combination of animal torture, bedwetting and firestarting - the warning signs of a serial killer.

Clearly, sadistic torture of living things is bad juju to the human psyche. Not so being a farmer, hunter or pet owner.

OK, but what if I am mentally ill, but I don't want to break the law. Is it right for me to raise cows not because I want to eat them or make a profit but purely because it tickles me to send them off to the slaughter house? What if I hunt deer not because I need the food but because I find joy in killing them; I just eat the meat to maintain my cover?

 

[infidel]

Torturing animals is evil and can never have a just cause.
Killing animals may be evil or good and may or may not have a just cause.

 

[IndyMonkey]

This thread is meant for philosophical discussion.

 

[paddling_man]

Says who?

The same people saying this today were feeling people's heads for bumps and pokeing ice picks in people's eyes for treatment 60-70 years ago.

Mental illness is a relative term defined by parameters that change to suit the whims of those who profit from it.

Statistical research by the Behavior Science Unit of the FBI of serial killers that have been caught.

"Mental illness" is likely way to broad of a term... I'll rephrase: Serial Killers. Those who prey on their own kind for entertaining satisfaction.

What Makes Serial Killers Tick? — Monsters or Victims? — Crime Library on truTV.com

Macdonald triad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Serial Killers Psychology

The link between serial killers and animal cruelty - by Elizabeth M. Young - Helium

Crime-USA Serial Killer Profile

********************* serial killers. *********************

 

[Jack Ryan]

OK, but what if I am mentally ill, but I don't want to break the law. Is it right for me to raise cows not because I want to eat them or make a profit but purely because it tickles me to send them off to the slaughter house? What if I hunt deer not because I need the food but because I find joy in killing them; I just eat the meat to maintain my cover?

Is a butcher insane?

Is he bad if he enjoys his work?

 

[Jack Ryan]

Statistical research of serial killers that have been caught.

"Mental illness" is likely way to broad of a term... I'll rephrase: Serial Killers. Those who prey on their own kind for entertaining satisfaction.

I think the whole concept of "mental illness" is pure fertilizer. Top to bottom, in any form or concept of any kind. Every person since creation is and was "mentally ill" to some degree or another for one length of time or another regardless of the definition or description.

The threshold for treatment is determined by the person with the power to persuade or force it upon others and by that person's ability to wield that power not by the condition of the treated. Those people who want their finger on the trigger of treatment will "refine", redefine, manipulate statistics and research to make it what they want. Something that puts their finger on the trigger of something attached to some one else.

 

[Eddie]

Is a butcher insane?

Is he bad if he enjoys his work?

I think that this is an interesting question. Does the butcher enjoy cutting that perfect sirloin with just the right amount of marbelization or does his enjoyment come from placing the cattle gun between the cow's eyes? Is the act of killing inherently good while the act of torture is inherently bad or does what we feel inside us matter more? What about the hunter who kills soley for the size of a buck's rack? Is that a noble goal or is it killing for fun?