What do the libertarians on here think about Animal Rights?

[helmuth_hubener]

Uh, no. Sadly, that guy does exist, and so does his son, and so do I. You do too. In fact, existence is an uncomfortable part of this 'life' thing, but we are here, right?

You can spare me your sarcasm and professorial schtick. Just answer the question in plain English.

Hey, it was your thread! "What if we don't even exist?" I was just making a joke, not trying to be "professorial," LOL!

Does his son have any rights. If so, why?

Yes, because he is a potential human being. He is a human being by species. At this time, he is not able to demonstrate many of the key characteristics that define humanity, but that could change.

This is the same reason that infants and fetuses have rights. They do not exhibit very much human behavior. Adult chimpanzees seem generally more intelligent than one-month-old humans. But the infant is a potential human being, and that makes all the difference.

[helmuth_hubener]

HH, please. You're not being real with me. You know that there are absolutes in this world.

I don't see how that contradicts what I'm saying. Look, I think that you, and also osan and pessimist (and probably also many others who have either left the thread already or never came, but would post the same thing if they wanted to bother) are looking at it this way:

Torturing animals is obviously wrong.

And.....

There we go, that's it. That's the argument. And I think you perceive me as contradicting you, and so that I must be saying:

Torturing animals is not obviously wrong.

But that's not the main thing I'm saying. I'm mainly saying: We can't be initiating force. That's all I'm saying.

I can agree with you that intentionally torturing a cat or dog purely for twisted, sadistic purposes would be very wrong and at the same time hold that we must not initiate force against that particular wrongdoer.

That's one of the hardest lessons of libertarianism; one of the hardest things to come to grips with: just because something is wrong doesn't mean that you have the right to prohibit it.

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

— L. Neil Smith http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

[Mr Tansill]

The question implies a dichotomy which, in this case, is false. It is not an either/or situation.

Animals can be property, to a point. I see no moral basis for claiming the right to torture and abuse non-human people. If you are going to kill them for some purpose, then all morality requires it be done quickly and as painlessly as possible. I have no problem with hunting, for example. I have a LOT of trouble with beating a dog, starving a cat, and so forth. Anyone claiming before me the fundamental right to this would be faced with a monumental onus of proof because I hold endless confidence in my ability to demolish any argument presented me.

Animals are a special case of private property; likely the only special case. They are alive, are self-aware, feel pain, and so forth. They are analogues of ourselves and therefore merit equivalent respect, even when we are killing them. Any argument to the contrary reeks either of blunt ignorance or vested self-interest in avoiding responsibility for having to do what needs doing in order to show proper respect.

Do recall that 150 years ago a black African was regarded as an empty-headed, soulless animal. Before that, plenty believed in the flatness of the earth. There have been all manner of beliefs, once taken as unassailable, that were eventually demonstrated to be pure, blithering nonsense. Therefore, just because "everybody" agrees, it does not follow the belief in question is correct.

The anti-rights crowd are as wrong as the PETA crowd. IMO both are wildly deluded.

Exactly this ^.

I would like to add that with every right comes an equivalent responsibility. What I think we need is probably another word to discuss the issue, though I can't suggest one. On the one hand, "property" relegates animals to mere inanimate objects, like chairs, cars, books, houses, etc. Of course these objects have no "rights" as they are not living, and no one could reasonably object to how anyone disposed of those objects. Likewise, the use of the word "rights" conveys too much which is strictly human. Of course animals don't have rights in the same way that humanity does. No one gives cows or chickens a trial or hearing before we eat them (nor should we, but they should be killed humanely), speeding tickets, freedom of speech, etc. - such things don't make sense; hence I think our use of the terms "property" and "rights" obscures much of the actual subject matter and polarizes the issue.

While animals don't have human-rights, humanity has the responsibility to see to it that animals (conscious, self-aware beings) which are under the control of other members of our community are respected as the living beings they are. Animals feel pain, fear, and suffer stress the same way humans do. Chairs don't. The issue isn't binary - it is part of a continuum. Where the issue stands in our society, is in all honesty, probably where it should stand: those members who disrespect life, are cruel, or neglect those animals who they consciously assume responsibility for should be appropriately penalized for doing so.

There's a great passage in the book 2001: A Space Odyssey in which a primitive ape looks upon his father: “He did not know that the Old One was his father, for such a relationship was utterly beyond his understanding, but as he looked at the emaciated body he felt a dim disquiet that was the ancestor of sadness.” The story is fictional, but humans exist as part of a continuum of life, and the rights we have derive from that same structure. No, animals don't have the same rights as humans - humans have a responsibility to ensure that those animals in their care are properly treated, which means that humans don't have the right to torture, neglect, or unjustly harm them.

[helmuth_hubener]

On the one hand, "property" relegates animals to mere inanimate objects, like chairs, cars, books, houses, etc.

Few indeed are the useful inanimate objects which did not come about through the killing of many living things.

[Natural Citizen]

Helmuth, lookit what I found.

5-foot-tall ‘Robocops’ start patrolling Silicon Valley

So, now the gig is up. You know that it's only going to be a matter of time before these servants begin to patrol helmuthville. How are you going to hide all of those trinkets in yer pockets? Jiiiiminy crickets.

[Mr Tansill]

Few indeed are the useful inanimate objects which did not come about through the killing of many living things.

Won't disagree with you there; however, no part of generating something useful from something living necessitates cruelty.

[helmuth_hubener]

Won't disagree with you there; however, no part of generating something useful from something living necessitates cruelty.

Killing is the ultimate injury, though. Dying may in fact be very painful. I do not know. But it is definitely the most serious, and most permanent, abuse we can inflict on another living being.

Cruelty... does the tree or rat care if we're being cruel? Probably not, doesn't have concepts for that. Is sad about pain, is happy when/if it stops.

I think "cruelty" has the biggest effect on the soul of the perpetrator. The animal does not really care about our motives and inner thoughts. It just wants to stay alive, and secondarily to avoid pain, but mostly to stay alive. The cow at the slaughterhouse cannot accomplish that primary goal, and so whether it is massacred "humanely" or not is really only relevant to us, not the cow. The cow is dead.

[Mr Tansill]

Killing is the ultimate injury, though. Dying may in fact be very painful. I do not know. But it is definitely the most serious, and most permanent, abuse we can inflict on another living being.

Cruelty... does the tree or rat care if we're being cruel? Probably not, doesn't have concepts for that. Is sad about pain, is happy when/if it stops.

I think "cruelty" has the biggest effect on the soul of the perpetrator. The animal does not really care about our motives and inner thoughts. It just wants to stay alive, and secondarily to avoid pain, but mostly to stay alive. The cow at the slaughterhouse cannot accomplish that primary goal, and so whether it is massacred "humanely" or not is really only relevant to us, not the cow. The cow is dead.

Generally agreed...the position I take is that killing cruelly is a function of time - the longer it takes, the crueler it is...if you kill so swiftly that the animal is never aware of what hit them, cruelty = 0 - which is what should be striven for.

[helmuth_hubener]

Generally agreed...the position I take is that killing cruelly is a function of time - the longer it takes, the crueler it is...if you kill so swiftly that the animal is never aware of what hit them, cruelty = 0 - which is what should be striven for.

Yes, and I generally agree with your points, as well. Especially what you say about it being a continuum. (I still have seen no sympathy for rats! Where are the rat-defenders on this thread?) This is a very fuzzy, questionable area. I think Deb would probably generally agree with you, too. So then, the confusion will be: hey, wait, HH and I both agree with Mr. T., so where's the disagreement? And that's what I've been trying to explain: The morality of how we should treat and relate to animals is one thing, the permissible political actions to take against people who treat animals not in accordance with our (continuumal, fuzzy, non-rigidly-definable) standards.

Just because something is wrong doesn't mean we can ban it.

[Mr Tansill]

(x2 post...)

[Mr Tansill]

Yes, and I generally agree with your points, as well. Especially what you say about it being a continuum. (I still have seen no sympathy for rats! Where are the rat-defenders on this thread?) This is a very fuzzy, questionable area. I think Deb would probably generally agree with you, too. So then, the confusion will be: hey, wait, HH and I both agree with Mr. T., so where's the disagreement? And that's what I've been trying to explain: The morality of how we should treat and relate to animals is one thing, the permissible political actions to take against people who treat animals not in accordance with our (continuumal, fuzzy, non-rigidly-definable) standards.

Just because something is wrong doesn't mean we can ban it.

Now that is an interesting subject...there is that famous saying out there: "you can't legislate morality." Which I generally take to mean that you can't force people to be good through legislation (which is true). Many things are double-edged, however, and I think that saying is often misinterpreted to mean that moral precepts shouldn't be the basis for laws (not at all saying that's what you're implying...). I take the alternate position, however, and find that it is only, and exclusively only, those things which are morally wrong, that should be outlawed. IMO, this is the core of the libertarian philosophy - live and let live. Those acts which don't cause harm to consensual parties should have no law banning them (drugs...); whereas, those (and only those) acts which harm others (murder, etc.) should be the subject of our legal system.

Because something is wrong is precisely why we can ban it.

[osan]

Originally Posted by helmuth_hubenerPeople who seek to impose their own will on others are always certain of their absolute rectitude. At least they often are.



Prove it. That's a very big and bold statement, claiming to know the hearts of others. Onus rest squarely with you to prove the assertion. Until you do, it is nothing more than pure bull$#@!.

You want me to prove that it is arrogant and conceited to presume to know better than others how they should live and to forcibly shove your opinions down their throats? Ummm......

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Is this dishonesty? Is this a reading comprehension problem? You are drawing inferences that are grossly non-sequitur. You began with a universal assertion about the states of mind of those who impose their own wills upon others (note the bolded, italic text). The assertion was of the universal and absolute confidence such people have. I pointed out that it was a very bold statement and that onus rest squarely with you to demonstrate its truth. You responded with an astonishing non-sequitur that has absolutely ZERO connection to that which I wrote. I'm sorry pal, but that demands either a sensible explanation, an explicit concession that you reasoned in gross error, or a serious blow to your credibility.

How about you prove that it's not.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the basic rule of debate. You, having made the initial assertion, are saddled with the onus of proving it. I made no assertion counter to yours. I merely asked for proof of yours. Such a request in no plausible way implies an assertion to the contrary. It remains perfectly neutral as a skeptic's challenge and nothing more.

So you do not assert that trees have rights. Terrific. Then when I say something like, "Trees have life. They don't have rights," rather than contradicting me by writing, "blind...unsupported...I'd call that a FAIL," instead you should agree with me by writing something like, "Yes, I also don't assert that trees have rights."

Once again your logic and reasoning fails most impressively. Not asserting that trees have rights, it does not follow that they do not. I have, as I am often wont, remained neutral on the issue. What I did do, however, was call into question your positive assertion that they do not. I am neutral on the issue and you are not. You make the positive statement; therefore you are saddled with the burden of proof of your philosophical thesis. We could discuss this in very painful metaphysical detail and demonstrate how the question may resolve either way, depending completely upon the more fundamental assumptions that underpin the higher-level philosophical discussion. Depending upon the premises one chooses to accept at true, he may accept that trees have no rights, or precisely the opposite. I for one claim no such vast knowledge of as to which premises are true and which not. I am therefore constrained to remain skeptical. You, on the other hand, have openly stated your opinion, which may or may not be correct. We will not know until such time as you present your logical argument in proof of your stated belief.

I'm not the one on the hot-seat here. I try to be smarter than to place my buns on that particular throne.

Ahh, Osan-san, this is the root of your misunderstanding of me. In the heat of your emotion,

And therein lies your misunderstanding of me: there was no emotion worthy of mention there, hot or cold - though mine tends to run cold on such matter when it is present.

Proof of your bald assertions that humans are morally entitled to torment and main other sentient beings;

you have failed to notice that I never made such an assertion.

Actually, you did. To wit:

Originally Posted by osan
Am I entitled to skin my dog alive and keep him that way for days or weeks? If you believe "yes", then I would have no choice but to conclude that there was something terribly wrong with your mental disposition.



I believe "yes."

Sentience is not the litmus test for rights possession. Sapience is.

Now, before you claim that you were not making the statement in the context of "morality", I will shut that right down, right here. Splitting semantic hairs will not save you, so I would recommend you simply concede this point because I've got you dead to logical rights here. But do proceed if you feel up for the sport of it. The assertion I claim you to have made is the direct and unavoidable implication of your written response, as captioned above. If you are going to attempt to evade the touché by claiming that the original issue I raised, flaying my dog alive, is not one of morals, I believe you will reduce any shred of credibility you may have here with your fellows to fly-ash. But give it a whirl if you wish.

If I had made such an assertion, rest assured I would have probably draped it in the hair of some kind of line of reasoning attempting to anchor its moral origins on metaphysical bedrock (just as you did with your opposite moral assertion), not just left it bald and naked. Such an attempt would undoubtedly be specious and not hold up to any very hard scrutiny.

But you did make the assertion and you did not so drape. But kudos for structuring your response with some minor cleverness.

No, torturing animals may very well be immoral,

Does this mean you also feel it "may very well" be moral?

or at least usually immoral, when not done for some practical purpose like curing cancer

Ends justifying the means, no matter how foul? How provincially parochial.

But I was not addressing morality.

Ah! This is either the poor dodge against which I warn you, just above, or a demonstration of your error in that I was addressing morality from the very beginning. The context was morality itself and you are here evading the context. That is a very significant error, albeit forgivable so long as you acknowledge it, thereby coming to the rescue of your own reputation as an honest man.

I was addressing political morality.

Now this you will need to explain, as I am not seeing a distinction. How does "political morality" separate itself conceptually from the less constrained term?

Libertarianism at root asks one question: "When can humans justifiably use force against other humans?" And it gives one answer: "Only in defense against or response to the initiation of force by another human." Since the animal-torturer is not initiating any force against any other human, libertarianism prohibits anyone from using any force against him, for such a use of force would be an initiation.

I will afford you the benefit of doubt here that this was an honest misapprehension of context or reasoning on your part, and rest you assured that at the very best it is an error. I was speaking in terms of human rights in asking the question whether a man holds the moral authority to torment and maim an animal. I would add that just because your understanding of "libertarianism" does not address the issue in question here, it does not follow that the issue is not valid, nor that there does not exist an understanding more perfect than your own. Here, my use of "perfect" is strictly proper - i.e. not meaning "without flaw" but rather "complete" or "full developed".

Torturing animals may be immoral. Becoming hopelessly addicted to opiates may be immoral.

The moral evaluation of these two considerations stand as apples and oranges. The latter relates to actions one takes upon himself, the former upon another. Mr. Night, meet Mr. Day.

Clearcutting rainforests may be immoral. Burning the Quaran, or the Bible, may be immoral. But all of these things are done with one's own property and thus the immoral actors cannot justly be forced to stop.

Dead wrong. The animal's life belongs to the animal, though his body may belong to you. You are confusing moral authority with that of raw material power. That is a rankly amateurish failure that I find most surprising, coming from you. I'm not trying to beat on you here, but simply pointing out that somewhere along this path your thinking got seriously hosed up.

They are not. If behavior is depraved, then by definition it is not moral. But that does not mean it can be stomped out by rapid-response Anti-Depravity SWAT Teams.

Actually, it means exactly that. What you are doing here is making a grand, if very weak and indeed incoherent, attempt at moral equivocation. You are SO afraid of violating the rights of others that you are essentially saying "it's all good" in screaming contradiction of your own position on non-aggression. This speaks highly of you in terms of your desire not to violate the rights of others, but it also reveals your weak understanding in this particular and very special case of private property. I mentioned this characteristic of animal ownership right up front.

Answer me this: were I to find you, kidnap you, and truss you up like a Thanksgiving turkey in my barn, would you be in favor of me skinning you alive? I will assume your answer is an unequivocal "NO $#@!ING WAY!!!" Assuming this, do you feel that were I to do the same with your dog or cat, that they would feel otherwise; that they would welcome such treatment? If yes, then on what basis do you make the assumption? If no, then upon what basis do you claim I hold the moral authorioty to proceed? The only other possibility is to assert that the animal has no opinion on the matter, a claim that I firmly believe practical experience in observation rules out with vanishing doubt.

Libertarianism prohibits the initiation of force -- even against those whom you see as depraved.

Not quite. Depravity is not the predicate of the go/nogo decision. Criminality is. My self-destruction via methamphetamine usage may be validly looked upon as "depraved", but it cannot be reasonably assessed as criminal. My killing of a man attempting to rape a small child may be validly viewed by some as depraved, but it cannot be assessed as criminal. Skinning a living, non-human being, however, is indeed criminal. We may claim the right to take animal life, whether in defense or to eat. We can claim this right for what I hope we can agree are obvious reasons so that we don't get mired in yet more philosophical debate. To live is to kill - I trust this is fairly obvious? It may be regrettable, but it cannot be avoided so long as one wishes himself to retain his name in the book of the living. But taking life is likely never a casual act in moral terms. If that be the case, then it would appear to follow rather intuitively that such acts should abound with swift mercy. Nobody wants to feel pain and the anguish of having their beautiful life taken from them. Of this assertion I am confident as my nearly 57 years of observation support the notion without exception in examples. In this, humans and other animals hold their respective analogs and it is precisely because we observe this analog and the fact that we cannot know for absolutely sure the precise nature of their subjective experiences, reason coupled with our moral foundations thereby behoove us to assume in favor of the greatest advantage to the animal that does not dictate our suicide. In other words, based on the combination of observed evidence and our sense of moral decency, the safest assumption to make is that we are morally required to afford animals every mercy within our power and to leave them free of agony and misery not only in death, but in life.

The very same is the basis of Law against murder and torture of other humans. Because of the moral stricture against criminal action, we are indeed authorized to interfere in the criminal deeds of others. You appear to be arguiing against this, which of course falls down because the position has no legs whatsoever upon which to stand.

Even against those whom you hate. Especially against those whom you hate. It's just like free speech:

"We don't have freedom of speech to talk about the weather. We have the first amendment so we can say very controversial things." -Ron Paul

It's easy to grant freedom of speech to those we agree with. The real test is granting that freedom to those with opinions we absolutely despise.

Agreed, but once again you have switched contexts invalidly. We are not entitled to interfere in non-criminal action, but we sure are in all other cases.

Bacteria display a clear love for their own existence (via their drive to perpetuate that existence). Some research suggests that trees can feel pain. To make a rule that it is OK to initiate force upon anyone whom you think is causing any other lifeform pain or suffering or death, is to make a horrible rule. In my opinion.

I cannot be 100% certain that YOU feel pain - that is metaphysical FACT. I may 99.9999999(bar) certain, but that is still not 100%. Given this, do you feel I am entitled to skin you alive based on an argument that you cannot prove to me that you feel pain? You realize, I hope, that you cannot by ANY MEANS prove to me that you feel pain. All your screaming and pleading with me proves nothing. That I choose to believe you has nothing to do with absolute proof, but merely of sufficient belief on my part. But if I wanted to press the issue, grab you, truss you, and begin flaying, why do you believe that I should not prevail in court, or that I should even be called to a court in the first place? Whatever your argument might be, rest you assured that with equal force I can contrive an argument in favor of your pet hamster whom I personally believe is thanking me in his heart of hearts. I do not torment animals because in my heart of hearts I KNOW they feel pain, love their lives, and do not want to be piecemeal destroyed in freakish agony. Do you believe otherwise? I cannot prove it, just as I cannot prove the same belief I hold toward you. I do not need absolute proof, forgetting even that such probably does not exist for anything.

At some point the rubber needs to meet the road or else you spend your life on jackstands, spinning wildly away your days and your life, going nowhere.

Doe trees feel pain? I don't know. I have no way to judge the subjective experience of a tree. But I can judge on the outward manifestations. They do not run away - indeed they cannot. They do not scream when being cut or trimmed. They do not flail at one when cutting then down. Does any of that absolutely establish that they feel no pain? No. Perhaps I hid behind the lack of screaming and flailing to justify my belief that they fell nothing, reducing my own status to that of a corrupt and filthy little coward. But I am just a man, limited by his senses with which he was born and by those means do I make my way through this perplexing life as best I am able. My best tells me that to gratuitously injure, torment, and maim non-humans is an act of evil - a criminal act - and by that virtue I am indeed morally authorized to interfere with such acts. When I am proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be wrong on that point, I will alter my position. But until then, I am staid.

[Mr Tansill]

I cannot be 100% certain that YOU feel pain - that is metaphysical FACT. I may 99.9999999(bar) certain, but that is still not 100%.

Actually, to be mathematically precise, 99.9999% (bar) is exactly 100%, and not one epsilon less....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINfzxSnnIE

[mczerone]

Should there be a line?

To answer there there should be something, anything, is to make a normative judgment. In this case it would be a subjective determination about how to personally react to one person "mistreating" another. I can see at least three lines: Do nothing /line 1/ gossip about the misbehavior /line 2/ boycott/excommunicate the person who misbehaved /line 3/ take action to intervene in the mistreatment.

Assuming that we are only discussing the last line, I don't know that I could pin-point which actions always lie on one side of the line or the other; while some things are clearly okay, and others are over the line, there is a small area where multiple factors compete for dominance. These include: the action taken, the status of the potential victim, the relationship of the actors, etc.

So, then, for each exact situation, is there some objective line? I would say no. Going back to my first paragraph, the line you ask about is normative, subjective, and honestly arguable based on the factors listed in the second paragraph.

If you take action to intervene in mistreatment, you then open yourself up to judgment by others: is what you did "over the line"?

Which opens up a second line of inquiry: where is your line for allowing others to intervene without yourself intervening in that intervention?

This, again, is a subjective determination.

So, if you're asking "Is there a line" - I'd say no. There are many lines, each residing in our own heads.

If you're asking "how do we agree on a line" - I'd say in any way that doesn't cross the line.

[Natural Citizen]

Why is it that if I go into the store with my dog that I have more rights than anyone else who cannot? Who has the rights? Me or the dog?

Like one time I took my dog to the circus. One of those ones that come through town. What I did was I told him to sit there and wait for me and that I'd be back in a minute. Which he did because he's a good boy. People went apecrap. There were literally hundreds of people walking by him, many of them kids flinging toys around and eating circus food like corndogs and popcorn and all of that good stuff that dogs like along with rides going and music playing but he just sat there and did as he was asked to do.

Now, the people walking by him didn't have a problem with him. It was the owners and workers. When I got back they said "you need to get that dog out of here". And so I said, no, I don't . He can stay. We're going to walk around the carnival. Have a good evening."

And so they called the police. Ha! that was great because then the police showed up and went the same route. And so I told them the same thing. I said "no...he's going to stay and we're going to walk around the carnival and play games. Maybe grab a corndog." And so then the police must have had a light bulb go off and asked if I had a permit. And so I said, "sure. Here you go." And then they said "Well why didn't you say so in the first place?" And so I said, "nobody asked." And so then pooch and i enjoyed the carnival the rest of the evening. It was a hoot.

You see? I can take him any place I want and without asking permission. Well...within reason. Some places I wouldn't do that although, technically, I could. Now I can do that without permission from the owner of the business. But nobody ever asks for papers please. They just call the police because, by default, many just assume that the dog doesn't have a right to be there. And they're wrong.

[mczerone]

Now that is an interesting subject...there is that famous saying out there: "you can't legislate morality." Which I generally take to mean that you can't force people to be good through legislation (which is true). Many things are double-edged, however, and I think that saying is often misinterpreted to mean that moral precepts shouldn't be the basis for laws (not at all saying that's what you're implying...). I take the alternate position, however, and find that it is only, and exclusively only, those things which are morally wrong, that should be outlawed. IMO, this is the core of the libertarian philosophy - live and let live. Those acts which don't cause harm to consensual parties should have no law banning them (drugs...); whereas, those (and only those) acts which harm others (murder, etc.) should be the subject of our legal system.

Because something is wrong is precisely why we can ban it.

So (1) what is "our" legal system? Can I opt out of it and remain in my location, with my home, and my own protection? And (2) who defines what "harm" is?

[osan]

Should there be a line?

To answer there there should be something, anything, is to make a normative judgment. In this case it would be a subjective determination about how to personally react to one person "mistreating" another. I can see at least three lines: Do nothing /line 1/ gossip about the misbehavior /line 2/ boycott/excommunicate the person who misbehaved /line 3/ take action to intervene in the mistreatment.

Assuming that we are only discussing the last line, I don't know that I could pin-point which actions always lie on one side of the line or the other; while some things are clearly okay, and others are over the line, there is a small area where multiple factors compete for dominance. These include: the action taken, the status of the potential victim, the relationship of the actors, etc.

So, then, for each exact situation, is there some objective line? I would say no. Going back to my first paragraph, the line you ask about is normative, subjective, and honestly arguable based on the factors listed in the second paragraph.

If you take action to intervene in mistreatment, you then open yourself up to judgment by others: is what you did "over the line"?

Which opens up a second line of inquiry: where is your line for allowing others to intervene without yourself intervening in that intervention?

This, again, is a subjective determination.

So, if you're asking "Is there a line" - I'd say no. There are many lines, each residing in our own heads.

If you're asking "how do we agree on a line" - I'd say in any way that doesn't cross the line.

Commendable analysis, repworthy.

However, we live in a world of statistical distributions - a world of the mean. The mean dominates nearly everything in our practical daily lives. In fact, I am not sure I can offhand think of anything where it does not. Be that as it may, because the mean is the vastly, if not consummately, dominating characteristic of circumstance, the brands of philosophically entertaining extremity of which you make adept illustration is of little practical significance in daily living. This is not, however, to say that it is of no value in terms of human awareness. Quite the opposite. I firmly believe that cognizance of such conceptual traps is indeed endlessly valuable to our awareness, as it contributes to the fund of potentially practical knowledge for some future date in the same way that Boolean algebra did when George Boole invented/discovered it. In that day, there was basically zero practical value in the concepts of his algebra. Without it, however, little of today's internet world would exist. Nor would me have ever walked the moon (assuming they actually did ). Manufacturing would be nothing of what it is now, as would research in virtually any field you care to name that is of a technical nature, and some even philosophical. We would not be having this exchange without the "useless" discoveries and inventions of men like Boole and Alan Turing. Therefore, I must not be taken as disparaging your theoretical construct. Far from it. Tomorrow men may make a discovery wherein that which you have here outlined suddenly assumes a position of ultimate practical utility. One never know, do one.

But today, there appear to be objective bases upon which to construct a rule that says "no cruelty to animals". It is objective in the precise same way that the rules of proper human relations are objective. That is, they are objective on the virtually universal standard of life itself. Which living thing which is sentiently capable of understanding life v. death (animal behavior clearly indicates this with force and eloquence equal to that of any human being, albeit using superficially differing language) chooses death for itself under "normal" circumstances? I am very comfortable in assuming zero here. It is the safe and reasonable assumption. In cases of the readily countable and freakish occurrences to the contrary... well, we will leave those to resolve themselves as they may, and even in those cases resolution may be reached without torture and prolonged agony.

Therefore, while I appreciate the value of your valid points as both intellectual exercise and as a back-store item for some future rainy day, I do not see the issues it validly raises as being of immediate practical significance in the "here and now", which is to say that I don't worry too much about such problem as they are not very likely to arise even under the most extreme circumstance. This world is not populated by philosophers, but rather by those who choose the path of the simpleton. In practical terms, this may actually be a blessing because if everyone were like us, nothing would ever get done.

[Deborah K]

I don't see how that contradicts what I'm saying. Look, I think that you, and also osan and pessimist (and probably also many others who have either left the thread already or never came, but would post the same thing if they wanted to bother) are looking at it this way:

Torturing animals is obviously wrong.

And.....

There we go, that's it. That's the argument. And I think you perceive me as contradicting you, and so that I must be saying:

Torturing animals is not obviously wrong.

But that's not the main thing I'm saying. I'm mainly saying: We can't be initiating force. That's all I'm saying.

I can agree with you that intentionally torturing a cat or dog purely for twisted, sadistic purposes would be very wrong and at the same time hold that we must not initiate force against that particular wrongdoer.

That's one of the hardest lessons of libertarianism; one of the hardest things to come to grips with: just because something is wrong doesn't mean that you have the right to prohibit it.

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

— L. Neil Smith http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

I will defend myself, my family, and others (including animals) using violence, if necessary - as long as I am NOT the one initiating the force on others - iow, the one who is doing the torturing is the initiator, not I. And, if push comes to shove, I suspect that you will too. I highly doubt you would just stand by and try to reason with someone who is in the process of obviously abusing and/or torturing another living being. And it's not a matter of being a "busy body", as you put it earlier. Most of us instinctively react to such an atrocity, even if we lack the courage to do something about it.

Edit: And fwiw, rats are intelligent, loving parents, and great pets. The fathers are just as attentive to the babies as the mothers are. I noticed you were wondering if people had any regard for them.

[amy31416]

I will defend myself, my family, and others (including animals) using violence, if necessary - as long as I am NOT the one initiating the force on others - iow, the one who is doing the torturing is the initiator, not I. And, if push comes to shove, I suspect that you will too. I highly doubt you would just stand by and try to reason with someone who is in the process of obviously abusing and/or torturing another living being. And it's not a matter of being a "busy body", as you put it earlier. Most of us instinctively react to such an atrocity, even if we lack the courage to do something about it.

Edit: And fwiw, rats are intelligent, loving parents, and great pets. The fathers are just as attentive to the babies as the mothers are. I noticed you were wondering if people had any regard for them.

One of my oldest friends is really into animals, she had pet rats, while her sister had various types of lizards. The rats were actually very interesting, very friendly and yes, intelligent. Her family practically had a zoo in their house--dogs, cats, lizards and rats, when I slept over I felt like I was about to cough up a hairball by the time I left. But her family of humans and pets was a lot of fun.

[Deborah K]

One of my oldest friends is really into animals, she had pet rats, while her sister had various types of lizards. The rats were actually very interesting, very friendly and yes, intelligent. Her family practically had a zoo in their house--dogs, cats, lizards and rats, when I slept over I felt like I was about to cough up a hairball by the time I left. But her family of humans and pets was a lot of fun.

My kids raised rats when they were younger. We also had a 7ft Columbian Red Tail Boa constrictor who we got at 5 weeks old and only the size of a pencil, and who lived 15 years. The kids got her for me for Mother's Day one year. Her name was Noa the Boa. She's out in the pet cemetery now. And that is how we ended up with rats - some were pets - some were feed.

[helmuth_hubener]

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Is this dishonesty? Is this a reading comprehension problem? You are drawing inferences that are grossly non-sequitur. You began with a universal assertion about the states of mind of those who impose their own wills upon others (note the bolded, italic text). The assertion was of the universal and absolute confidence such people have. I pointed out that it was a very bold statement and that onus rest squarely with you to demonstrate its truth. You responded with an astonishing non-sequitur that has absolutely ZERO connection to that which I wrote.

It has 100% connection to what I wrote. Tyrants force their will on others because they think they know best. People who violate others' rights do so because they think it is the right thing to do. That was my point, that is still my point, it's an easy to understand point, and you don't even have a point at all.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the basic rule of debate. You, having made the initial assertion, are saddled with the onus of proving it. I made no assertion counter to yours. I merely asked for proof of yours. Such a request in no plausible way implies an assertion to the contrary. It remains perfectly neutral as a skeptic's challenge and nothing more.

So you are just trying to win some wort of childish debating game, rather than actually increasing mutual understanding? OK. Now I know.

Once again your logic and reasoning fails most impressively.

Oh, good. Glad to impress you. Hopefully this is the "impressive show" you were pining for.

Not asserting that trees have rights, it does not follow that they do not. I have, as I am often wont, remained neutral on the issue. What I did do, however, was call into question your positive assertion that they do not. I am neutral on the issue and you are not. You make the positive statement; therefore you are saddled with the burden of proof of your philosophical thesis. We could discuss this in very painful metaphysical detail and demonstrate how the question may resolve either way, depending completely upon the more fundamental assumptions that underpin the higher-level philosophical discussion. Depending upon the premises one chooses to accept at true, he may accept that trees have no rights, or precisely the opposite. I for one claim no such vast knowledge of as to which premises are true and which not. I am therefore constrained to remain skeptical. You, on the other hand, have openly stated your opinion, which may or may not be correct. We will not know until such time as you present your logical argument in proof of your stated belief.

Excellent! Then you could have saved a lot of time and wordiness by just saying "I remain neutral on the matter," or not even commented at all since you find it too uninteresting and unimportant to take any position on it.

I'm not the one on the hot-seat here.

Oh dear! The pressure's on!

Now, before you claim that you were not making the statement in the context of "morality", I will shut that right down, right here.

Well by all means, prohibit me from expressing my real and sincere thoughts. We wouldn't want to risk any actual understanding to come in the way of your ridiculous debating game:

Splitting semantic hairs will not save you
concede this point
If you are going to attempt to evade
you will reduce any shred of credibility you may have here with your fellows to fly-ash. But give it a whirl if you wish.
how foul
How provincially parochial.
poor dodge
a demonstration of your error
you are here evading the context.
That is a very significant error,
rescue of your own reputation as an honest man.
at the very best it is an error
Dead wrong.
You are confusing
That is a rankly amateurish failure
somewhere along this path your thinking got seriously hosed up.
What you are doing here is making a grand, if very weak and indeed incoherent, attempt at moral equivocation.
You are SO afraid
in screaming contradiction of your own position
reveals your weak understanding
You appear to be arguing against this, which of course falls down because the position has no legs whatsoever upon which to stand.
once again you have switched contexts invalidly

Reliving your middle school debate team glory days, I see. Some gratuitous alliteration! I especially like the accusations of dishonesty and threats of lost credibility. Nice touches.

Let me rescue you from your own wordiness and reply to one and only one question you raised, and maybe you can think about my answer and what it means.

Answer me this: were I to find you, kidnap you, and truss you up like a Thanksgiving turkey in my barn, would you be in favor of me skinning you alive?

Answer: I would very much prefer your doing this and leaving me alive to your killing me humanely.

[helmuth_hubener]

I will defend myself, my family, and others (including animals) using violence, if necessary - as long as I am NOT the one initiating the force on others - iow, the one who is doing the torturing is the initiator, not I.

The torturer will disagree. He will say:

"Look, I have a serious rat problem. We're swimming in rats, here. I know that rats are cute and loving and intelligent, but something's got to give! So yes, I am slowly torturing these cute, innocent rats to death with poison that will gradually and extremely painfully eat them from the inside out. And you can't stop me."

And you will say: "Oh yes I can! You are initiating force against those poor, helpless mammals who are not so different from us humans. And so I am entitled to grab that rat trap out of your hands and prevent you from cruelly torturing these living beings. What you're doing is evil. I am here on behalf of Goodness and Light to stop your sadistic madness."

And so you do. A few weeks later his kids all have bubos.

The End

The moral of the story is in the form of a question: Who here was in the right?

[Deborah K]

The torturer will disagree. He will say:

"Look, I have a serious rat problem. We're swimming in rats, here. I know that rats are cute and loving and intelligent, but something's got to give! So yes, I am slowly torturing these cute, innocent rats to death with poison that will gradually and extremely painfully eat them from the inside out. And you can't stop me."

And you will say: "Oh yes I can! You are initiating force against those poor, helpless mammals who are not so different from us humans. And so I am entitled to grab that rat trap out of your hands and prevent you from cruelly torturing these living beings. What you're doing is evil. I am here on behalf of Goodness and Light to stop your sadistic madness."

And so you do. A few weeks later his kids all have bubos.

The End

The moral of the story is in the form of a question: Who here was in the right?

The example was a dog being abused and neglected by his owner - not a guy trapping rats that have infested his house. However if, for example, there were packs of wild dogs roaming and killing people, I would have a different view of how to deal with them, although torture wouldn't be an option. But yeah, rat poison is a form of torture, and I would rather see someone use traps when dealing with an infestation rather than poison. But that isn't the hill I want to die on.

[otherone]

But yeah, rat poison is a form of torture, and I would rather see someone use traps when dealing with an infestation rather than poison. But that isn't the hill I want to die on.

Rodenticides are far more humane than snap traps.

[Dr.3D]

Rodenticides are far more humane than snap traps.

Well, I don't like the sticky traps. Imagine being suck till you die of thirst.

[amy31416]

Rodenticides are far more humane than snap traps.

I also do NOT recommend the glue traps for rodents. I had an issue with them once, and I felt like the $#@!tiest person in the world when I saw the mouse struggling to breathe and move after it got stuck. I actually took about two hours with a bottle of oil to dissolve the glue--I'm sure it didn't survive long after that, but at least I got him free prior to him buying it.

Glue traps are great for bugs though--$#@! bugs that come into your house and bite/sting your kid or creep up on you. Had one crawl up my sleeve while I was doing work on the computer. At least mice will generally stay off of people--freaking bugs.

[otherone]

Well, I don't like the sticky traps. Imagine being suck till you die of thirst.

Most rodents die from asphyxiation when stuck to glue traps...they try to chew themselves off. Other times they escape but are maimed.

[ClydeCoulter]

I have a mouse in my shop, he hides under the woodstove when I come in if it's not hot. I feed him part of my pretzels or gram-crackers.

[phill4paul]

Once upon a time other humans were deemed an "animal" and "property." I did not live in those time. I live in my time. For your own sake do not abuse a human or an animal in my presence. Neither will gain you the power you think you are entitled to.

[navy-vet]

Most rodents die from asphyxiation when stuck to glue traps...they try to chew themselves off. Other times they escape but are maimed.

I don't care for mice in the house or shop as they carry disease and can cause fires by chewing on electrical wires and can actually create a significant amount of structural damage. I would never use glue traps, and I never kill anything I don't have to, but when I do, I do it in what I believe is a humane manner. I've caught them in the humane traps and released them outside, once I forgot to check one and later found it all shriveled up, which made me feel rather bad. I have also used the spring kill types which kill quickly. My cat Merlin has caught several and brings them to me alive for disposal. I take em outside and chuck em into the woods. I might have chucked the same one more than once. Most have looked alike and were the same size... I might start marking them with a magic marker and if they come back I'll waste em.