Murder: Not provoked by any necessity for survival and/or moral calling.
Hunting: For survival and/or remote utility.
Execution: Performed on the basis of responsibility tied to oneself and other involved individuals.
billetright: Murder: Not provoked by any necessity for survival and/or moral calling.
Did Charles Whitman not murder his wife and his mother?
(Background: Apparently in his diary he wrote that he killed them for their own good.)
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Are you implying that animals (hunting) and people (murder, execution) are morally equivalent?
No, Merlin.
Merlin: Are you implying that animals (hunting) and people (murder, execution) are morally equivalent?
What's it mean to be "morally equivalent"?
Is shooting an unowned dog for fun anywhere near slaping some girl in the face?
Merlin: Is shooting an unowned dog for fun anywhere near slaping some girl in the face?
Near in terms of what?
Of what you, in the position of a private arbiter in anarchy, would make the perpetrator pay (or pay for him) to get forgivnes.
Merlin: Of what you, in the position of a private arbiter in anarchy, would make the perpetrator pay (or pay for him) to get forgivnes.
Well, I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know that answer any more than I know how somebody should run a grocery store.
But I know that, for me, I would be a lot more wary of somebody who went out and shot a dog for fun than somebody who slapped a girl in the face.
But, then again, maybe I don't have enough context as to why the guy slapped her.
Hm, you do make a point. If you could run through your records after some time, and run some statistical test and find out that people who shot dogs are x% more likely to cost you money in the future (of harming people), than we could say that animal cruelty would become punishable in a sense (it would cost the perpetrator something, if even higher insurance premiums).
Yet, I do not believe that reparation for killing someone’s dog would be near, by orders of magnitude, what you’d be required to pay to the guy whose nose you broke in that bar fight, in order for him to give up any right to retaliate in the future. So, in this sense, I do not believe animals would anywhere near people when it comes to actual punishment in a free market, i.e. implied moral equivalence.
Merlin: If you could run through your records after some time, and run some statistical test and find out that people who shot dogs are x% more likely to cost you money in the future (of harming people), than we could say that animal cruelty would become punishable in a sense (it would cost the perpetrator something, if even higher insurance premiums).
If you could run through your records after some time, and run some statistical test and find out that people who shot dogs are x% more likely to cost you money in the future (of harming people), than we could say that animal cruelty would become punishable in a sense (it would cost the perpetrator something, if even higher insurance premiums).
Exactly.
I think that it has something to do with this:
1. We don't just see the young of our species as cute, but actually see the young of other mammals as cute.
2. Just like that, our moral sentiments don't just advise us on how to interact with other people, but actually advise us on how to interact with other mammals.
3. Notice that both of those mechanisms misfire toward other mammals, but not other animals in general. Maybe that's why there's so many "vegetarians" who eat fish! (Fish don't excite our moral sentiments even remotely as much.)
So what would it mean for somebody to shoot dogs for fun?
1. They would have to be a psychopath in the formal sense of the term - somebody with impaired moral sentiments.
2. They would have to a big disregard for how other people see them, because most people - those with working moral sentiments - would be disgusted by killing a dog for fun.
How would you feel about being around somebody with impaired moral sentiments and an immunity to strong social pressure about morality?
I wouldn't feel very safe!
(Sorry for the weird exposition of this here.)
Merlin: Yet, I do not believe that reparation for killing someone’s dog would be near, by orders of magnitude, what you’d be required to pay to the guy whose nose you broke in that bar fight, in order for him to give up any right to retaliate in the future. So, in this sense, I do not believe animals would anywhere near people when it comes to actual punishment in a free market, i.e. implied moral equivalence.
Maybe, but I think that "animal rights" would have much more play in a free society than Rothbardian rationalism would lead somebody to believe.
So what would it mean for somebody to shoot dogs for fun? 1. They would have to be a psychopath in the formal sense of the term - somebody with impaired moral sentiments. 2. They would have to a big disregard for how other people see them, because most people - those with working moral sentiments - would be disgusted by killing a dog for fun. How would you feel about being around somebody with impaired moral sentiments and an immunity to strong social pressure about morality? I wouldn't feel very safe!
I don't think that killing animals for utility can be excluded from killing animals for fun nor ought there be a moral equivalence to impared moral sentiments. There are a whole host of folks with 'working moral sentiments' that have fun shooting prarie dogs, feral dogs and cats and other nuisance beasts.
Why should it concern them what others think about the morality of killing nuisance animals for fun? Substitute 'athiest' in the impared moral sentiment argument. Some people may think that it is not moral to be athiest - or in the context of this discusstion that athieism is a moral equivalent to killing animals for fun. Ought athiests not be immune to strong social pressure about what others think their morality ought to be? Does an athiest's inability to submit to this moral equivalence equate to "impared moral sentiments"?
-----------------------
So what would it mean for somebody to shoot dogs for fun be athiest?
2. They would have to a big disregard for how other people see them, because most people - those with working moral sentiments - would be disgusted by killing a dog for fun athiests.
-------------------------
The concept of killing animals, for whatever reason, is meaningless absent a sound property theory regarding their ownership. Only then can a moral equivalence be established.
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
but then what happens when you substitute "killing babies for fun" instead of "be atheist"?
the only point that matters is that we all are disgusted by what we are disgusted by. and i would definitely be more careful around people who shoot feral dogs for fun, but maybe that's just me.
G8R: They would have to be a psychopath in the formal sense of the term - somebody with impaired moral sentiments.
They would have to be a psychopath in the formal sense of the term - somebody with impaired moral sentiments.
Why would you need to have impaired moral sentiments to be an atheist?
(By the way, your moral sentiments are your "feelings" about how to interact with other people.)
G8R: Does an athiest's inability to submit to this moral equivalence equate to "impared moral sentiments"?
Does an athiest's inability to submit to this moral equivalence equate to "impared moral sentiments"?
No, it doesn't.
Why else would I have separated "strong social pressure about morals" from "impaired moral sentiments"?