General

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

I. Ryan — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 19:39:56 GMT

G8R:

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"?

No, it doesn't.

Why else would I have separated "strong social pressure about morals" from "impaired moral sentiments"?

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

Zangelbert Bingledack — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 16:27:27 GMT

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.

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

G8R HED — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:27:54 GMT

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?

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~~ 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.

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

I. Ryan — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 03:02:53 GMT

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).

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.

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

Merlin — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:42:21 GMT

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.

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

I. Ryan — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:22:23 GMT

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.

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

Merlin — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 01:25:53 GMT

Of what you, in the position of a private arbiter in anarchy, would make the perpetrator pay (or pay for him) to get forgivnes.

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

I. Ryan — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 01:09:34 GMT

Merlin:

Is shooting an unowned dog for fun anywhere near slaping some girl in the face?

Near in terms of what?

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

Merlin — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 01:05:05 GMT

Is shooting an unowned dog for fun anywhere near slaping some girl in the face?

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

I. Ryan — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:52:31 GMT

Merlin:

Are you implying that animals (hunting) and people (murder, execution) are morally equivalent?

What's it mean to be "morally equivalent"?

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

billetright — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:51:05 GMT

No, Merlin.

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

Merlin — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:47:21 GMT

Are you implying that animals (hunting) and people (murder, execution) are morally equivalent?

Re: Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

I. Ryan — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:08:02 GMT

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.)

Intentional Killing: Murder vs. Hunting vs Execution

billetright — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:00:54 GMT

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.