Which is like supposing that 2+2 = 5 or that the sun were to rise in the west.All this would show is that torturing a dog is wrong only because doing so has bad psychological effects. Suppose it doesn’t–suppose that the torturer is a most gentle soul when it comes to his interactions with fellow humans.
Many mass murderers started out tormenting animals.Does it? Suppose torturing a puppy doesn’t move the soul away from human love–that is, if A tortures a puppy, he wont’ be any less loving towards humans. So how does the act corrupt the soul?
Why would it move his soul away from the love of God? Suppose his love of God won’t be diminished at all.It moves his soul away from the love of GOD.
Right, but not everyone who abuses animals turns out to be a criminal – some are undoubtedly quite normal in their human interactions.Many mass murderers started out tormenting animals.
Actually animal cruelty per se IS a punishable offence in most Western jurisdictions. Usually punishable as a criminal offence too. In any event, as I said earlier it makes the practitioner at least less generous, kind, loving and selfless than they would be if they had refrained.Right, but not everyone who abuses animals turns out to be a criminal – some are undoubtedly quite normal in their human interactions.
I’m sorry, friend, but you’re making yourself look really thick. Acting in ways contrary to God’s will diminishes your love for God. God did not create animals to be tortured. Any act of malice towards any of his creation is an act of malice towards Him. This is why we confess our sins against other people and nature to God. Because all things belong to Him. If you torture your neighbor’s dog, do you think you have not committed an offense against your neighbor? Does that show love for your neighbor?Why would it move his soul away from the love of God? Suppose his love of God won’t be diminished at all.
Not really. Psychological effects aren’t like logical truths. Although some people turn violent by playing a lot of violent video games, most don’t.Which is like supposing that 2+2 = 5 or that the sun were to rise in the west.
Again, suppose this weren’t true. Suppose A, my torturer, is very generous and kind towards humans. Would it be wrong for A to torture the dog for fun?Maybe your puppy torturer doesn’t stoop to the level of torture of fellow humans, but it certainly makes him or her less kind and helpful and generous towards them than they otherwise would be, at the very least.
But suppose the dog belonged to the torturer, so there’s no offending neighbor problem. Moreover, suppose the torturer had no malice in his heart when he repeatedly kicked his dog – to him, it is merely like kicking a soccer ball. So what’s the problem?I’m sorry, friend, but you’re making yourself look really thick. Acting in ways contrary to God’s will diminishes your love for God. God did not create animals to be tortured. Any act of malice towards any of his creation is an act of malice towards Him. This is why we confess our sins against other people and nature to God. Because all things belong to Him. If you torture your neighbor’s dog, do you think you have not committed an offense against your neighbor? Does that show love for your neighbor?
And the majority of people who eat tainted food don’t die of it - doesn’t mean they are totally unaffected or that it’s an OK thing in general to eat off food!Not really. Psychological effects aren’t like logical truths. Although some people turn violent by playing a lot of violent video games, most don’t.
Are you talking from a Catholic/other Christian pov? From such a pov, no, because God in Genesis, while telling man that he has authority over the animal kingdom, at the same time says man is to ‘care for the earth’. It is inconsistent with this Divine command to care for the earth to torture an animal for fun.Again, suppose this weren’t true. Suppose A, my torturer, is very generous and kind towards humans. Would it be wrong for A to torture the dog for fun?
The argument in the op is being resisted on the ground that torturing puppies for fun is contrary to one’s interests, but I’d like to know why. Exactly how is doing that contrary to one’s interests?I feel like I’m trying to explain the idea of colors to someone who is blind.
Again, regardless of what HUMAN BEING “owns” the dog, the dog was created by and belongs to God. So you cannot escape your ultimate responsibility to God. Mistreating his creation is disrespectful and hateful to Him.But suppose the dog belonged to the torturer, so there’s no offending neighbor problem. Moreover, suppose the torturer had no malice in his heart when he repeatedly kicked his dog – to him, it is merely like kicking a soccer ball. So what’s the problem?
Well, from a non-religious POV, as a species interdependent with the other animal species on this earth, it is in all our interests to have at least a minimal degree of care for the welfare of all the other species, as we are all in this ecosystem together and all have a part in it.The argument in the op is being resisted on the ground that torturing puppies for fun is contrary to one’s interests, but I’d like to know why. Exactly how is doing that contrary to one’s interests?
Because its in one’s own interest to act in accord with human nature…and the run around continues… You keep asking for us to basically “prove” that its in a humans interest to act in accord with their nature which is ridiculous considering its a self evident Truth. Its like saying water is wet. :doh2:The argument in the op is being resisted on the ground that torturing puppies for fun is contrary to one’s interests, but I’d like to know why. Exactly how is doing that contrary to one’s interests?
My point was merely that your analogy about necessary falsehoods (2 + 2 = 5) doesn’t hold. Although torturing puppies may have bad psychological effects, it doesn’t always have to. In my example, assume there are no bad psychological effects.And the majority of people who eat tainted food don’t die of it - doesn’t mean they are totally unaffected or that it’s an OK thing in general to eat off food!
My question was: Would it be wrong for A to torture the dog for fun? Is your answer ‘no?’ I think you meant ‘yes,’ right?Are you talking from a Catholic/other Christian pov? From such a pov, no, because God in Genesis, while telling man that he has authority over the animal kingdom, at the same time says man is to ‘care for the earth’. It is inconsistent with this Divine command to care for the earth to torture an animal for fun.
True. And, moreover, it is indicative of a serious antisocial pathology. The most popular non-religious ethical system is that which is concerned with the maintenance of society. Antisocial behavior, by its very nature, works against society.Well, from a non-religious POV, as a species interdependent with the other animal species on this earth, it is in all our interests to have at least a minimal degree of care for the welfare of all the other species, as we are all in this ecosystem together and all have a part in it.
Torturing any animal for fun is as inconsistent with this necessary care for the welfare of other species, and inconsistent with a true appreciation of our place in the world, as cutting down every inch of forest or polluting all the water would be.
I see so you want us to assume humans aren’t humans…If they aren’t humans then they no longer fit under your first point i.e that humans are infinitely valuable…because they aren’t human… Thus your argument then falls apart.My point was merely that your analogy about necessary falsehoods (2 + 2 = 5) doesn’t hold. Although torturing puppies may have bad psychological effects, it doesn’t always have to. In my example, assume there are no bad psychological effects.
In my cancer patient hypothetical, mistreating 10 billion animals seemed okay to you. Why doesn’t that constitute disrespect and hate towards God?Again, regardless of what HUMAN BEING “owns” the dog, the dog was created by and belongs to God. So you cannot escape your ultimate responsibility to God. Mistreating his creation is disrespectful and hateful to Him.
You say “minimal degree of care.” So can A, my torturer, torture his dog so long as he provides him with a “minimal degree of care?”Well, from a non-religious POV, as a species interdependent with the other animal species on this earth, it is in all our interests to have at least a minimal degree of care for the welfare of all the other species, as we are all in this ecosystem together and all have a part in it.
Torturing any animal for fun is as inconsistent with this necessary care for the welfare of other species, and inconsistent with a true appreciation of our place in the world, as cutting down every inch of forest or polluting all the water would be.
No, I’m asking for an argument for the claim that it’s human nature not to torture a dog. Anyone can *just assert *that it’s human nature to ______. Unless you provide some explanation for why it’s human nature not to torture a dog, your response will just be ad hoc.Because its in one’s own interest to act in accord with human nature…and the run around continues… You keep asking for us to basically “prove” that its in a humans interest to act in accord with their nature which is ridiculous considering its a self evident Truth. Its like saying water is wet. :doh2: