N
Nate13
Guest
You put “ability to reason” in quotes in your last post to me. Does that mean you call into question mankind’s ability to reason?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
spencelo
Guest
This isn’t the proper way to resist my argument, though. What if it were possible? Not addressing my hypothetical head on seems like an evasion.No - there is no reason to think that dog psychology can be so fundamentally altered by breeding or anything else that can be devised. Avoidance of pain is a fundamental in all animals - a necessity for survival of the species. It is as necessary, and therefore as hardwired into dogkind, as the urges to eat when hungry, sleep when tired and mate when opportunity presents to do so.
Okay fair enough. But my argument is a reductio, so I’m assuming a Catholic understanding of human value in relation to animal value. Do you believe that humans are infinitely more valuable than animals?I never said God required minimal care. The contrary, I said God requires ‘care’, not just at a minimal level. I said even a NON-religious point of view can accept that a certain level of care for the needs of other species as a necessity for the survival of our own. Clearly you’re hung up on that word ‘minimal’ - consider it a poor choice of wording and leave it at that.
S
spencelo
Guest
What is the connection between the ability to reason and the wrongness of torturing a dog for fun?You put “ability to reason” in quotes in your last post to me. Does that mean you call into question mankind’s ability to reason?
L
LilyM
Guest
NO, of course I don’t believe that. I said as much several posts back, most emphatically. Human beings have a GREATER value, but by no means an INFINITELY greater one. That is part of the reason why human pleasure (eg the pleasure a torturer derives from their torture) is not a supreme justification for torture or any other act.But don’t you also believe that humans have infinitely greater value than animals? If you believe that, then you can’t avoid permitting the torture of dogs for fun.
And how is this any more helpful than anything I’ve said?On my view, value derives from certain states of well-being, and morality is about promoting good states and alleviating bad ones.
Is the torture of a puppy a good or a bad state of well being for the puppy? What makes it good or bad? Is being a torturer a good or bad state of well being for the torturer? If bad, what makes it bad - surely a torturer rarely if ever FEELS that what they are doing is bad or not conducive to their wellbeing?
And what if good and bad are all in the perception of the actor, such that if (highly doubtful, but this is your hypothesis) the dog doesn’t perceive the badness of its being beaten, and the torturer doesn’t perceive the badness of his or her torturing, then everything is hunky-dory because there is no such thing as objective good or bad?
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Yes, I really have. You wanted consistent Catholic responses and I have given them to you. Let’s sum it up:Sorry, but you really haven’t.
- Torture is contrary to man’s well being because:
b) man’s well being IS defined by the state of his soul in relation to God.
c) man was created for love, and ultimately union with God.
d) torturing animals is an act of deliberate malice (the opposite of love) against God’s creation, and therefore God himself, and necessarily creates division between man and God.
e) if man acts against his inherent purpose, he is, de facto, working against his well-being.
This is a consistent Catholic perspective. If it’s not, go ahead and refute it.
N
Nate13
Guest
If I don’t have the ability to reason, then I’m not to blame for my actions. I would then be acting purely out of instinct and my pre-programmed self. I would be as much to blame for torturing a puppy as a cat is for “playing” with a mouse it catches before it eats it. After all I’m just an animal…What is the connection between the ability to reason and the wrongness of torturing a dog for fun?
S
spencelo
Guest
My apologies because I missed it. In that case, then my argument doesn’t apply to you.NO, of course I don’t believe that. I said as much several posts back, most emphatically. Human beings have a GREATER value, but by no means an INFINITELY greater one.
S
spencelo
Guest
I addressed this point earlier: torture doesn’t require malice. A can kick the puppy around like he would a ball.d) torturing animals is an act of deliberate malice (the opposite of love) against God’s creation
O
OU812
Guest
Well, if the person is kicking the dog, that’s malice in a nutshell.I addressed this point earlier: torture doesn’t require malice. A can kick the puppy around like he would a ball.
S
spencelo
Guest
Not so. Malice is a specific intentional state, but kicking a dog around like a dog doesn’t necessarily require that. The act can be done with perfect equanimity.Well, if the person is kicking the dog, that’s malice in a nutshell.
N
Nate13
Guest
I call shenanigans on this entire conversation if your not going to agree that humans have the ability to reason lol.Not so. Malice is a specific intentional state, but kicking a dog around like a dog doesn’t necessarily require that. The act can be done with perfect equanimity.
L
LilyM
Guest
It doesn’t follow. For humans even to have infinitely greater value than animals would not mean, as you seem to think, that anything and everything would be permissible for us vis a vis our treatment of animals.My apologies because I missed it. In that case, then my argument doesn’t apply to you.
The very important fact you have failed to consider is that we believe in One who has infinitely greater value still than us - and He, we know, cares very much for all of His creatures, including dogs, and would not appreciate their torture or abuse! Since we love Him, we love and refrain from torturing or abusing His creatures for love of Him. Because we love Him, we love them for His sake, and for their own as expressions of His creative genius. Love excludes torture.
An analogy - my family has always had loads of dogs and cats growing up. Did my parents love their children infinitely more than their dogs? Without question. Would my parents ever consider our needs and wants to be inferior to the needs and wants of those pets? Never. Would they even ever consider us as in any way equal to those pets? Again never. We were clearly infinitely superior in their eyes. Does that mean they would approve of me torturing Kitty or Fido?Or permit it under any circumstances? Quite the contrary.
Capisce?
O
OU812
Guest
Actually, if the person keeps kicking the dog around, it’s malice, unless, the person can prove the dog enjoys getting punted here and there, and that’s highly unlikely.Not so. Malice is a specific intentional state, but kicking a dog around like a dog doesn’t necessarily require that. The act can be done with perfect equanimity.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Um, yes… I did… at length… Here it is again, and then I’ll break it down for you, since you seem to be having so much trouble with it:You still haven’t explained why it would be contrary to my torturer’s interests to torture his dog.
Pleasure is not necessarily relevant to one’s well being in moral terms. In terms of physical health, perhaps, but physical health has nothing to do with the concept of man’s value and well being.
You are trying to discuss concepts which have no logical basis in your worldview, so it is to be expected that you won’t understand them. For example, on the Christian worldview, a person’s suffering may contribute more to their well-being than their pleasure (i.e. suffering can be “redemptive”, or draw one closer to God.)
So, to simplify:On the same worldview, torturing an animal (or person) corrupts the soul in that it moves the soul away from love, which is what it was created for. It is an act, I’m sure you would agree, of pure malice. Malice, or hatred, is contrary to love. Malicious behavior divorces the soul from love and, consequently, the source of love, which is God. So while this behavior may afford the individual some fleeting excitement or rush, it will be just that–fleeting–and its pursuance will be just like the junky who continues to shoot up heroin: it feels good temporarily, but it is really destroying him and when the effect wears off, he does it again just to stave off the pain he is really inflicting on himself by doing it to begin with. It’s a vicious and destructive cycle.
a) on Catholicism, a man’s interests are NOT defined by the gratification of his personal desires
b) on Catholicism, a man’s interests are defined by that which corresponds to his God given purpose.
c) on Catholicism, a man’s God given purpose is to love God.
d) the consequence of loving God is eternal joy.
e) the consequence of failing to love God is eternal suffering.
d) in order to love God, man must respect God’s creation.
e) Torturing an animal is an act of pure malice (hatred).
f) An act of hatred towards God’s creation is an act of hatred towards God.
g) An act of hatred towards God turns man away from God.
h) A man separated from God risks eternal suffering.
i) Eternal suffering is undesirable.
j) If the outcome of a behavior is undesirable, it is not a man’s best interest.
Everything I’ve said above is consistent with a Catholic worldview and provides sufficient grounds for believing that torturing an animal is contrary to a man’s best interests. If it’s not, I defy you to find a logical inconsistency in it.
Now, let’s hear an equally well defined case for the unacceptability of torture from your materialistic perspective.
S
spencelo
Guest
I don’t believe you have demonstrated that your God would prohibit the torture in my scenario. Do you have any scriptural verses to support your claim?It doesn’t follow. For humans even to have infinitely greater value than animals would not mean, as you seem to think, that anything and everything would be permissible for us vis a vis our treatment of animals.
The very important fact you have failed to consider is that we believe in One who has infinitely greater value still than us - and He, we know, cares very much for all of His creatures, including dogs, and would not appreciate their torture or abuse! Since we love Him, we love and refrain from torturing or abusing His creatures for love of Him. Because we love Him, we love them for His sake, and for their own as expressions of His creative genius. Love excludes torture.
Capisce?
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
And I addressed your counterpoint: if the individual doesn’t have the ability to grasp the concept of malice, he doesn’t have the ability to “torture” the animal. Torture, as understood in your argument, is a WILLFUL and DELIBERATE inflicting of suffering. You can’t keep conflating the definitions of words to try to win an argument.I addressed this point earlier: torture doesn’t require malice. A can kick the puppy around like he would a ball.
For an individual to commit the act of “torture” does require malice. Otherwise, the suffering is just an unconscious and unintentional outcome of his behavior and he can’t be held responsible. Again, this is a fallacy of equivocation. Your arguments are very disingenuous.
S
spencelo
Guest
I pointed out that this isn’t necessarily the case – torture can be done, at least in my scenario, without malice.e) Torturing an animal is an act of pure malice (hatred)…
S
spencelo
Guest
You define “malice” as “hatred.” I can willfully and deliberately kick a ball without feeling “hatred” toward the ball. In my example, the torturer willfully and deliberately kicks his dog without feeling “hatred” towards his dog.And I addressed your counterpoint: if the individual doesn’t have the ability to grasp the concept of malice, he doesn’t have the ability to “torture” the animal. Torture, as understood in your argument, is a WILLFUL and DELIBERATE inflicting of suffering. You can’t keep conflating the definitions of words to try to win an argument.
S
spencelo
Guest
What do you mean by malice?Actually, if the person keeps kicking the dog around, it’s malice, unless, the person can prove the dog enjoys getting punted here and there, and that’s highly unlikely.
O
OU812
Guest
Malice can also just be a desire to cause pain/harm. Being a sadist.I pointed out that this isn’t necessarily the case – torture can be done, at least in my scenario, without malice.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.