Reductio argument: humans not infinitely valuable

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spencelo said:
I pointed out that this isn’t necessarily the case – torture can be done, at least in my scenario, without malice.
Click to expand...
Malice is a legal term referring to a party’s intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being.

The only way you can claim that malice is not involved is if you say the person committing the act doesn’t know kicking a dog will cause harm. Malice involves much more than just what a person is thinking when they commit an act. Rather its defined by the object of the action itself outside of whatever intention good or bad the person doing it has.
 
spencelo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well, there is the direct reference I gave to Genesis - we were given the earth (and hence its creatures) to care for them. Care excludes torture. More, I would say torture is utterly the polar opposite of care. So that right there prohibits it. Then there is the fact that He ordered Noah to take all those animals on board the Ark that they might be safe alongside Noah and his family. Quite simply He cares for them. His care for them precludes OUR being careless about them.

Then there’s Matthew 10:29: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.” In other words God cares passionately about the fate of all His creatures, even the most insignificant. Again, His care for them precludes OUR neglect or abuse of them.
 
LilyM said:
Well, there is the direct reference I gave to Genesis - we were given the earth (and hence its creatures) to care for them. Care excludes torture. More, I would say torture is utterly the polar opposite of care. So that right there prohibits it. Then there is the fact that He ordered Noah to take all those animals on board the Ark that they might be safe alongside Noah and his family. Quite simply He cares for them. His care for them precludes OUR being careless about them.

Then there’s Matthew 10:29: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.” In other words God cares passionately about the fate of all His creatures, even the most insignificant. Again, His care for them precludes OUR neglect or abuse of them.
Click to expand...
But the “care” apparently doesn’t extend to the research program in my cancer patient scenario, which (if I remember correctly) you said is justifiable. So obviously "care’ doesn’t exclude all torture.
 
spencelo said:
Okay, then suppose my torturer has no desire to cause his dog pain or harm, but tortures because he lost a bet.
Click to expand...
It’s still malicious because the dog feels unnecessary pain, which is something I brought up before as well: how can someone demonstrate or prove that a dog or any animal enjoys being punted?
 
spencelo said:
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.
Click to expand...
:doh2:

Balls and dogs are qualitatively different. Balls do not have the ability to suffer; dogs do. It is impossible to torture a ball, so the comparison is vapid, empty, pointless, silly, and a million other adjectives that all amount to invalid.

The point is that if the person kicking the dog is not aware that he is causing it pain, then he is not torturing the dog. If he is aware that he is causing the dog pain and continues to do it anyway, then he is acting maliciously–hatefully–towards the dog, regardless of his emotional state, because he knows he is causing the dog pain. Equivocate, equivocate, equivocate. That’s all you’re doing, and it doesn’t work.
 
Nate13 said:
Malice is a legal term referring to a party’s intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being.

The only way you can claim that malice is not involved is if you say the person committing the act doesn’t know kicking a dog will cause harm. Malice involves much more than just what a person is thinking when they commit an act. Rather its defined by the object of the action itself outside of whatever intention good or bad the person doing it has.
Click to expand...
Malice certainly does mean that in the legal context, but legal malice isn’t applicable here. Or at least, I haven’t seen any argument that the Catholic understanding of malice is equivalent to the legal understanding of malice.
 
OU812 said:
It’s still malicious because the dog feels unnecessary pain, which is something I brought up before as well: how can someone demonstrate or prove that a dog or any animal enjoys being punted?
Click to expand...
Tell me again: what’s your definition of malice?
 
spencelo said:
But the “care” apparently doesn’t extend to the research program in my cancer patient scenario, which (if I remember correctly) you said is justifiable. So obviously "care’ doesn’t exclude all torture.
Click to expand...
Again, you equivocate. In the cancer patient scenario, the infliction of pain is a secondary consequence.

For torture, in the context of your OP, the infliction of pain and suffering is the primary consequence.

While the first one may still be morally objectionable, it is not the same as the torture you are describing here.
 
spencelo said:
Okay, then suppose my torturer has no desire to cause his dog pain or harm, but tortures because he lost a bet.
Click to expand...
Well, in law ‘malice’ simply means ‘wrong intent’. It doesn’t always need to be as specific as ‘I wish to hurt this dog’, it can sometimes be as vague as ‘This dog is very likely to get hurt because I’m very likely to lose this bet, but I don’t care’. Called recklessness or negligence. Can be sufficient grounds for a criminal charge, although a somewhat different one sometimes than actual ill will
 
prodigalson2011 said:
:doh2:

Balls and dogs are qualitatively different. Balls do not have the ability to suffer; dogs do. It is impossible to torture a ball, so the comparison is vapid, empty, pointless, silly, and a million other adjectives that all amount to invalid.

The point is that if the person kicking the dog is not doing so to cause it pain, then he is not torturing the dog. If he is aware that he is causing the dog pain and continues to do it anyway, then he is acting maliciously–hatefully–towards the dog, regardless of his emotional state, because he knows he is causing the dog pain. Equivocate, equivocate, equivocate. That’s all you’re doing, and it doesn’t work.
Click to expand...
All of this is irrelevant, because you define malice as “hatred.” Since the torturer in my scenario tortures his dog without any hatred, he doesn’t act with malice. Awareness of pain and suffering isn’t equivalent to hatred.
 
LilyM said:
Well, in law ‘malice’ simply means ‘wrong intent’. It doesn’t always need to be as specific as ‘I wish to hurt this dog’, it can sometimes be as vague as ‘This dog is very likely to get hurt because I’m very likely to lose this bet, but I don’t care’. Called recklessness or negligence. Can be sufficient grounds for a criminal charge, although a somewhat different one sometimes than actual ill will
Click to expand...
Legal malice isn’t equivalent to recklessness or negligence, and I think only the Catholic understanding of malice is relevant here.
 
OU812 said:
A desire to commit injury, or;

Doing so with no legit basis or excuse, or;

Committing an injury with hatred and animosity.
Click to expand...
The first and third definitions obviously don’t apply to my scenario. As for your second, I would need to know why having fun isn’t a legitimate basis for torturing the puppy. If you say because doing so involves malice, then your answer is circular.
 
spencelo said:
The first and third definitions obviously don’t apply to my scenario. As for your second, I would need to know why having fun isn’t a legitimate basis for torturing the puppy. If you say because that’s because doing so involves malice, then your answer is circular.
Click to expand...
Because causing pain and duress on something living isn’t good enough?

Would you argue a person is in the right because he gets his thrills off by shooting someone in the face?
 
spencelo said:
Why not on the Catholic view, especially if humans are infinitely more valuable than animals?
Click to expand...
Except, we aren’t. We’re supposed to take care of our “beast,” animals. Punting a dog for no reason whatsoever doesn’t serve any purpose, and I don’t know how one can argue they are taking good care of said dog.
 
OU812 said:
Except, we aren’t.
Click to expand...
Okay, then my op argument doesn’t apply to you. It only applies to people who hold that humans are infinitely more valuable than animals – I’m glad you’re not one of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top