i think that if someone is abusing any kind of animal they need to either go to jail for life, or get the death penalty, or both. i hate people that abuse anykind of animal its just soo wrong.
either go to jail for life, or get the death penalty, or both.
I am surprised no one else has pointed this out yet. Just read that part again.
Anyways, that is not punishment that fits the crime. I know animal cruelty is wrong but you are comparing an animal abuser to a mass murderer who killed people in horrendous ways. I think animal cruelty should stick to domestic animals such as dogs, cats, hamsters, etc.
Animal abuse is often either an indication of the capacity to harm humans, or should at least raise some red flags about this capacity in manifesting in some incipient stage. As such, it should be dealt with accordingly, and not solely as a deterrent for future 'roperty damage' or causing suffering to 'lesser beings'. This doesn't mean that we should impose a death sentence; we don't usually tend to go this far with human mistreatment. Also, death isn't a deterrent - it's a quick fix of questionable morality. What we need is something that will address the psychology that makes animal abuse a reality, as well as manage the destructive behaviors in an effective way - whatever that may entail.
Um both of those are a bit radical. I think depending on the severity of the case. But i don't think it should be over 20 years. I mean, they are just Animals, we eat some of them for heavens sakes, but there definitely should be a punishment, most likely a heavy fine.
But for now i think that i will call you "Mr. Liberal".
I think in more modernized societies animal abuse is indeed seen as a definite "wrong" and could be a stepping stone on the way to harming humans. But this is certainly not a universal maxim and I don't see any basis for such a maxim to be established. I am, of course, speaking purely philosophically and would never harm an animal, but I think we should question how these ideologies came about in the first place. Students of Descartes often went around kicking dogs because they believed the animals had no soul and therefore could not experience pain. Hmmm...
But this is certainly not a universal maxim and I don't see any basis for such a maxim to be established.
And I meant no implication that it could be a universal maxim...I tend not to clutch at universal maxims, certainly not in the murky midst of those "wicked" social problems.
Students of Descartes often went around kicking dogs because they believed the animals had no soul and therefore could not experience pain.
Yep. I think now adays, however, it is fairly intuitive that the kind of reaction you see when a dog is kicked is indicative of pain. We don't need to immerse ourselves in all the medical literature to be convinced of this. To be more specific then, I'd be interested in tracing the development of the ideologies that challenge the moral consideration of animals throughout the history of the western philosophical tradition (which I've actually spent a fair bit of time researching), since these same attitudes are just as alive today as they were through the times of the ancients and all the way forward through time. As you note, one's metaphysical commitments shape one's moral considerations, and that has to be part of analysis.
I am a firm believer in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Not too long ago in my region of the US of A a guy dragged a dog behind his car and the dog was hurt so bad it almost died. I believe it you do that to a car than they should get the same treatment. If you kill someone, you die. If you rape someone, bend over "Good time Charlie"! I always have felt strongly about that belief of mine.
