Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Thus far they have assumed innocence on both the human's and animal's part. Now let's change it.

You encounter two young men laughing as they are about to torture and kill a cat by putting it into the microwave. You can only stop it by blowing someone's hand off. There will be no repercussions for you. Would you do it?

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Blowing one of the two men's hands off? Absolutely. I would blow off more than one hand if needed. The men's action is unjustifiable in my eyes and they deserve to be punished for such a cruel act.

I'm assuming the men are 16+ and don't have any significant mental handicaps. Sticking a cat in a microwave is severe enough that I would not expect this to be the first or last time something like this would occur with said young men.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

The correct answer according to our society is to punish these guys according to law. I don't know what the law in US says about torturing animals, but in Europe the punishment can be rather severe aka expensive. Still none of the western law systems considers cutting off someone's hand - might be different in Arabia.

So to answer the initial question: No, I would not do it. I think I am civilized and I do not act like barbarian, not even towards barbarians.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Sure.

1. The cat might otherwise be useful, killing mice and such.
2. Cruelty to animals is one of three predictors for future serial killers (along with eneuresis and pyromania), and therefore crippling the guy may be +EV even if he weren't currently torturing a cat, but you knew he had done so before.
3. The guy likely is -EV (to society) in other ways even if he isn't a serial killer. I suspect that the level of cruelty you are describing rarely exists in a vacuum.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

If you came upon a young man laughing and about rape a woman and the only way to stop him was to magically have his penis disintegrated with no repercussions would you?

Why leave it up to the law, which is far from foolproof, when not only can you punish the individual you can also prevent the crime for ever happening. Also if you're the only witness do you really want to deal with attempting to get the young men prosecuted? If they're minors then they hardly get in trouble at all, even though an 18 year old does not innately know better than a 17 year old.

I am also not that aware of animal cruelty laws in America but I am fairly sure that they are rather severe in a lot of cases. I seem to recall (though I'm not certain) a recent case in which a man got 10 years for some brutal torture/killing of a dog. I'm not sure these guys would get nearly that much time but it's not impossible. Is taking away a man's freedom for what should be 10 of the best and most productive years of his life really not comparable to lopping off his hand? Just because the provision isn't there in the law doesn't mean it isn't a reasonable reaction.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

I think torture in some cases is worse than death and I would blow one of the young men's hands off (reluctantly) in order to prevent a cat from being tortured. Although one of law's purposes is general deterence, that is irrelevant in this case since it is implied that you are the only one that can affect this particular situation. I would rather a man's hand be blown off than a higher mammal be severely tortured.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

No, and I love and own cats. If it was two older guys doing it, then maybe.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you came upon a young man laughing and about rape a woman and the only way to stop him was to magically have his penis disintegrated with no repercussions would you?

Why leave it up to the law, which is far from foolproof, when not only can you punish the individual you can also prevent the crime for ever happening. Also if you're the only witness do you really want to deal with attempting to get the young men prosecuted? If they're minors then they hardly get in trouble at all, even though an 18 year old does not innately know better than a 17 year old.

I am also not that aware of animal cruelty laws in America but I am fairly sure that they are rather severe in a lot of cases. I seem to recall (though I'm not certain) a recent case in which a man got 10 years for some brutal torture/killing of a dog. I'm not sure these guys would get nearly that much time but it's not impossible. Is taking away a man's freedom for what should be 10 of the best and most productive years of his life really not comparable to lopping off his hand? Just because the provision isn't there in the law doesn't mean it isn't a reasonable reaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically this is about self-defense or saving someone. In this case you can do whatever is neccessary to stop the attack. On the other hand, you cannot kill a human to save an animal and you can't cut off their hands either.

Now I know the next question: How many animals are worth a human life (or hand)? Could you kill a human who is threatening to kill all animals on earth? These questions about values can always be perverted to an extreme. Once the scenario gets unrealistic the solution doesn't matter anymore though.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Why just a hand?

I hunt and fish, but I do it for food, not the waste of another life.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming the men are 16+ and don't have any significant mental handicaps.


[/ QUOTE ]
It looks to me like a mental defect is both significant and obvious.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

I'd call the police. I'd take photos if I had a camera phone. I wouldn't blow the guy's hand off. I suppose the cat would still die, but the men would charged with animal cruelty and hopefully get some time for it later.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Of course not.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Will this stop them from torturing animals in the future though?

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

No I wouldn't do it, but it's kind of close. The cost of the dude repairing his hand would be a terrible waste of resources. Those resources might be better spent on other patients. I don't view animal life as anywhere nearly as important as human life. I'm a total racist, loyal to my own kind.

I do have my limits though. Make the situation worse, and I'm taking the dude's hand. Give him some more cats, or stipulate that by shooting him in the hand I'm going to prevent him from a lifetime of needlessly torturing other animals.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure.

1. The cat might otherwise be useful, killing mice and such.
2. Cruelty to animals is one of three predictors for future serial killers (along with eneuresis and pyromania), and therefore crippling the guy may be +EV even if he weren't currently torturing a cat, but you knew he had done so before.
3. The guy likely is -EV (to society) in other ways even if he isn't a serial killer. I suspect that the level of cruelty you are describing rarely exists in a vacuum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very relevant points. Since we know torturing animals is a prime indicater of future violence against humans, that alone would be enough to encourage action normally inconcievable. If losing a hand (violently) isn't enough to promote global change, (out of pure self interest, obviously anyone capable of such an act is, if not a sociopath, at least seriously lacking in empathy) we should be glad he now has only ONE hand with which to torture. Unchecked cruelty simply escalates with familiarity and success. Are these the people we want in society at all?

In my opinion, if this individual has a potential for rehabilitation (meaning ISN'T a sociopath and IS capable of empathy), we're doing him a favor via pure Skinnerian behavior modification. If not he has fewer weapons at his disposal. Looks like a win/win to me.

The only point I disagree with is the relevance of the cats usefullness. The perpetrator surely, also, has areas of beneficial behaviors. The problem lies in the willingness to inflict pain and death on another, simply for pleasure. Who or what that other is, or does, is irrelevant.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I do

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

All I know is there will be no cat torturing in my presence. Given the 2 choices in this question say goodbye hand.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Without a doubt. I'd probably rough up the other one who still has his hand.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Without a doubt. I'd probably rough up the other one who still has his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is what i was thinking too, solid pistol whip to the grill. this is of course b/c no repercussions. otherwise call the cops

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd call the police. I'd take photos if I had a camera phone. I wouldn't blow the guy's hand off. I suppose the cat would still die, but the men would charged with animal cruelty and hopefully get some time for it later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a copout. Just admit that you would rather a cat be tortured than a man's hand be blown off. Like I said, law doesn't seem pertinent to this axiom question since this particular cat will not be saved by it.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Absolutely. I'd do it with repercussions, too.

"Leaving it up to the law" is funny, also. Would you stop a man from raping a woman? Nah, that's what we have laws for. That's obviously an extreme example, but laws aren't for preventing these sort of things. They're for punishing the people who do them.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Cruelty for the sake of cruelty deserves the same back in spades.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

no repurcussions for me?

of course i would, and i hope they would be in alot of pain too.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
laws aren't for preventing these sort of things. They're for punishing the people who do them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good rape example. However, I strongly disagree with this comment. General and Specific deterence are the two most important reasons to have laws IMO. They may not be the most important in your opinion, but you have to admit that they are reasons regardless.

In this situation, I think that specific deterence is of utmost importance.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

I wouldn't do it unless I explained to the guy what was happening and he agreed to it (perhaps it was his cat).

Actually, even if it was my cat and it was my hand in the gun sights, I still wouldn't do it.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Right, I didn't mean to say that laws aren't for preventing those acts, because that's exactly what they're for. All I meant was that in this specific scenario, it's obvious that the laws aren't effectively preventing the act. I think what's important is preventing the act now and essentially punishing them for it at the same time, dissuading them from considering similar things in the future.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't do it unless I explained to the guy what was happening and he agreed to it (perhaps it was his cat).

Actually, even if it was my cat and it was my hand in the gun sights, I still wouldn't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't do it unless I explained to the guy what was happening and he agreed to it (perhaps it was his cat).

Actually, even if it was my cat and it was my hand in the gun sights, I still wouldn't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well some guys would agree to have their hand blasted off with a gun to save their cat while I wouldn't. Is this what you meant?

So basically, if you see my cat about to be tortured and you need to blast my hand off to stop it, please don't do it. Thanks in advance.

Similarly, if it your cat and you want me to blast you hand off to save him, I will happily oblige. If you cannot give me the go ahead then I am not going to blast your hand off no matter whose cat it is.

Is that more clear?

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

I see that Sklansky's original post was unclear about whose hand was to be blown off to save the cat. I wouldn't hurt anyone but the people who are about to torture the cat, and I don't think anyone else should either. It's not really a serious question if we're just blowing off some random person's hand to save the cat.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Absolutely not. And anybody who thinks they would needs to either pull their head out of their ass and get back to reality, or they're really sick.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Actually torturing a cat is sick and if you'd stand there and watch it then you are too.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually torturing a cat is sick and if you'd stand there and watch it then you are too.

[/ QUOTE ]
He didn't say he would stand there and watch, he said he wouldn't blow the guy's hand off, and I agree. Of course the guy deserves his hand blown off, or worse, but that doesn't obligate me to commit a violent crime, even if there were no consequences.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not. And anybody who thinks they would needs to either pull their head out of their ass and get back to reality, or they're really sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I would rather a guy's hand be blown off. I think if he were just going to kill the cat painlessly, that would swing my decision the other way. But an animal being tortured to death, one capable of feeling pain very similar to ours, seems worse to me.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

I think from a purely utilitarian standpoint, you're making the world a worse place by blowing someone's hand off than you are by saving a cat's life. The burden of hospital bills + a lifetime of diminished utility + whatever mental damage you do to someone by blowing their hand off.

It's a valid point that animal torture does not typically bode well for a young person's future self, but it's by no means 100% predictive. I think people saying yes to this question are answering with their emotions and not their brains.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's a valid point that animal torture does not typically bode well for a young person's future self, but it's by no means 100% predictive. I think people saying yes to this question are answering with their emotions and not their brains.

[/ QUOTE ]

I value the life of a cat over the potential benefit from a cat abuser with two hands. It's quite rational really.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Of course I would

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's a valid point that animal torture does not typically bode well for a young person's future self, but it's by no means 100% predictive. I think people saying yes to this question are answering with their emotions and not their brains.

[/ QUOTE ]

I value the life of a cat over the potential benefit from a cat abuser with two hands. It's quite rational really.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, sort of. I don't really value the life of a cat very much (though I do like cats). OTOH, I consider people who get pleasure from torturing others (animal or human) to have a very negative value. There's only two things that I really hate: rape, and torture (they're basically the same though).

I'd probably shoot them both. They're both equally corrupt in this scenario.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

Just so we're all clear. We're assuming that the person whose hand is to be blown off (or not) in this scenario is in fact one of the guys doing the torturing, right?

It seems to me that this is what Sklansky is asking but if you read the original post it is ambiguous enough to be interpreted as the hand of a random third party.

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

I'd do it in a second. Can I then put the blown-off hand into the microwave and force the now one-handed [censored] to watch it cook?

Re: Another Animal Axiom Question
 

No. The cat will have to suck it up.

I might do the tip of a finger or toe.