Another Animal Axiom Question

[Albert Moulton]

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.

[goofball]

Of course not.

[ArturiusX]

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

[SNOWBALL]

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.

[odin2547]

[ 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.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I do

[/ QUOTE ]

[J1mmy Dool1ttle]

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

[cakewalk]

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

[slush fund]

[ 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

[sandman-54]

[ 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.