Another Animal Axiom Question

[David Sklansky]

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?

[calf]

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.

[Shandrax]

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.

[jogger08152]

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.

[calf]

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.

[sandman-54]

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.

[samsonite2100]

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

[Shandrax]

[ 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.

[weknowhowtolive]

Why just a hand?

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

[Al68]

[ 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.