Тег: Animals

Animal cruelty, violence against people, and psychopathy

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Actions that are cruel to animals or lead to their death without a justifiable reason—for example, torture, torment, mutilation, poisoning, or abandonment—will seem to many as a clear sign that the person resorting to them has psychological abnormalities and could very well be just as capable of committing violence against humans. In fact, many studies have found a link between animal cruelty and various forms of violence. One of them also investigated the connection with the level of psychopathy in detail.

As demonstrated by one Swiss study, people who were cruel to animals in childhood are 3 times more likely to commit serious acts of violence, such as robbery, kidnapping, or assault, throughout their lives[1]. Another study conducted on two samples of women showed a link between the propensity for such treatment and proactive aggression, sadism, psychopathic predispositions, and traits of callous-unemotionality[2]. About 60% of individuals who state that they witnessed or participated in animal cruelty in childhood also report experiences of child abuse or domestic violence. As it turns out, animal cruelty is a “red flag” for domestic violence[3]. Finally, according to various studies, between 23% and 77% of households where intimate partner violence occurs also exhibit the presence of animal cruelty (and if threats to resort to it are added to actual cruelty, this figure becomes 21% to 89% of such households)[4].

People who are cruel to animals have, on average, higher scores for psychopathy. At the same time, the use of torture on animals is most strongly associated with psychopathy. The average score for individuals who committed such actions on the PPTS test was 13.04 points, while for those who did not, it was 10.19 points (an average difference of 2.85 points). The next strongest connection is the killing of animals (average difference of 2.65 points), followed by harming animals (average difference of 2.34 points)[5].

It can be confidently asserted that animal cruelty is indeed linked to a greater propensity for a person to commit violence against other people. There is also a significant link with psychopathic predispositions, which may indicate the presence of psychological abnormalities. Particular attention should be paid to impairments in the mechanism of violence inhibition, which some researchers use to explain the inability of certain individuals to perceive the suffering of animals, as well as a callous and dismissive attitude toward them[2].

Animal rights

What is the situation with animal rights under ancap? Unlike humans, they have no means of self-defense

Hate-monger against moskalyaks

I have nothing to add to this issue beyond all my earlier texts on the subject, so I will take this opportunity to simply refer to them.

  1. Libertarianism and environmental protection. Here I recommend a video by Svetovsky about how, if we want more animals, let’s eat them and benefit from them in every way. Plus, I mention Ostrom, who shows what to do with the tragedy of the commons as applied to wildlife.
  2. Zoophilia. This discusses the legal status of animals, morality as the main regulator of the relationship with animals, and unexpectedly, a cat named Stubbs pops up.
  3. Animal Rights. Here is one of my first clumsy formulations stating that a right is a claim that is tolerated, and advice is given for fans of ancient Rome.
  4. Circuses, animal cruelty, sanctions for stray dogs. Again, a bit about the legal status of animals, but more about morality and Jack London.
  5. On the killing of animals in the zoo. I start with mosquitoes, go through the case of one unlucky monkey, and end with a bright prediction of how the Earth will be swallowed by virgin nature.
  6. On the rights of sentient non-humans. I demonstrate approaches to establishing legal relations with non-human intelligence—using a parrot as an example.

Generally, when composing another question, I highly recommend first checking the navigation page and using the search for the likely keywords of your question. It is quite possible that you will get a fairly comprehensive answer to your question from already published materials.

For some, the girl from lofi radio, and for some, an illustration of an animal’s right to lie on the bed

If animals do not possess agency, can they simply be killed without violating the NAP if they live on territory belonging to you—for example, in a zoo?

Harambe

It is clear that you are unlikely to be interested in the legitimacy of me killing a mosquito on my own territory, for example. Moreover, you would hardly notice if I killed a mosquito on someone else’s territory, unless I was explicitly told that it is a valuable mosquito in private ownership and must not be killed.

It is also not certain that you would be very interested in the legitimacy of killing various meat animals in slaughterhouses for the purpose of subsequent meat sale, although there are people who do contest it. Unfortunately for them: all this meat livestock lives only as long as its breeding is profitable. No profit—no livestock. The population of cows, pigs, and other rabbits will decrease sharply, and those excess to the capacity of the natural habitat will either starve to death, or people will have to carefully eat them without reproducing the existing herds. As soon as humanity manages to set up the production of synthetic meat that is cheaper and tastier than the natural kind, this exact scenario will happen: no one is interested in cleaning up manure when a steak is printed on a printer.

But, judging by your nickname, you are not talking about animals in general, but about rare ones, whose natural habitat is negligible, and who live almost exclusively in zoos, primarily so that people pay money for the right to look at them. These animals are luxury items, and, of course, no one will kill them without serious grounds. The accident with your namesake was a situation where everyone involved suffered: the child who was injured, the mother who experienced serious stress, the zoo, which, to avoid the costs associated with the possible death of the child, was forced to destroy a valuable animal, and finally, Harambe himself.

We do not know how soon zoos will stop being profitable because people will find it repulsive to look at animals in cages. When that happens, nature reserves will be the only places left for animals to live, and people themselves will visit them in cages, or some other way that does not violate the animals’ privacy. In general, the more resources a human is able to obtain without serious transformations of nature, the less their need for those very transformations. In a world where all of a human’s material needs are satisfied by a thought, practically the entire planet will be in the power of virgin nature. That is the kind of harmless animal we are.

Animal rights

And what about animal rights? If a dog eats me, will it be acquitted?

анонимный вопрос

What will happen to animal abusers in a Free Society (stray dogs and cats)?

Roman

Hi. Regarding Varlamov’s recently released video, a question: how does ancap view circuses and animal abuse? Is it possible to limit torture and abuse through the court if animals are not subjects?

Vadim

Three questions about animal rights arrived almost one after another, which gave me a reason to talk about this topic out of turn. True, I have already answered a question quite close in meaning, it’s a pity that you are not very keen on watching old answers and instead ask as if nothing happened. So, mostly, read the answer in the old post.

I read Varlamov’s post about the Zapashny animal abusers with great respect. Varlamov is not calling for the Zapashnys to be banned; he condemns the ban on Cirque du Soleil. Against animal abusers, he calls for voting with your feet, as the institution of reputation works much more reliably than state bans. Today they will be banned, and tomorrow they will start organizing underground performances that crowds will attend. No, let the market decide on humanism, not the tsar.

I first read that circuses with animals are disgusting at a rather tender age from one of my favorite writers (even though he was a communist) — Jack London. I don’t know if the original authorship of this thought belongs to him, but at least he did a very good job for the moral condemnation of such things, and I thank him for that. I hope Russia will not need hundreds of years for the rooting of corresponding ideas. To be honest, I even find it unpleasant to watch clowns in a circus (too many jokes about violence and humiliation), but aerial gymnasts, for example, are a different story!

And in conclusion, I will briefly answer the first question, which stands out a bit from the general row. A dog that has mauled a person will neither be tried nor acquitted. If the dog was not someone’s property, and no one had undertaken to protect the residents of that territory from wild animals, then there is no one to hold accountable for the fact that the dog mauled someone. How the next person who encounters it deals with it is their personal business. If the humanism toward animals that I raved about in the previous paragraph forces someone to start protecting it from people, it will be equivalent to turning the dog into property and taking responsibility for its further behavior.

I don’t want pictures of animal abusers, I want the cute John Griffith Chaney!

Hi! How do things stand with animal rights in libertarianism? Can a person buy a kitten for the purpose of cruelly killing it? Can people create a community like Ancient Rome with the annual crucifixion of dogs?

anonymous question

What is the right to certain actions? It is a state of affairs in which others agree to tolerate these actions. In other words: you have the right to do something from the perspective of certain external subjects if they agree not to oppose these actions.

For instance, one kitten may have the right to sleep on a person’s face, while another may not even have the right to enter the person’s room.
Libertarianism is a legal doctrine asserting that no legal subject has the right to initiate violence against other legal subjects and their property with impunity. Thus, libertarianism reduces the question of acceptable treatment of animals to a question of legal personality. A stranger who has come from beyond the village outskirts—is he a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against him with impunity. A woman—is she a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against her with impunity. A child—is he a subject of law? An embryo—is it a subject of law? A dog—is it a subject of law?

In other words, purely logically, libertarianism can serve as a basis for defending animal rights—but only among those who recognize the legal personality of animals. As for those who consider animals to be objects, while remaining within the framework of the same libertarian doctrine, they may act toward the animals they own at their own discretion.
A problem arises when the positions of people who consider animals to be at least partially legal subjects (for example, at the level of children) clash with those of people who consider animals to be objects of property. The most stubborn disputes are always conducted precisely over definitions.

In essence, from the perspective of their opponents, animal rights advocates make claims against them for the suffering that the advocates themselves experience while realizing the suffering of animals in the hands of their tormentors. How should one react to such claims? As with any claims of an ethical rather than legal nature: take them into account, weigh the possible costs of fulfilling or not fulfilling the claim, and then act.

The better organized the groups applying moral pressure are, the sooner the corresponding morality becomes mainstream in society. So, those who nonetheless wish to crucify dogs without hindrance in a libertarian society need to start promoting this hobby of theirs in advance—under the banner of preserving cultural traditions, or some other way.

the kitty is sad(((