The moral status of pointless cruelty

[struggle4progress]

Poll question: The moral status of pointless cruelty

It is possible to inflict injuries on another beings that are able to complain about their pain and discomfort

One can take various points of view regarding such infliction of injury

Some people in some circumstances appear to have no moral reservations about the matter at all. Fairly brutal treatment of human beings have been viewed with approval by crowds at public executions or in lynchings, typically with the moral view that the person deserves the suffering; certain behaviors at Nazi extermination camps might be regarded as similarly motivated. Torture under repressive regimes is sometimes conducted in a clinical guise, with the "interrogator" apparently adopting the view that the security needs of the state justify the activity. Similarly, in the early days of medical anatomical studies, for example, vivisectionists freely cut into living unanaesthetized vertebrates, typically arguing that the activity was justified by the medical insights it provided and often explaining to the public that the dogs they used did not really feel pain

Towards one end of the moral spectrum, one finds people who seem to feel no qualms of conscience. There are also people who find the suffering of victims so gratifying that this overcomes any guilty feelings associated with the the pain they cause. Many "normal" people experience schadenfreude with the sufferings of "those who deserve to suffer." It is not rare for people to deliberately inflict painful injury when overcome by strong negative emotion such as fear or rage

What can one say about the moral status of indifferently inflicting pain?

Just for the sake of definiteness, one might ask: What about a person who indifferently gouges out the eyes of cats?

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. Professional help.

Because humans do very little indifferently, so there is some motivation WAY outside of the functional norm for blinding the cats, which defines the person as likely a danger to themselves and others. Because of this, its a mental health issue.

[struggle4progress]

2. Yep

[varkam]

3. I think that we have an ethical obligation to all living things...

such that we should inflict the least amount of harm that is possible while at the same time recognizing that there are differences between cats and humans and that our ethical obligations to our fellow humans should be greater than to, say, a sea slug.

In other words, randomly inflicting suffering onto living things for it's own sake is universally wrong (at least in my own view). If, say, the cat has laser eyes and is about to burn down an orphanage, then perhaps blinding the cat is the right thing to do (I'm tired - forgive me).

[struggle4progress]

4. Followed you fine through the first paragraph, essentially in agreement,

but then got lost in the land of cats that burn down orphanages with laser eyes

[varkam]

5. Just trying to be funny. Sorry it didn't strike you that way.

[struggle4progress]

6. Same here. Just trying to say I agreed with you.

[Dorian Gray]

7. I agree with both of you on this matter....

The person needs some serious psychological help. Hopefully somewhere locked away from the cute little kitties. Unless, of course, their laser eyes are threatening Detroit. :)

[varkam]

9. I think that's the next step in the EAC...

an army of laser-eyed kittens. Hmmmm...

[moggie]

11. No, you must be confused

The EAC has not been working on cats with frickin' laser beams at our secret volcano lair. Pay no attention to those rumours. You're probably thinking of Basement Cat, who of course doesn't exist.

[varkam]

8. Gah. My sense of humor has failed me once again!

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

10. I for one welcome our Kitten Overlords...

And your sense of humour is right on target - thanks, I needed that this morning. :D

[varkam]

12. Snort!

:rofl: That's a great picture.

Hey BMUS, good to see you :pals: