Poll: Would you kick a puppy?

[Ham_authority95]

So there was a topic recently about eating intelligent pigs, and apparently people like the taste of bacon more than they like the idea of not eating rational creatures. This disturbed me a little bit, even if a lot of the replies were probably tongue in cheek.

In response, I'm trying to come up with a situation where people might have their intuitions go the other way about animals. Imagine a cute puppy. If you can't, here's some help.

Spoiler

Would you kick that puppy for $5?

Edit: Some people have asked how hard you have to kick the puppy. You have to kick it hard enough to hurt it significantly, but not hard enough to kill it. You might cause it severe or permanent injury; that uncertainty is part of the problem.

Double edit: Some people have responded that $5 is not a whole lot of money. Let's make it $15. Hopefully that would be enough to make it worth your time, without affecting the moral issue.

Additional Note: Several people seem to be under the impression that I would actually ask someone to kick a puppy for money in real life. I would not. This is a hypothetical situation, to gauge people's opinions. Please do not go out and kick puppies.

EDIT: Not for $15, no. Don't change the OP just to bait people.

There are so many other things I could do for $15 that wouldn't upset people as much.

 

[Nifarious]

I think the curve starts changing when you start bringing in real money into the equation. 100; 1,000; 1,000,000...But it's these hamfisted hypotheticals that really ruin any serious conversation on ethics. Utilitarianism is such rubbish. Granted, you didn't invoke that in your answers, but that's what these hypotheticals aim to boil down to, no? At what point does your good outweigh another's good?
Well, there is no actual point to get at. The tension is always in flux, it's alive.
Anyway, if the poster, or anyone, has any real interest in the subject, get yourself to some Nietzsche, and then some Levinas...and chase that with some Bataille.

I have a feeling a technical discussion of ethics is not what most people came here for. Anyway, none of these answers commit you to any specific system of ethics, except perhaps the second option, which is fairly utilitarian in concept. If I were a Rawlsian, and thought that only rational beings could enter into the kind of contract necessary for morality, I could justify picking the first, third, or seventh option, for example. Though I am personally a utilitarian, so if you want a serious discussion of ethics, I can show you why utilitarianism isn't rubbish. Or try to, at any rate.

Well, the problem I'm off-handedly pursing is that there are modes of approaching ethics that preclude the ability to consider that which lies outside the bounds that those systems establish in advance. More pedestrian examples of this are 'debates' on politics, religion, etc, that are merely two polemic parties incapable of communicating with anything outside of themselves. Those whom I mentioned don't have systems of ethics. Ethics for them is an engagement through the unknown. There's no interest on their parts to convince others of an opinion. It is simply an impulse to communicate that forces them to write. And this communication is analogous to mysticism, which is based on experience rather than language.

In short, Utilitarianism, quantifying life, the imperative to rationalize action, the need for salvation, the ideal of self-sacrifice (different from Levinas's extreme obligation to the other)...all these things abolish the possibility of the living ethical engagements that Nietzsche, Levinas, and Bataille expound upon. All these things that are held as commonplace in the West are simply looking at everything but ethical responsibility (by responsibility I mean openness to the other, which is just as free to aid the other as it is to kill it, for the other bites back. There's nothing forced to it which is what ethical systems attempt.)

So no, I have no interest in Utilitarianism just as Utilitarianism has no interest in the ethical. I am, however, polite enough to respond to someone who is interested in a little brief correspondence, but I really am just here to gesture towards what I work on, a sign towards a path, not an intersection.

Now, Levinas does have some tensions that I'm not addressing, such as his inability to consider animals as other or with a face, and more importantly, he can easily be misread as refitting a slave morality that Nietzsche so thoroughly destroys. But these three do share the same ethical space.

Anyway, hopefully I've made myself a little clearer and am without a tenor of condescension.

 

[rmb1983]

Okay, you have quoted that entirely wrong, you put MY statement in his quote! Please, fix it naow, I make good argument, you bold it, and THEN put it in the wrong person's quote. Thank-you for acknowledging what I said, but PLEASE fix it, I feel desecrated an insulted when this happens.

Sorry to sound irritated, But I just cannot stand this other person's rather... evil view. And thank-you for recognising that, I'm just... irritated by said AlexNora right now.

Ah, sorry about that. Had to fiddle around with the quotes because it chopped the relevant part I was aiming for due to there being too much. I seem to have gotten the tags mixed; my apologies.

Consider it fixed.

 

[Falconsgyre]

Well, the problem I'm off-handedly pursing is that there are modes of approaching ethics that preclude the ability to consider that which lies outside the bounds that those systems establish in advance. More pedestrian examples of this are 'debates' on politics, religion, etc, that are merely two polemic parties incapable of communicating with anything outside of themselves. Those whom I mentioned don't have systems of ethics. Ethics for them is an engagement through the unknown. There's no interest on their parts to convince others of an opinion. It is simply an impulse to communicate that forces them to write. And this communication is analogous to mysticism, which is based on experience rather than language.

In short, Utilitarianism, quantifying life, the imperative to rationalize action, the need for salvation, the ideal of self-sacrifice (different from Levinas's extreme obligation to the other)...all these things abolish the possibility of the living ethical engagements that Nietzsche, Levinas, and Bataille expound upon. All these things that are held as commonplace in the West are simply looking at everything but ethical responsibility (by responsibility I mean openness to the other, which is just as free to aid the other as it is to kill it, for the other bites back. There's nothing forced to it which is what ethical systems attempt.)

So no, I have no interest in Utilitarianism just as Utilitarianism has no interest in the ethical. I am, however, polite enough to respond to someone who is interested in a little brief correspondence, but I really am just here to gesture towards what I work on, a sign towards a path, not an intersection.

Now, Levinas does have some tensions that I'm not addressing, such as his inability to consider animals as other or with a face, and more importantly, he can easily be misread as refitting a slave morality that Nietzsche so thoroughly destroys. But these three do share the same ethical space.

Anyway, hopefully I've made myself a little clearer and am without a tenor of condescension.

Hm. Well, I suppose we can just agree to disagree on the nature of ethics, then. I've never read Levinas or Batialle and I don't particularly like Nietszche. He seems to miss the point of what ethics is about, to me.

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

FOR SCIENCE....
Well, I voted for that, but I probably wouldn't kick just from the fact that I don't really care about the puppy in the least.
However, were it for science, I'd kick every puppy in the world and burn every kitten, because when ethics come a'knockin, I'd just refuse to see'em, be'in ever so uncaring, for advancement's sake and staring, at the great and overbearing, constant and ever unending, wonderful knowledge that we would gain from all of my despairin'.
And I'd eat every parrot too.

Oh science, what I wouldn't do for you.

(intermission)

I would rip out a ton of organs and cut off my own legs, just to study all the various psychological effects, and I'd try to live off Krypton and die with only one regret, which would be that I could not tell them what they have to correct.

I would sacrifice my very life, and all of my resources, just to learn all of the different ways in which the great world works and, I would truly even go as far as to cut myself in two.

Oh science, what I wouldn't do for you.


(....I think I have to polish that and turn it into a song now....dammit brain. Way too much Tom Lehrer I guess)

 

[intheweeds]

I wouldn't kick THAT puppy.

I will however kick the puppy next door that's been barking at ridiculous times of the night/morning over the past 2 months.

Dude I will come over and kick that puppy!

JK!

For serious though, instead of this experiment, FOR SCIENCE, how about everyone that thinks eating bacon is where its at (myself included) actually go kill a pig - gut it, dress it and cook it. Just once, mind you, I'm not suggesting you do this every time you eat.

I just feel that everyone should respect the food they are eating and have a serious understanding of where it comes from. Not just 'pork comes from pigs' but seriously realize what happens to get food on your table. I have done this btw!

You don't see vegetarians trying to take meat away from other species who eat meat. Humans have canine teeth just like other omnivores, we are adapted to eat meat. We just rarely hunt food anymore.

 

[AlexNora]

need to think of some sound logic as to how that person's survival is really worth that animal's livelihood.

a persons life is always and shall always be worth more then a stupid animals (you have made me hate dogs more then I ever have before)

Its not ok to hurt an innocent animal for such a trivial reason.

But if the thing was humping my leg or had crapped in the house then Id boot the thing.

Yeah, that really doesn't sound half as funny as you must have thought it would.

i though it was funny (and iv seen this happen before)

to think if a dog was humping you you'd just stand there *shivers* yuck...

 

[Reishadowen]

No, it seems very wrong in many ways. However if it tried to bite me or leak on my shoe, I'd definitely be getting a field goal with that fur-ball.
.
.
.
.
.

Cobra Commander shows us how it's done.

 

[Revenge Revisited]

I wouldn't do that for $100. You'd really have to be a nasty and insensitive person to do something like that.

 

[AlexNora]

I really don't care that you think animals have intelligence (witch they don't they have instinct nothing more)but by your logic even the ones we eat should have intelligence and killing them should be wrong. no its not for food its for money think about all the food that goes to waste in the US. you gonna cry about that to? kicking a dog is like kicking a brick the only reason you might not do it is because you could hurt your foot. don't let the cuteness of a puppy stir up your emotions and cloud your logic.(and yes I do think puppy's are cute)you clearly place the idea of a dog higher then me, and instead of using logic to try and win your argument you go around trying to insulting/hurt me. make better choices become a wise person kill the animals save the babies!

Have you ever worked with animals? have you had pets and actually paid attention to them? If you have then you would know that they are capable of intelligence and more than just instinct. My parents are vets and I have been surrounded by animals my whole life, I KNOW first-hand that they are not stupid. They observe, they learn, they think, they feel. I agree, not to the degree humans do, but that does not make them devoid of intelligence.

Yes, the ones we eat can be intelligent, but they are killed for food, for something we need to survive, and they would not be there if we did not need them for food. Cows and pigs would not exist in the numbers they do were it not for us using them for food.

But when an animal is hurt or killed when it is not necessary, then my blood boils, it is unnecessary suffering and pain on the part of a creature that has done NOTHING to you. Especially a dog, they are raised as friends and family among people, and then out of the blue it gets this treatment because some jerk wants $15? That is sick.

Human beings are creatures of emotion. Any one who never makes a decision based on emotion is either still an infant or a psychopath. People who will do anything for their own gain without considering the pain the cause are widely considered to be psychopathic.

I place the dog higher than you because the dog didn't give you permanent injury for $15 dollars. It has no malicious intent, no greed, you do. Based on that, who should I put higher on the ladder? You have also implied that I am not using logic, which is insulting, and possibly true: I am being caring, not cold and logical, because that is what makes a decent person, being caring and having a little thing called empathy. You know, understanding the pain of other's and that they indeed do feel it and do suffer, animals included.

Causing suffering for your own good is greed. Causing suffering that is not necessary is cruelty. Causing suffering and not caring, not even thinking of the sufferer as a being deserving anything better is borderline evil.
Should I really think of you, someone who is saying that given this situation, they would be cruel, greedy and evil over a puppy that is innocent and has done nothing wrong to you?

make better choices become a wise person kill the animals save the babies!

Now you are just trolling me.

yes my grandma has five dogs. when I was little we had a dog to.

my main reason for saying this it to watch the disrespect/hatred people have for humanity its sad really.

 

[AlwaysExplosions21]

Can't say I would. Too little $ to overpower my "at least try to be nice" instinct.

 

[Godhead]

Negative. I wouldn't even do it if you were offering me a free drive in Senna's MP4-4 race car.


And I don't even like dogs!

What about being the star in a reasonably priced car??

I'd have to think awful long and hard about it but I still wouldn't. As much as I would love to thrash a Kia on an airfield runway, I don't think I could cause harm to an innocent puppy to do it.

Or maybe because you're afraid that I'll find out that your actually only Michael Schumacher and that you'll get lost.

 

[The Apothecarry]

I can only justify kicking a puppy if you're trying to train it. Not to teach it a trick like "Sit" or "Speak," but to break it of a habit like jumping on people, biting, or chewing on something it shouldn't be (although a firm "NO!" works for the latter).

If I absolutely need to establish dominance over the puppy, I'll kick it but only hard enough to let it know that I'm in charge.

 

[Tax_Document]

Would you slaughter a Pony for a hug?

Hell yeah!

 

[Chromanin]

15 bucks? I'd tell you to buy yourself something nice, and I'd just kick the damn thing for free.

 

[Chalacachaca]

I would only kick a pupppy if it were biting me or something, I mean you need to teach them from the beggining not to bite everything they want, what if one ends up biting Gerald of Rivia?

 

[dyre]

I would only kick a pupppy if it were biting me or something, I mean you need to teach them from the beggining not to bite everything they want, what if one ends up biting Gerald of Rivia?

Then that puppy would provide Geralt with 2 puppy claws, 1 puppy hide, and 1 puppy brain.

 

[spartan231490]

God no!!! I love dogs. The only rational, moral reason for kicking an animal is if it is trying to harm you, in which case go for it. Also, despite being irrational and amoral, I have a strong desire to kick yappie dogs whenever they are within reach. If it can fit in a purse, it's not a dog, it's a rat, and keep it away from me.

 

[Amphoteric]

FUCK, FUCK, FUCK NO.