best,

marta

So the real question in this case is whether the fireman’s method of killing the dogs was unnecessarily cruel, and the article does not make the facts clear. Maybe he shot each dog once in the head, then mutilated the corpses. Since they were then inaminate property, there should be no crime. Maybe he deliberately tortured them with multiple wounds that weren’t immediately fatal – crime. Maybe he was just a terrible shot – then bragging about it isn’t a crime but shows a lack of character.

Did you read a different article than the one now linked? It just says he tied them up, which is something people do to dogs every day.

Then he laid out plastic and shot them. That’s also not an unusual method of humanely disposing of dogs that are suffering from illness or injuries, or simply unwanted. A shot through the head is far less cruel than dropping the dog off to be caged by strangers, then gassed.

Now, shooting them 11 times and bragging about it, that’s starting to sound like a psychopath. But psychologists who have had many opportunities to interview and observe a subject have often turned psychopathic killers loose again, so I have no faith in our ability to identify a psychopath in advance. If this guy is a psychopath, all a short jail sentence, loss of a job, and community service does is warn him to camoflauge himself better – and give him some targets.

In answer to Marta, in case Gabriel is no longer reading, I would say yes, that’s right (although there is no official libertarian dogma to consult). Libertarianism works well in providing straightforward answers that mostly comport with our moral intuitions, but it assumes a world of autonomous adults. When that assumption breaks down, I think you’ll see libertarians diverging in their answers as they are forced to fall back on some other underlying philosophy (e.g. someone above mentioned the categorical imperative).

#122 Bob

Puppy Mills are selling inferior dogs…

At inflated prices.

This is Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

From the article: “In Kant’s view, a moral act is one that would be right for any person in similar circumstances to those in which the agent finds themselves when they execute it.”

My mother is a Kantian. When I was growing up, she would always scold me, “What if everyone did that?”

no, and people should be permitted to fire him, discriminate against him and generally ostracize him.

Well, two choices: Either yes because animals are not property and no we can’t all just do whatever the hell we want: or no because animals are property and we can all do whatever the hell we want. Of course if it’s B, the next time the Mrs goes on vacation she should just tie him up in the basement and shoot him because he is no better than an animal.

If you believe dogs have no rights, then it is consistent with libertarian theory to let Santuomo walk. If you believe dogs do have rights, then it is consistent with libertarian theory to punish him for violating those rights. But libertarian theory, as such, is silent on the question of whether or not dogs have rights.”

#11 Gabriel,

I just have a question of clarification: does libertarianism posit that all human beings are rights-holders? And abortion is not a libertarian purity test because libertarianism is silent about whether unborn fetuses are human beings?

Thanks,
Marta

ps, one would think the spell checker in your own comments section would recognize your name =)