Is concern for animal welfare a moral issue for Objectivists?

Finally, Dr. Hsieh takes on the question directly in this podcast Q&A: Abuse of Animals

The speaker provides some decent arguments regarding why it is reasonable to treat animals humanely, but the fundamental problems are not addressed.

Is there ever a situation where animal suffering at the hands of a rational human or enterprise (say the meat industry) is just too great? -- say extreme animal suffering for the purpose of a marginal increase in profit or because it's just a bit less work than it would be to treat the animal much better? No moral relevance according to Objectivism? In fact it is moral to act in self interest even if far more suffering is involved?

(I also need to mention that the speaker is completely incorrect in stating that a healthy diet requires some animal products. The primary dietetic association in the US states otherwise. I'm referring to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics -- formerly known as the American Dietetic Association.)

I am immoral if I attempt to forcibly stop my neighbor from beating his docile dog with a baseball bat in his front yard. Not only have I trespassed on his land, I have used force against another human being, and so nobody's rights are violated except his rights. Ultimately, I'm the criminal?

What is a fundamental problem which hasn't been addressed?

I think my examples represent the fundamental problems for animal welfare pretty clearly. (That's what I meant.)

I can't even figure out what examples you're talking about.

You mean the hypothetical neighbor who, for no reason, beats his dog with a baseball bat in his front yard, and which the law does not sanction you using force to stop? This is a fundamental problem?

In what way is it a fundamental problem? Aren't you begging the question?

Would it be better if I drop the word 'fundamental' and simply state that Objectivism is a disaster for animals, resulting in enormous unnecessary suffering? In too many cases, the moral thing to do, according to Objectivism, will lead to far more animal suffering.

Does Michael Vick become a good example of a moral man? Sure he tortured dogs, but he did so with purpose -- in the interest of making them better fighting dogs, which would increase his profit in the dog-fighting world. That's rational self-interest in an Objectivist world. If I'm missing something with this example and with my other two examples above (from yesterday) let me know.

I think saying that Objectivism is a disaster for animals would be anthropomorphism.

As for Michael Vick, the consensus among people who call themselves Objectivists seems to be that what he did was immoral.

"As for Michael Vick, the consensus among people who call themselves Objectivists seems to be that what he did was immoral." How so? Please explain clearly why Michael Vick's actions were immoral, based on the principles of Objectivism. I explained why they were moral, based on the principles of Objectivism.

I don't know exactly what Michael Vick did, nor, more importantly, why he did it, so I can't answer that question.

But I definitely take issue with your assertion that the principles of Objectivism are that anything which increases one's profit is therefore moral. Objectivism explicitly rejects such pragmatism.

If one's business is dog-fighting, and abusing or even torturing dogs will make them very fierce fighters, is such treatment moral if it makes the business more successful?

Orb85750, morality is about the fundamental principles of pursuing life on earth, not about optimizing business per se. Often, optimizing business is nicely correlated with pursuing life, but not always -- like when someone is in the business of forcing helpless animals into mortal combat with one another for "entertainment". That's less of an example of productiveness than it is an example of a f*cked up psychology that should make any civilized person think about how quickly and completely they could distance themselves and civilized society from such a business and its customers.

All types of animal fighting enterprises would be unacceptable by what Objectivist principles?

Could you also answer my other questions/examples above? If you don't like the neighbor with a baseball bat in his front yard example, let me give you a real life example -- one that I have read about too many times in the news (...continued...)

Real life example: "Human beings" intentionally dragging dogs behind their trucks, usually until the dog is dead. I can't get inside the mind of such a person, but it would be immoral of me to stop the person by force, correct? (since he is not violating anyone's rights)

Just because it's immoral for a man to cut off his arm (or jump off a bridge) does not make it moral for you to use force to stop him. Objectivism do not condone the use of force to enforce morality. It only condone the use of retaliatory force to prevent/punish the initiation of force.

As badly as I may feel psychologically in the event that I am exposed to someone dragging a dog behind their truck, I do not have the right to use force to stop him. I may offer up money to buy the dog or to find some other way to persuade the man to stop.

Keep in mind that a vegan will probably have the same psychological pain if he walks through a slaughter house.

In Objectivism, your psychological pain do not grant you the right to use psychical force against another.

I must state that Objectivist morality is about whether the actions are helpful or harmful to the man, not the animal.

A psychologically healthy man will feel compassion when he observes an animal that is suffering. Only a psychologically unhealthy man finds pleasure in such suffering. Torturing for pleasure only reinforces whatever misunderstanding of reality that the man currently has and that is what makes it immoral.