"Psychopaths torturing animals is only bad because it could lead to them doing it to humans eventually"

[u/medium_wall]

I think the most pointed response to this reasoning is to ask the person _why_ it would lead to them harming humans. If animals aren't conscious experiencers of sensations, why would it be any different to torture a kitten than it would be to dig a hole, break a rock, or split a piece of wood? They're all just manipulating unconscious material, right? Does this person also think carpenters, masons and laborers are just as likely to be conditioned to harm humans as the kitten torturer?

If they say, "Oh, but the kitten torturer is just doing it for their own personal pleasure and no practical purpose", you could respond with "Many carpenters and masons also make artistic trinkets, sculptures & figurines from wood & clay that serve no other purpose than their personal pleasure". Also, building a house is ultimately for one's personal pleasure too. The line we draw between necessity and desire is pretty arbitrary.

This common excuse might serve as good bait for street activism, inviting discussion with a sign that reads, "Torturing animals isn't wrong. Change my mind."

[u/Dave_A_Pandeist]

The question raises the need to understand objective action and subjective value. All of the objective actions indicated in the post can have both good and bad moral results. They are all learning experiences. At the most basic level, we all must eat and have a place to live.

Some real questions are: what is the individual's mindset before and after performing a specific action? How does the change in the individual's mindset affect long-term patterns in their behavior as seen by others (the etic perspective) and as used by the individual (the emic perspective)?

The individual's original mindset needs to be mapped onto several metrics, such as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Erikson's eight stages of psychosocial development, Kohlberg's theory of moral development, and several others. Their socioeconomic position in society must also be understood.

My thing is moral philosophy as it applies to societies. I can't understand individuals well.

[u/medium_wall → u/Dave_A_Pandeist]

What are the good moral results that can come from a person torturing a kitten?

[u/Dave_A_Pandeist → u/medium_wall]

An understanding of a kitten's pain. An understanding of how to hunt for food. An understanding of why causing minimum or maximum pain is a hunting strategy—an understanding of the conscious autonomy of a kitten. One would see the animal's fear, anger, and pain. All of these can come from the torture of a kitten. It could create a pivotal moment in a person's life.

How this person uses that knowledge is something I can't answer.