Your objections are not just about the Objectivist view of environmentalism, but about the Objectivist ethics themselves. I suggest you re-read “The Objectivist Ethics” by Ayn Rand, available online for free. There are several claims you are making that are simply not true of the moral system Ayn Rand promoted.

For Michael Vick, the reason his dog fighting was not in his self-interest was because it happened to be illegal, not because it was actually immoral. If the laws had been different, or if Vick had been doing the same thing in a different country where dog fighting is legal, then what would be the difference between this and enjoying a sporting event? It’s not so much that Vick derived pleasure from seeing the dogs suffer as it was that he enjoyed the fight, much in the same way that people enjoy watching a boxing match. Although many people do, for example, watch NASCAR in hopes of seeing a good crash.

So aside from the fact that Michael Vick was participating in an activity that happened to be illegal (because we happen to care about dogs in this country), how are his actions any morally different from someone who watches boxing or enters a horse into the Kentucky Derby? Vick was supposedly making money off these dogs. So he was gaining value (money) by producing value (entertainment, the joy of gambling).

And for those who do happen to derive pleasure from abusing animals, is this really so much different from the other trivial things we derive pleasure from? Deriving pleasure from abusing animals doesn’t necessarily imply that the same person could derive pleasure from abusing humans. If someone had a clear idea of why it’s wrong to torture rational humans, but not to torture animals, then it doesn’t seem as though the slippery slope would apply.

What if Michael Vick had instead decided to slit his dogs throats and cook them in a stew? Is there anything wrong with that (legality aside)? In a sense, that is also deriving pleasure from abusing animals.

By the way, if animals don’t have rights and don’t matter, of what relevance is their ‘helplessness’? Whether an animal could potentially kill me or is powerless over me, it deserves none of my empathy or sympathy. Yet you mention the “helpless” animals, as though it is in some way relevant.

Inflicting pain on animals for the sake of being able to do so or for the sake of causing the pain alone is not a rational goal, ie, it does not enhance one’s life in the long-term. It is indicative of low self-esteem and nihilistic tendencies.

Consider Michael Vick who might have thought engaging in dog fighting was in his “self-interest.” But was it really? By doing so, he destroyed his reputation, demolished his fan base, severely jeapordized his career, and wasted two years of his life in prison. Further, he was psychologically finding pleasure in inflicting pain on helpless animals…what such a twisted psycho-epistemology could lead to in the future is truly frightening. What other kinds of destruction might he already crave for or may crave in the future when he gets tired of inflicting pain on dogs? What’s next?

This was not a man acting in his long-term self-interest. This was a man who was acting on his whims and impulses of destroying for the sake of destroying with no thought about the consequences of his actions.

So if someone is “the type of person who derive[s] pleasure from abusing animals,” and he thinks this is in his long-term self-interest to do so, he is severely deluded.

We can discuss some of the issues you bring up at the next meeting. But I should correct one glaring error in your remarks…that “kicking a dog or lighting a cat’s tail on fire” would be “perfectly acceptable” in Objectivism.

This is completely untrue. Anybody who tortures animals for the sick pleasure of it or just because he can is psychologically disturbed and is not acting in his long-term self-interest. To find pleasure in the suffering of animals for the sake of suffering is indicative of a tremendously unhealthy view of life and the pursuit of destructive whims, not rational values. Michael Vick’s actions, for example, were morally abhorrent.

This does not mean, however, that he should have been sentenced to prison.

We can, of course, discuss this further at the next meeting.

To summarize my thoughts on the Objectivist views of environmentalism and animal rights:

The Objectivist conception of environmentalists (and all things pertaining to ‘environmentalism’) is that the primary (or only) goal of the environmental movement is to preserve nature because nature itself has inherent value, and it is thus inherently wrong for us to disturb it. This may be an accurate representation of some environmentalists, but it is an EXTREMELY tiny percentage. Most people who consider themselves environmentalists, or who take steps to “go green”, do so because they are concerned for humans. Whether or not Objectivists think Al Gore is right about global warming, I assure you he’s not motivated by any idea that nature has some sort of inherent worth. Rather, he (as well as most leading scientists who have researched the issue) thinks we’re all fucked if we don’t do something. We only have a limited amount of resources, so the environmental goal of switching to renewable energy sources prevents us from one day being completely screwed because we run out. We also need clean air, clean water, and a generally clean environment in order to live long and healthy lives. This is what most people have in mind when they care about the environment, so to suggest that all of environmentalism is about worshiping nature as an end in itself is simply ignorant.

On the topic of animal rights:

For an Objectivist, the only reason it is ‘wrong’ for us to violate the ‘rights’ of other humans is because doing so is never in our self interest. If in some hypothetical world (not that Objectivists acknowledge hypotheticals, unless they involve indestructible robots) it were possible to violate the ‘rights’ of others in some circumstances without acting against our self interest, Objectivists would have no argument against doing so. The reason animals are not considered to have any ‘rights’ is because we can do what we please with them without suffering any negative consequences. In other words, it is often in our self-interest to use and abuse other animals. Therefore, doing so is moral. If I get some sort of pleasure or satisfaction from kicking a dog or lighting a cat’s tail on fire, then, for the Objectivist, doing so is perfectly acceptable.