What is your excuse for killing animals?

[SonOfLaertes]

Sorry, you are simply wrong. As Hume pointed out, no amount of "is" statements can add up to a moral "ought" statement, without sneaking in an unstated "ought" somewhere.

What you are doing here is sneaking in some kind of "ought" claim such as "we ought not to allow animals to destroy their environment". Assuming everyone buys that "ought" claim, then you can indeed logically get to the conclusion that it's okay to eat meat if that meat is just a byproduct of some necessary act to stop animals destroying their environment.

If there are other means of stopping that happening, or the meat is not a byproduct of such activity, that argument gets you nowhere. So for example this argument does nothing to justify the vast bulk of modern meat-eating.



I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere productive until you realise that there is a difference between logic and opinion.



Now here you've lost the plot completely. "Natural" does not mean "good". You've just done a face-plant in the naturalistic fallacy.

I am not sneaking in some kind of "ought" claim such as "we ought not to allow animals to destroy their environment". I am overtly stating that "we ought not to allow animals to destroy their environment", so I can indeed logically get to the conclusion that it's okay to eat meat because meat is just a byproduct of some necessary act to stop animals destroying their environment.

There is no other natural means of stopping that happening, and meat is just a byproduct of that activity, so that argument helps prove my point. If we must assume our natural role as predator in order to maintain balance in the environment, and we must, then we should eat the meat that we harvest. If we eat the meat that we harvest naturally, then it is natural for us to eat meat.

Your last statement makes no sense. I asked for you to provide a viable natural alternative to hunting. By this I mean an alternative that assures the natural process of selection of the fittest occurs, which is not good but crucial to the long term viability of any species but man. You have ignored the whole point of my post and sidestepped the question with a snarky pirouette. Instead osf simply stating "your wrong so I'm taking my ball and not playing anymore", provide a viable alternative to hunting which assures that the least fit are culled from the gene pool.

 

[godless dave]

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans,

The second assumption is the one that's incorrect.

Actually the first one is too. I don't "believe in" the Golden Rule. I think it's a useful ethical tool, and to the extent that I find it useful, I only apply it to other humans.

 

[NeilC]

If I apply the do as I would be done by rule to lions I find it to be fine to tuck into their guts whilst they are still bellowing in pain.

 

[Drudgewire]

Kids are intellectually inferior. Should we eat them because they are dumber?

No way. The meat is way too stringy.

 

[Pup]

Bacteria have no nervous system, feel no pain. They are not sentient beings. Chemical reactions don’t care if they live or die.

While the OP asked about killing animals, it's kinda morphed into a discussion about killing and eating animals.

I agree with phantomb that the above position seems no different from "Eating meat has the logical consistency of slavery. Some get rights, some don't, based on...gibberish"

But if we're going on purely logical grounds, here's another thought. Once an animal or human is already dead, they're no longer sentient beings and no longer care, just like broccoli. Therefore, eating one's freshly-dead baby or grandmother, who died naturally and didn't have a contagious disease, should be no different than eating broccoli. Brocolis, do you think that would be okay, or what logic would you use to argue against it?

 

[Mark6]

You should not kill an animal when you want to barbecue their flesh.

You mean I must barbecue them alive?

 

[Mark6]

More serious answer:

Regarding non-human organisms as moral equivalents of humans (and consequently refusing to eat them), if sufficiently widespread and prolonged, is deleterious to human race’s survival. If PETA philosophy ("humans are no better than pigs/mice/fish/ants") becomes entrenched in collective human psyche, we’ll have no moral justification to resist any global disaster that comes our way. "Yes, when asteroid 2550 AL173 hits, Earth will be back to invertebrates, but so what? We had our turn, it is time to accept our fate and give other critters a chance. After all, they have as much rights as we do."

If you think it is a farfetched scenario, consider that there are people today who think that way already -– Voluntary Human Extinction comes to mind. It is not impossible for their ideas to become prevalent rather than outlandish. And YOUR philosiophy is a step in that direction. I would not even say "first step" –- that was taken with the whole "animal rights" concept.

Like all life forms, we are just trying to survive. Unlike other life forms, we are capable of taking the long view of this matter and to weigh value of other species against our needs. However, from viewpoint of our long-term survival every other species/culture has value below that of our own. You are free to believe otherwise, but in the long term it is a suicidal belief. There are NO altruistic species in nature -- you only survive if you value your and your kin’s survival above that of others*.

* Before someone brings up symbiosis -- every case of symbiosis in nature is akin to an armed truce -- it lasts only as long as both parties get more out of it than they put in. As soon as mutual gain breaks down -- usually because one partner became sick or weak, -- symbiosis turns into parasitism (or predation -- depending on the relative sizes of partners). Also, there are plenty of symbiotic relationships where the host routinely digests its symbionts -- yet they still come out ahead in reproductive success terms.

 

[Michael Redman]

Kids are intellectually inferior. Should we eat them because they are dumber?

This question is a pointless distraction. Is it OK to kill a sleeping adult? We're obviously not talking about the present state of mind of the individual. We're talking about whether there is, or should be, distinctions drawn between species.

And let's stop pretending this is about pain and suffering. Life is suffering. If our goal was to end suffering, we would end life, not promote it. A quick death at the hand of a human is about the kindest death an animal can hope for, and allowing a creature to reproduce is simply creating another individual that is going to suffer and die. A prohibition on humans killing other animals is logically inconsistant with a desire to minimize pain and suffering.

What we are really talking about here is whether non-humans have a right to enjoy their own lives that is greater than our right to end their lives, or use their lives, for our own purposes. What I believe this line of thinking ignores, however, is the fact that no being has this right in nature, nor should it. Life does not exist for the benefit of the individual. Nearly every individual is destined to be sacrificed for the benefit of other life. No one argues that creatures in the state of nature don't have the "right" to kill.

As humans, through the creation of society, we have managed to hold off the natural order to the point where most of us get to live until our bodies give out, and we aren't eaten by other animals or killed by other humans. But this requires a conscious decision to participate, and to sacrifice for the common good. We pay for this ability to enjoy our lives. We call it a "right" because we have decided, by mutual assent of society, to protect the lives of each other in exchange for reciprocal protection.

Just as we create rights for humans out of rational self interest, our dealings with other animals should also be governed by rational self interest. I don't see any rational basis for extending rights to animals outside our society.

 

[Dragoonster]

More serious answer:

Regarding non-human organisms as moral equivalents of humans (and consequently refusing to eat them), if sufficiently widespread and prolonged, is deleterious to human race’s survival. If PETA philosophy ("humans are no better than pigs/mice/fish/ants") becomes entrenched in collective human psyche, we’ll have no moral justification to resist any global disaster that comes our way. "Yes, when asteroid 2550 AL173 hits, Earth will be back to invertebrates, but so what? We had our turn, it is time to accept our fate and give other critters a chance. After all, they have as much rights as we do."

If you think it is a farfetched scenario, consider that there are people today who think that way already -– Voluntary Human Extinction comes to mind. It is not impossible for their ideas to become prevalent rather than outlandish. And YOUR philosiophy is a step in that direction. I would not even say "first step" –- that was taken with the whole "animal rights" concept.

Like all life forms, we are just trying to survive. Unlike other life forms, we are capable of taking the long view of this matter and to weigh value of other species against our needs. However, from viewpoint of our long-term survival every other species/culture has value below that of our own. You are free to believe otherwise, but in the long term it is a suicidal belief. There are NO altruistic species in nature -- you only survive if you value your and your kin’s survival above that of others*.

* Before someone brings up symbiosis -- every case of symbiosis in nature is akin to an armed truce -- it lasts only as long as both parties get more out of it than they put in. As soon as mutual gain breaks down -- usually because one partner became sick or weak, -- symbiosis turns into parasitism (or predation -- depending on the relative sizes of partners). Also, there are plenty of symbiotic relationships where the host routinely digests its symbionts -- yet they still come out ahead in reproductive success terms.

This is a species-centric utilitarian excuse imo. Not logically different than torturing other humans being moral if doing so saves x number of other humans. Or if I'm starving and steal an apple to survive, it was moral.

Even someone with the above reasonsing for why killing/eating animals is acceptable, or moral in the utilitarian sense, can still consider the act of killing/eating animals immoral on its own. They can realize the need for doing what they do, but not ignore that it's still immoral.

Just because not doing a certain act would lead to one's death or one's species death doesn't make doing the act moral. If it is, and I and a woman were the last people alive on the planet but she didn't want to have sex with me, raping her would be moral because it would save the species (genetic viability of offspring assumed for sake of example). Not raping her would be "suicidal".

ETA: It seems humans feel a need to justify everything they do as being morally correct, no matter what it is. So that they don't have to feel bad about it. This is generally not done bottom-up, where one would decide how to decide morality prior to bringing in cases; but top-down, where one has already decided what he wants to be moral, then decides how he must construct a morality that makes it moral.

 

[Drewbot]

They taste good.
But I will give you an honest take on this, from experience.

I would say the one thing that makes me want to hunt more than anything else is the raw emotional feeling that I get from it that I get from no other activity.

There is nothing I have experienced that can have me shaking from nervousness when I am hoping that the wind stays on course and I am in the final stages of stalking a deer, for example. It is the most pure form of emotion that I have experienced. Is it some evolutionary holdover from the human's humble beginnings? I don't know, but it is a good feeling. Plus the animal outwits me and escapes the showdown, in my case, 9 times out of 10.

 

[Mark6]

This is a species-centric utilitarian excuse imo.

Of course it is. Morals ARE species-centric. Non-human animals are incapable of understanding our morals, and incapable of following them. Hence our morals do not apply to them.

Not logically different than torturing other humans being moral if doing so saves x number of other humans. Or if I'm starving and steal an apple to survive, it was moral.

True. So what?

ETA: It seems humans feel a need to justify everything they do as being morally correct, no matter what it is. So that they don't have to feel bad about it. This is generally not done bottom-up, where one would decide how to decide morality prior to bringing in cases; but top-down, where one has already decided what he wants to be moral, then decides how he must construct a morality that makes it moral.

Which makes perfect sense if you recognize that "morals" are simply a social contract which enables humans to live withing a society. To a Roman citizen, the idea that slaves have rights would have been absurd, and freeing a slave against his owner's wishes was profoundly immoral. But that does not mean Romans had no morals -- just that their morals (i.e. their social contract) were different from ours. Naturally, any human who wants to live in a society (that is, not a sociopath), wants his actions to be seen as "moral" -- however his or her society happens to define the term. Hence the need for self-justification.

 

[Mark6]

I would say the one thing that makes me want to hunt more than anything else is the raw emotional feeling that I get from it that I get from no other activity.

There is nothing I have experienced that can have me shaking from nervousness when I am hoping that the wind stays on course and I am in the final stages of stalking a deer, for example. It is the most pure form of emotion that I have experienced. Is it some evolutionary holdover from the human's humble beginnings? I don't know, but it is a good feeling. Plus the animal outwits me and escapes the showdown, in my case, 9 times out of 10.

Second that!

Even though I do not hunt mammals.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Nobody follows the so called "golden rule". Penn and Teller should do a show about it because the golden rule is bovine fecal matter.

 

[JimBenArm]

Second that!

Even though I do not hunt mammals.

I do. However they're small mammals. Mice, mostly, although we had a shrew in the house once. He was a devil to catch.

Tasty, though...

 

[Dragoonster]

Of course it is. Morals ARE species-centric. Non-human animals are incapable of understanding our morals, and incapable of following them. Hence our morals do not apply to them.

But they do for most people who have a moral problem with literally torturing animals. I mean by that, one day just deciding to skin their pet alive because they want a fur hat. Even those who think legal animal-rights is nonsense still do seem to lend animals some measure of personal moral rights in their own conduct towards them. Unless the reason they don't skin their pets alive is something other than morality, like the cost of a replacement pet. That would seem consistent.

True. So what?

So a utilitarian is calling an immoral act moral in a context. It doesn't mean the act isn't immoral itself.

Is torturing animals immoral or not? Is torturing humans immoral or not? <---without the excuse of context I'd say yes to both.

Which makes perfect sense if you recognize that "morals" are simply a social contract which enables humans to live withing a society. To a Roman citizen, the idea that slaves have rights would have been absurd, and freeing a slave against his owner's wishes was profoundly immoral. But that does not mean Romans had no morals -- just that their morals (i.e. their social contract) were different from ours. Naturally, any human who wants to live in a society (that is, not a sociopath), wants his actions to be seen as "moral" -- however his or her society happens to define the term. Hence the need for self-justification.

Oh I agree it makes great sense. I just find it way too easy to deal with immoral things by tweaking it to make it appear they're moral.

 

[Michael Redman]

If I define torture as the purposeful infliction of suffering, rather than inflicting suffering ancillary to some other purpose, then I can support the notion that it is immoral to torture without recognizing in the animal a right to be free from torture. While I don't equate the pain and suffering of an animal with that of a human, I think that a person who manifests a desire to cause pain and suffering is exhibiting anti-social behavior potentialy quite dangerous to the society. This is also why it is wrong to torture humans that have rejected the social contract. The act of torture itself is wrong, even when it is not depriving someone of their right not to be tortured.

Of course, Dick Cheney may disagree.

 

[godless dave]

If the Golden Rule applies to animals, what is your excuse for swatting mosquitoes?

 

[Pup]

But they do for most people who have a moral problem with literally torturing animals. I mean by that, one day just deciding to skin their pet alive because they want a fur hat. Even those who think legal animal-rights is nonsense still do seem to lend animals some measure of personal moral rights in their own conduct towards them. Unless the reason they don't skin their pets alive is something other than morality, like the cost of a replacement pet. That would seem consistent.

That's what always puzzles me when people say that animals have no rights. I don't understand what they mean. If it were true, the above scenario would certainly apply: if animals have no rights, it should be as legal and moral to skin a pet alive as to hunt a deer for meat.

 

[Michael Redman]

That's what always puzzles me when people say that animals have no rights. I don't understand what they mean. If it were true, the above scenario would certainly apply: if animals have no rights, it should be as legal and moral to skin a pet alive as to hunt a deer for meat.

This assumes that there is nothing in the act of skinning a pet alive that should be prohibited, and only the effect on the pet is to be considered. I disagree.

 

[phunk]

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?

I've hilighted your mistake. I'm guessing you're not christian or jewish, right? The OT god clearly says the animals are ours to use and eat.