What is your excuse for killing animals?

[chum]

It has nothing got to do with the Golden Rule

What do you mean by "It", the question or your answers?

and if anything, what his and my answer implies is, "we don't believe in the golden rule".

Which means you can't answer the question.

The Golden Rule is another made up thing by humans. Nature does not have any moral rules. If you don't believe me, just take a look at nature. Animals killing other animals out of hunger or fear of being attacked.

Yes, this is painfully obvious.

 

[Wolrab]

The law of nature is not an actually law. Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life. You don’t rape somebody when you want sex or steal candy from a child when you are hungry. You should not kill an animal when you want to barbecue their flesh.
That is a pretty good argument. Kinda selfish though

Okay. How do I keep it on the grill with it writhing in pain?
Do I just barbecue the part I want to eat?
If it dies on the grill, do I throw it all out or continue cooking it?

Many animals would have no problem eating me whether I was dead or alive. Can I barbecue them?

 

[John Jones]

I don't kill 'em. They're already dead when I buy them.

 

[Brocolis]

Many animals would have no problem eating me whether I was dead or alive. Can I barbecue them?

you are not an animal. you are a critical thinking human. and you have other options for nutrition that don't involve killing
the nature argument is just a bad argument. as civilized beings we drift away from natural instincts
but if you want level you logic with the dumber beings, feel free to do so

 

[shadron]

The law of nature is not an actually law. Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life. You don’t rape somebody when you want sex or steal candy from a child when you are hungry.

No, it's not a legislation. It is the way that evolution has shaped our species and its ancestors, so I guess one would say that it is not a violation of nature to proceed in that manner, if you are really desirous of avoiding "law". I think following natural instincts IS an ethical way to live. Yes, we have hemmed in our behavior in some matters by our ethics, particularly in our relationships with other sentient beings, and perhaps eating meat will at some point in the future also become unethical. Again, perhaps. But it is not yet.

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

You're opinion. Perhaps you are in the vanguard; perhaps not. To barbecue or not to barbecue seems to be off the point.

 

[Sun Countess]

I've never heard anyone apply the golden rule to animals before. How far does it extend? Should I be allowed to treat a bacterial infection or kill the wasps that get into the house?

 

[sphenisc]

... We primates are omnivores...

Several of us primates are herbivores... Yes, I'm trolling for colobines.

 

[Denver]

I read the OP as asking which supercedes the other: the law of nature or the human golden rule.

It seems like a being is obligated to the law of nature unless it can choose not to be. Animals do not seem to be able to choose not to be.

Humans can so choose. And one result of this choice is the golden rule.

Those under the law of nature are in a sort of contract with each other: each could expect to live and die by it. Those under the golden rule are also in a sort of contract with each other: they could expect others to treat them like they treat others.

However, there does not seem to be any type of contract between a being under one system, and a being under the other. A human under the golden rule has no expectation of being treated fairly under the law of nature, and an animal under the law of nature has no expectation of being treated fairly under the human golden rule.

There is no ethical duty across these two systems, and therefore no ethical dilemma eating an animal.

 

[JWideman]

When a tiger takes down a gazelle, do you think it has to justify its actions first?

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Quite simply, I feel that your perspective on the natural world is more harmful to the long term viability of natural ecosystems than the perspective of a meat-eater.

I'm sure you have heard all of these arguments before so I'm not sure where your confusion originates.

Humans evolved as an important cog in every ecosystem on earth. Animals evolved as either direct competition with us for food resource's or as a food resource in their own right. So evolution, or to be more precise adaptive flexibility, is on the side of those of us who view animals in the more traditional sense. Hunting , for instance, is the only true way to cull dangerous overpopulation in a species and ensure that the least fit to survive are culled.

Brocolis, I guess my answer could be boiled down to the answer you give to a few questions.

When you see a lioness pull down prey on an arid plain and therefore feed ravenous, growing cubs - is that wrong? Does the lioness have no right to ensure it's species survival? I would say to you that the lioness has not only a right but an obligation. And that right is but one facet of a beautiful, elegant system, a clockwork mechanism honed over geologic time to ensure the continuation of life on this planet.

And if you can see the beauty, terrible though it may be in it's parts but awe-inspiring in it's whole, than do you deny humanity's long, crucial, interwoven role in that passion play? This fact you can't honestly deny so the second question is rhetorical.

Therefore where do you draw the line, Brocolis? Do you believe that we should step in and somehow separate the carnivore's from their prey, and erase the chilling reality of the bloody, grisly feast on that arid plain? Or do you grudgingly accept that reality, and draw the line just under Homo Sapiens, and say that here, look above this line, we are the special ones, we are no longer a part of nature's grand scheme?

I believe that attitude to be dangerous. The natural way is the best way. we should seek to enhance our natural role in the ecosystem; not hold ourselves above it.

 

[Brocolis]

Those under the law of nature are in a sort of contract with each other: each could expect to live and die by it. Those under the golden rule are also in a sort of contract with each other: they could expect others to treat them like they treat others.

However, there does not seem to be any type of contract between a being under one system, and a being under the other. A human under the golden rule has no expectation of being treated fairly under the law of nature, and an animal under the law of nature has no expectation of being treated fairly under the human golden rule.

Social Contract is not a good way to justify killing animals. Penn&Teller did that on their PETA episode.
The premise that the protection of a social contract only extends to the people who are able to ratify it is just false. Mentally ill people(and kids) have the same protection as any normal person, yet they cannot be convicted and punished in the same way when they break the law.

 

[Sledge]

I'm just not seeing the problem here. We're at the top of the food chain, so we get to eat everything else. Big whoop, wanna fight about it?

 

[Denver]

Social Contract is not a good way to justify killing animals. Penn&Teller did that on their PETA episode.
The premise that the protection of a social contract only extends to the people who are able to ratify it is just false. Mentally ill people(and kids) have the same protection as any normal person, yet they cannot be convicted and punished in the same way when they break the law.

In your example, the social contract extends to the entire society UNDER that contact. The animal kingdom is not part of the society which agreed to the contract, and so is not under it, and puts no obligations on those that are.

 

[George 152]

I kill them I eat them

 

[Brocolis]

Quite simply, I feel that your perspective on the natural world is more harmful to the long term viability of natural ecosystems than the perspective of a meat-eater.

I'm sure you have heard all of these arguments before so I'm not sure where your confusion originates.

Humans evolved as an important cog in every ecosystem on earth. Animals evolved as either direct competition with us for food resource's or as a food resource in their own right. So evolution, or to be more precise adaptive flexibility, is on the side of those of us who view animals in the more traditional sense. Hunting , for instance, is the only true way to cull dangerous overpopulation in a species and ensure that the least fit to survive are culled.

Brocolis, I guess my answer could be boiled down to the answer you give to a few questions.

When you see a lioness pull down prey on an arid plain and therefore feed ravenous, growing cubs - is that wrong? Does the lioness have no right to ensure it's species survival? I would say to you that the lioness has not only a right but an obligation. And that right is but one facet of a beautiful, elegant system, a clockwork mechanism honed over geologic time to ensure the continuation of life on this planet.

And if you can see the beauty, terrible though it may be in it's parts but awe-inspiring in it's whole, than do you deny humanity's long, crucial, interwoven role in that passion play? This fact you can't honestly deny so the second question is rhetorical.

Therefore where do you draw the line, Brocolis? Do you believe that we should step in and somehow separate the carnivore's from their prey, and erase the chilling reality of the bloody, grisly feast on that arid plain? Or do you grudgingly accept that reality, and draw the line just under Homo Sapiens, and say that here, look above this line, we are the special ones, we are no longer a part of nature's grand scheme?

I believe that attitude to be dangerous. The natural way is the best way. we should seek to enhance our natural role in the ecosystem; not hold ourselves above it.

There is nothing wrong with nature’s way per say, but we don’t live in the wild anymore. We grew above it.
Don’t you believe in human rights? Once you acknowledge that your personal pleasure should not harm others then you are out of the wild and into the civilized world. There is no reason why a man should have more rights than a woman, or a white man should have more rights than a black man, so why we stop at the human race? So why not animal rights? Where is the threshold? There is none.
Let nature be nature, but once you are in the civilized world you live without the hypocrisy of keeping your own interests above the interest of other beings who live and suffer just like you do.

In your example, the social contract extends to the entire society UNDER that contact. The animal kingdom is not part of the society which agreed to the contract, and so is not under it, and puts no obligations on those that are.

how did that make any sense?

 

[Denver]

Social Contract is not a good way to justify killing animals. Penn&Teller did that on their PETA episode.
The premise that the protection of a social contract only extends to the people who are able to ratify it is just false. Mentally ill people(and kids) have the same protection as any normal person, yet they cannot be convicted and punished in the same way when they break the law.

In your example, the social contract extends to the entire society UNDER that contact. The animal kingdom is not part of the society which agreed to the contract, and so is not under it, and puts no obligations on those that are.

how did that make any sense?

Your example seems like a straw man argument. We are talking about the difference between those living under the law of nature, vs those living under the golden rule. Once under either system, there are no doubt many details and exceptions made as to the rights and duties of everyone under that contract. The question I am exploring (and that I thought you were asking) is how the rights and duties under one system extends to the other. And my reply is that they do not.

 

[Cavemonster]

There is no reason why a man should have more rights than a woman, or a white man should have more rights than a black man, so why we stop at the human race? So why not animal rights? Where is the threshold? There is none.

So, do you ever wash your clothes, vacuum? If you do, you're killing dust mites and other small animals. If there is no threshold whatsoever, then the only acceptable lifestyle if like the Jains.

Is that how you live?

 

[JohnG]

ETA: It's remarkable how much of what I put in my original post below has already been touched on by others here while I was writing it. I guess I should have checked to see what had been posted in the last half hour before I hit Submit, but whatever, I don't want all that typing to go to waste:

I was once a faithful and sincere (though occasionally reluctant) vegetarian for about five years. There was no one reason why I became a vegetarian and no one reason why I went back to being a meat eater, so to get into the details of it would take too long and probably veer into derail territory. Suffice it to say that I think I can see both sides of the argument.

While I believe that vegetarians/vegans are more right than wrong in their beliefs and motivations, I also think that they have to get their stories straight when they are trying to convert others to the cause. There's a bit of contradiction in their stance that seems to boil down to this:

1. Humans, being animals themselves, have no claim to any sort of "high ground" (moral or otherwise). So saying "it's OK to eat animals because God said so" or "it's OK to eat animals that aren't as intelligent as ourselves" doesn't cut it because we are no "better" (in the cosmic scheme of things) than a chicken, cow, fish or pig.

2. Animals (i.e., animals other than the animal known as "human") eat other animals at worst as a necessary evil. Humans being the intelligent, broadminded species that they are have found alternate forms of nutrition and are no longer reliant on other animals for sustenance which means that they are morally obligated to abandon meat eating entirely.

I've found both of these arguments used side by side by vegetarians who seem blissfully unaware that there's at least a partial contradiction between the two. Are humans (in some senses, anyway) "superior" to other animals or aren't they? If they are, why can't they see that humans are in fact slowly (arguably too slowly) progressing from omnivore to herbivore? I'd argue that there is a greater proportion relative to population of vegetarians in the world than there has been in any point in history. Vegetarians who are so by choice, rather than it being forced upon them by the simple fact that there are no animals to be had. There are millions of years or evolutionary conditioning that hardwire a human's love for meat. That kind of conditioning can't be overridden across the entire species in a few decades. Many vegetarians are so simply because they don't like the taste of meat. I don't eat fish, not necessarily because of any superior morals, but simply because I hate the taste of fish, always have. There are other factors that go into my decision not to eat them, like the fact that many species are being fished into extinction as we speak, with grave consequences for the ocean's ecosystem. If I'm honest with myself though, I acknowledge that the main reason I don't eat fish is I simply don't like to, which means I don't exactly hold any superior moral high ground with my "no fish eating" stance.

If humans aren't in any way "superior" to other animals, why isn't a human eating a salmon the same "necessary evil" as a bear eating a salmon? If a bear is offered the choice between a fish and a granola bar, is it being "immoral" if it chooses the fish?

Let me be clear here, lest vegetarians think I'm some omnivore apologist: I believe that if the human race is going to evolve and prosper, it will inevitably (whether its 50 years or 500 years from now) become more or less completely vegetarian. There will come a time when our descendants will look back with disgust on us eating (cooked) meat as we do with relative disgust with our earlier ancestors who may have eaten raw carrion.

Whether the planet's ecosystem can weather our long, slow evolutionary "learning curve" from omnivore to herbivore (or some completely synthetic form of nutrition?) is another question and the sort of question that vegetarians should pragmatically focus on in the short term. In other words, they are more likely to get people on their side by talking about sustainability (e.g., tighter regulations on commercial fishing) and environmental impact in general (livestock consuming water and food that could go to people. Or the fact that cows add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere) than they are by trying to talk others into quitting their meat eating habits, uh, "cold turkey".

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My ancestors didn't spend thousands of years fighting their way to the top of the food chain just so that I could eat broccoli and bean sprouts.

 

[JJM 777]

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule…
(...)
they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that

Except that humans seem to be the _only_ species whom you can expect to follow the Golden Rule (on a good day, in a prosperous region of one of the more prosperous societies). That might be why it is so natural to think about humans only when talking about the Golden Rule.

This is quite much what I would tell myself, if it felt necessary to tell this to myself.

I don't ignore the feelings of animals, if we kill them we must do it instantly, without causing any unnecessary suffering. Hunting in the wild does not qualify as such, you shoot a bird from distance and then the bird maybe dies to its painful wounds or maybe not, and your dog maybe finds it or then not.