What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Juniversal]

I kill animals that annoy me. No mosquito is safe if it tries anything.
I am perfectly willing to kill bigger animals for protean that tastes good.
I am not willing to kill humans for protean. I expect the same from other humans. If other humans do not do the same civilization is finished. I do not expect the same from bears, larger cats and sharks.

The boundary of what is food and what is not food is a necessary social construction. No killing people or their pets if avoidable. Animals that are wild and unowned are not part of any social contract. They also have no reason to expect a pleasant end to their life regardless of human actions.

Question out of curiosity. What do you feel about "Micheal Vick style" dog fighting?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Question out of curiosity. What do you feel about "Micheal Vick style" dog fighting?

I´ll jump in, if I may, and answer from my point of view: I feel really hurt when I see animals such as dogs, cats, bears, mice, squirrel, dolphins, foxes, wolves..... suffer.

I do not feel the same way at all (and/or remain quite indifferent) when I see bacteria, cockroaches, ants, fungus, mosquitoes, plants, fish, silverfish...... suffer.


My question to you is: do you?






(Clarification: Do you feel "the same way"?)

 

[Iamme]

Just so you all know...

I will be hunting a block in the local water supply catchment area in a couple of weeks time. I will be shooting everything I see - deer, goats, pigs. I won't be using any restraint.

It is a pest removal exercise. I won a ballot to get access to the block. I will slice off the nicer parts of any healthy animals I shoot, and take them home for the freezer.

A couple of weeks after that, I will be hunting fallow deer on private property. I fully expect to get one or possibly two depending on the weather and the animals moods.

A week or so after that, duck season starts...

Nothing wrong with such motives. Enjoy!

But what about big game hunters who hunt for trophy animals so they can display them on their walls or floor?

 

[Juniversal]

I´ll jump in, if I may, and answer from my point of view: I feel really hurt when I see animals such as dogs, cats, bears, mice, squirrel, dolphins, foxes, wolves..... suffer.

I do not feel the same way at all (and/or remain quite indifferent) when I see bacteria, cockroaches, ants, fungus, mosquitoes, plants, fish, silverfish...... suffer.


My question to you is: do you?

Same here. I'd say more complex organisms (opposed to bacteria, bugs and the like) that clearly show pain and suffering evoke the emathetic response from us that's ingrained in us for whatever reason. Possibly because of our knowledge of pain and discomfort. It seems the more apparently intelligent the animal the stronger the emotional response can be.

 

[Pup]

Same here. I'd say more complex organisms (opposed to bacteria, bugs and the like) that clearly show pain and suffering evoke the emathetic response from us that's ingrained in us for whatever reason. Possibly because of our knowledge of pain and discomfort. It seems the more apparently intelligent the animal the stronger the emotional response can be.

I wonder if this empathy is just a spill-over from the empathy for other humans that we've evolved, which helps us live and thrive in cooperative groups? That would explain why it seems so illogical at times and why it can be affected by the culture one is raised in. The more we mentally include something as "like us," the more it gets the empathy treatment, whether it's a human, an animal, or even an inanimate object. The feeling is generally strongest for things that would further our own genes: our children, our mates. Beyond that, it gradually fades as we get farther from our cooperative group, but we can "turn it on" illogically, treating a pet dog like a child, for example.

 

[MatildaGage]

Brocolis, I don't feel it is justifiable when there are alternatives available.

Having said that, there are lots of things human beings do that are not justifiable though alternatives are available. They all pain me.

We are a pretty selfish species and resistant to change.

I think this is one of those things that, if the species survives long enough, will change....with limits. It has been suggested to me by an orthodox vegetarian that it's unethical for us to use motor vehicles because animals can become roadkill. Fair point, but I am not medically capable of quitting my job to farm my lawn to sustain myself, and everyone can't live within walking distance to their jobs....so I still drive.

Also I am severely allergic to certain insect stings, and I'm gonna do all I can to prevent them from entering my house, but ultimately I'll kill them if they do.

Balance would need to enter into this.

 

[dasmiller]

I wonder if this empathy is just a spill-over from the empathy for other humans that we've evolved, which helps us live and thrive in cooperative groups?

Empathy for non-humans isn't necessarily an evolutionary accident. Interspecies cooperation is actually pretty common, and I suspect it's a lot easier for that sort of cooperation to happen among the smarter species if they have some empathy for each other. Even if species aren't cooperating outright, it's certainly helpful to have some idea about how the other beast is likely to respond to your actions. It's particularly useful to understand how a larger but not-necessarily predatory creature (if you're a human, then picture a bear or a moose) might be antagonized by your actions, so that you don't antagonize it.

 

[fls]

(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.

I don't follow the golden rule.

Linda

 

[fls]

I eat cows because I worry that not doing so will lead to their extinction.

Linda

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"Nature" has everything to say about morality, if it is more moral to hunt game than allow it to destroy it's environment.

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.

If you have a different opinion, that's just your opinion. It doesn't make you automatically right, and it doesn't solve the problem of wildlife management.

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

Give me a viable, natural alternative to hunting, that doesn't assume the fallacious argument that humans are not natural apex predators in the food chain, and I will listen.

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

 

[ferd burfle]

"A chicken is just a fast cabbage"---JP Foreman

 

[Trent Wray]

I kill animals for sloppy Joe's.

 

[Slimething]

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

So sad. Here's a quarter...

 

[Brocolis]

Oh dear. Do you think bacteria should have rights? If not, how are you consistent?

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

I hardly think "they are of a different, intellectually inferior species" is gibberish. Oh, and I'm referring to animals here, not slaves.

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

Brocolis, I don't feel it is justifiable when there are alternatives available.

Having said that, there are lots of things human beings do that are not justifiable though alternatives are available. They all pain me.

We are a pretty selfish species and resistant to change.

I think this is one of those things that, if the species survives long enough, will change....with limits. It has been suggested to me by an orthodox vegetarian that it's unethical for us to use motor vehicles because animals can become roadkill. Fair point, but I am not medically capable of quitting my job to farm my lawn to sustain myself, and everyone can't live within walking distance to their jobs....so I still drive.

Also I am severely allergic to certain insect stings, and I'm gonna do all I can to prevent them from entering my house, but ultimately I'll kill them if they do.

Balance would need to enter into this.

I agree.

 

[Trent Wray]

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

It depends on what their diet mainly consists of.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So sad. Here's a quarter...

If you think morality is purely a matter of opinion and logic has nothing to say about it, I feel sorry for you but I have to point out that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Critters are made of food...

A

 

[phantomb]

Bacteria have no nervous system, feel no pain. They are not sentient beings.

Here's what you initially said:

"Eating meat has the logical consistency of slavery. Some get rights, some don't, based on...gibberish"

How does that not describe your new position? Are you going to tell me that the list of criteria you just named (possession of a nervous system, ability to feel pain, sentience (good luck defining this one)) as being proper for distinguishing between what forms of life get rights and what forms of life don't is somehow less arbitrary or "gibberish" than the various lists of criteria meat eaters in this thread have suggested (species being one example)?

Chemical reactions don’t care if they live or die.

I'm not an expert on animal intelligence, but from what I've read, few non-human animals have minds that are comparable to ours. I believe even our great-ape relatives, some of the smartest non-human animals, fail at tests for theory of mind (that's the ability to recognize other beings as conscious agents) and other concepts that are fundamental to the way we experience the world. So yeah, I would liken most non-human animals to chemical machines, incapable of caring if they live or die the way you or I can, not just bacteria.

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

I believe babies even a few months old are more intelligent than most non-human animals, but to answer your underlying question, and if you're really going to press me, sure, I would not strictly have a problem with you eating a person whose brain was the functional equivalent of the brain of your average non-human animal. There are, or course, social reason why I don't think we should be eating the brain-dead and the extraordinarily disabled.

 

[dafydd]

Food.

 

[Juniversal]

I wonder if this empathy is just a spill-over from the empathy for other humans that we've evolved, which helps us live and thrive in cooperative groups? That would explain why it seems so illogical at times and why it can be affected by the culture one is raised in. The more we mentally include something as "like us," the more it gets the empathy treatment, whether it's a human, an animal, or even an inanimate object. The feeling is generally strongest for things that would further our own genes: our children, our mates. Beyond that, it gradually fades as we get farther from our cooperative group, but we can "turn it on" illogically, treating a pet dog like a child, for example.

That's also very possible. The more we percieve an animal being part of our greater society (i.e. dogs and cats as house pets for example) opposed to food, the more likely we are to form empathetic relationships and have concern for their well being.