What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Juniversal]

Oh, good grief!

Killing animals is heinous only for those who consider animals to have souls, rights or a human-like intellect.

The first is in error due to the lack of proof for any individual of the Kingdom Animalia to have a soul, or for even the existence of the soul.

The second is in error because animals have no rights not granted to them by humans with nothing better to do than enact frivolous laws.

The third is in error because while some animals may be trained to mimic human-like mentations, their level of "thinking" is more instinctive than intellectual.

Just how much intelligence is needed to stalk and kill a blade of grass?

Not a good rationale imo. I don't believe in a thing called a "soul". But I do believe in a thing called pain. And you make a distinction between humans and animals when there is none. Also feral childrens behavior might be more in line with what we'd describe as animal like behavior or have what we'd describe, in western terms, human intellect. And your belief that thinking is more is instinctive them intellectual might hold true for certain animals. Certainly not all...

 

[GenghisKhan]

I just recently became a meat-eater after about 6 years of vegetarianism (with a short stint of veganism thrown in there). However, during that time I still never had a problem with OTHER people eating animals. What I object to the most is the harsh conditions of slaughterhouses and I found it easier to simply stop eating meat rather than go through the hassle of finding responsible meat producers.

I also felt guilty. I have worked on farms for quite a while and I always develop a close connection with the animals there. I couldn't imagine eating a potential friend.

But then I realized I was simply putting the weight of the world on my shoulders. I can't be friends with EVERY animal on earth. I can fight for their right for a clean and healthy life, but I shouldn't have to feel guilty for doing something perfectly natural to me. I like spaghetti and meatballs, and darn it I am not going to make more things a moral burden on myself than I have to.

 

[Cavemonster]

My basic position is that any boundary for which life forms we grant "rights" to is entirely arbitrary. Given that, it makes perfect sense to me to set the boundary in a place we can at least clearly and simply identify - The species boundary.

I personally take Doug Hofstaedter's view that we don't have as much a boundary, but a softer edged decreasing progression. Those organisms most similar to us we generally have the strongest contract with, those most distant get the least protection.

Think about whose life you'd do the most to save/defend.
1) Your own/ your spouse and children
3) Your broader family and friends
4) People who are genetically, philosophically or geographically similar to you.
5) All humans everywhere.
6) Those mammals we interact with most.
7) Primates.
8) Birds and reptiles.
9) Fish and amphibians
10) bugs
11) plants and other less complex life.
12) viruses

If you're like most humans, you have fairly distinct differences in how you feel about the things on this list being harmed or killed, and the amount you care about each is probably somewhat similar to the order they're listed in.

It isn't a matter of drawing an arbitrary line, but about where the curve described by decreasing empathy dips below the value you place on what you can gain by killing each of these things on this list.

 

[Dragoonster]

That seems unlikely. In any case, I base my arguments against cannibalism in the same way that I base my arguments for all moral choices about human beings - What makes for a harmonious, supportive society.

My basic position is that any boundary for which life forms we grant "rights" to is entirely arbitrary. Given that, it makes perfect sense to me to set the boundary in a place we can at least clearly and simply identify - The species boundary.

Thanks, that's very reasonable. I like that hierarchy Cavemonster provided too. Well, like it in that it's sensible.

 

[Delvo]

Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life.

as civilized beings we drift away from natural instincts

Once you acknowledge that your personal pleasure should not harm others then you are out of the wild and into the civilized world.

Any social animal has instincts to treat members of its own species differently from other species. In humans, we call it ethics or morality, but it's still simply a set of instincts to serve the interests of the social group, just the same as is observed in other social species and in "uncivilized" populations of our own species.

 

[lionking]

Me too, I'm sick of these constant demands that I act morally. Don't rape, don't steal, don't murder, don't drink and drive, don't embezzle, don't beat children with a stick, don't torture cats, blah blah blah...

Don't these bleeding heart, pencil neck wimps realise that if they ask too much of me I'm entitled to ignore them completely? Their mistake! Now I'm off the hook and I can do whatever I want. Heh heh, feels good.

Wow, I've seen some mighty fine strawmen displayed in this forum, but this just about takes the cake.

 

[Slimething]

... and you have other options for nutrition that don't involve killing...

No one has challenged this part of Brocolis' foundation argument? It's not ever remotely true!

BTW, Brocolis, I've never met anyone who applies the Golden Rule to non-humans. As the Golder Rule is "treat others as you would be treated", applying that to other species is simply ridiculous. Let me know the next time you hold the door for an ant, m'kay?

 

[bruto]

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?

That's the flaw right there. We don't all assume that. The golden rule is a maxim humans have made up concerning how we ought to behave with each other. It's a very good one too, but there is no reason to assume that it applies to other species of animals if we don't choose it to.

I justify killing animals because it's inhumane to eat them alive.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Nature maintains balance. Not perfect balance mind you, but generally when a species becomes overpopulated the preditors also increase to thin out that population or food becomes scarce and the population drops down to a reasonable level. Of course many animals natural preditors are kept to minimal numbers thanks to people. You cannot point to something like overpopulation of deer as an example when it's our fault that animals such as wolves are in such low population numbers. Assuming we left them alone and with enough space for an extended period of time it would eventually manage itself.

Further, that natural cycle of predator and prey, of the ebb and flow of populations, of the survival of the fittest, is what drives adaptation and evolution. This beautiful process is what ensured the diversity and survival of life for millions of years. It is thanks to this process that we exist, and yet I feel that we are destroying that very process because of our greed.

That point is irrelevant to this discussion. I agree completely with you here; I would love to see better balanced ecosystem's in as many areas as possible.

So we are in agreement. Prey animals population's are healthiest when they are culled in a natural way - hunting by apex predators. This insures not only the maximal health of predator and prey; it also ensures the health of their environment.

Man is, was, and should always be an involved partner in this dance. In fact, in areas where wolves are scarce, deer are spared the sight of their young being singled out by ravenous packs, pulled down and consumed, sometimes still alive, right in front of their parents.

 

[Aepervius]

how so?

About golden rule applying only to human :
Firstly there is nothing amoral in eating what you evolved for to eat, as long as you don't do it to fellow human. "Cat, the other white meat".

Secondly the golden rule is a generic GUIDANCE rule in case you don't know how to handle yourself in a situation, and this is not needed for most obvious situation. I don't inflict gratuitiously pain on animals , but I don't do that because I would not like it if they inflicted me pain. No : I don't do that because it is morally wrong, period.

Finally, you can push the situation ad absurdum "I don't eat animal because I would not like it if they ate me". You can apply the reasonment ad-infinitum until you reach the conclusion you don't eat bacteria because you would not like it if they did it to you. So the only stuff you can eat is sugar and protein synthetised out of non-living material. Absurd ? You would put a cut over somewhere ? Then you are not applying the golden rule.

Those 3 combined make it quite clear to me the golden rule as a guidance is only really applyable for comportement betwen human.

 

[cyborg]

That doesn't mean though that there hasn't been a long but steady trend over history for our species to favor fresh, cooked meat over borderline rotten, raw meat.

Sure, but that's probably because its more nutritional - the disgust follows after you sanitize your food so that your kids thinks chicken comes from McDonalds magically in the shape of chicken McNuggets and have no mental connection between that and birds.

Probably the shock of learning that connection in later life is what can prompt vegetarianism. It's just not the sort of thing that happens when one grows up with knowledge of animal husbandry.

Or even in the last century a taste for well done steak over rare steak.

Is there? Personally I think that's probably more to do with a general decline in food knowledge as people in the US and UK in particular rely more and more on processed goods (although as Americanism spreads so does it).

My steaks are still done proportional to the frequency at which I have them nowadays: rarely.

As we progress away from a taste for raw flesh, the more, um distasteful it becomes and possibly to a point where the average person will prefer a well made veggie burger over the real thing?

Not until veggie burgers fail to taste like ****.

I've tried these products out of curiosity.

How the hell do vegetarians convince themselves this meat replacement is even remotely edible is beyond me.

You are welcome to them, I just had a double whopper with cheese so, I'm good, thanks.

But this is my point: much of the world is quite happy to eat from this branch of the tree of life.

You might as well fret over the morality of introducing poodles to the wild.

Or cute fluffy little bunny rabbits?

They couldn't possibly do any damage to an environment they were introduced to could they?

No animal rights group is going to convince the entire world to stop eating meat within a year, or a decade or probably even within a century. What they can do though is press for policy changes that improve not only the lot of animals, but for the entire ecosystem. It's in omnivore's best interests, too.

Sure, I fully support anything that is simply better.

It does appear to me however than animal rights' arguments starts from the emotive and only moves to the economical if it fails to convince. See the below vids.

For example, you can argue until you are blue in the face that you're entitled to eat all the fish you want because you find them tasty, end of discussion, but that isn't going to do you much good when your favorite species gets fished into extinction in the next decade.

No indeed, which is why all kinds of non-traditional fish species are being offered up on plates. But sustainable resource management is a problem no matter what it is - there are just different problems for plants (they still take up land, they still modify the natural environment, etc...) as opposed to animals.

Here's some vids on the matter from Jonathan Meades on vegeterians which I'm sure people will find interesting:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jo...esult_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQqwQwAA

 

[Staropeace]

Thought the golden rule was survival of the fittest. "Excuse" sorta makes me think you want us to justify our bad behavior of eating flesh ....I would ask a murderer what is his excuse for committing homocide. I dont feel the need to defend my right to a lovely steak...as long as it isnt human tenderloin. I am wondering when animals were given sanctified grace...or equal rights. Being humane doesnt mean I cannot have the odd steak or chicken leg.

It is not unnatural for human beings to eat meat. Ask an Inuit why he isnt buying lots of fruit or a spring mix of salad from the nearest shopping centre. Some cultures would be hard done by if they were strictly vegetarian. In certain places,a side of meat on the plate usually means having to take a firearm,trap or hook to track it down. Nothing unnatural about it if one wants enough to eat.

 

[BTMO]

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...

 

[lionking]

Not to mention the need to cull kangaroos and rabbits, which are in plague proportions at the moment around here.

 

[BTMO]

We shoot possums here, too...

OOH! Did you get the news in Australia about the Norwegian tourists who outraged NZ by shooting native birds? They very foolishly posted their footage to youtube.

 

[Zep]

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?

You can't get rump steak out of a pumpkin.

The idea of the "Golden Rule" is pragmatic: It is (or should be) prudent farming of available resources.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is probably one of the most depressingly stupid vegetarianism/meat threads in some time.

People, people, people. The naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy. The fact that something is "natural" is in absolutely no way an argument for it being morally good. Any argument that starts waffling on about what behaviour or diet is "natural" for humans has nothing to say about what is moral for humans.

That applies to protecting your genetic relatives, eating meat, raping people, committing genocide, dying of polio, you name it. "Nature" has nothing to say about morality.

 

[PixyMisa]

We shoot possums here, too...

Good for you! Little bastiches got into my roof a couple of years back.

OOH! Did you get the news in Australia about the Norwegian tourists who outraged NZ by shooting native birds? They very foolishly posted their footage to youtube.

I read that the penalty in NZ can include up to a year of jail time - but it could also be prosecuted as a criminal offence in Norway, with up to six years of jail time. Oops.

Anyway, back to the subject.

My sister-in-law grew up on a sheep farm, so I've had a chance to meet some sheep.

They're dumber than most varieties of rock, but at the same time, easier to cook and lower in sodium. So I eat them, rather than the rocks.

Simple.

 

[Damien Evans]

Fishing is fun, and many varieties of fish taste excellent. That's why.


Though I do throw back anything either too small or inedible. And stingrays, because I'm not risking getting caught by their tail for some mock scallops.

 

[Doubt]

They're dumber than most varieties of rock, but at the same time, easier to cook and lower in sodium. So I eat them, rather than the rocks.

Simple.

Well, there is the matter of your teeth being optimized to not eat rock.....