What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Piscivore]

Supposing it's true, where does it take us?
Supposing it's false, where does it leave me?

I don't know, that's really not germane to the question I asked you. I'm not interested in the implications, I just wondered if you had any data or if that was just your opinion.

 

[Cain]

I don't know, that's really not germaine to the question I asked you. I'm not interested in the implications, I just wondered if you had any data or if that was just your opinion.

If it makes no difference one way or the other, then your question is irrelevant and of no interest to me.

 

[Piscivore]

If it makes no difference one way or the other, then your question is irrelevant and of no interest to me.

So that would be a "no" then on data?

 

[Cain]

So that would be a "no" then on data?

No, I have polling. But what difference will it make?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Got any data to support that, or is it just your opinion?

the fact that animal cruelty is against the law and cases of animal cruelty appear on the news regularly shows us that even meat eating humans seem to feel that if you kill or harm an animal, it should be for a reason: it's food, it's a pest, it's dangerous, it's overpopulated, etc. I feel like society wants more of a reason than "we wanted to kill it' or 'it was fun." Even though hunting is fun for many people, it still serves a very specific ecological purpose. humans have largely killed or driven off large predators- bears, wolves, etc are much less common than they were before human populations rose. We need humans to kill prey animals to fill the ecological niche once held by the predators we've since killed or driven away. Generally I think both laws and public opinion tend to be favorable towards animal killing/cruelty if is a means to an end but not an end unto itself.

Cock fighting is illegal even though chickens often have it worse in factory farms. People are regularly arrested for abusing or killing animals. I have seen many news stories over the years about a person who did something cruel to an animal, and the public outrage to said story being considerable...again, even though food animals in factory farms often have to endure much worse.

now I will admit s that part of the public reaction/laws surrounding pointless animal abuse is not concern for the animal, but concern for people. People who derive pleasure from torturing and killing animals sometimes graduate into people who then do the same to humans. So someone who mistreats an animal "just for fun" is often considered dangerous to people too. But I do think a genuine feeling that causing another living thing pain for no reason plays into it as well.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Seems you're the one in a hole, because you continuously repeat the same idiotic argument: I have never said that everything goes, if we're talking in the context of a human society. I agree with you that there are rules we have created to find harmony as a society, and that there are harmonious ways to live as a society.

But is it morally better to be harmonious as a society than not, and if so why? Is there anything more to morality than harmoniousness, or is that the end of the matter?

To be consistent you have to say "No, harmony is morally irrelevant. Harmonious societies are not morally better or morally worse than violent anarchy. Who is to say they are, the universe? Hah!".

But in nature (and this only takes serious, unbiased, scientific observation), when it comes down to the gene, anything goes as long as it favors the survival of the gene. This is what I'm arguing with you. This one little part that has no bearing on moral arguments. This little part that deals with genes (as opposed to memes).

Is this the naturalistic fallacy tapdancing back out (if you are claiming that the survival of a gene is morally good), or just a total irrelevance (if you are claiming that the survival of a gene is morally meaningless)?

Beyond the fact that such conclusion is "pretty" or "ugly" or "indecent" or "unacceptable by human standards", or that such conclusion is or isn't a good role model for a moral society, that's another issue. But if you're gonna discuss nature as it is, then you have to get off your Moral Objectivism high horse. Because nature is amoral.

How many times are you going to repeat this (while accusing me of being a parrot, no less)?

One last time. The laws of physics are amoral. Animals are (mostly) amoral. Humans are animals and part of nature as much as anything else, and humans have moral ideas.

Your keep repeating "But animals and the laws of physics have no moral ideas! Therefore we should not either. That's trivially obvious. I mean, do we think we're better than animals or the laws of physics? The very idea is disgusting!".

Now go back and claim that I'm suggesting we should go outside and kill and rape everyone. Go ahead and keep repeating that as a parrot. A blind, obtuse parrot that doesn't understand what he's being told.

Have a good day.

"What I tell you three times is true. I don't see what your problem is, I've told you I'm right three times. Now I'm scarpering".

 

[Piscivore]

No, I have polling. But what difference will it make?

I am interested, apart from the general discussion, to know whether this is a evidence-supported fact or not.

 

[Piscivore]

the fact that animal cruelty is against the law and cases of animal cruelty appear on the news regularly shows us that even meat eating humans seem to feel that if you kill or harm an animal, it should be for a reason: it's food, it's a pest, it's dangerous, it's overpopulated, etc. I feel like society wants more of a reason than "we wanted to kill it' or 'it was fun." Even though hunting is fun for many people, it still serves a very specific ecological purpose. humans have largely killed or driven off large predators- bears, wolves, etc are much less common than they were before human populations rose. We need humans to kill prey animals to fill the ecological niche once held by the predators we've since killed or driven away. Generally I think both laws and public opinion tend to be favorable towards animal killing/cruelty if is a means to an end but not an end unto itself.

Cock fighting is illegal even though chickens often have it worse in factory farms. People are regularly arrested for abusing or killing animals. I have seen many news stories over the years about a person who did something cruel to an animal, and the public outrage to said story being considerable...again, even though food animals in factory farms often have to endure much worse.

now I will admit s that part of the public reaction/laws surrounding pointless animal abuse is not concern for the animal, but concern for people. People who derive pleasure from torturing and killing animals sometimes graduate into people who then do the same to humans. So someone who mistreats an animal "just for fun" is often considered dangerous to people too. But I do think a genuine feeling that causing another living thing pain for no reason plays into it as well.

The statement I questioned specified "kill or harm". Considering the popularity of the Mcnugget, leather shoes, pest control companies, and Thanksgiving dinner, etc, I have my doubts most people are opposed to killing animals.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The statement I questioned specified "kill or harm". Considering the popularity of the Mcnugget, leather shoes, pest control companies, and Thanksgiving dinner, etc, I have my doubts most people are opposed to killing animals.

Please re read your own posts.

cain originally made the statement that humans are generally opposed to killing or harming animals unless it is for a good reason. You then asked her to prove it. You did not question the statement "people are against killing or harming animals" as a general statement but that people are against killing or harming animals for no reason

mcnuggets, leather shoes, thanksgiving dinner, and pest control companies all kill animals for a reason. Food, clothing, food, animal is a pest.

My point was that yes, when there is a reason for it, people are generally okay with killing animals. But I think that cain's statement that people are against killing or harming animals when the person has no reason to do so is generally, though not always true.

 

[Cain]

I am interested, apart from the general discussion, to know whether this is a evidence-supported fact or not.

If it's apart from the discussion, but you're still interested, then you can look it up. Is your Google-fu weak?

I'll tell you what I'm tired of doing, and that's winning an irrelevant argument.

The statement I questioned specified "kill or harm". Considering the popularity of the Mcnugget, leather shoes, pest control companies, and Thanksgiving dinner, etc, I have my doubts most people are opposed to killing animals.

Read more carefully. It seems obvious that people think leather, fur, and mcnuggets are good enough reasons.

 

[Piscivore]

If it's apart from the discussion, but you're still interested, then you can look it up. Is your Google-fu weak?

If you had it at hand, I wanted to look at it. Chill out.

I'll tell you what I'm tired of doing, and that's winning an irrelevant argument.

What has that to do with my question?

Read more carefully. It seems obvious that people think leather, fur, and mcnuggets are good enough reasons.

Ah, my bad.

 

[Piscivore]

Please re read your own posts.

cain originally made the statement that humans are generally opposed to killing or harming animals unless it is for a good reason. You then asked her to prove it.

No, I asked if she had data. Not quite the same thing.

You did not question the statement "people are against killing or harming animals" as a general statement but that people are against killing or harming animals for no reason

mcnuggets, leather shoes, thanksgiving dinner, and pest control companies all kill animals for a reason. Food, clothing, food, animal is a pest.

I for some reason disregarded the modifying clause. My mistake.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nominated

I just looked at the Language Award thread... I think three different nihilist manifestos just got nominated by the other nihilists. I suppose uncertainty breeds the desire to affirm and to find affirmation.

 

[Piscivore]

I just looked at the Language Award thread... I think three different nihilist manifestos just got nominated by the other nihilists. I suppose uncertainty breeds the desire to affirm and to find affirmation.

Nihilists with a desire to affirm? That's... odd.

 

[lionking]

I don't mind people being Vegans, it's their damn air of moral superority that annoys me.

QFT.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nihilists with a desire to affirm? That's... odd.

I do find it interesting observing the behaviour of those who endorse moral nihilism. There's at the very least a prima facie contradiction between thinking that all talk of morality is a complete load of cobblers, and actually telling anyone that you think this. After all, if there is no moral imperative to either be honest or to spread the word of moral nihilism, why not just lie and pretend to be moral until you can get away with something, like embezzling a million dollars or murdering someone?

One possibility is that they enjoy articulating the moral nihilist position so much that they do so even though it cannot be in their own best interests to out themselves as moral nihilists. Another is that they pay lip service to moral nihilism but do not live by their claimed moral philosophy, and so they are honest about their views and otherwise act in moral ways despite their lip service. We need a term for these people - Pseudo-nihilists perhaps?

 

[Puppycow]

(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 also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

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

(Apologies for jumping in on a super long thread)

I think you have a good point. The urge to rape may be a natural instinct for men, but that doesn't excuse it.

Furthermore, I don't think there's anything particularly special about homo sapiens. Some people are harmful to society and better off dead. The golden rule assumes reciprocity. If a person does not follow the golden rule with me, I see no reason to give them the benefit of it.

One possible response is that animals are going to die anyway and their flesh will be consumed by something. We provide them with food, shelter and opportunities to reproduce. We can also slaughter them in a way that may be quicker and involve less suffering than if they die naturally of hunger, disease or predation by other animals. I think that at a minimum we should try to minimize the suffering of domestic animals and game animals.

 

[cienaños]

post by Kevin Lowe

But is it morally better to be harmonious as a society than not, and if so why? Is there anything more to morality than harmoniousness, or is that the end of the matter?

To be consistent you have to say "No, harmony is morally irrelevant. Harmonious societies are not morally better or morally worse than violent anarchy. Who is to say they are, the universe? Hah!".

I'm not sure if the question is built to stand:

1. The origin of consciousness predates morality.
2. The existence of harmony predates the origin of consciousness.

Also birthed around the same time as "morality?": Subjectivity and Objectivity. Therefore, it appears harmonious societies can be [depending only on who you ask] both morally better and morally worse, simultaneously.

Broadly speaking then, we can assume living coupled with thinking about living informed the beginnings of "morality" or rather, the "behaviour" that appeared to yield *favorable results.

This included(-es) killing animals.

Now, once you get here, the whole thing just splinters all over the place. Essentially the hows and whys. Mutilated sharks, altered livestock, high fructose corn madness, etc... This is the arena where most of the "animal rights" hubbub appears to be focused. It lacks a wider comprehension.

Also lacking wider comprehension? The OP by Brocolis, that great steward of knowledge, unrivaled holder of truths.



*favorable as in 'having a bent towards species survival'

 

[Belz...]

(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 also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

1) The golden rule applies to sentient beigns.

2) Spiders have no business in my home.

3) Beef tastes good.

4) I have to eat.

5) We kill them in the most humane ways possible, if only out of empathy.

 

[Belz...]

you are not an animal.

Beg to differ.

Social Contract is not a good way to justify killing animals.

In your opinion.

What is your justification for killing plants ? Don't they have a "right" to live, too ?