The Ethics of Hurting Animals

[solrocknroll]

Swords are 100% worse than guns because the death is so much worse. If anything, I'll say that guns are at least more merciful than close range weaponry.

I believe that all animals are innocent and deserve life. Hurting animals is worse than hurting people in my eyes.

[This topic was split from tangents in the White House thread generated from this post which is being provided for context.]

Edited October 29, 2016 by Balcerzak

[blah the Prussian]

Swords are 100% worse than guns because the death is so much worse. If anything, I'll say that guns are at least more merciful than close range weaponry.

I believe that all animals are innocent and deserve life. Hurting animals is worse than hurting people in my eyes.

Want to take this into a seperate topic? Me tearing this belief apart is too off topic for this thread.

[Moblin Major General]

Want to take this into a seperate topic? Me tearing this belief apart is too off topic for this thread.

Add me to this, as I have several choice words for Ms. Bunch as well.

[Dwalin2010]

I agree with Cykes-dono about animals, there aren't many people who condemn hunting, unfortunately. I understand if somebody hunts for survival, because they have nothing to eat, but I disagree completely with the statement by some people that the life of ANY human is more important than the life of ANY animal by default.

[blah the Prussian]

Right, going to bed now, will continue in the morning, but will outline my position here:

1. Animals are by default morally inferior to humans because they have no concept of morality. They do what they must to survive; morality doesn't enter into it. They have no malice, but they also have no compassion.

2. Animals, thus, have no rights. In order to have a right, one must respect the rights of others, which animals clearly don't. Animals are a part of nature, where their survival is clearly dependent on their strength. They should be treated as such. The exception is domesticated animals, who we expect to respect the rights of other people and animals in that if they screw up we either send them to obedience school or put them down.

3. As such, hunting is part of the natural process with humans acting as predators. Further, hunting has been shown to be needed to keep animal population under control in some cases. The idea that humans somehow have less of a right to the deer than a wolf is ludicrous.

So that's all from me. Hylian, back me up due to the aforementioned going to sleep. Peace.

[Moblin Major General]

I agree with Cykes-dono about animals, there aren't many people who condemn hunting, unfortunately. I understand if somebody hunts for survival, because they have nothing to eat, but I disagree completely with the statement by some people that the life of ANY human is more important than the life of ANY animal by default.

The unfortunate fact is, even domesticated animals can do damage to the fabric of society through crop destruction. Not to mention some species will eat themselves into starvation if not hunted (i.e.Kaibab deer). It seems habitat protection is your goal, but population control is as important as leaving endangered species alone. Your heart is in right place, but your heads don't quite seem to be.

[eclipse]

I don't agree with this, because I require meat to survive. If it's a choice between an animal's life or my own, bye-bye animal.

[Naughx]

^ If I'm hungry I'm going to kill the cow for a good steak anyways. I couldn't care less about their life as long as they aren't suffering.

As a 8 years old kid, we were playing with a cow's guts out of curiosity... (I was raised on a farm)

Edited October 29, 2016 by Naughx

[Dwalin2010]

Keeping the animal population under control? Just by killing a certain number, and you have no problem with pulling the trigger and taking a life? In this case, why does nobody keep under control the population of, let's say, mafia members? Why not go out shooting mafiosi, especially in small Sicilian towns where everybody knows who is a member of the mafia and who committed which crime, even if nobody talks to the police? This would be fare more useful than shooting animals to keep their population down, yet nobody does that. Killing a gangster is still murder, I understand, yet for example killing a kitten is surely more morally reprehensible, as I see it.

Anyway, it's useless to talk about it if a person can pull the trigger on an animal and feel nothing (or even feel pleasure) as life leaves the living being's body. You either have moral scruples that prevent you from crossing the line or you don't. For example, my grandfather was a hunter once. He tried to kill a hare, but just wounded it. After seeing its agony and hearing its cries he had to kill it quickly to stop the suffering, but still does feel like a murderer and never did it again. In my opinion, if you don't feel shocked or "dirty" after having killed a living being that can express suffering while dying, then it's useless to discuss. Moral scruples are something that we either have or don't, I don't think they can be acquired through discussion. Although different people have different concept of moral scruples, some people would kill an animal but wouldn't (maybe) kill a human. Others could kill insects but couldn't kill animals like mammals and birds etc. I personally don't pretend to be completely "clean" and "innocent" in this. If I was, I would be a vegetarian or vegan. I tried, but failed, lost control after 2 years without meat and fish, so I am in no position to judge anyone. But this doesn't change the fact that some people are much worse than animals and some animals can show feeling and compassion. Killing a kitten or a puppy is worse than killing a gangster or a serial killer, imo.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Moblin Major General]

Keeping the animal population under control? Just by killing a certain number, and you have no problem with pulling the trigger and taking a life?

If killing is wrong, does that mean you don't have the right to defend yourself? You both are tumbling down a black diamond, if that means anything to you.

[Dwalin2010]

If killing is wrong, does that mean you don't have the right to defend yourself? You both are tumbling down a black diamond, if that means anything to you.

No, I am not saying that it's wrong to defend yourself. Killing in self-defence is justified by any law and common sense I think. I wasn't questioning that at all.

[Life]

No, I am not saying that it's wrong to defend yourself. Killing in self-defence is justified by any law and common sense I think. I wasn't questioning that at all.

And killing for survival? If I require meat to survive, I can kill, correct?

Have you ever heard of the idea of culling a population? I learned about this after the Cecil thing (dicks out for Cecil and Harambe). Animals can actually destroy other populations or themselves if their population isn't kept in check.

[UNLEASH IT]

Since plants are also living things, shouldn't they also have a right to life as well?

[Moblin Major General]

No, I am not saying that it's wrong to defend yourself. Killing in self-defence is justified by any law and common sense I think. I wasn't questioning that at all.

What if that meant killing an irate cow or buck? Is it wrong to kill a pissed off animal who can't use its words to express it's frustration at a random human? They don't think, thus they cannot discern right from wrong.

[Baldrick]

A good rule of thumb is: don't cause any unnecessary suffering to any creature.

[Dwalin2010]

And killing for survival? If I require meat to survive, I can kill, correct?

Have you ever heard of the idea of culling a population? I learned about this after the Cecil thing (dicks out for Cecil and Harambe). Animals can actually destroy other populations or themselves if their population isn't kept in check.

I understand, yet the human population is so big that it has done more harm to the planet than the population of any animal species. Still, nobody says the human population should be reduced by simply shooing random people down. That would be a horrible crime, it would be wrong. So who gave humans the right to decide that animals can be killed just like that, not only in exceptional cases like self-defence or lack of food? Unless you think that the most important principle in the world is the "rule of the strongest" and the winner is always right because of having won and climbed to the top of the "natural hierarchy".

Still, Blah the Prussian talks about morality, that humans have it and animals don't. Yet his next statement is that this would give humans right to do to animals whatever they want. Is this a moral approach to the matter? Again, unless you think that morality is an outdated concept that isn't to be taken seriously, I don't completely get the position of people who justify animal killing.

What if that meant killing an irate cow or buck? Is it wrong to kill a pissed off animal who can't use its words to express it's frustration at a random human? They don't think, thus they cannot discern right from wrong.

That's a little different from the cases I was thinking about, like hunting for fun or for profit (like selling tiger pelts etc). If no other solution is physically possible, we kill the animal, just like a criminal who wouldn't surrender and started shooting at the police would be killed. The thing I objected to is the idea that a human and an animal should get different treatments in the same situations, only because an animal is a less intellectually developed being.

Since plants are also living things, shouldn't they also have a right to life as well?

That would be possible only in an ideal world. Everybody has to eat at least SOMETHING, so the best people can do is not to kill (or reduce it to the minimum) the living beings that can feel and express pain. Theoretically maybe even plants have some kind of "feelings", but there is no choice, unfortunately. Limiting the diet is one thing, but starving ourselves to death would be another.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Ken Masters]

Before this is used as an argument, daily reminder that 99% of all life forms that ever existed on the earth are extinct... and yet, here we are.

Extintion of species is something that happens. If an animal can't adapt to the new conditions, then it will be naturally selected to disappear. Humans are that condition, AND YES, it's a natural one. All of what a human does is a natural act. Morality is irrelevant when talking about evolutive forces.

So no, the world will not shed a tear if rhinos are a gonner. The ecosistem will adapt to the empty space, and continue on. Would it suck? Sure, because Rhinos are cool. But it has no real weight on the grand scheme of things.

On the chance of "Harm to the planet" argument comes up: Again, morality is irrelevant. Human are a change factor on the ecosystem, but that isn't inherintly bad or good. For example, before the Cambrian Era, the sea floor was covered by microbial mats. By the end of the Cambrian, burrowing animals had destroyed the mats in many areas through bioturbation (the reworking of soils and sediments by animals/plants), and gradually turned the seabeds into what they are today. As a consequence, many of those organisms that were dependent on the mats became extinct, while the other species adapted to the changed environment that now offered new ecological niches. It was one of the biggest "cataclism" on Earth's history, but surprise surprise, life continued on.

Humans are not the last step on this planet's ladder, things will come after us. Frankly, thinking that the way the Homo Sapiens behaves as a species is hurtful to the planet, is simply put, a delirious cry of selfishness.

[Dwalin2010]

Frankly, thinking that the way the Homo Sapiens behaves as a species is hurtful to the planet, is simply put, a delirious cry of selfishness.

Listen, could you please try to make a point without insulting with words like "delirious"? I try to talk in a neutral manner (without personal attacks at least). As for "selfishness", here I don't get you at all. Isn't the concept of selfishness just the opposite? Criticizing my own species and acknowledging its faults, how is this selfish? Then what, if I said we should exploit the planet and the nature 100% whenever we want, just because we are "the owners" of the planet, and can abuse nature even for ridiculous reasons like in cases of banal fighting between different countries that dry out natural resources in the process of trying to "kick each others' butts", wouldn't THAT be a selfish reasoning?

But I completely agree with your statement that humans are not the last step on this planet's ladder, things will come after us. If more people realized that and didn't think they are the perfect culmination of the evolution and the best result nature could ever achieve, things would definitely get better.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Rezzy]

I believe in treating animals humanely, and I even brake for squirrels and other critters when driving, but we humans have evolved to eat meat and most people do. I grew up in rural Illinois across the road from a cow farm, and guys hunting deer was a common site. I went hunting a few times, but didn't really care for it. My sister does hunt. Her husband got her a rifle for her birthday one year, if that gives you an idea.

Humans rights take precedence over animals in every case. When everyone was talking about Harambe, I believe killing the gorilla to save the child was the right call. If he was the last remaining gorilla in the world, it still would have been the right call.

[Dwalin2010]

I believe in treating animals humanely, and I even brake for squirrels and other critters when driving, but we humans have evolved to eat meat and most people do. I grew up in rural Illinois across the road from a cow farm, and guys hunting deer was a common site. I went hunting a few times, but didn't really care for it. My sister does hunt. Her husband got her a rifle for her birthday one year, if that gives you an idea.

Humans rights take precedence over animals in every case. When everyone was talking about Harambe, I believe killing the gorilla to save the child was the right call. If he was the last remaining gorilla in the world, it still would have been the right call.

I understand what you are saying, then people living in rural territories who live by hunting and breeding animals for meat as a source of income to survive, it's not like when some billionaire decides to go hunting rare animals in a national park to feel "excited". There are different cases and circumstances. About Harambe and the child, I don't remember the circumstances well anymore; if he wasn't going to attack the child, in my opinion it was wrong then to kill him "just to be sure he wouldn't make a move".

But I disagree that humans take precedence over animals in every case. If we choose between a baby and a shark for example, I would surely choose the baby; but if I had to choose between the stray cats I am feeding everyday near my house and the life of a mafia godfather or a corrupt politician (even realizing the impossibility of a situation where making such a choice would be imposed), then I would surely choose the cats; sacrificing innocents to save criminals would be wrong, especially if these weren't random animals, but specific ones that I personally know and care about.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Chen]

Since plants are also living things, shouldn't they also have a right to life as well?

I believe the argument used is because they don't feel pain, they're okay to eat/kill/etc.

Personally, I've run into over a thousand grasses in my life.

[Ken Masters]

Listen, could you please try to make a point without insulting with words like "delirious"? I try to talk in a neutral manner (without personal attacks at least). As for "selfishness", here I don't get you at all. Isn't the concept of selfishness just the opposite? Criticizing my own species and acknowledging its faults, how is this selfish? Then what, if I said we should exploit the planet and the nature 100% whenever we want, just because we are "the owners" of the planet, and can abuse nature even for ridiculous reasons like in cases of banal fighting between different countries that dry out natural resources in the process of trying to "kick each others' butts", wouldn't THAT be a selfish reasoning?

But I completely agree with your statement that humans are not the last step on this planet's ladder, things will come after us. If more people realized that and didn't think they are the perfect culmination of the evolution and the best result nature could ever achieve, things would definitely get better.

It wasn't an insult, though? I'm sorry regardless.

I should have probably worded that in a more aproppiate way.

You got the "selfish" part of my post with a different train of thought, but it's okay because you are unable to de-atach your views from our social constructs (which is fine! That's a normal thing for humans, lol)

But when we talk about things that trascend humanity, we have to plug the "I'm a Homo Sapiens" switch off.

Now, the process of applying morality, (a human social construction) to things like evolutive forces, is selfish. It puts our perception of things one step above ancient neutral forces to further expand our illusion of control and make you feel safe.

The ilusion of control is what makes us say "but we can change and save X species". We have no control over natural selection. We can (as a species) somewhat change our behaviour patterns (and we have done so), but never to the extent of achieving complete control on what's going to happen on this planet and it's inhabitants.

Saying that we hurt the planet is a selfish thought.

1- It personifies the planet as a life form that can be "hurt"

2- It puts our perception of what "hurt" is above the positive connotations for other species

3- It applies a human construction (good and evil) to something that should never be catalogued like that (an evolutive force)

All in all, what I want to let clear from this is that humans changing the world trough any possible mean, is a natural process. And as such, it isn't inheritly good or bad, because it's far above it.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Spinal

[CyborgZeta]

I would prefer not to kill anything or anyone, so I personally don't hunt.

I will only kill an animal if it threatens myself or my family.

[Rezzy]

I understand what you are saying, then people living in rural territories who live by hunting and breeding animals for meat as a source of income to survive, it's not like when some billionaire decides to go hunting rare animals in a national park to feel "excited". There are different cases and circumstances. About Harambe and the child, I don't remember the circumstances well anymore; if he wasn't going to attack the child, in my opinion it was wrong then to kill him "just to be sure he wouldn't make a move".

But I disagree that humans take precedence over animals in every case. If we choose between a baby and a shark for example, I would surely choose the baby; but if I had to choose between the stray cats I am feeding everyday near my house and the life of a mafia godfather or a corrupt politician (even realizing the impossibility of a situation where making such a choice would be imposed), then I would surely choose the cats; sacrificing innocents to save criminals would be wrong, especially if these weren't random animals, but specific ones that I personally know and care about.

A 500 pound gorilla is a threat to the child just by being near the child. The gorilla could easily kill the child in seconds before anyone could react. Animals are unpredictable, and toddlers are even more unpredictable. A wrong move could easily set the animal off.

I would choose the life of a criminal over a cat, and I love cats. Human life is not something to be taken lightly. As a doctor, I provide medical care to prisoners regularly. I'm honor-bound to provide care to the best of my ability. To simply provide bad care on purpose or let them die would be unethical at the very least.

I believe the argument used is because they don't feel pain, they're okay to eat/kill/etc.

Personally, I've run into over a thousand grasses in my life.

They say the smell of cut grass is the grass giving off a distress signal.

[Dwalin2010]

Spinal, concerning "morality", I understand that this is a somehow controversial concept that may be understood differently by different people, and maybe, as you say, we could discuss this without applying it, but in one of the previous post the point made was that humans are superior to animals because they have morality and animals don't. So, in order to reply to the post, I couldn't discard the concept of morality.

I would choose the life of a criminal over a cat, and I love cats. Human life is not something to be taken lightly. As a doctor, I provide medical care to prisoners regularly. I'm honor-bound to provide care to the best of my ability. To simply provide bad care on purpose or let them die would be unethical at the very least.

I wasn't talking about providing bad care. I was just making a hypothetical example where I think it would be right to choose an animal over a human. In that specific situation I made up, however unlikely, those cats aren't strangers to me, I care about them and they show affection towards me. If I had to choose between one of them and some random murderous godfather who may have ordered hits on innocent witnesses, how could I not choose the cat? They are like family already, since my own house cat is dead already for almost 3 years. Belonging to a certain species isn't by itself a factor important enough to overcome everything and make a choice in favor of this individual. There are plenty of examples where I would have chosen the human, but I wanted to make one of the opposite kind. Here it's not so much about "human vs animal" as it is "stranger vs personal friend"

Edited October 29, 2016 by Dwalin2010