The Ethics of Hurting Animals

[Chen]

I've also heard that plants can also listen and react to certain types of sound.

I'd love to see a garden just jamming out to music.

[Ken Masters]

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.

Two different beast we're talking about.

1- Blah the Prussian's argument,

2- My argument

1- Blah's argument comes from a human perception of the morality behind killing animals, which totaly applies here because he's debating a social construct with another social construct. (Social constructs being a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice)

2- My argument speaks on a wider range regarding mass extinction and the process behind it. Here social constructs doesn't apply and are not valid arguments against my statements for reasons I already explained.

You have been replying me as if I were Blah the Prussian, which leads me to believe you didn't quite grasped the huge difference between his way of attacking the discussion, and mine. Which is fine, because it's easy to mix things up when you're replying to a bunch of people!

But of course, it's not a valid excuse to use against an argument.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Spinal

[Ken Masters]

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.

While I agree on Hunting for reasons other than directly feeding is a completely natural process, it's not predation.

In an ecosystem, predation is a biological interaction where a predator (an organism that is hunting) feeds on its prey (the organism that is attacked). Predators may or may not kill their prey prior to feeding on them, but the act of predation often results in the death of the prey and the eventual absorption of the prey's tissue through consumption.

Harper, J. (1996). Ecology: Individuals, populations and communities

If there's no feeding on the prey, then there is no predation.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Spinal

[Ema Skye]

Not a hunter; don't want to be one.

Though I won't turn down chicken breast if I'm at the grocery store.

However, I cringe every time I see someone yank a dog leash.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Ema Skye

[tuvarkz]

I believe that all other animals are inferior to Humans, and as such raising them in farms and/or killing them for our benefit is a perfectly valid choice.

However, I am against pointless cruelty against them. We may be masters of the planet but we needn't be evil just for evil's sake.

[Rend Keaven]

I studied Zoology at University and I had my fair share of lectures on animal welfare and ethics. One thing that I'm aware of is that those that dedicate their time in researching or saving animals will be forced to or accidentally kill an animal or two in the process i.e last year I visited a South American rainforest, where me and two friends had to conduct an experiment on butterfly diversity by setting up quadrats in well spaced areas and every time we make our way from base camp to the quadrats we will killed on average 50 leaf cutter ants by stepping on them unnoticed, insects that arrive in groups of thousands that benefit in keeping the ecosystem stable. However it's something we've been to accept. The same goes for beekeepers who have to kill bees (which 7 species have been added to the endangered list recently) that get inside their suits and will unintentionally kill one or two bees when placing the frames back in place.

I'm against the idea of keeping an animal in captivity for the purpose of entertainment, but I'm neutral when conserving animals in areas such as wildlife centres and national parks for the intention of education and conserving endangered species. Killing an animal is part of nature and it's what made us reach where we are today, however a line will have to be drawn if our actions are bringing the population or a species closer to extinction or a bottleneck effect.

[blah the Prussian]

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.

So question: if I kill an animal quickly and painlessly, is it okay? That would be the logical conclusion of that argument.

[CyborgZeta]

However, I am against pointless cruelty against them. We may be masters of the planet but we needn't be evil just for evil's sake.

Forgot to include this in my original post, but this is also how I feel. I don't like seeing animals abused or treated cruelly.

[blah the Prussian]

While I agree on Hunting for reasons other than directly feeding is a completely natural process, it's not predation.

If there's no feeding on the prey, then there is no predation.

Didn't see this at first. I think that someone should have,to eat the animal, and am against hunting purely for trophies.

[Magical CC]

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.

Wound caused by gun is 100% worse than wound caused by sword. Not only it leaves behind a big foreign object and a ton of small metal shards inside your body, it penetrates much deeper and creates a massive shockwave inside your body that destroys your vital organs, the wound itself is also bigger and harder to treat. Not only you will feel extra burning pain, you will also feel your blood vessels explode and your bones shatter. Even a headshot may not kill you outright. Unless carefully placed, you will survive long enough to feel your body dying in a horrible way. If I am a lion in Africa, I would rather to have my heart penetrated by a spear than to be shot by a gun.

Also, we use captive bolt gun to make the cows unconscious before killing them.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Magical CC

[Life]

Wound caused by gun is 100% worse than wound caused by sword. Not only it leaves behind a big foreign object and a ton of small metal shards inside your body, it penetrates much deeper and creates a massive shockwave inside your body that destroys your vital organs, the wound itself is also bigger and harder to treat. Not only you will feel extra burning pain, you will also feel your blood vessels explode and your bones shatter. Even a headshot may not kill you outright. Unless carefully placed, you will survive long enough to feel your body dying in a horrible way. If I am a lion in Africa, I would rather to have my heart penetrated by a spear than to be shot by a gun

Have you ever been shot or stabbed? Is this based on opinion only or medical data? I'm relatively certain that medical data would contradict you and you're going to have to prove that handheld weapons cause less damage than firearms.

When I was in the army, we were taught the exact opposite. I'd rather face a firearm than a handheld weapon due to the ramifications of the injury.

[Magical CC]

Have you ever been shot or stabbed? Is this based on opinion only or medical data? I'm relatively certain that medical data would contradict you and you're going to have to prove that handheld weapons cause less damage than firearms.

When I was in the army, we were taught the exact opposite. I'd rather face a firearm than a handheld weapon due to the ramifications of the injury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab_wound

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_trauma

And this too:

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/

Edited October 31, 2016 by Magical CC

[tuvarkz]

Even if firearm wounds may be more painful to the animal when hunting, it's better for the hunter to stay safe from a melee with an animal that has the physical strength advantage. Hunting is already potentially deadly to the hunter, we need not increase the chances of human deaths happening.

[Dwalin2010]

Even if firearm wounds may be more painful to the animal when hunting, it's better for the hunter to stay safe from a melee with an animal that has the physical strength advantage. Hunting is already potentially deadly to the hunter, we need not increase the chances of human deaths happening.

If hunters die, they knew what they were getting into. Using firearms which (as you yourself just said) cause more painful deaths to animals is a cowardly action. I don't want to get into discussion about people who hunt to survive because they can't get other sources of income, I don't know myself what I would do in their places, so it wouldn't be correct on my part to "condemn" just like that. But if somebody hunts for fun, excitement, profit, things like that, then I am always rooting for the animal who defends itself. A dead hunter? Death is always a bad thing, but I wouldn't shed more tears or feel more grief than I do when I hear on TV about a gangster killed in an underworld war. Those people knew what they were getting into. Although the most cowardly and more morally reprehensible hunters would never be killed during hunting, because they always take caution measures, like for example shooting from big distances with sniper rifles.

[solrocknroll]

If hunters die, they knew what they were getting into. Using firearms which (as you yourself just said) cause more painful deaths to animals is a cowardly action. I don't want to get into discussion about people who hunt to survive because they can't get other sources of income, I don't know myself what I would do in their places, so it wouldn't be correct on my part to "condemn" just like that. But if somebody hunts for fun, excitement, profit, things like that, then I am always rooting for the animal who defends itself. A dead hunter? Death is always a bad thing, but I wouldn't shed more tears or feel more grief than I do when I hear on TV about a gangster killed in an underworld war. Those people knew what they were getting into. Although the most cowardly and more morally reprehensible hunters would never be killed during hunting, because they always take caution measures, like for example shooting from big distances with sniper rifles.

*clap emoji*

Sport hunters are typically extremely vile people. If they die, that's no skin off my back.

[Papa Wolf]

No one really hunts with a melee weapon. If they don't use a gun, they use a bow and arrow or crossbow. There's actually a bow hunting season in Illinois.

[Moblin Major General]

When I was in the army, we were taught the exact opposite. I'd rather face a firearm than a handheld weapon due to the ramifications of the injury.

Civilians don't wear reactive body armor, and the worst you need fear from a blade is your jugular or carotid artery, which is almost instantaneous. The few knives able to penetrate body armor need incredible amounts of force behind them, not to mention the defending soldier is nowadays better trained than nearly any assailant he may come across. I will say that treating stab wounds is a bitch, and that there's a much higher chance of infection with sutures than with casts, but I also will say that getting shot is almost as expensive as being injured in or by an automobile, with or without insurance. Both suck and have killed probably close to billions of people, but they are still necessary in everything we do as people, legal or otherwise.

[Pride]

this is really simple

as long as hurting the animals isnt to the detriment of the human race, it doesnt really matter what you do to em

however, some ways in which animals are mistreated is societys loss

-hunting animals to extinction or to a point that endangers them is usually bad for humans because it can negatively impact the local ecosystem in an unpredictable way, causing us to lose out on something that might have been valuable in said ecosystem that we didnt know about

-putting animals in inhumane conditions in animal testing is usually not good either since animals under heavy stress or otherwise damaged provide results that cant be generalized well, so its in our best interest to make sure they are healthy

-farms that raise massive amounts of livestock usually try to optimize efficiently converting to product, but this can easily result in damage to the local enviroment due to the mass amount of blood urine and waste that arent taken care of. therefore making sure the animals and their waste is effectively taken care of is to our benefit

generally hurting animals unintelligently isnt in our best interest so congrats animal lovers, you win this one

[Dwalin2010]

this is really simple

as long as hurting the animals isnt to the detriment of the human race, it doesnt really matter what you do to em

however, some ways in which animals are mistreated is societys loss

-hunting animals to extinction or to a point that endangers them is usually bad for humans because it can negatively impact the local ecosystem in an unpredictable way, causing us to lose out on something that might have been valuable in said ecosystem that we didnt know about

-putting animals in inhumane conditions in animal testing is usually not good either since animals under heavy stress or otherwise damaged provide results that cant be generalized well, so its in our best interest to make sure they are healthy

-farms that raise massive amounts of livestock usually try to optimize efficiently converting to product, but this can easily result in damage to the local enviroment due to the mass amount of blood urine and waste that arent taken care of. therefore making sure the animals and their waste is effectively taken care of is to our benefit

generally hurting animals unintelligently isnt in our best interest so congrats animal lovers, you win this one

So you mean that animals shouldn't be mistreated only if that backfires to ourselves? It's only a question of "interest" and "convenience"? The fact the they can suffer, feel pain etc doesn't matter to you at all?

[Pride]

So you mean that animals shouldn't be mistreated only if that backfires to ourselves? It's only a question of "interest" and "convenience"? The fact the they can suffer, feel pain etc doesn't matter to you at all?

youre damn skippy its only a question of interest and convenience

i dont give not two shits about how much animals suffer or feel pain because i like having animal products

and before you try and turn this on me then let me ask you: is it ok to kill insects or plants?

those termites are just trying to live in your house, dawg! why you exterminating them like that???

that spider is just trying to make a living in your closet bro! its even cleaning up other pests, why you down it with a shoe???

plants have a life of their own and some even communicate to each other via chemicals, i dont see you boycotting plant-products or calling salads murder

if all life is equal then dont treat things better just because they have a face

if you want to live without taking life, try eating rocks

when that doesnt work out for you you can join the rest of us in trying to optimize the use of this planets resources and accepting that non-human death and suffering at our hands is needed to keep the lights on

[Dwalin2010]

youre damn skippy its only a question of interest and convenience

i dont give not two shits about how much animals suffer or feel pain because i like having animal products

and before you try and turn this on me then let me ask you: is it ok to kill insects or plants?

those termites are just trying to live in your house, dawg! why you exterminating them like that???

that spider is just trying to make a living in your closet bro! its even cleaning up other pests, why you down it with a shoe???

plants have a life of their own and some even communicate to each other via chemicals, i dont see you boycotting plant-products or calling salads murder

if all life is equal then dont treat things better just because they have a face

if you want to live without taking life, try eating rocks

when that doesnt work out for you you can join the rest of us in trying to optimize the use of this planets resources and accepting that non-human death and suffering at our hands is needed to keep the lights on

What can I say....If somebody ripped off your arms or slit your throat or whatever, while proudly stating "I don't give two shits about his suffering", I guess you wouldn't exactly agree with that. By what right do you place yourself in a position of a judge of who can be killed and who can't? And don't answer this with sending back questions and avoiding a direct answer, that would be childish.

Anyway, it's one thing to hunt for survival, it's another to do so for fun. And even those people who do so to survive don't "enjoy" it and especially they don't play high and mighty with words like your "I don't give two shits about their suffering". Animals may not have a sense of morality, but at least they are not arrogant, they aren't able to feel or express such a spiteful thing.

Animals exist for some natural reason. They all have their roles in the natural system and balance, even though it can be broken by humans. People like you, on the other hand, why do they exist? To boast about belonging to a "superior" species and not giving a damn about what other living beings feel?

Of course the ideal would be not to kill plants either, but here it becomes a question of survival and choice between our life and the plant's life. In such cases everybody chooses their own life, but at least the killing may be kept to the minimum, at least by excluding more developed beings like animals who have feelings closer to ours. You, on the other hand, simply state that you have no regards whatsoever and no limits.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Pride]

By what right do you place yourself in a position of a judge of who can be killed and who can't?

Anyway, it's one thing to hunt for survival, it's another to do so for fun. And even those people who do so to survive don't "enjoy" it and especially they don't play high and mighty with words like your "I don't give two shits about their suffering". Animals may not have a sense of morality, but at least they are not arrogant, they aren't able to feel or express such a spiteful thing.

Animals exist for some natural reason. They all have their roles in the natural system and balance, even though it can be broken by humans. People like you, on the other hand, why do they exist? To boast about belonging to a "superior" species and not giving a damn about what other living beings feel?

Of course the ideal would be not to kill plants either, but here it becomes a question of survival and choice between our life and the plant's life. In such cases everybody chooses their own life, but at least the killing may be kept to the minimum, at least by excluding more developed beings like animals who have feelings closer to ours. You, on the other hand, simply state that you have no regards whatsoever and no limits.

Not "who", "what". Everything is practicality. It's not like I'm against non-humans being treated well, but what justifies the effort in doing so if it is not of clear benefit to our species?

There is no problem with hunting for sport, so long as it does not damage the human species or things that can be to our benefit.

I don't advocate creating inbalance in the natural system because the opposite is typically better for us anyway.

You can't start creating "acceptable" limits for something you deem entirely unethical, it's either wrong and shouldn't be done or it isn't. If the basis of hurting animals being wrong is because we can relate to them, is that not vanity? Is it ok to pick something sentient apart limb by limb if it doesnt feel pain? It's pure vanity, and if anyone is taking the time to boast about being "superior" it's you, boasting of the luxury you have being able to care about what non-humans feel while people in this world struggle to survive.

I don't care what animals feel because saying I do would make me a hypocrite as I continue to participate in a civilization that cannot function without taking non-human life. Suffering is inevitable, and I'd rather keep my shit straight then pretend I care as I go day in and day out using the death of other life to enjoy myself. If it matters to you that much, then come up with some way to live without taking any life at all.

[blah the Prussian]

What can I say....If somebody ripped off your arms or slit your throat or whatever, while proudly stating "I don't give two shits about his suffering", I guess you wouldn't exactly agree with that. By what right do you place yourself in a position of a judge of who can be killed and who can't? And don't answer this with sending back questions and avoiding a direct answer, that would be childish.

Anyway, it's one thing to hunt for survival, it's another to do so for fun. And even those people who do so to survive don't "enjoy" it and especially they don't play high and mighty with words like your "I don't give two shits about their suffering". Animals may not have a sense of morality, but at least they are not arrogant, they aren't able to feel or express such a spiteful thing.

Animals exist for some natural reason. They all have their roles in the natural system and balance, even though it can be broken by humans. People like you, on the other hand, why do they exist? To boast about belonging to a "superior" species and not giving a damn about what other living beings feel?

Of course the ideal would be not to kill plants either, but here it becomes a question of survival and choice between our life and the plant's life. In such cases everybody chooses their own life, but at least the killing may be kept to the minimum, at least by excluding more developed beings like animals who have feelings closer to ours. You, on the other hand, simply state that you have no regards whatsoever and no limits.

I have news for you: orders of magnitude more animals die every single day from natural processes that anything to do with us. We are not by any measure the worst thing to happen to the planet. Fuck, in the Oermean period a desert did much, much more to kill than we ever have- 99% of life on earth to be exact. Animals die all the time. The life of an individual wild animal frankly doesn't have value, because there are a lot more of them. Of course, endangered species are an exception. Animals don't exist in some magical state where they don't feel pain until us evil humans come along. Virtually every single cow we have lives a much more comfortable and happy life than it would have had we left it in the wild. So no, animal's suffering in most cases doesn't overly concern me.

[Dwalin2010]

Not "who", "what". Everything is practicality. It's not like I'm against non-humans being treated well, but what justifies the effort in doing so if it is not of clear benefit to our species?

There is no problem with hunting for sport, so long as it does not damage the human species or things that can be to our benefit.

I don't advocate creating inbalance in the natural system because the opposite is typically better for us anyway.

You can't start creating "acceptable" limits for something you deem entirely unethical, it's either wrong and shouldn't be done or it isn't. If the basis of hurting animals being wrong is because we can relate to them, is that not vanity? Is it ok to pick something sentient apart limb by limb if it doesnt feel pain? It's pure vanity, and if anyone is taking the time to boast about being "superior" it's you, boasting of the luxury you have being able to care about what non-humans feel while people in this world struggle to survive.

I don't care what animals feel because saying I do would make me a hypocrite as I continue to participate in a civilization that cannot function without taking non-human life. Suffering is inevitable, and I'd rather keep my shit straight then pretend I care as I go day in and day out using the death of other life to enjoy myself. If it matters to you that much, then come up with some way to live without taking any life at all.

I repeat it to you, the ideal would be not hurting anything at all, but if the only way to do so is to die of starvation, I choose to stay alive. This doesn't mean however, that it's acceptable to kill whatever and whenever you like. Putting at least some limits to the killing is a lesser evil than killing at will, whenever you feel like that.

And, as said earlier, I don't blame people who hunt because they struggle to survive. But are you one of them? If not, how does that concern you? I don't blame them, I blame people like you who say they don't give a damn about suffering. Many people justify animal killing for one reason or another, but they don't boast their superiority, they usually put forward some good (or not so good) reasons and/or justification. You, on the other and, just state clearly, even though with somehow different words: "if I want to kill, I kill. If they suffer, it doesn't matter to me. I don't need justifications and I don't have to put to my violence any limits if I feel like being violent".

If you don't understand the difference between what the other posters who justified animal killing said and what you said, if you don't understand why saying "I don't give two shits about their feeling and suffering" is a horrible thing to say, it's useless to talk to you. The last thing I think I should say to you is that, if you are saying those things not out of impulse, but after having actually seen something or somebody die and not feeling anything about it, if that's your position on deaths of animals (including all those details like bleeding, agonizing, crying) and you don't feel the least uncomfortable about it, then I can't know your next step wouldn't be to extend this point of view to humans too. After all, it's easier to go from killing animals to killing humans than it was before you killed anything at all. I personally would never leave my back exposed to a person who has no problem with killing. Animals may be less intelligent than humans, but the outlook of the process of dying is more or less the same: agonizing, bleeding, crying, having an expression of suffering in the eyes etc. If you have seen this (or at least are able to imagine those things clearly) and that doesn't disturb you a bit, only because they don't belong to your species, it's hard to buy the assumption that the "exception" you make for your own species will last forever. And even if it did, not having problems with suffering and death is creepy. Some people simply try not to think about it when they are eating meat or other situations. That may be called hypocritical by someone and, as I said earlier, I myself am sometimes a hypocrite, but to openly boast about "not giving a damn" while fully realizing what you are talking about, that's a disturbing sign. Almost nobody else put it in that way. They may say some "good reasons" may "outweigh" or "justify" the killing, but to openly state it doesn't matter at all, that's very different. It's like openly saying "i am an egoist and am proud of it".

I have news for you: orders of magnitude more animals die every single day from natural processes that anything to do with us. We are not by any measure the worst thing to happen to the planet. Fuck, in the Oermean period a desert did much, much more to kill than we ever have- 99% of life on earth to be exact. Animals die all the time. The life of an individual wild animal frankly doesn't have value, because there are a lot more of them. Of course, endangered species are an exception. Animals don't exist in some magical state where they don't feel pain until us evil humans come along. Virtually every single cow we have lives a much more comfortable and happy life than it would have had we left it in the wild. So no, animal's suffering in most cases doesn't overly concern me.

I see what you are saying and, while I disagree with some things, you at least put it in a more moderate position. Of course we can't think about every single being's sufferings, there are just too many of them. In Congo for example, they are still cutting children's hands off during that civil war or whatever happens there now, in some places cannibalism still exists, in North Korea there is a ferocious dictatorship (don't know which examples would be better) but we can't think about every single victim. What I meant is that there are different ways to approach the matter. Openly saying "I don't give a damn, they may well suffer because I want their products" is a kind of statement that illustrates a very different position from all the other points of view here, even the ones who accept the killing of animals.

EDIT: Pride, while I understand I am being rude in this post (although I later edited some of it), and will probably regret the tone later, but I simply can't be so cruel to animals, consider them as expendable resources as if they didn't have feelings, or concentrate all the attention only on my own species; neither can I show understanding to it. Death is death, whether it's an animal to die or a human. Openly saying about not caring and not feeling not only ashamed, but not even a little uncomfortable for the way this world works concering this aspect, this doesn't paint people in a good light.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[eclipse]

*clap emoji*

Sport hunters are typically extremely vile people. If they die, that's no skin off my back.

One more blanket statement in this vein (ANYWHERE on SF, not just this topic) and I'm suspending you. You've violated the spirit of this repeatedly:

Prejudicial comments will not be tolerated under any circumstances. This includes but is not limited to throwing around stereotypes or judging people based on, or making comments offensive to people due to their:

- Race

- Religion

- Sex

- Sexual Orientation

- Origin

This list only provides common examples, but the rule may be applied in other scenarios.