The Ethics of Hurting Animals

[blah the Prussian]

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.

Maybe so, but at the same time that position is essentially the same that all predators have. What I'm saying is that nature has always and almost certainly will always be a place far, far crueler than humans. That we recognize some things as unacceptable to do to animals demonstrates our moral superiority. I do take issue with your statement that you would side with the animal against the hunter/ Question: would you side with the gazelle against the lion, or the rabbit against the wolf? Humans aren't some new thing, I consider us just another predator with relations to nature. A very deadly and effective predator, sure, but a predator nonetheless. If a hunter shoots and eat a deer its no different from a mountain lion mauling and eating a deer, or, for that matter, a Tyrannosaurus killing and eating an Anatotitan.

[Dwalin2010]

Maybe so, but at the same time that position is essentially the same that all predators have. What I'm saying is that nature has always and almost certainly will always be a place far, far crueler than humans. That we recognize some things as unacceptable to do to animals demonstrates our moral superiority. I do take issue with your statement that you would side with the animal against the hunter/ Question: would you side with the gazelle against the lion, or the rabbit against the wolf? Humans aren't some new thing, I consider us just another predator with relations to nature. A very deadly and effective predator, sure, but a predator nonetheless. If a hunter shoots and eat a deer its no different from a mountain lion mauling and eating a deer, or, for that matter, a Tyrannosaurus killing and eating an Anatotitan.

No, I wouldn't, although I feel pity for the prey, I understand the predator has to eat. I don't wish death on hunters either, if they don't really have a choice and hunt to survive; in this case they are just a part of the food chain, like the animals. The hunters I despise are the ones who hunt without being forced by the circumstances, but for pleasure or gain.

[blah the Prussian]

No, I wouldn't, although I feel pity for the prey, I understand the predator has to eat. I don't wish death on hunters either, if they don't really have a choice and hunt to survive; in this case they are just a part of the food chain, like the animals. The hunters I despise are the ones who hunt without being forced by the circumstances, but for pleasure or gain.

But why aren't the hunters who are hunting when they don't absolutely need to a part of nature?

[solrocknroll]

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:

So if you say all serial killers are bad people, is that not also a "blanket statement?" So why are serial killers and animal hunters different beasts? I don't consider the life of a human being any more valuable than an animal.

In fact, you're the one making "blanket statements" here. To someone who is an animal rights activist, hunters are the same as serial killers. Just look at all the big animal rights organizations.

[Life]

So if you say all serial killers are bad people, is that not also a "blanket statement?" So why are serial killers and animal hunters different beasts? I don't consider the life of a human being any more valuable than an animal.

In fact, you're the one making "blanket statements" here. To someone who is an animal rights activist, hunters are the same as serial killers. Just look at all the big animal rights organizations.

This is a silly comparison and you know it.

Human life is infinitely more important than animal life. We can create a society based on knowledge and technology. Name me an animal that does the same.

[solrocknroll]

This is a silly comparison and you know it.

Human life is infinitely more important than animal life. We can create a society based on knowledge and technology. Name me an animal that does the same.

Why does that matter? Why should intelligence be rewarded with life?

Just because humans are smarter and more capable than a ferret or something doesn't mean that the life of the ferret is somehow inferior.

There are more evil humans than evil animals, and I'd rather remove bad people from the world than any animal, even something like a bug.

Animals are here to be protected, not to be callously trampled because only power matters.

[Life]

Why does that matter? Why should intelligence be rewarded with life?

Just because humans are smarter and more capable than a ferret or something doesn't mean that the life of the ferret is somehow inferior.

There are more evil humans than evil animals, and I'd rather remove bad people from the world than any animal, even something like a bug.

Animals are here to be protected, not to be callously trampled because only power matters.

OK. The computer (or phone) you are using right now was only made by clearing out a space of land of all animal life, probably killing a bunch of animals. Maybe a species went extinct, who knows.

Anyway, the waste from the factory probably harmed animals even more. And by buying and using their product, you're encouraging that practice.

If you want to live by your principles, then get rid of anything that could have harmed an animal's life since it was done for your comfort and using it means that you condone it. That includes your house.

Otherwise, you're just trying to get attention.

My problem here is that you are calling for my death because 1) I have killed animals before and 2) I enjoy sport hunting and would do it more if I could.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Life

[tuvarkz]

Why does that matter? Why should intelligence be rewarded with life?

Just because humans are smarter and more capable than a ferret or something doesn't mean that the life of the ferret is somehow inferior.

There are more evil humans than evil animals, and I'd rather remove bad people from the world than any animal, even something like a bug.

Animals are here to be protected, not to be callously trampled because only power matters.

Because animals are mostly instinct driven, and the only cases where the very beginnings of potential free will could be observed have generally only happened in primates and/or dolphins, which are known for being the "smarter" animals. Even dogs are so loyal because they were bred for centuries to instinctively act in such a way.

Unless you were to judge animals by human morality standards, you cannot really say whether animals are good or evil. To boot, if you were to judge them in such a way, the number of species that engage in forced procreation, slavery, parasitism, purposefully targetting the weak, etc etc would mean that there would be far many more evil animals than evil humans.

Also, regarding your last phrase, you forget that 1) Humans are also animals, and 2) The survival of the fittest has always been a constant amongst living organisms, ages before the rise of the homo sapiens. Power doesn't need directly translate to physical or mental might, but at the end of the day for most living organisms it's a constant struggle against each other for survival. This even includes plants, which need to compete for space, sunlight, nutrients in the ground, water, etc.

[blah the Prussian]

Why does that matter? Why should intelligence be rewarded with life?

Just because humans are smarter and more capable than a ferret or something doesn't mean that the life of the ferret is somehow inferior.

There are more evil humans than evil animals, and I'd rather remove bad people from the world than any animal, even something like a bug.

Animals are here to be protected, not to be callously trampled because only power matters.

There are also more good humans than there are good animals. Animals as a whole are a bunch of selfish sons of bitches. You hunk people are selfish? The only goal of animals is to survive. This isn't intelligence being rewarded with life, this is recognizing that animals fundamentally have no rules governing them, and thus are quite literally a different beast legally and morally from humans.

[Phoenix Wright]

There are also more good humans than there are good animals. Animals as a whole are a bunch of selfish sons of bitches. You hunk people are selfish? The only goal of animals is to survive. This isn't intelligence being rewarded with life, this is recognizing that animals fundamentally have no rules governing them, and thus are quite literally a different beast legally and morally from humans.

how does that differ from the goal of humans? lol

[Dwalin2010]

OK. The computer (or phone) you are using right now was only made by clearing out a space of land of all animal life, probably killing a bunch of animals. Maybe a species went extinct, who knows.

Anyway, the waste from the factory probably harmed animals even more. And by buying and using their product, you're encouraging that practice.

If you want to live by your principles, then get rid of anything that could have harmed an animal's life since it was done for your comfort and using it means that you condone it. That includes your house.

Otherwise, you're just trying to get attention.

My problem here is that you are calling for my death because 1) I have killed animals before and 2) I enjoy sport hunting and would do it more if I could.

Very convenient for you, eh? People who have scruples should annihilate themselves by getting out of their houses and starving to death, because that would be the only "coherent" way to follow their principles to the full? So, once they all starve to death, people like you, who not only condone, but enjoy violence, can wreak havoc and have no boundaries or obstacles any more? That will remain just a dream of yours, there still are and will be people who will get into your way when you are trying to get violent and boast your alleged "rights" to be violent.

I realize that people on internet like me or Cykes-dono can't do anything about you, it's just internet talk. But maybe somebody who you lives near you and who can physically meet you in real life, will sometimes stop you when you are getting violent or at least create problems for your thirst for blood, I don't know. "Thirst for blood" may be a harsh and extreme expression, but you said it yourself, that you enjoy hunting for sports (therefore, for fun).

Wild animal predators are often dangerous for humans. At the same time, humans who enjoy killing for sport are dangerous for other humans too. It's one thing to talk without actually seeing death or causing it. Many people can dismiss the pain and suffering of animals as insignificant but, after actually facing it in real life, they often start taking this more seriously and don't like it very much anymore, to put it mildly. Others, who actually have killed and liked it, are a different kind. As it's dangerous to go into a forest full of hungry wolves, it's equally dangerous to interact in real life with people who enjoy killing. Even if they killed only animals, they have already crossed a certain line and the only thing that keeps them from killing humans (if they feel like it) is them keeping in mind the fact they belong to the same species and that humans are more intelligent and capable than animals, therefore giving them "priority". Once a person stops thinking about that, there is no visible difference between killing an animal and killing a human anymore, since the process of dying and agony look exactly the same. I mean, I have no problems with reading your posts on a forum, since here we can just use words. But in real life, it would be seriously dangerous to interact with you in my opinion, if you have really done what you said. If you have killed animals and enjoyed it, then, if I made you seriously angry about something, you would have far less problems with killing me (or any other person who has offended you) than people who have never killed would have. I perceive talking to you online like seeing a predator through a glass wall or a grate. May be boring or interesting, but not dangerous. Interacting with people who enjoy killing for fun in real life, on the other hand, is like removing this wall. If you are really serious and act in real life in conformance with what you just said online, then imho you may be a potential danger (in real life at least), not simply somebody who has a different opinion. You act, not just talk, that's the difference...

Again, here I realize that I am talking in a belligerent manner again, but that is not out of egoism, I simply respect living beings. I don't like to be rude to anyone, I don't know you personally at all and maybe therefore I shouldn't express a judgment about you as a person, but that specific aspect and actions (killing animals for fun and enjoying it) isn't something I can talk with respect or neutrality about, that wouldn't make sense. I can ignore such posts and keep silent, if this post of mine will be considered too rude by the moderators, but pretending respect towards the act of killing would be disrespectful towards the victims on my part.

But why aren't the hunters who are hunting when they don't absolutely need to a part of nature?

Well, no animal hunts for fun and the concept of "profit" is a concept produced by human society. Hunting when you don't need it is a product of luxury created by advanced societies that can allow themselves many things that are later often recognized as useless even by its own members. If, in your opinion, this is part of nature too, then I guess your concept of "natural" is more extended than mine, I don't know how to put it....

Edited November 2, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Time the Crestfallen]

how does that differ from the goal of humans? lol

Depends on how you look at it; taken as a collective, humans are just a selfish as any animal, but things start to get a little more complex when you start looking at smaller group and individual levels. For sure, there are more bad humans than bad animals as animals don't really have a concept of morality whereas bad humans do and willingly flaunt it i.e. animals that practice slavery (slave-making ants), murder children (lions, egg-eating snakes) or rape (dolphins infamously, as well as others) aren't deserving of contempt in the same way that a human who does those things are, because the animals operate on instinct and don't have a concept of morality.

But on the other hand, their are almost certainly more good humans than good animals, if only because we've advanced to the point were survival of the fittest doesn't apply (or at least, not in the same way that it does to other species). But regardless, altruistic behaviour is certainly far more common amongst humans than animals. Realistically, the clincher for this kind of thing is whether or not you believe the very concept of morality itself holds any meaning i.e. should humans hold themselves to a higher standard because we believe in morality, or is the concept meaningless and everything discussed here is justifiable as long as we stand to gain something from it, even if it's something as simple as an enjoyable time (the thrill of the hunt, as it were).

Edited November 2, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Phoenix Wright]

no i mean the goal to survive and flourish. blah speaks as if that is not humankind's one and only goal.

[Ken Masters]

no i mean the goal to survive and flourish. blah speaks as if that is not humankind's one and only goal.

That's because Blah is conditioned to apply human perspective on things that trascend our morality.

Survivalism knows no morality, as it's instinct-driven. Including humans. Saying someone/something is "good/bad" from a survival point of view, is applying a social construct on a force of nature that does not care/know about our social constructs.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Ken Masters

[Time the Crestfallen]

no i mean the goal to survive and flourish. blah speaks as if that is not humankind's one and only goal.

Then I've gone on a two-paragraph rant about a point you didn't even make and, by extension, made myself look a bit silly. Bugger.

Edited November 2, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Phoenix Wright]

that's ok. sometimes i can be unclear

[eclipse]

So if you say all serial killers are bad people, is that not also a "blanket statement?" So why are serial killers and animal hunters different beasts? I don't consider the life of a human being any more valuable than an animal.

In fact, you're the one making "blanket statements" here. To someone who is an animal rights activist, hunters are the same as serial killers. Just look at all the big animal rights organizations.

You just told me, and several people I know (along with others that I'm sure are in a similar position as me), to drop dead. For your own agenda. You don't even know if all of these people are the evil you speak of, either. Yet your hatred is somehow more important than my life.

So, do you have it in you to tell me that I deserve to die, because your morals are more important? I mean, I'd admire your honesty, but shitting on people for the sake of shitting on people is very much against the spirit of the Code of Conduct - whether you do so honestly, or indirectly.

[Rezzy]

I grew up out in the country. Animals are regularly killed both on farms and from hunting.

None of the farmers or hunters I know are sadists. The farmers do it for work, and hunters do it for sport mostly. They don't do it because they like to make the animals suffer. My brother-in-law is always making deer-jerky and stuff like that, too. We don't have any big problems with gun violence or violence directed at fellow humans for the most part. I feel safer when I'm back home, than I have living in Chicago and St. Louis.

[blah the Prussian]

no i mean the goal to survive and flourish. blah speaks as if that is not humankind's one and only goal.

The very fact that humans can and do sacrifice or risk their wellbeing and/or survival for a variety of selfless reasons, from ideology to family to your country, shows that we are more selfless than animals. Sure, you could argue that we do it for emotional satisfaction, but then humans are the only animals that get emotional satisfaction out of being selfless.

Edit: Also, Cykes-dono, you said that no one should be offended for something they can't control. Well, rest assured I'm quite offended at you wishing death on a number of my friends and family.

Edited November 2, 2016 by blah the Prussian

[Phoenix Wright]

i don't see what that has to do with survival being our species only real goal. sure, there's lots of stuff in between, but animals in nature show lots of stuff in between too.

[blah the Prussian]

i don't see what that has to do with survival being our species only real goal. sure, there's lots of stuff in between, but animals in nature show lots of stuff in between too.

Yes, but individual humans in general don't work towards the explicit goal of survival. We are at the point where the main threat to our survival is our own species, and to some extent the selfishness of individual members of our species.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yes, but individual humans in general don't work towards the explicit goal of survival. We are at the point where the main threat to our survival is our own species, and to some extent the selfishness of individual members of our species.

i don't follow

[Time the Crestfallen]

i don't follow

I think he means that there's more to the individual human than a simple desire to survive. Dreams/hopes/ambitions and the like.

[blah the Prussian]

I think he means that there's more to the individual human than a simple desire to survive. Dreams/hopes/ambitions and the like.

Basically. Most humans in the developed world do not have their lives threatened on a daily basis. Even in the less developed world, while people are hardly well off, their lives aren't necessarily in danger. The very existence of people who never try to gt married proves my point; we have moved beyond primal motivations.

[solrocknroll]

You just told me, and several people I know (along with others that I'm sure are in a similar position as me), to drop dead. For your own agenda. You don't even know if all of these people are the evil you speak of, either. Yet your hatred is somehow more important than my life.So, do you have it in you to tell me that I deserve to die, because your morals are more important? I mean, I'd admire your honesty, but shitting on people for the sake of shitting on people is very much against the spirit of the Code of Conduct - whether you do so honestly, or indirectly.

Except I don't recall saying anyone deserved to die.

I said that I would choose an animal over evil people, but I wouldn't say that hunters are actually evil. There's a callous factor there, but it isn't really "evil." I do still consider them similar to serial killers, but only in practice. In morality, those are entirely different beasts, because the life of a human and the life of an animal are pretty different in worth.

Killing things for fun is pretty barbaric, that much is undeniable. Even if you're doing it to fix the ecosystem, such as having an overpopulation of deer, that's still not strictly for fun. For fun is when you brag about how you killed a lion in a far off country. Cecil the lion's case is the culmination of what I speak of. There's literally zero excuse for something like that to have ever happened. Which is why I said "typically" in my first statement. I maintain with 100% certainty that that man is legitimately evil.