The significance of non-human life

skydyr · **#21**

Bantari wrote:

... or the whole idea of recreational hunting - I find that appalling. I know some animal populations have to be thinned out, but we do not need to make a sport out of it, glorify it, teach our kids how cool it is to shoot Bambi right there, behind the ear, yay! See it wiggle in agony on the ground? Good shot!

I think that killing anything is sad. And when you do it, it is sad. Sometimes you have to do it, that's life, but if you enjoy it, there is something wrong with you, mentally.

While I agree with most of your post, this I disagree with. To me, if one is going to make the choice to eat meat, one is by definition sanctioning the killing of an animal to eat. I think that it's incredibly important to make this decision understanding all of the consequences, and killing the animal you will eat is part of that. If you aren't willing to participate in that directly, it seems hypocritical to participate by proxy, eating animals that have likely been killed in a much less kind fashion, but out of sight and out of mind.

I get the impression that you don't hunt, though you're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't really hunt either, though I have been hunting before, if that makes sense. But while people can have fun doing it for a variety of reasons, many not involving the actual killing itself, very very few people go hunting with the idea of making animals feel pain. When hunters shoot, they are looking to kill quickly and cleanly. On deer, for example, an ideal shot will pierce the lungs and heart and have the animal dead in less than a minute from the time it was unaware that anything was happening. If someone gets to the animal and it's not dead, or it looks like it's not going to die quickly after being shot, no one wants to sit and let it suffer. But to me, if you think that process of making meat is inhumane and wrong, you should not be eating meat.

Incidentally, some of the strongest forces in our past, at least in America, for natural conservation and environmentalism have been hunters and groups founded by them. Their activity is founded on the preservation of clean natural spaces and healthy animal populations that a lot of the people involved in this discussion would appreciate and advocate for.

Bantari · **#22**

skydyr wrote:

Bantari wrote:

... or the whole idea of recreational hunting - I find that appalling. I know some animal populations have to be thinned out, but we do not need to make a sport out of it, glorify it, teach our kids how cool it is to shoot Bambi right there, behind the ear, yay! See it wiggle in agony on the ground? Good shot!

I think that killing anything is sad. And when you do it, it is sad. Sometimes you have to do it, that's life, but if you enjoy it, there is something wrong with you, mentally.

While I agree with most of your post, this I disagree with. To me, if one is going to make the choice to eat meat, one is by definition sanctioning the killing of an animal to eat. I think that it's incredibly important to make this decision understanding all of the consequences, and killing the animal you will eat is part of that. If you aren't willing to participate in that directly, it seems hypocritical to participate by proxy, eating animals that have likely been killed in a much less kind fashion, but out of sight and out of mind.

But this is not what I mean. I agree with you 100%, if you make a personal decision that you will eat meat, then killing is part of this deal, and so is participation, by proxy or not. My problem is with people who glorify killing, make it fun, make it a sport. I understand that in order to eat a cow, I have to kill a cow, and I can do it personally if I have to (although I rather not.) But it will never be a joy for me to do so, it will always be the sad necessity, not something I celebrate or even trivialize and dismiss. I will never teach my kids its *fun* to kill something. I might teach them it is necessary, and even how to do it well. But I will also teach them that it is a serious business, not fun.

Even if it is always a joy to have a good steak or whatever.

I am not really sure how to explain it.
My problem is not with killing per se, I understand it is necessary. It is with the attitude towards killing that some people display.

Bantari · **#23**

skydyr wrote:

I get the impression that you don't hunt, though you're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't really hunt either, though I have been hunting before, if that makes sense. But while people can have fun doing it for a variety of reasons, many not involving the actual killing itself, very very few people go hunting with the idea of making animals feel pain. When hunters shoot, they are looking to kill quickly and cleanly. On deer, for example, an ideal shot will pierce the lungs and heart and have the animal dead in less than a minute from the time it was unaware that anything was happening. If someone gets to the animal and it's not dead, or it looks like it's not going to die quickly after being shot, no one wants to sit and let it suffer.

True, I am not a hunter. But for some reason, I seem to have many friends who are avid hunters. And I could never understand the pleasure of it. If it is about stalking prey and claiming victory, why not do it with photo camera or something. In most hunting situation the poor Bambi is so drastically outgunned, outnumbered, and generally at a disadvantage, from what I understand, that there is really nothing "manly" about killing the poor thing, no real element of "sport". And yet people seem to be very proud of that, toting around bigger and bigger guns and bragging about their kills.

To me, if you want to eat wild game and you have a permit to shoot something - go shoot it, bring it home, and eat it. What is there to brag about, what is there to glorify? Its not like Bambi had a chance. You fund it necessary to kill an animal, for whatever reason, so you did, case closed, nothing to be proud of. Just enjoy the food.

As for clean shots... you are right. But from talking to my buddies about it, my impression is that you want to kill cleanly and fast mostly because it is very unpleasant to have to go and finish the job up-close, you might actually have to look in the animal's eyes. And also - very important - it can be a pain to have to track an injured animal through the bush and then drag him back. And there are laws which say you have to do it when you just injure it. So you want to drop it where it stands, close to your truck, or whatever. Its mostly pragmatism, not moral values, as far as I can see. Still, clean shot and swift kill is better than the alternative, so for whatever reason - it is a good thing that hunters put effort into it.

Quote:

But to me, if you think that process of making meat is inhumane and wrong, you should not be eating meat.

As I said, this process (of "making" meat) is sometimes inhumane, needlessly, and when I know of a place which does it, I try to avoid meat from such place. I will not eat sharkfin soup, for example, because I do not want to fuel the market, even if this particular shark was killed humanely. This is my personal choice, and I am not trying to force it on nobody.

There are also laws governing such things in this country, so I think it is a valid issue. Other than this, animals need to be killed for us to survive - this is a fact, and I have no problem with that. But they do not need to be tortured. And their deaths do not need to be shrugged off and dismissed.

DrStraw · **#24**

Spot on, Bantari. Good post.

Longstride · **#25**

Bantari wrote:

I understand that in order to eat a cow, I have to kill a cow, and I can do it personally if I have to (although I rather not.) But it will never be a joy for me to do so, it will always be the sad necessity, not something I celebrate or even trivialize and dismiss. I will never teach my kids its *fun* to kill something. I might teach them it is necessary, and even how to do it well. But I will also teach them that it is a serious business, not fun.

My problem is not with killing per se, I understand it is necessary. It is with the attitude towards killing that some people display.

Why do you use the word "necessity" / "necessary"? Millions of vegetarians/vegans manage to live long, healthy lives without the "necessity" of killing animals for food.

Also, in my personal opinion, it's precisely the notion that killing animals is "serious business, not fun" that should motivate people to NOT kill animals.

tchan001 · **#26**

Please tell me your opinions with respect to animal ethics in the case of Avian Flu. In Hong Kong recently, they culled 20,000 live chicken at the wholesale market where the virus was tested positive. Would vegetarians/vegans still protest against such killing of animals as being not necessary? Would you rush off to save the chickens to raise in your own home?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-25923508

tchan001 · **#27**

If you are a vegetarian/vegan and you were in the following scenario, how would you react if you wanted to survive and how would you feel thereafter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive:_The ... _Survivors

Monadology · **#28**

tchan, what is the point of your questions? Are you genuinely curious or are you trying to ask "gotcha" questions with the aim of showing that vegans/vegetarians might approve the killing animals under some circumstances? If the former, ignore the rest of this post. If the latter, what are you trying to prove? It's not at all clear that crashed plane flights have anything to do with the ethics of factory farming.

tchan001 · **#29**

"The significance of non-human life" is not just about the ethics of factory farming.
As in go, some of the most interesting areas to study are in the extremes (how to set up complications in the game when behind, how to play out the best endgame sequence, how to proceed with difficult tsumego like situations, etc.). I am quite curious to see the opinions on the extremes in this subject as well.

tj86430 · **#30**

In Finland, one of the main reasons (besides getting the meat) for hunting large animals (such as moose) is to keep the population in check and thus avoid a lot of lethal (both to the moose and humans) road accidents.

Also a lot of small predators that are not indigenous in Finland (mostly originally escaped from fur-farms) are hunted because of the damage they do to indigenous species.

Splatted · **#31**

Tchan you say your genuinely interested in the answers to your questions but I have to admit I'm somewhat doubtful that's truly the case. It's not just the questions themselves but also the way you've already responded to someone who answered one.

tchan001 wrote:

You are now classifying living organisms by their worth rather than talking about the ethics of killing individual living organisms regardless of their worth.

What was that if not a "gotcha" response?

As for the answers to the questions:

1) I've no idea what I would do in such an extreme situation but it's not like meat eaters are any happier eating their friends than vegetarians so I'm not really sure what it is you're asking.
2) Animal disease control methods are something that bother me because I think a large reason for the difference in approach when compared to human disease control is that infected animals (or even animals that are only suspected of infection) are no longer a saleable product and so the extreme option is chosen as a means of preserving stock instead of with the goal of saving as many lives as possible.

hyperpape · **#32**

It's a perfectly consistent position that vegetarianism/vega ism is morally required, but that the preservation of human life is strongly ( or even absolutely) more valuable than preventing animal suffering or death. So certainly a vegetarian could approve of culling birds infected with avian flu.

But there will probably be a range of opinions on that subject, as evidenced by Splatted.

Mike Novack · **#33**

I would like to point to some (unstated) postulates that may be underlying the positions being taken. Not as set collectively being accepted but obne or more of them perhaps.

"Humans are (or should aspire to be) something higher, better, than (other) animals" <<that there is something higher, better, etc.)

"Nature (the natural world) is cruel, evil, etc," <<think about carnivores>>

For example, we humans who are rather clearly evolved as omnivorous animals don't have to be so. We could choose to be vegetarian. This is presumed to be better but that would carry the implication of an underlying belief "a herbivorous animal is better than a carnivorous animal" or perhaps instead a belief "we humans are not animals; we are above all that" (we are different in kind, not just in degree).

Please, I am by no means trying to denigrate such underlying beliefs, just saying that we should recognize the deep down bases from which we are coming.

EdLee · **#34**

Mike Novack wrote:

such underlying beliefs, just saying that we should recognize the deep down bases from which we are coming.

( my emphasis. )

I for one don't belong to the above "we".
I don't accept some of the so-called postulates or axioms mentioned so far in this thread.

If the above "we" is replaced with "some people," it would be an accurate statement.

DrStraw · **#35**

tj86430 wrote:

In Finland, one of the main reasons (besides getting the meat) for hunting large animals (such as moose) is to keep the population in check and thus avoid a lot of lethal (both to the moose and humans) road accidents.

Also a lot of small predators that are not indigenous in Finland (mostly originally escaped from fur-farms) are hunted because of the damage they do to indigenous species.

Another option would be to hunt humans, thus reducing the population and avoiding a lot of lethal road accidents. Obviously that would be a ridiculous argument but it is equally logical.

skydyr · **#36**

DrStraw wrote:

tj86430 wrote:

In Finland, one of the main reasons (besides getting the meat) for hunting large animals (such as moose) is to keep the population in check and thus avoid a lot of lethal (both to the moose and humans) road accidents.

Also a lot of small predators that are not indigenous in Finland (mostly originally escaped from fur-farms) are hunted because of the damage they do to indigenous species.

Another option would be to hunt humans, thus reducing the population and avoiding a lot of lethal road accidents. Obviously that would be a ridiculous argument but it is equally logical.

A tangent, but this just makes me think of Death Race 2000.

tj86430 · **#37**

Many people also euthanize their pet, when the pet is going to die soon and is in great pain.

(and yes, before anyone draws any parallels to human euthanasia, I think it should be allowed under certain conditions)

daal · **#38**

While many people subscribe to the belief that for one reason or another it's normal for humans to eat meat, it's interesting to note that this perception is changing. When I was a kid, vegetarians were no where near as common as they are today. According to Wikipedia, it's gone from 1% in 1971 to 13% of the US population now identifying themselves as vegetarian or vegan. I'm not sure why this is, but my guess is that information is easier to acquire nowadays, and the awareness of the jaw-dropping industrial production conditions is harder to explain away, particularly to kids who have not yet developed such a strong attachment to the taste of meat. Millions of people have proven that having animals killed for the pleasure of eating is neither necessary nor an efficient use of natural resources. Why shouldn't the trend continue? The "normal" of today is not necessarily that of tomorrow.

lemmata · **#39**

Would it be fair to say that the OP is essentially asking the following question (and related sub-questions)?

QUESTION (1): What is the set of conditions under which it is ethical for a human to kill a non-human life form?

The set of conditions may include the motivations and circumstances of the human doing the killing. It may also include relevant properties of the non-human life-form.

QUESTION (1A): Can the conditions you gave as answers to (1) be derived from first principles?

QUESTION (1B): What are those first principles?

QUESTION (1C): Do you agree with the first principles given by others? The answer to this one can only be YES/NO because first principles really cannot be justified.

I personally do not have a strong opinion on this issue because it's such a tough question, which means I cannot make up my mind. That said, any discussion of it sometimes seems premature given that even human life is not given much respect these days.

hyperpape · **#40**

DrStraw wrote:

Another option would be to hunt humans, thus reducing the population and avoiding a lot of lethal road accidents. Obviously that would be a ridiculous argument but it is equally logical.

Equally logical if one thinks that human life is of equal worth to moose life, which is a big assumption.

Mike Novack wrote:

For example, we humans who are rather clearly evolved as omnivorous animals don't have to be so. We could choose to be vegetarian. This is presumed to be better but that would carry the implication of an underlying belief "a herbivorous animal is better than a carnivorous animal" or perhaps instead a belief "we humans are not animals; we are above all that" (we are different in kind, not just in degree).

This borders on being confused. When we say that Hitler is a bad man, while decaying meat has a bad smell, we are not saying that they are bad in the same way. Most of us would say Hitler was evil, or immoral, or unjust. Each word might reflect different assumptions, but we would not apply any of them to the smell.

In the same way, a vegetarian might think that when a non-human animal eats another animal, the pain is bad. But they need not think it is immoral.

The significance of non-human life

Who is online