Originally posted by Roy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Killing animals
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mossrose View PostRun. Very fast.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostFrom a outsider assuming a naturalistic perspective, to me, there is precious little difference between a cucumber and a cow. Both are organic and edible. Both qualify as "alive". Both fit into our evolved diet. Both have to die in order to be eaten. I don't see why intelligence of the species matters. From a Christian perspective, God gave us both to eat as long as we do so with thanksgiving. I see no problem with eating animals.
Hunting for sport is a bit more nuanced. Since we humans have upset the natural balance between predator/prey, herds can (and do) get out of control and cause devastation to the ecosystem, not to mention the increased risk of disease spreading.
Harming animals for fun is morally wrong no matter what angle you look at it.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI'd have much less trouble ethically eating shrimp than eating chimp. Maybe it's because chimps are much more like us than shrimp. But I think it has to do with the complexity of the brain/nervous system, the richness of their experiences and their relations with other members of their species. Chimps appear tp have self-awareness; shrimp probably do not.
If an alien species as far advanced form us intellectually as we are to chickens, were to land, would it be morally okay for them to eat us?Last edited by stfoskey15; 05-01-2016, 09:36 PM.Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.
"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham
"We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card
Comment
-
Originally posted by stfoskey15 View PostSometimes I wonder when it is morally acceptable to kill animals. Since humans are mentally more capable than animals, it makes sense that a human life is worth more than an animal life. So animal killing should be justifiable in terms of self defense. But is human life enough more valuable than animal life to justify things like eating meat and wearing fur or leather clothing? Eating meat is definitely more convenient than trying to find protein (or other nutrients typically gotten from animals) from other sources, and it tastes good. Similarly, fur and leather can look or feel nice. But I'm not sure how to figure out if that's enough to justify killing an animal. On the opposite end from self defense there is animal cruelty; harming animals for pleasure. I think we can all agree that that is wrong, because if nothing else, we as a society do not want to encourage sadism. When killing is acceptable also depends on the type of animal. Insects are so unintelligent that it seems as though killing them would only be bad if it causes significant damage to the ecosystem. Similarly, fish seem less intelligent than other animals, so it's hard for me to find an issue with eating well-farmed fish.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
There's not, really, any sense in which a non-human animal qualifies as 'people'. Human morality simply doesn't apply them. Ideas like murder, theft, or slavery are incoherent when used to describe actions taken towards non-human animals. A lot of people seem to think there are only two moral descriptors: moral and immoral. They forget (or don't know) that there's a third: amoral. Any action that exists or is applied to an entity outside of a given moral system is 'amoral'. Hence, fishing is amoral as is pet ownership as is eating meat.
HOWEVER
A lot of moral principles are based on our innate sense of empathy and sympathy. We're not wired in such a way that these senses apply only to humans, though. Nor are we wired in such a way that everyone has the same sensitivities or can successfully apply them to all other humans. It varies from person to person.
On top of that, we've learned from various branches of science that the same brain structures that give rise to emotions/feelings (e.g., pain, suffering, and happiness) in humans also exist in other mammals if not most vertebrates. It's much harder to tell if the same is true of invertebrates because their evolutionary development has been drastically different from our own. We simply can't draw the necessary parallels. We also know that animals can experience stress, and we can actually see this affect meat quality.
While we can't say that animals fall into a human morality system, we can say that some humans will feel sympathy/empathy for other creatures. This is especially true for those animals we can easily anthropomorphize. It's easy for humans to see cats and dogs as people, for example, and we have a huge amount of fiction literature that reinforces that idea. (It should be noted, however, that this isn't universally true. It's very culture dependent.)
So at the end of the day, it can't be said that any given treatment of animals is immoral. They're all amoral. However, it's perfectly understandable that some people are capable of empathizing/sympathizing with other animals and alter their actions accordingly. That, too, is amoral.
Originally posted by stfoskey15 View PostI agree with all but the first part. As for the first part, one can believe from, say, a utilitarian perspective, that since animals can experience pleasure and pain, it is worthwhile to consider the pleasure and pain of animals against one's own when deciding whether or not to eat them. And the capability to experience pleasure and pain would be correlated to the intelligence of the animal.
This is something I sometimes wonder about. I could see it being morally acceptable, but I would probably instinctively oppose it because I want to live.
Leaving that aside for the moment, it's a mistake to set Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as equivalent to Emotional Quotient (EQ). Measurements of intelligence routinely fail even when applied to other humans. To think the same tests can be set for other animals is ludicrous. They've evolved to fit a completely different set of environmental pressures. There's no way to create an apples to apples comparison.
Further, we have zero ability to quantify another individual's experiences. The same thing that causes you a large amount of pain may hardly faze me. That's even more true with non-human animals. Our ability to identify their pleasure/pain is predicated on our recognition of their emotional and mental states, which only works if they have cues we can correlate to human emotions. We're far more likely to see those emotions in animals with eyebrows than those without, for example. In addition, cues are specific to a given animal type. A rattlesnake wagging its tail is a very different thing than a dog doing the same.
Suffice to say that this isn't a good system for determining behavior.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostFrom a outsider assuming a naturalistic perspective, to me, there is precious little difference between a cucumber and a cow. Both are organic and edible. Both qualify as "alive". Both fit into our evolved diet. Both have to die in order to be eaten. I don't see why intelligence of the species matters. From a Christian perspective, God gave us both to eat as long as we do so with thanksgiving. I see no problem with eating animals.
Hunting for sport is a bit more nuanced. Since we humans have upset the natural balance between predator/prey, herds can (and do) get out of control and cause devastation to the ecosystem, not to mention the increased risk of disease spreading.
Harming animals for fun is morally wrong no matter what angle you look at it.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostDo you know a good way, short of having a gun, to kill poisonous snakes? We've seen some at our local places for fishing. We could tell because their body floated on top of the water. Lucky for us they were far away. In the future though, it might be a good idea to have a plan if they get too close.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
I've raised sheep for 20 years or so now and have struggled with the question of slaughter.
At this point I think of their lives in my pasture as pretty darn perfect. Plenty of food, water, health care, sunshine, free of danger, free of fear. To live a couple years like that and then have your life taken in a matter of a second or two seems pretty ideal. As opposed to slowly starving/freezing to death or being eaten alive by predators.The last Christian left at tweb
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostDad has/had a prybar that was sharpened on one end. It made a good javelin. Similarly, a shovel works pretty well. Just don't get too close to the head even after you killed it. They can still jump and/or bite you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostDo you know a good way, short of having a gun, to kill poisonous snakes? We've seen some at our local places for fishing. We could tell because their body floated on top of the water. Lucky for us they were far away. In the future though, it might be a good idea to have a plan if they get too close.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostDad has/had a prybar that was sharpened on one end. It made a good javelin. Similarly, a shovel works pretty well. Just don't get too close to the head even after you killed it. They can still jump and/or bite you.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
I hunt and fish. I eat what I shoot or catch and have no issues with it. Except coyotes...I don't eat those but I do shoot them (usually) as they are getting out of control population wise...and the Rancher loses several calves a year to predation from them. So he wants us to shoot them when we see them. If there aren't too many for the land to support, they are less likely to attack his calves."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by stfoskey15 View PostSometimes I wonder when it is morally acceptable to kill animals. Since humans are mentally more capable than animals, it makes sense that a human life is worth more than an animal life. So animal killing should be justifiable in terms of self defense. But is human life enough more valuable than animal life to justify things like eating meat and wearing fur or leather clothing? Eating meat is definitely more convenient than trying to find protein (or other nutrients typically gotten from animals) from other sources, and it tastes good. Similarly, fur and leather can look or feel nice. But I'm not sure how to figure out if that's enough to justify killing an animal. On the opposite end from self defense there is animal cruelty; harming animals for pleasure. I think we can all agree that that is wrong, because if nothing else, we as a society do not want to encourage sadism. When killing is acceptable also depends on the type of animal. Insects are so unintelligent that it seems as though killing them would only be bad if it causes significant damage to the ecosystem. Similarly, fish seem less intelligent than other animals, so it's hard for me to find an issue with eating well-farmed fish.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
Or as Homer put it, if God didn't want us to eat animals why did he make them taste so good?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostDo you know a good way, short of having a gun, to kill poisonous snakes? We've seen some at our local places for fishing. We could tell because their body floated on top of the water. Lucky for us they were far away. In the future though, it might be a good idea to have a plan if they get too close.
Or move them away with a long stick or fishing pole.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
161 responses
514 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
Today, 05:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment