The Ethics of Hurting Animals

[Time the Crestfallen]

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

I hate to be that guy, but...

*clap emoji*

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

Not an open declaration, but the implications are there. Also,

In morality, those are entirely different beasts, because the life of a human and the life of an animal are pretty different in worth.

This completely contradicts what you said earlier.

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.

[solrocknroll]

I hate to be that guy, but...

Not an open declaration, but the implications are there. Also,

This completely contradicts what you said earlier.

I don't think they deserve to be murdered. I meant on a scale of if athey're going after an animal like a lion and end up getting hurt in the process. That was said as an extension of Dwalin's point about hunters facing actually dangerous animals.

In my personal opinion, all lives are equal. But I know that that isn't the way the world works, and I'm not going to force that in any judicial manner. It is a fact that people's lives technically matter more than animals' lifes. I just personally feel that animal lives should e elevated to the same status.

[Flee Fleet!]

I'm late to say this...but...

if the swords is sharpened enough you can use it to kill an animal (for survival or food that is) as it will cause minimum pain and suffering to the animal.

Also, a lot of people already said stuff like this so...but i'll give my opinion....

Animals are to be treated kindly, but when it's necessary to kill them, we have to. And the only times we need to kill an animal is either for food or survival. Besides, if we don't eat meat, we won't get protein, except from maybe something like eggs.

And we also have plants. They're all basically living and breathing and we don't even think about them feeling all that pain when we hit them or cut them, or break their branches. Sure, there are people who detest deforestation and want to prevent cutting down of trees so some building can not take it's place, but majority of people won't bat an eye to a tree near their home.

Sp, yeah. We humans are basically more concerned of our lives than that of an animal or plant, some of which that don't even live as long as the average humans.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Flee Fleet!

[blah the Prussian]

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.

Well, you know, and then the government of Zimbabwe, a brutal, kleptocratic totalitarian dictatorship, proceeded to cry crocodile tears as an excuse to bash the west. But actually, there are plenty of hunters who take contracts from communities to go after animals that are a problem. There are also ones who target the sick and the weak. So would you consider a lion who roars after killing a gazelle evil?

[Ken Masters]

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.

That's not true.

We behave as any other species on the evolutive tree. The conditions of survivalism have changed, that much is true, but our goal as a species, keeps being reproducing. Yes, even in high developed countries.

Marrying is a human construction, by the way. Doesn't mean the people who doesn't get married can't have sex. So that proves absolutely nothing. Our primal motivations exists yet, because we feel hunger, we feel the need to drink, sleep, etc, and we conciously seek to please them.

People who won't reproduce, are effectely getting their genes naturally selected to not being passed to a further generation, thus further changing human genome over the evolutive line, and so preserving those individuals with the stronger primal instincts of self presservation and reproduction. And that is a proven fact.

Point is, primal motivations are in our every day actions, and evolution hasn't lost us at all. Stop believing we're "above" that, because we're at the same evolutive level than snails.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Ken Masters

[solrocknroll]

Well, you know, and then the government of Zimbabwe, a brutal, kleptocratic totalitarian dictatorship, proceeded to cry crocodile tears as an excuse to bash the west. But actually, there are plenty of hunters who take contracts from communities to go after animals that are a problem. There are also ones who target the sick and the weak. So would you consider a lion who roars after killing a gazelle evil?

I would consider that lion at least kinda bad. Taking pleasure after killing anything from any species bothers me.

It's why I'm often more sympathetic to herbivores.

[Ken Masters]

I would consider that lion at least kinda bad. Taking pleasure after killing anything from any species bothers me.

It's why I'm often more sympathetic to herbivores.

How can you possibly apply "good" and "evil" to an animal? The do not know about those conventions, unless they are conditioned by human behaviour, like dogs (and even there, the reaction of percieved "guilt" it's just a response of fear triggered by associating a certain action to a violent response of the human, not actual self conciousness).

[Skynstein]

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.

Not really, to have rights a human just needs to legally exist. That's how every law system in every democracy works. If I go on a killing spree and go to jail because of it, no matter how despicable my crime was, I still have rights despite not respecting others' right to live.

The reason domesticated animals don't have rights is because they're considered property. Things don't have rights.

I'm not particularly specialized in this but, with the duty to respect animals' integrity, must come a right, which someone is entitled to. The concept of individual animals having rights is not viable because animals are for all intents and purposes treated as things, not bearing their own identity beyond the nicknames owners call them, and not being able to pledge before a judge in defense of their supposed "rights". The subject of the right related to the duty not to hurt animals is society itself.

[EricaofRenais]

I am a person who loves animals but I do eat meat because I have health problems that mean I can't eat much fruit and I have to be very careful about which veggies I eat. I have problems with animal rights people because two years ago at the holidays someone lied and said my family was abusing our horse who was 32 and had cancer, all my mom and I wanted was one last Christmas with him before we had to have him put down, but because of what that person said we had to put him down the week before Christmas and because horses are so big we were not allowed to bury him and there is no animal crematorium that takes horses where we live so they hauled his body away in a dump truck. I will never forget or forgive the person that destroyed the last few days I had with my horse because they made me wish I was dead too. Being for animal rights is fine but make sure you are not hurting other animals or people when you decide something is wrong. I grew up learning to ride that horse and our other horse grew up with him too she missed him for months and I know she knows that it did not happen the way it should have. I live in constant fear that this person will cause me more problems.

[blah the Prussian]

That's not true.

We behave as any other species on the evolutive tree. The conditions of survivalism have changed, that much is true, but our goal as a species, keeps being reproducing. Yes, even in high developed countries.

Marrying is a human construction, by the way. Doesn't mean the people who doesn't get married can't have sex. So that proves absolutely nothing. Our primal motivations exists yet, because we feel hunger, we feel the need to drink, sleep, etc, and we conciously seek to please them.

People who won't reproduce, are effectely getting their genes naturally selected to not being passed to a further generation, thus further changing human genome over the evolutive line, and so preserving those individuals with the stronger primal instincts of self presservation and reproduction. And that is a proven fact.

Point is, primal motivations are in our every day actions, and evolution hasn't lost us at all. Stop believing we're "above" that, because we're at the same evolutive level than snails.

Then why do asexual people exist? Maybe we still have evolution acting on us, but we're also at the point where we don't necessarily care if we don't pass on our genes. We have also unambiguously moved beyond survival of the fittest in developed nations.

Not really, to have rights a human just needs to legally exist. That's how every law system in every democracy works. If I go on a killing spree and go to jail because of it, no matter how despicable my crime was, I still have rights despite not respecting others' right to live.

The reason domesticated animals don't have rights is because they're considered property. Things don't have rights.

I'm not particularly specialized in this but, with the duty to respect animals' integrity, must come a right, which someone is entitled to. The concept of individual animals having rights is not viable because animals are for all intents and purposes treated as things, not bearing their own identity beyond the nicknames owners call them, and not being able to pledge before a judge in defense of their supposed "rights". The subject of the right related to the duty not to hurt animals is society itself.

You still have some rights, but your right to liberty is taken away, and you must obey the prison guards. Execution also represents taking away the right to life. The only right that's really inviolable is freedom from torture and degrading treatment.

[Ken Masters]

Then why do asexual people exist? Maybe we still have evolution acting on us, but we're also at the point where we don't necessarily care if we don't pass on our genes. We have also unambiguously moved beyond survival of the fittest in developed nations.

Your questions makes no sense. You're implying that a minority of the population dictates the behaviour of the majority.

What causes a person to be asexual is irrelevant (and a discussion for another time), when the point is that their genes will not be transmited to the next generation (for obvious reasons), thus naturally selecting the genes that do create individuals capable of reproduction. Natural processes will continue to affect our species as it does with every living thing, regardless if you care or not. If person "A" doesn't care to "pass its genes", that only validates more the fact that the species has just avoided the genes that dictates the behavioral pattern of "inabilty to pass genes by not caring". The species then keeps behavinmg as any other species down the evolutive line.

You are not able to step outside of your human perception of superiority above the anciento forces that rules every living thing, and so, you're failing to understand that you cannot escape'em.

Survival of the fittest still applies, under different conditions, true, but it exists in every single aspect of your life. The good thing about science and proven facts, is that, regardless if you "believe" in them or not, they continue to exist and rule.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Ken Masters

[Phoenix Wright]

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.

does this mean domesticated animals and zoos bring animals to a heightened plane of existence because survival day-to-day doesn't need to be worried about? what about animals with no natural predators like the banana slug?

i think you'd be surprised by what some animals do on an individual, daily basis. you sell other animals short.

matrimony proves nothing because plenty of other animals are single-partner as well. if anything, it proves the opposite. marriage generally ensures that children will be born and bred for the next generation.

[blah the Prussian]

does this mean domesticated animals and zoos bring animals to a heightened plane of existence because survival day-to-day doesn't need to be worried about? what about animals with no natural predators like the banana slug?

i think you'd be surprised by what some animals do on an individual, daily basis. you sell other animals short.

matrimony proves nothing because plenty of other animals are single-partner as well. if anything, it proves the opposite. marriage generally ensures that children will be born and bred for the next generation.

Humans didn't develop civilization for thousands of years without a natural predator. I'd be interested to see what a population of animals kept in captivity for thousands of years would become, but there simply hasn't been enough time for the lack of danger to override the basic instincts of animals. And yes, there are exceptions, but none of them have achieved what humans have, probably due to other factors that vary from case to case.

[Phoenix Wright]

you are judging nature itself with very human standards. i wouldn't say i necessarily agree with cykes-dono and others that the lives of animals matter more than humans, or less. we all simply are.

civilization, science, etc. that has all only aided the ultimate goal of longevity. as a collective species, everything we do is in the name of our survival. that we showcase a heightened sense of altruism not seen in any other animal does not make us more important than another creature, nor does our intelligence. can you prove why it does?

these exceptions break the logic by which you have built your opinions on.

Then why do asexual people exist? Maybe we still have evolution acting on us, but we're also at the point where we don't necessarily care if we don't pass on our genes. We have also unambiguously moved beyond survival of the fittest in developed nations.

homosexual animals exist. pandas exist. you'd do well listening to some talks from jane goodall and reading "the selfish gene" from dawkins. i've said this to you before, actually, that you'd generally do well learning a bit more about biology.

we very much care to pass on our genes--that statement is patently false. and because of our altruistic behaviors, survival of the fittest has never been a thing to the extent it is for all other animals. save maybe the humans from our earliest history.

[blah the Prussian]

you are judging nature itself with very human standards. i wouldn't say i necessarily agree with cykes-dono and others that the lives of animals matter more than humans, or less. we all simply are.

civilization, science, etc. that has all only aided the ultimate goal of longevity. as a collective species, everything we do is in the name of our survival. that we showcase a heightened sense of altruism not seen in any other animal does not make us more important than another creature, nor does our intelligence. can you prove why it does?

these exceptions break the logic by which you have built your opinions on.

homosexual animals exist. pandas exist. you'd do well listening to some talks from jane goodall and reading "the selfish gene" from dawkins. i've said this to you before, actually, that you'd generally do well learning a bit more about biology.

we very much care to pass on our genes--that statement is patently false. and because of our altruistic behaviors, survival of the fittest has never been a thing to the extent it is for all other animals. save maybe the humans from our earliest history.

Right. I'm conceding the point. I'll switch to what I was arguing from the beginning: if human morality is a social construct, why should it apply to animals, including human interactions with animals?

[Phoenix Wright]

it doesn't apply to animals. it does apply to humans' interactions with animals because it involves a human. a dog biting a man doesn't make the dog evil. a man kicking a dog because he likes to hear it whimper has very real implications of the state of mind the person is in when he harms animals.

for humans, it isn't just immoral to treat other humans cruelly, it is immoral to treat other creatures cruelly. personally, when someone tortures bugs i feel bad for the bugs (and lose respect for the person hurting them). yeah, they can't think, but they feel pain as any other macro-organism (at least fauna) does.

abusing cows that eventually become your beef is immoral for the same reason as kicking one's dog is immoral. taking the life of a pet just because you can is similar.

i'm not against eating meat, personally. it's a part of a human's natural diet. but i do think animals, because we're altruistic and moving away from instinct, deserve our respect as fellow creatures on the planet. we're the only life we know of in our entire universe, after all.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Ken Masters]

it doesn't apply to animals. it does apply to humans' interactions with animals because it involves a human. a dog biting a man doesn't make the dog evil. a man kicking a dog because he likes to hear it whimper has very real implications of the state of mind the person is in when he harms animals.

for humans, it isn't just immoral to treat other humans cruelly, it is immoral to treat other creatures cruelly. personally, when someone tortures bugs i feel bad for the bugs (and lose respect for the person hurting them). yeah, they can't think, but they feel pain as any other macro-organism (at least fauna) does.

abusing cows that eventually become your beef is immoral for the same reason as kicking one's dog is immoral. taking the life of a pet just because you can is similar.

i'm not against eating meat, personally. it's a part of a human's natural diet. but i do think animals, because we're altruistic and moving away from instinct, deserve our respect as fellow creatures on the planet. we're the only life we know of in our entire universe, after all.

I agree with you.

I'm happy to see that at least one person here understands that morality can only be applied to humans under specific social constructs (like culture), and nothing else.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Ken Masters

[eclipse]

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.

Oh, hello backtracking.

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're the one that brought up this comparison, with the bold being mine.

Now, go back to the first page, where I first answered this topic. No, I'm not doing that for you, go read your own topic. Next, find at least one other person in the exact same situation as me, in this topic. It's only thanks to technology/location that I have the luxury of NOT hunting my own stuff - otherwise, I'd be out in the woods, looking for dinner with a gun. In other words, accident of birth aside, I'd be the hunter, for reasons stated earlier. So, by demonizing hunters, you're telling me that I'd be equivalent to a serial killer. If I were to conform to your morals, I'd be dead - whether or not it would be by my own hand is debatable, because I'm not looking forward to starving to death.

In other words, your morals do not trump the rights of others to live.

What I CAN argue is that the modern-day meat market is in need of serious reform. If the profits of the various meat industries would be put towards making meat both healthier and more humane (as in, removing antibiotics from feed, not using shitty things for feed, better living conditions, etc.), I think that it would be a lot better. It would also mean that my food prices would go down, since I wouldn't have to buy such ridiculous cuts of meat, just to make sure I digest it properly.

[blah the Prussian]

it doesn't apply to animals. it does apply to humans' interactions with animals because it involves a human. a dog biting a man doesn't make the dog evil. a man kicking a dog because he likes to hear it whimper has very real implications of the state of mind the person is in when he harms animals.

for humans, it isn't just immoral to treat other humans cruelly, it is immoral to treat other creatures cruelly. personally, when someone tortures bugs i feel bad for the bugs (and lose respect for the person hurting them). yeah, they can't think, but they feel pain as any other macro-organism (at least fauna) does.

abusing cows that eventually become your beef is immoral for the same reason as kicking one's dog is immoral. taking the life of a pet just because you can is similar.

i'm not against eating meat, personally. it's a part of a human's natural diet. but i do think animals, because we're altruistic and moving away from instinct, deserve our respect as fellow creatures on the planet. we're the only life we know of in our entire universe, after all.

I agree with you about torture and cruel treatment, essentially because I'm against being a dick. What, however, about hunting, which was the issue that started this topic?

[Phoenix Wright]

hunting for sport is cruel in my honest opinion. respecting the lives of animals includes not killing them for sport.

if you kill them and use them for something, that's cool. i won't go as far as cykes, but i can't say i agree with the practice, and i can't say it gives a person brownie points with me. there are far better hobbies.

[blah the Prussian]

hunting for sport is cruel in my honest opinion. respecting the lives of animals includes not killing them for sport.

if you kill them and use them for something, that's cool. i won't go as far as cykes, but i can't say i agree with the practice, and i can't say it gives a person brownie points with me. there are far better hobbies.

So long as you don't have a moral objection to it we're fine.

[Phoenix Wright]

well, i do. i don't think people should kill anything for sport.

[Pride]

well, i do. i don't think people should kill anything for sport.

Huh? What's the moral objection to killing for sport?

An action is only unethical as long as its to the detriment of the human race, the whole point of "right and wrong" is to create a system where behaviors that perpetuate and develop humanity are rewarded and behaviors that stunt, damage or endanger humanity are punished. There is plenty of room for debate on what actions fall into which category and when, but I can't imagine a single way that responsible hunting (hunting that doesn't endanger the ecosystem and potentially cost us valuable resources that can't be replaced) is to humanity's detriment. Argue this to me man cause just saying you dont like cause you dont like it is some frivoulous stuff

[Dwalin2010]

Huh? What's the moral objection to killing for sport?

An action is only unethical as long as its to the detriment of the human race, the whole point of "right and wrong" is to create a system where behaviors that perpetuate and develop humanity are rewarded and behaviors that stunt, damage or endanger humanity are punished. There is plenty of room for debate on what actions fall into which category and when, but I can't imagine a single way that responsible hunting (hunting that doesn't endanger the ecosystem and potentially cost us valuable resources that can't be replaced) is to humanity's detriment. Argue this to me man cause just saying you dont like cause you dont like it is some frivoulous stuff

Immagining yourself to be the object of hunting would answer your question. But you don't want to think about that, do you? It's not that you "can't", you DON'T WANT TO.

"An action is only unethical as long as it's to the detriment of the human race". Really? Says who? You, a human yourself? That's hardly an impartial opinion. If some animals were more intelligent, they could have assumed the same self-important position. The very fact that some humans boast about being in the center of the universe and being superior to other species (not just in terms of intelligence, but in terms of priority of who has to live and who has to die), this is by itself the proof that they still have a long way to go to become really "superior". A superior being has humility, not a haughty attitude towards the less developed fellow beings.

Hypothetically speaking, if an alien civilization more advanced than humanity started treating humans in the same way you suggest to treat animals, you wouldn't like that at all, would you?

And before you say what I suspect you might say, please, don't derail the discussion by picking on words with observations about aliens most likely not existing. You understand perfectly what I mean anyway, this was just a hypothetical example positioning you as prey, not the hunter, just to make you think about what you would feel or say, if you were treated in the same way as you suggest to treat others.

If you think that reflecting about such things is below your dignity, since animals are inferior etc etc then, well, I just keep reading. Phoenix Wright will provide better arguments I think (in this thread I completely agree with him).

All this talk about everything being focused on usefulness to humans.....According to you, even the whole eco-system (not just individual animals) should be maintained without damaging it too much, NOT because it has the right to exist and makes the planet more interesting and sometimes (in some places) even more beautiful, but ONLY because it's USEFUL to humans. So, if the eco-system was just a nice decoration and wasn't crucial for humans, then we would have the right to destroy it just because we feel like it? That's an awful position. But again, here every misunderstanding could be solved if you at least tried to immagine YOURSELF to be the "object to be eliminated", but nobody among people who share your opinion ever want to do so.......

Edited November 4, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Phoenix Wright]

hunting for sport is cruel in my honest opinion. respecting the lives of animals includes not killing them for sport.

just as i think kicking a dog is cruel, so too is killing one for sport.

Huh? What's the moral objection to killing for sport?

An action is only unethical as long as its to the detriment of the human race, the whole point of "right and wrong" is to create a system where behaviors that perpetuate and develop humanity are rewarded and behaviors that stunt, damage or endanger humanity are punished. There is plenty of room for debate on what actions fall into which category and when, but I can't imagine a single way that responsible hunting (hunting that doesn't endanger the ecosystem and potentially cost us valuable resources that can't be replaced) is to humanity's detriment. Argue this to me man cause just saying you dont like cause you dont like it is some frivoulous stuff

eh, maybe. but there's half-a-dozen competing philosophies on how one ought to measure that. nothing in philosophy is black and white, pride. i think that's typically the major motivation for its study.

humans are infamously not responsible hunters, anyway. so even if i conceded that responsible hunting is okay (i don't), practically speaking that still happens to not align with reality. it's a false approximation of human behavior and therefore a flawed argument.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Phoenix Wright