Quote:
Originally posted by mrnoodle
True in one sense, but misleading. We can't apply our rules of conduct to them, but our rules of conduct TOWARDS them are necessarily different than those governing our actions towards one another.
|
Right, but that's not the same thing as someone who kills another person for that person's shoes. Or someone who molests a child, or is a serial rapist.
Animal society can be brutal, no argument there. But it's merely for survival. Being a rabbit and worrying about a coyote chasing and eating you is not the same thing as outrunning a bullet you don't even know is coming. One is survival, possibly a chance at escape, the other is sport, and not necessary for the survival of the hunter.
The thread seemed to have gone from a discussion of killing animals to experimenting on death-row inmates, and the justification of doing so. My arguments were to that end.
While I don't care for hunting, and wouldn't do it myself, I don't really have much of a problem with the hunters who pay their dues to take care of the animals they hunt, and ensure that they don't decimate the species. I do have a problem with trophy hunters and fur hunters, though.
I also have a problem with human predators, and when they're caught, I think they should lose all civil rights and become property of the state, to be used in a constructive and beneficial way for the rest of the society against whom they have transgressed.
Animals prey on other animals in order to survive. That's the way of nature. However, humans are more intelligent, not ruled by instinct, and supposedly more evolved. We band into societies in order to survive. The main difference between us and less evolved animals is that the animals have a more orderly society, with consequences swift and sure.
Sidhe