The Killing of Animals in its many aspects

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by glatt
Lady Sidhe, in the prison thread, you mentioned that you agree with the notion of deliberately infecting convicts with AIDS or cancer so that medical testing can be performed on them. And in this thread you say you won't fish because you feel sorry for the worm on the hook.

Worms get significantly more sympathy than humans? Why do they rank higher for you? Do you feel more kinship with a worm than with a person who has broken the law? Have you ever broken any laws?

Yes, they do, and here's why: animals don't make war (prey) on their own kind. They don't kill one of their own kind because they like the other one's coat.

Bear in mind that when I advocate using convicts for medical testing, the following holds true:

1. The convicts to which I am referring are death row inmates. People who are slated to die anyway, who deserve to die for what they've done, and who damn well ought to pay society back in some concrete way for the terror and sorrow they've caused.

2. Animal testing does not give results that are accurate for human beings. Human trials are necessary before the drug is marketed anyway, so rather than use innocent volunteers, who may not understand the risk they are taking, use murderers, rapists, and child molesters. It's no less than they deserve, and it's paying us back for room, board, clothing, etc.


And yeah, as a kid I broke some minor laws, like underage drinking, for example. But you know what? I have never deliberately harmed anyone, much less done it over and over again intentionally. They prey on society, and when they're caught, too bad, so sad, pay the fucking piper. They can at least make themselves useful.

Sidhe

[mrnoodle]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
They prey on society, and when they're caught, too bad, so sad, pay the fucking piper. They can at least make themselves useful.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, because it makes sense in a way. But how can we be humane to animals if we aren't humane to our own kind? Who will determine what is acceptable use of a death row inmate? If it's ok to use them for AIDS research, is it ok to test hairspray on their eyes? Kind of has a ring to it actually, but that's my baser nature coming through.

You specifically mentioned "killing their own kind." When a chimpanzee murders one of its compadres, is it then eligible for cancer research, in your view? If a weasel wipes out a henhouse in a fit of bloodlust, is that different from the chimp murder? If there's a difference, is it because one killing is interspecies? Both are murder.

If all living creatures are equal, shouldn't they be held to the same standards regarding the taking of life?

I'm not being facetious. I've just always had a problem with putting animals on a pedestal as if they are so utterly innocent and noble simply by virtue of their lack of humanity (general anti-treehugger comment not directed at Sidhe)

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by mrnoodle
I'm not saying I don't agree with you, because it makes sense in a way. But how can we be humane to animals if we aren't humane to our own kind? Who will determine what is acceptable use of a death row inmate? If it's ok to use them for AIDS research, is it ok to test hairspray on their eyes? Kind of has a ring to it actually, but that's my baser nature coming through.

You specifically mentioned "killing their own kind." When a chimpanzee murders one of its compadres, is it then eligible for cancer research, in your view? If a weasel wipes out a henhouse in a fit of bloodlust, is that different from the chimp murder? If there's a difference, is it because one killing is interspecies? Both are murder.

If all living creatures are equal, shouldn't they be held to the same standards regarding the taking of life?

I'm not being facetious. I've just always had a problem with putting animals on a pedestal as if they are so utterly innocent and noble simply by virtue of their lack of humanity (general anti-treehugger comment not directed at Sidhe)

The chimp question would have to be put to the chimp council. The weasel in the henhouse is doing what weasels to to survive. There's no malice in its actions. There is no malice in the animal predator /prey relationship. Now, the chimps, being closer to us on the evolutionary scale, DO kill out of malice. Therefore, they will usually be treated according to the rules of their society. At least in animal society, discipline is swift and sure.

As to being humane, it's simple. The animals haven't preyed on us. They're just minding their own business, doing whatever it is they do. Death-row inmates DO prey on their own kind, and when caught, should have to pay society back in some way, not only for the misery they've caused, but for putting them up in a cell. Yep. It's ok to do whatever needs to be done. Once you're on death row, you should lose all rights. If you don't want to act like a member of society, then you shouldn't be one. If you want to act lower than a rabid dog, you should be put down like one.

I didn't say that all living creatures are equal, and I don't put them on a pedestal. I merely said that I believe that all creatures have a right to live their lives. Humans should be held to a higher standard because they're supposedly more evolved.

I don't equate the human violent criminal with the weasel because the human commits his act with malice or for profit, KNOWING that what he is doing is unacceptable, and knowing the penalties if he's caught; the weasel kills to survive. It's not the same thing.

People prey on each other for base, malicious reasons. Animals do not prey on their own kind. As a matter of fact, they have their own hierarchies, and enforce them. There isn't the chaos we see in human society.


Sidhe

[Elspode]

Don't get me wrong, I'm an animal lover, but as humans are (mostly) at the top of the food chain, what difference does it make how we prey on everything else and what we choose to do with its dead remains?

Is eating your prey the only acceptable disposition for it?

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
People prey on each other for base, malicious reasons. Animals do not prey on their own kind. As a matter of fact, they have their own hierarchies, and enforce them. There isn't the chaos we see in human society.

I am loath to get back into this debate, but here goes. Animals do kill their own kind, and they do kill for sport. Male Lions will kill cubs that are not his own. Wolves will kill the dominant member of its pack in a attempt to gain control of the group. Leopards will hunt and kill and then leave the carcase with out taking a bite. There are plenty of other examples of this type of behavior.

True none of it is to the extent that humans take it, but animals do still do it.

[Lady Sidhe]

To Elspode:

IMO, yes. There's no point in killing an animal if you're not going to use it in its entirety. Humans have the unfortunate habit of hunting a species until it is extinct, for fur, or a head, or some other stupid reason, and they don't realize that each creature has its place, and that the destruction of a species can have a domino effect. ( For instance, according to the biologist who wrote a book called "Dust," the extinction of a certain species of ant would completely upset, and possibly stop, the growth of food plants (wheat, grain, etc.) in the world. The ant performs a function, and there are creatures who feed only on this ant, who in turn serve a function, and so on.) Just because we're human doesn't mean we know it all, and it doesn't mean we always make the right decisions.


To Brig:

Yes, I know about the lions and wolves. Both kill for particular reasons specific to their kind, though, not out of malice. Wolves will fight the leader for dominance and the right to mate, which strengthens the pack. Survival of the fittest. Lions who take over another lion's pride kill the cubs so that they will have unrivaled supremacy, and so that their own genes will predominate. That's how it works in the animal world. The strongest survive to pass on their genes, ensuring the optimum chance of survival of the species.

However, in the human world, physical strength isn't necessarily the most desirable trait. It doesn't contribute overmuch to our survival, as it does with lower animals. And murderers, rapists, and child molesters are not the ones we want passing on their genes. We survive because we've created a society with rules. If people are allowed to break those rules with impunity, society is in danger of anarchy, which is not good for our species.

Animals don't go around killing their own kind indiscriminately, for no reason, and when they do kill their own kind, which isn't common, they do so because of an evolutionary instinct or imperative that impels them to improve the species (except, perhaps, in the case of chimps). Humans aren't slaves of instinct, and therefore should be held accountable for the destructive actions they commit, and indeed, to a higher standard of behavior, because of their superior intelligence and reasoning ability.

Besides, animal society is not our society. We can't apply our rules of conduct to them, any more than their rules of conduct can be applied to us.

Sidhe

[mrnoodle]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Besides, animal society is not our society. We can't apply our rules of conduct to them, any more than their rules of conduct can be applied to us.

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.

A salmon goes to spawn. It will die once it makes the trip. It might be eaten by a bear. It might get landlocked. I might catch it. It's going to die, period. By inserting my presence into the salmon's world via fishing, I haven't changed reality for the fish. I haven't caused it any pain that it was not already destined to endure. Plus, my family gets yummy salmon.

If there is any ethical consideration to be made, it is to quickly harvest the fish to minimize unnecessary stress and pain for the animal. Why does the fish have to die? Because I caught it. A smarter fish got away though. The cycle will go on, and the species will evolve.

[Lady Sidhe]

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