Cecil the lion's killer revealed as American dentist

[Brendan]

I hope you don’t allow yourself to be pressured into “giving in” to a less compassionate way of thinking. Maybe you would never do that, but I don’t know you beyond this board, so apologies if I’ve misread your posts.

So Lily, please review the response from Fr Robert. Do you consider him to lack compassion? Or that you consider your level of compassion to be superior?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have agreed with every post you’ve written, FC34. I hope you don’t allow yourself to be pressured into “giving in” to a less compassionate way of thinking.

The problem with “quantifying” compassion in this way is that the impression is given that individuals can have “greater” compassion merely by extending the reach of their compassion to include a wider sphere of entities. Am I MORE compassionate if I begin to treat slugs, tadpoles, plants, coffee tables and socks in my drawer as if they were on par with human beings?

Wouldn’t it be “less compassionate” to do so?

The critical issue is one of making proper distinctions for the right reasons, no?

Recall that philosophy is the art of making distinctions - an important and applicable art in this case, it would seem.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Nope.

I suspect this is part of the difference in outlook between us. You view humans and animals as fundamentally the same kind of creature with humans being slightly advantaged in terms of capabilities. That would mean the behaviours you permit towards animals (kill and eat for food) would apply, all things being equal, to humans. (You did claim, above, that you would kill and eat another human being, correct?

My perspective is that human beings are fundamentally different from animals. Sure we share biological traits, but the difference is that humans have the capacity to exist as spiritual and eternal beings – this is why moral obligations apply with regard to the treatment of individual human beings but do not apply to individual animals.

Oh, sure, animals that are regarded as pets can legitimately be treated “as if” they are fellow members of the human race, but when push comes to shove they simply are not. You admit as much by claiming you would eat an animal if you were starving. That is where I would draw the line. I would not kill and eat another human being – I’d choose to starve.

I would suggest you read CS Lewis on the humanizing effects on animals who are kept as pets. He argues that a dog, for example, in the company of human beings takes on human-like characteristics which change the moral character of how they are to be treated to a degree. In a sense, moral principles apply vicariously to pets to some degree as a result of their becoming more human-like. I’ll have to find the reference for you.

Do you believe that the exercise of cannibalism in the Donner Party (see link and excerpt below) was morally justified?

(I understand that they did not kill each other for food; they ate the dead) I’ll posit this question: Two men are in this same situation as the Donner party. One is near death and in a coma; the other, also near death, but not quite as weak, cuts off a limb of the man in a coma and eats it, thus causing his death.)

Again, under the circumstances, is this morally justified?

Do you believe that man is a primate?

Should we ask Fr. Robert?

On December 15, Balis Williams died of malnutrition and the group realized that something had to be done before they all died. The next day five men, nine women and one child departed on snow shoes for the summit, determined to travel the 100 miles to Sutter’s Fort. However, with only meager rations and already weak from hunger the group faced a challenging ordeal. On the sixth day, their food ran out and for the next three days no one ate while they traveled through grueling high winds and freezing weather. One member of the party, Charles Stanton, snow-blind and exhausted was unable to keep up with the rest of the party and told them to go on. He never rejoined the group. A few days later, the party was caught in a blizzard and had great difficulty getting and keeping a fire lit. Antonio, Patrick Dolan, Franklin Graves, and Lemuel Murphy soon died and in desperation, the others resorted to cannibalism.

Living off the bodies of those that died along the path to Sutter’s Fort, the snowshoeing survivors were reduced to seven by the time they reached safety on the western side of the mountains on January 19, 1847. Only two of the ten men survived, including William Eddy and William Foster, but all five women lived through the journey. Of the eight dead, seven had been cannibalized. Immediately messages were dispatched to neighboring settlements as area residents rallied to save the rest of the Donner Party.

legendsofamerica.com/ca-donnerparty3.html

 

[qui_est_ce]

Does that suprise you? It’s just more Disneyesque thinking.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...u5TnZEFUC1EWIXpiN9bxw2DlniFObnT0HbpDSQY55EyzQ

Exactly. You get it.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Exactly. You get it.

Fair enough. But it is just downright antisocial to leave behind the rest of the family, IMHO.
Buzzkill.

What are our closest animal relatives?

Our closest animal relatives are the great apes: chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas. About 98% of the DNA in your genes is exactly the same as in chimpanzees, making you as closely related to a chimp as horses are to zebras. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor, who was probably swinging through the trees about 5 million years ago. Many other species of ape around at the same time eventually became extinct.

sciencemuseum.org.uk/WhoAmI/FindOutMore/Yourgenes/Wheredidwecomefrom/Whatareourclosestanimalrelatives.aspx

View attachment 22136

 

[FollowChrist34]

One last post here - I need to broaden my definition of the primate family a little:

**Ancient Ancestor Of Humans, Dogs, Cats, Llamas, Sloths, Marmots…
The fossil of a small, shrew-like mammal, found in the Gobi desert 10 years ago, is a member of the taxonomic group that gave rise to all modern placental mammals. Steve Mirsky. June 21, 2007 **

The little guy lived more than 70 million years ago in what’s now the Gobi desert. In 1997, his remains were discovered by fossil hunters. And in a paper published in the new issue of the journal Nature, researchers announced that they think he’s a member of the kind of mammal that is the ancestor of us all. And I do mean all, all placental mammals, you, me, Fido, Felix, manatees, elephants, every placental mammal now living on earth.

The tiny ancient shrew-like mammal is called Maelestes gobiensis. Researchers analyzed over 400 anatomical features of 69 species of living and other fossil mammals, along with the recent discovery. The genealogical tree they drew puts our common ancestor right about the same time that the dinosaurs began to dwindle, due to a giant impact event some 65 million years ago.

So the little shrew offers confirming evidence that the disappearance of the dinosaur lines that didn’t go on to become birds was what allowed mammals to evolve into the multiple forms we see today. And to take advantage of all the opportunities the dinosaurs left behind.

scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/4b1665ec-e7f2-99df-332752a3d3e23b03/

More Disneyland emotionalism! Oh, and the craziest thing is that the lion is a placental mammal too. Who woulda thunk it.

Reason is a gift isn’t it?

 

[Brendan]

Interesting biology lesson there FC.

And I agree, having similar DNA brings about certain physical similarities.

But I have seen nothing in your posts that would require those physical similarities translate into ontological similarities.

Salvation is not a genetic function.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again, under the circumstances, is this morally justified?

I’d say no. If the person had already died, perhaps. I’m still uncertain even about that, however.

To kill another human being in order to survive onself, categorical NO.

Do you believe that man is a primate?

Let me anticipate where you are going with this.

It is morally permissible to kill and eat primates.
Humans are primates.
Therefore, it is morally permissible to kill and eat humans.

The problem with this argument is that the first premise is true only if it were properly written as:

*It is morally permissible to kill and eat SOME primates. *

If it is assumed that it is morally permissible to eat all primates merely because it is permissible to eat some, a proponent of the argument would be engaging in circular reasoning by assuming in the first premise what is proposed to be the conclusion of the argument.

Formally, the argument would be valid ONLY if the first premise came right out and stated:

It is morally permissible to kill and eat ALL primates.

Clearly, that premise and, therefore, the entire argument would be rejected by anyone who does not accept that it is permissible to kill and eat some primates, namely humans.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Let’s try to be clear about the difference between human beings and animals.

Animals may not be moral agents, but there are plenty of individuals who do not possess moral agency that we still have moral duties towards, and who undoubtedly possess rights. The severely disabled people, babies, foetuses - none of these individuals possess moral agency, and yet we certainly have moral obligations to them as individuals. They are all moral subjects that we ought to prevent from suffering, and I’d certainly say that applies to animals as well. Animals aren’t objects for us to consume, they’re creatures that suffer and we ought to stop ourselves from making them suffer. If I read your passage right, you seem to argue that we do not have any moral responsibilities towards animals as individuals. If this is the case, would you say it’s morally neutral to torture an animal provided it doesn’t cause any ecological damage?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Animals may not be moral agents, but there are plenty of individuals who do not possess moral agency that we still have moral duties towards, and who undoubtedly possess rights. The severely disabled people, babies, foetuses - none of these individuals possess moral agency, and yet we certainly have moral obligations to them as individuals. They are all moral subjects that we ought to prevent from suffering, and I’d certainly say that applies to animals as well. Animals aren’t objects for us to consume, they’re creatures that suffer and we ought to stop ourselves from making them suffer. If I read your passage right, you seem to argue that we do not have any moral responsibilities towards animals as individuals. If this is the case, would you say it’s morally neutral to torture an animal provided it doesn’t cause any ecological damage?

Well, no, the severely disabled are prevented from exercising moral agency by whatever disability prevents the use of the faculties and virtues needed to act morally. This is why the condition is called a disability.

If I were to tie you up and gag you, you are thereby prevented fromm exercising those moral virtues required for moral action. That “disability” does not exempt others from having moral obligations towards you, however.

As for babies and fetuses, I am unaware of any principle that states those human beings not yet fully capable of acting morally need not be treated morally.

The difference is that animals, even those without disability, fully developed and mature are not capable of moral virtues or actions. If they were, they would be accountable, morally speaking. This cuts both ways: we neither hold them culpable or responsible.

Even severely disabled human persons may be held both accountable and responsible for actions and decisions which are not affected by their disability. some disabilities, in fact, do not limit moral agency at all. We understand that a disability places limitations on what otherwise fully functional humans are capable of. If disabled persons did not have the disability that limits – through no fault of their own – their moral agency, they would be morally responsible agents.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

So Lily, please review the response from Fr Robert. Do you consider him to lack compassion? Or that you consider your level of compassion to be superior?

Fr. Robert has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I don’t know if he lacks compassion or not. I don’t know him and his email indicated that he was not familiar enough with the subject to give much of a comment.

I give Fr. Robert the benefit of the doubt, though, and consider him a compassionate priest until there is evidence to the contrary, if there ever is. There is not much that can be deduced from his short email, but he seems friendly, compassionate, and sincere.

I want to make it clear that what follows has nothing to do with Fr. Robert. I have grown up with nuns and priests. I have known priests shockingly lacking in compassion. Holy Orders does not necessarily confer a high level of compassion, nor does the lack of Holy Orders confer a lower level of compassion.

In general, I do not compare people’s levels of compassion. I will say that sometimes one’s “holier-than-thou” attitude sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb, and it’s very unattractive. These people are noticeable by their one world posts that attempt to denigrate another poster, etc. (And please know I’m NOT talking about you! You don’t make one word “holier-than-thou” posts and I don’t see that attitude in you. I just want to make that clear.)

My post wasn’t meant to indicate that I had more compassion than someone else, just that I have always had highly intelligent and loving pets and that fact has made me a great lover of animals, which undoubtedly colors my view of the killing of Cecil. (It’s not Disney.) Our own life experiences always color our thinking and acting in the present.

Note to Bubba: I HAVE had experience with wild animals. I spent summers in the country and have been chased by wild pigs, butted by goats, even had to climb a tree once to escape a bear. I know the death and carnage wild animals can inflict. I’ve even gone hunting a few times with some male relatives. Hated it. They were killing for the pleasure of killing, and that to me, despite the fact that wild animals show us no mercy, is just plain WRONG. I have no problem with people killing for food or because they are being threatened by a wild animal, or even when a herd needs culling. What bothers me is that people TAkE PLEASURE in KILLING. There is something immoral and downright cruel in that.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’d say no. If the person had already died, perhaps. I’m still uncertain even about that, however.

To kill another human being in order to survive onself, categorical NO.

Let me anticipate where you are going with this.

It is morally permissible to kill and eat primates.
Humans are primates.
Therefore, it is morally permissible to kill and eat humans.

The problem with this argument is that the first premise is true only if it were properly written as:

*It is morally permissible to kill and eat SOME primates. *

If it is assumed that it is morally permissible to eat all primates merely because it is permissible to eat some, a proponent of the argument would be engaging in circular reasoning by assuming in the first premise what is proposed to be the conclusion of the argument.

Formally, the argument would be valid ONLY if the first premise came right out and stated:

It is morally permissible to kill and eat ALL primates.

Clearly, that premise and, therefore, the entire argument would be rejected by anyone who does not accept that it is permissible to kill and eat some primates, namely humans.

Well, I do agree with you on this. I would NOT kill another human being even to remain alive (and I’d hope he or she would not kill and eat me). And, like you, I would have my doubts about eating another human being who was already dead. However, in my previous post I said the will to survive will drive people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t dream of doing, so MAYBE I would eat an already dead human, but it would be with regret and disgust at the same time.

What bothers me about the death of Cecil is not that a wild animal was killed, but that ANYONE would take JOY in the KILLING OF ANYTHING. I realize animals have to be killed for food. Fine. I realize wild animals sometimes have to be killed in order to protect oneself or another. Fine. I realize that herds sometimes need culling. Fine. But it is morally wrong for ANYONE to take JOY in KILLING. If I had to kill a wild animal to protect another person, I would, but I would kill the animal with some amount of regret. It’s the joy in killing anything that I object to.

While I did not care for philosophy, I did like psychology. I know that people who enjoy killing humans almost always started out as people who enjoyed killing animals.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Well, I do agree with you on this. I would NOT kill another human being even to remain alive (and I’d hope he or she would not kill and eat me). And, like you, I would have my doubts about eating another human being who was already dead. However, in my previous post I said the will to survive will drive people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t dream of doing, so MAYBE I would eat an already dead human, but it would be with regret and disgust at the same time.

What bothers me about the death of Cecil is not that a wild animal was killed, but that ANYONE would take JOY in the KILLING OF ANYTHING. I realize animals have to be killed for food. Fine. I realize wild animals sometimes have to be killed in order to protect oneself or another. Fine. I realize that herds sometimes need culling. Fine. But it is morally wrong for ANYONE to take JOY in KILLING. If I had to kill a wild animal to protect another person, I would, but I would kill the animal with some amount of regret. It’s the joy in killing anything that I object to.

While I did not care for philosophy, I did like psychology. I know that people who enjoy killing humans almost always started out as people who enjoyed killing animals.

PS: I’m NOT saying all hunters turn out to be killers of humans. The vast majority do not. However, I still think there’s something wrong in taking joy in killing. I think many hunters like the actual hunt more than the kill. Maybe that’s why paintball is so popular. Some people like tracking and eluding, but not actual killing.

 

[Brendan]

In general, I do not compare people’s levels of compassion.

But, in this case, you did. You specifically stated

I will say that sometimes one’s “holier-than-thou” attitude sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb, and it’s very unattractive. These people are noticeable by their one world posts that attempt to denigrate another poster, etc. (And please know I’m NOT talking about you! You don’t make one word “holier-than-thou” posts and I don’t see that attitude in you. I just want to make that clear.)

My post wasn’t meant to indicate that I had more compassion than someone else, just that I have always had highly intelligent and loving pets and that fact has made me a great lover of animals, which undoubtedly colors my view of the killing of Cecil. (It’s not Disney.) Our own life experiences always color our thinking and acting in the present.

If that was the case, could you clarify what you meant when you described falling into a " less compassionate way of thinking"

. I have no problem with people killing for food or because they are being threatened by a wild animal, or even when a herd needs culling. What bothers me is that people TAkE PLEASURE in KILLING. There is something immoral and downright cruel in that.

Do you have any evidence that this was the case here? Did you speak to this man, and found out his intent.

Fr Robert indicated that he did know enough about this man to make judgements, but tool a look at the action itself, which, he noted, was not sinful… Do you have greater knowledge?

One case that comes to mind is Matthew 17, the payment of the Temple tax.

I think it illustrates nicely what would be the Christian way of viewing animals. Christ, being God, could have chosen a lesser way of obtaining the coins, perhaps directing them to look under a rock. He could have chosen a means for Peter to gain the money to give to the Church.

I think that we can agree that Christ, being God, only chooses the best means of accomplishing a given task.

But the perfect way was for an animal to die for the money.

Not for food, but simply for the money to pay the church.

If one Zimbabwe worker obtained wages that were used to feed his family, or used it to tithe to the Church or some other work of charity, then the death of Cecil was justified. And would be just an act in accord with Christ as the death of that fish. And one who did so would be no less compassionate that Christ and the Apostles

 

[St_Pancake]

Fr. Robert has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I don’t know if he lacks compassion or not. I don’t know him and his email indicated that he was not familiar enough with the subject to give much of a comment.

I give Fr. Robert the benefit of the doubt, though, and consider him a compassionate priest until there is evidence to the contrary, if there ever is. There is not much that can be deduced from his short email, but he seems friendly, compassionate, and sincere.

I want to make it clear that what follows has nothing to do with Fr. Robert. I have grown up with nuns and priests. I have known priests shockingly lacking in compassion. Holy Orders does not necessarily confer a high level of compassion, nor does the lack of Holy Orders confer a lower level of compassion.

In general, I do not compare people’s levels of compassion. I will say that sometimes one’s “holier-than-thou” attitude sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb, and it’s very unattractive. These people are noticeable by their one world posts that attempt to denigrate another poster, etc. (And please know I’m NOT talking about you! You don’t make one word “holier-than-thou” posts and I don’t see that attitude in you. I just want to make that clear.)

My post wasn’t meant to indicate that I had more compassion than someone else, just that I have always had highly intelligent and loving pets and that fact has made me a great lover of animals, which undoubtedly colors my view of the killing of Cecil. (It’s not Disney.) Our own life experiences always color our thinking and acting in the present.

Note to Bubba: I HAVE had experience with wild animals. I spent summers in the country and have been chased by wild pigs, butted by goats, even had to climb a tree once to escape a bear. I know the death and carnage wild animals can inflict. I’ve even gone hunting a few times with some male relatives. Hated it. They were killing for the pleasure of killing, and that to me, despite the fact that wild animals show us no mercy, is just plain WRONG. I have no problem with people killing for food or because they are being threatened by a wild animal, or even when a herd needs culling. What bothers me is that people TAkE PLEASURE in KILLING. There is something immoral and downright cruel in that.

Anyone that eats dead animals takes pleasure in killing.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Anyone that eats dead animals takes pleasure in killing.

Why are you addressing your post to me, other than the fact that you’ve stated you don’t like me?

I stated some pages back that I’ve been a lifelong vegetarian. I don’t see that changing.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

But, in this case, you did. You specifically stated

I will say that sometimes one’s “holier-than-thou” attitude sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb, and it’s very unattractive. These people are noticeable by their one world posts that attempt to denigrate another poster, etc. (And please know I’m NOT talking about you! You don’t make one word “holier-than-thou” posts and I don’t see that attitude in you. I just want to make that clear.)

My post wasn’t meant to indicate that I had more compassion than someone else, just that I have always had highly intelligent and loving pets and that fact has made me a great lover of animals, which undoubtedly colors my view of the killing of Cecil. (It’s not Disney.) Our own life experiences always color our thinking and acting in the present.

If that was the case, could you clarify what you meant when you described falling into a " less compassionate way of thinking"

Do you have any evidence that this was the case here? Did you speak to this man, and found out his intent.

Fr Robert indicated that he did know enough about this man to make judgements, but tool a look at the action itself, which, he noted, was not sinful… Do you have greater knowledge?

One case that comes to mind is Matthew 17, the payment of the Temple tax.

I think it illustrates nicely what would be the Christian way of viewing animals. Christ, being God, could have chosen a lesser way of obtaining the coins, perhaps directing them to look under a rock. He could have chosen a means for Peter to gain the money to give to the Church.

I think that we can agree that Christ, being God, only chooses the best means of accomplishing a given task.

But the perfect way was for an animal to die for the money.

Not for food, but simply for the money to pay the church.

If one Zimbabwe worker obtained wages that were used to feed his family, or used it to tithe to the Church or some other work of charity, then the death of Cecil was justified. And would be just an act in accord with Christ as the death of that fish. And one who did so would be no less compassionate that Christ and the Apostles

When I addressed FC, and said I hoped she wasn’t persuaded into a “less compassionate way of thinking,” I wasn’t singling out anyone in particular, only non-compassionate people in general. On this board and off this board. She seems an extremely compassionate person, and I hope she remains that way because the world does its best to harden people. That’s all I meant. No comparison, and I certainly didn’t mean you or Bubba, etc. Though I am against trophy hunting, you - and Bubba and Peter - have presented some very good points.But, that is not to say any one of us is more or less compassionate than the other. I tend to have a very soft spot for animals and how they are treated because of my past experiences. That was offered to Peter to explain, in part, why I find the killing of Cecil so sad, and I find it more sad than morally repugnant.

I don’t know if I have more or less compassion than Fr. Robert. I don’t know him. I don’t know which of us has more formal theological education. I am not going to judge Fr. Robert (or you). As I said before, Fr. Robert seems sincere, friendly, truthful, and compassionate, but I know virtually nothing of him from two or three lines of email.

If you read my post, you’ll see I was speaking of hunters who ENJOY KILLING. I don’t know if Walter Palmer enjoyed killing Cecil or not, however, it was reported on the news that he was trying to impress a waitress with photos of himself and the game - including Cecil - that he’d shot and killed. And, since this is a hobby of his - or was - I would assume he gets at least some enjoyment out of it.

I’m not going to argue that God knows best. Of course he does. However, if Cecil hadn’t been killed the workers in Zimbabwe would have earned their money directing Palmer to another lion who was NOT protected. Christ did not lure, i.e. trick a helpless, protected animal to its death. Just about everyone ate fish in ancient Palestine. I’ve said I have no problem with hunting for food, killing a wild animal in self-defense, or culling, when absolutely necessary. You are splitting hairs here. Cecil was a protected animal living in an animal sanctuary. I don’t propose to read Christ’s mind, but I have studied moral theology - formally - and I don’t think Christ would approve of luring Cecil to his death.

Following your line of reasoning, one might say if I robbed a bank or swindled a billionaire out of a few million it would be okay if I gave it to charity. It wouldn’t. It’s blood money, and Cecil’s death was blood money. I don’t think Christ would approve of either. The end has never justified the means.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Interesting biology lesson there FC.

And I agree, having similar DNA brings about certain physical similarities.

But I have seen nothing in your posts that would require those physical similarities translate into ontological similarities.

Salvation is not a genetic function.

Thanks B! And, no I am not trying to argue here that all placental mammals have the same ontological capacity as human beings - that would be absurd.

Think of it more as a push for family values within our larger placental mammalian community - common good. Compassion for the weak and less privileged - the poor relations. Just to the extent that we humans reasonably can, wherever possible. (I am allowing us each as individuals some leeway here. “Freedom.”)

Oh, and I hearken back to the lion and lamb there in the kingdom of God (for whatever reason who knows) and the white horse Christ returns to us on - again how on earth did that thing get there!? Has Scripture gone mad? What sort of value system is that? God on a horse? Both descending from heaven?

Perhaps Scripture knows more than I and Thomas Aquinas and Fr. Robert do in some mysterious way. Perhaps I should respect that; perhaps that is the just use of reason after all - bow to the mystery of revelation which is beyond my understanding in its totality. Perhaps I should stick to reverence for God and his creation, all of his creation. Who knows.

Yours truly,
FC
*Good Christian / Family Values Oriented Placental Mammal / Tree Hugger *

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’d say no. If the person had already died, perhaps. I’m still uncertain even about that, however.

To kill another human being in order to survive onself, categorical NO.

Let me anticipate where you are going with this.

It is morally permissible to kill and eat primates.
Humans are primates.
Therefore, it is morally permissible to kill and eat humans.

The problem with this argument is that the first premise is true only if it were properly written as:

*It is morally permissible to kill and eat SOME primates. *

If it is assumed that it is morally permissible to eat all primates merely because it is permissible to eat some, a proponent of the argument would be engaging in circular reasoning by assuming in the first premise what is proposed to be the conclusion of the argument.

Formally, the argument would be valid ONLY if the first premise came right out and stated:

It is morally permissible to kill and eat ALL primates.

Clearly, that premise and, therefore, the entire argument would be rejected by anyone who does not accept that it is permissible to kill and eat some primates, namely humans.

I know you are a good Socratic rhetorician so I will step carefully. (You’ll be happy no doubt to hear I reread Plato’s Republic on my summer vacation this year. I enjoyed it very much.)

Here is my answer.

(1) Is it morally permissible to eat a dead human to save your own life.

Yes. I’ll borrow Thomas Aquinas’ greater good argument here about stealing the bread to feed the family. (not saying he is on board with this) Let us say that our two Donner party victims in our example are brothers and the rest of the family depends on them to survive. Incidentally, this Donner party scenario has actually happened many times. Families or groups have agreed in advance to cannibalism in order to save some of the family/group - “do what you have to and I’ll do the same.” By eating the dead, the survivor(s) are able to preserve their own life and care for those that are dependent on them, family or wider community.

(2) Is it morally permissible to kill and eat a human to save your own life.

Yes. I’ll use argument (1) and apply it to the same scenario: two brothers are dying from starvation, dehydration and hypothermia. Again, their family depends on them. One brother is in a coma; the other, perhaps not even coherent due to his own degraded state of mind, possibly not even discerning between a coma and death, realizing he is the family’s only hope and that he must fight to survive, cuts off and eats a limb of his brother, thereby killing him. Let’s say he gathers enough strength to wander a mile, meets Indians, is rescued and lives, reconciled to his family. How will God judge his act?

This is a horrible situation, no? It has happened to human beings. It was in accordance with God’s will - a God who is rational and merciful. To a human being’s reason, this is irrational, absurd. A much quicker way to make my point would have been to reference Abraham and Isaac. We have a God who asks Abraham to cut the throat of his own son to prove to Him that he is loyal and faithful, that he loves God more than Isaac. Once God realizes that Abraham is faithful, he rewards him by allowing Isaac to live. Oh, and God is also omniscient, which means that he knew before Abraham chose what he would choose. The test, in essence, was not necessary.

But I digress. My simpler point here is that man is an animal. He has a capacity for reason, but he is an animal nonetheless. As for his reason, I think you can convincingly argue he usually conducts himself irrationally as opposed to rationally. Unless you can convince me that nuclear war and abortion are rational acts.

 

[Brendan]

I’m not going to argue that God knows best. Of course he does. However, if Cecil hadn’t been killed the workers in Zimbabwe would have earned their money directing Palmer to another lion who was NOT protected.

Cecil was not a ‘protected’ animal. It was not illegal to kill a collared animal.

Christ did not lure, i.e. trick a helpless, protected animal to its death. Just about everyone ate fish in ancient Palestine.

But in the case of the fish, it was lured, in fact, that is a common way of catching fish. And the purpose of it’s death was to gain money. Nothing was said about eating it. Now, we can presume it was eaten after the fact, (just as the meat from Cecil was given to a governmental food bank). The purpose of the death of this fish, the intent of it’s distruction, was money.

I’ve said I have no problem with hunting for food, killing a wild animal in self-defense, or culling, when absolutely necessary. You are splitting hairs here. Cecil was a protected animal living in an animal sanctuary.

Nope, not protected. It seems that the only illegal act was that the farm that Cecil was shot on did not have a quota for lion. The baiting was legal, the hunting permit was legal, the target was legal game. The only thing illegal was the farm on which it was shot was not licensed for lion hunting.

I don’t propose to read Christ’s mind, but I have studied moral theology - formally - and I don’t think Christ would approve of luring Cecil to his death.

So have I, Sacred Heart Major Seminary. Under Drs Janet Smith and Mark Latkovic

And I disagree. The fish is a prime example.

Following your line of reasoning, one might say if I robbed a bank or swindled a billionaire out of a few million it would be okay if I gave it to charity.

You know Moral Theology better than that. The act itself must be at least morally neutral. Killing a lion is a morally neutral act, robbing a bank, not so much.

It wouldn’t. It’s blood money, and Cecil’s death was blood money. I don’t think Christ would approve of either…

What was the death of the fish then, if not blood money?

The end has never justified the means

You are operating under the false assumption that the means was immoral.