Is it wrong to kill animals?

[Ridgerunner]

The OP did not contain some elements crucial to the determination. First, I don’t guess we know what kinds of snakes they were. Blacksnakes? Bull snakes? Copperheads? Second, we don’t know who all goes to the hill. Maybe nobody? Maybe children?

Since stopping up a snake’s hole won’t affect whether the snake lives or dies, the real question is whether one should truly attempt to eradicate them by effective means. To me, wanton destruction of animals is wrong, particularly if they’re useful animals. But humans take primacy over animals every time. I would definitely attempt to eradicate copperheads or rattlers anywhere people might be expected to go.

 

[Bluegoat]

The OP did not contain some elements crucial to the determination. First, I don’t guess we know what kinds of snakes they were. Blacksnakes? Bull snakes? Copperheads? Second, we don’t know who all goes to the hill. Maybe nobody? Maybe children?

Since stopping up a snake’s hole won’t affect whether the snake lives or dies, the real question is whether one should truly attempt to eradicate them by effective means. To me, wanton destruction of animals is wrong, particularly if they’re useful animals. But humans take primacy over animals every time. I would definitely attempt to eradicate copperheads or rattlers anywhere people might be expected to go.

One needs to be terribly careful about making such a decision though. Attempts to do this kind of thing with pests have not always been good for humans, much less the whole ecosystem. This was after all, the reasoning for eradicating wolves in much of the US, though it was pretty clearly bogus in hindsight. Mosquitoes are another difficult problem - it seems obvious that is that it is ultimately worthwhile to try to eradicate malarial mosquitoes. But there are many problems with actually trying to carry this out.

So if there was good reason to think those snakes could be dangerous (my impression was that they were not) then there are other questions. What would happen if they were killed, would others just move in? Or other pests? Could they be relocated? Do the kids just need to be kept away or taught to watch out?

 

[Ridgerunner]

One needs to be terribly careful about making such a decision though. Attempts to do this kind of thing with pests have not always been good for humans, much less the whole ecosystem. This was after all, the reasoning for eradicating wolves in much of the US, though it was pretty clearly bogus in hindsight. Mosquitoes are another difficult problem - it seems obvious that is that it is ultimately worthwhile to try to eradicate malarial mosquitoes. But there are many problems with actually trying to carry this out.

So if there was good reason to think those snakes could be dangerous (my impression was that they were not) then there are other questions. What would happen if they were killed, would others just move in? Or other pests? Could they be relocated? Do the kids just need to be kept away or taught to watch out?

You are right in saying there are other things that it would be best to know; e.g., if the snakes were killed, would others “take over the territory”. If so, would they be poisonous or non-poisonous, since both tend to prey on the same creatures.

With respect to telling children to, e.g., avoid a place where copperheads or rattlers are known to be, or killing the copperheads or rattlers, there is, in my mind, no serious question. You do both, until you are satisfied that no danger to children remains.

But again, one ought to try to figure out what the snakes are. Black snakes and bull snakes, for example, will kill and eat copperheads or rattlers, as well as rats, mice and other varmints. So, they are to be encouraged, not killed.

I can think of no reasonable justification for empasizing the protection of harmful creatures over that of people.

Wolves are interesting inasmuch as (I understand) there is no recorded incidence of wolves killing a human being in the U.S. They will not tolerate coyotes within their territories and will hunt them down relentlessly to kill them. So, they are a different issue altogether. I am persuaded that they can be livestock killers, however. Consequently, it seems reasonable to limit their range.

 

[Silver_Thread]

I disagree. I don’t think animals were put on this earth by our Lord to take any enjoyment from killing them. While they may not have any rights…* per se*…the act of killing them for anything but food and in self-defense is just plain wrong. Many murderers were animals abusers and killers as children.

I also believe that those animals who are here to provide food for us should be treated humanely while they are alive and when they die. It is abhorrent to me to hear about the way these animals are treated. They are living breathing creatures after all.

As Gandhi said…“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress is judged by how its animals are treated.” I couldn’t agree more.

Wait a minute …wasn’t Ghandi a Hindu and don’t they believe Cows are sacred animals? Couldn’t we find a better reason for caring for animals. When I was growin up over 50 yrs ago, if an animal was sick it was shot and buried. Kittens were offered around the neighborhood the excess were drowned. A dog was for hunting and property protection. Strays were shot, usually during hunting season. Pets were rarely abused, but if they were who cared. No one! Today many pets are substitutes for children and are even referred to as my boys or girls, my kids by owners. (sick). We;ve come a long way baby!

 

[HyeDetroit]

I love animals, they taste great!

 

[Bluegoat]

Wait a minute …wasn’t Ghandi a Hindu and don’t they believe Cows are sacred animals? Couldn’t we find a better reason for caring for animals. When I was growin up over 50 yrs ago, if an animal was sick it was shot and buried. Kittens were offered around the neighborhood the excess were drowned. A dog was for hunting and property protection. Strays were shot, usually during hunting season. Pets were rarely abused, but if they were who cared. No one! Today many pets are substitutes for children and are even referred to as my boys or girls, my kids by owners. (sick). We;ve come a long way baby!

Strictly speaking, the Hindu views on cows are related to cultural values rather than religious ones.

Ghandi was an interesting, and not at all stupid person, who placed a very high value on human life - I wouldn’t mock him without learning a bit about him.

 

[distracted]

Despite what society will tell you animals have no rights. Rights are God given and are proper only to man who is made in the image and likeness of God. Animals were put here for our use and the act of killing them, for whatever reason, is not sinful. It can become sinful when the motivations are rebellious in nature to God or arises from some other sin ,as in the case of expressing hatred or disgust for life, but the taking of animal life in itself is not sinful.

In your case there was nothing wrong at all and my philosophy is: the only good snake is a dead snake

then why do i feel bad about killing bugs (inside the home)?

i still do it but i still always feel kinda bad… like i should have gone to the trouble of getting it outside or something… which, when i am in a good mood, i sometimes do…

however, i feel no guilt at all about killing bugs that BITE…

and i don’t feel i could ever kill an animal unless i was starving or someone else was…

but it is not healthy to be vegetarian… (for more than a couple weeks or so… )…

Jesus was not a vegetarian…

 

[distracted]

Wait a minute …wasn’t Ghandi a Hindu and don’t they believe Cows are sacred animals? Couldn’t we find a better reason for caring for animals. When I was growin up over 50 yrs ago, if an animal was sick it was shot and buried. Kittens were offered around the neighborhood the excess were drowned. A dog was for hunting and property protection. Strays were shot, usually during hunting season. Pets were rarely abused, but if they were who cared. No one! Today many pets are substitutes for children and are even referred to as my boys or girls, my kids by owners. (sick). We;ve come a long way baby!

i totally agree… told this story before but…

i knew this woman who was always kissing on her two little dogs… YUCK!!! Makes me ill to think of it… (I don’t like dogs at all… if i had a pet at all it would be a fish…)…

anyhow… this woman aborted her child…

after that i hated dogs even more…

(yes, i am fully aware it isn’t their fault people do this kind of thing…)

(you kinda have to say that in case some animal lover wants to jump your —)

 

[buffalo]

Respect for the integrity of creation
[2415](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2415.htm’) The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196
[2416](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2416.htm’) *Animals *are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
[2417](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2417.htm’) God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
[2418](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2418.htm’) It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

 

[Marfran]

I disagree. I don’t think animals were put on this earth by our Lord to take any enjoyment from killing them. While they may not have any rights…* per se*…the act of killing them for anything but food and in self-defense is just plain wrong. Many murderers were animals abusers and killers as children.

I also believe that those animals who are here to provide food for us should be treated humanely while they are alive and when they die. It is abhorrent to me to hear about the way these animals are treated. They are living breathing creatures after all.

As Gandhi said…“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress is judged by how its animals are treated.” I couldn’t agree more.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[distracted]

IAs Gandhi said…" .

Gandhi believed animals were equal to humans… how enlightened was he, really? He had a lot of truth but he was offf on a few things… he wasnt’ exactly Jesus Christ… in fact, he rejected HIM… so don’t really care waht he has to say…

God created animals for human use… I don’t believe in cruelty to animals but animals are not equal to human beings or anywhere close…

God instituted the Passover… he gave quails to the Israelites to eat in the desert…

he was NOT vegetarian… so why are humans???

 

[distracted]

I As Gandhi said…“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress is judged by how its animals are treated.” I couldn’t agree more.

already spoke on Gandhi…

how do you feel about cows walking all over places in India… while humans are starving in the gutters??

Gandhi saw this kind of thing… and yet…

 

[buffalo]

already spoke on Gandhi…

how do you feel about cows walking all over places in India… while humans are starving in the gutters??

Gandhi saw this kind of thing… and yet…

this is happening right here in America. Pet eye care, pet grooming, pet massage, pet airlines, pet spas, etc… while humans are aborted.

 

[Bluegoat]

Gandhi believed animals were equal to humans… how enlightened was he, really? He had a lot of truth but he was offf on a few things… he wasnt’ exactly Jesus Christ… in fact, he rejected HIM… so don’t really care waht he has to say…

God created animals for human use… I don’t believe in cruelty to animals but animals are not equal to human beings or anywhere close…

God instituted the Passover… he gave quails to the Israelites to eat in the desert…

he was NOT vegetarian… so why are humans???

You will find people are vegetarians for a number of reasons, some good and some bad. There are a number of reasons for being a vegetarian that are quite acceptable from a Catholic point of view:

1. The person doesn’t like meat.
2. There is a particular health reason to avoid meat (perhaps a digestive problem, or no safe meat products are available to them.)
3. As a type of spiritual discipline, as in some monasteries that are completely vegetarian.
4. Because no meat is available that meets the moral precepts laid out by the Church - some of these can be seen in an earlier post.
   5)Because the person lives in a place where the dominant culture/religion finds meat eating repugnant, and so eating it would set up a serious impediment to their conversion.

 

[Bluegoat]

already spoke on Gandhi…

how do you feel about cows walking all over places in India… while humans are starving in the gutters??

Gandhi saw this kind of thing… and yet…

…he did a ton of work to change the living conditions of the people of India??? …he stood the assumptions of many Hindus on their head and said all people are worthy of love, respect, and care? …he made it clear that holiness comes from within rather than from ritual purity and thus can be achieved by anyone?

I think you will find that Ghandi also had some differences from many Hindus on the cow issue and how he perceived it. However, shocking the deepest moral sensibilities of the majority of people likely would have been counterproductive - the most essential part of his message was simple and human-directed; people needed to see that all human life was precious. Any comparison of human vs. animal life would be useless until people learned that.

On the other hand, the means never justifies the end. IF eating meat was indeed an immoral act, the fact that a person was starving would not make it moral.

 

[distracted]

…he did a ton of work to change the living conditions of the people of India??? …he stood the assumptions of many Hindus on their head and said all people are worthy of love, respect, and care? …he made it clear that holiness comes from within rather than from ritual purity and thus can be achieved by anyone?

I think you will find that Ghandi also had some differences from many Hindus on the cow issue and how he perceived it. However, shocking the deepest moral sensibilities of the majority of people likely would have been counterproductive - the most essential part of his message was simple and human-directed; people needed to see that all human life was precious. Any comparison of human vs. animal life would be useless until people learned that.

i was agreeing w/ you… until you said this:

On the other hand, the means never justifies the end. IF eating meat was indeed an immoral act, the fact that a person was starving would not make it moral.

you and i obviously worship a different God…

 

[distracted]

You will find people are vegetarians for a number of reasons, some good and some bad. There are a number of reasons for being a vegetarian that are quite acceptable from a Catholic point of view:

1. The person doesn’t like meat.
2. There is a particular health reason to avoid meat (perhaps a digestive problem, or no safe meat products are available to them.)
3. As a type of spiritual discipline, as in some monasteries that are completely vegetarian.
4. Because no meat is available that meets the moral precepts laid out by the Church - some of these can be seen in an earlier post.
   5)Because the person lives in a place where the dominant culture/religion finds meat eating repugnant, and so eating it would set up a serious impediment to their conversion.

not sure why this is relevent… (?)

in any case… i have not been eating meat lately, only because i don’t crave it… or desire it… but some day soon i will…

and again, if you believe in the God of the bible (and the Ctholic Church) you know that He is far, far from being pro-vegetarianism… If that doesn’t cause a person to pause… i don’t know what will…

(not to mention that long-term vegetarianism is unhealthy and no long-time vegan lives to age 100 or beyond…)

 

[distracted]

this is happening right here in America. Pet eye care, pet grooming, pet massage, pet airlines, pet spas, etc… while humans are aborted.

i don’t like dogs, not all that crazy about cats…

but i find (just being human) tht i really despise them because of this, what you mention…

pepole babying their *&^%$ animals while aborting their children and/or not giving a rip whether others do the same…

but i guess that’s what happens when pepole are not … in God’s will (his church, Scirpture…)

 

[pete_29]

Just for the sake of killing. Yes. To feed yourself or for pest control. No.

 

[catholicboy2]

I agree with distracted
its just sick how people can show affection to animals but no affection towards humans.
Insects really bother me though and I don’t feel guilt usually on killing them, especially if they’re inside.
I usually don’t kill non-biting bugs but I still have.
Yes I’ll kill them outside if they’re really close to me or jump on me, but I usually just hit them away. But I try to kill biting bugs if they’re near me.
I have felt a little guilt a few times but I don’t really let it get to me.
And it’s not like if I kill a few bugs, it’s going to affect the entire ecosystem, that would be only happen if you wipe out one species of insects, which would be close to impossible because insects reproduce faster than any living thing on Earth.