More on animal suffering

[severntofall]

A brief discussion about the problem of suffering (aka the problem of evil).
I’ve decided to briefly discuss this matter, one of the oldest arguments known to man regarding the existence of a god. You’ll notice that I’ve substituted the commonly used word “evil” with “suffering”, and for a specific reason. The word evil allows people to get side tracked and to shift the point of the debate. When debating the problem of evil, philosophers were always referring to suffering (usually human suffering), the meaning is fairly specific and unambiguous; whereas, the word evil means something different from person to person. So, we’ll be discussing the problem of suffering.

To start off, I’m going to concede a few points to the Christians: first I’ll concede that freewill is a reality (this discussion is not intended to be about freewill).

Second, I’ll agree that for freewill to truly exist that people have to be able to use their freedom to inflict harm as well as good (free will means nothing if we are only able to use it to do good).

Third, I’ll concede that freewill, for it to actually mean something, has to involve adversity (it’s easy to be a good person when one’s belly and coffer are always full). Fourth, I’ll agree that our possession of free will is for some reason legitimately of importance to a theistic god.
So, as I’ve conceded, the ability for humans to inflict suffering upon one another or upon oneself is a necessary component of freewill. Again, whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant to this conversation, I’m granting the point for the sake of this discussion. I’m also willing to assume merely for the sake of this discussion that children being born with horrific birth defects may somehow be necessary for freewill to truly exist. Perhaps it’s also true that for freewill to be genuine then tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, famines, drought, disease, and severe mental illness have to exist and occur with astounding frequency. Perhaps in every situation where god had a choice to make about whether or not to include a certain variety of human suffering that for the sake of freewill god had no choice but to maximized the potential for human suffering…perhaps. This discussion is not going to be about the truth of these statements, it’s not about freewill nor is it about the extent to which human suffering must exist for freewill to a legitimate human reality. This discussion is specifically going to be about the absurdly horrific suffering that has been inflicted upon animals every hour of every day of every year for the past 200 or so million years. However, it’s not about the suffering inflicted upon animals by humans nor is it about the suffering that animals may inadvertently experience when they are caught in the path of various natural disasters. No, rather this discussion is about the suffering one animal must inflict upon another animal while in the pursuit of their own survival. If one believes that god created our reality, that he created us and everything on this planet; then I think that it is fair to ask just why it is that millions and millions of animals are biologically obligated to inflicted pain and death upon others. Why is it that for a pride of lions to survive that it must hunt down and brutally kill a wildebeest or elephant or zebra and rip it flesh from it’s still living body? Why must a boa constrictor slowly crush an animal to death before it can eat? Why did a loving god create a world in which the survival of millions upon millions of carnivores was dependent upon their willingness and ability to first brutally slaughter it’s food. WHY!? Now we know that it’s entirely possible for a species to exist without needing to kill and consume another living creatures. In fact, the majority of species that do exist are not carnivores. In other words, if god had wanted to, he could have created a world in which the consumption of another creatures flesh was not a necessity. After all, the dietary needs of a lion contributes in no way to our having freewill. Our freewill could exist just as easily if lion’s survived on carrots and turnips rather that fresh gazelle flesh…so why did god choose to require lions to slaughter other animals when it was utterly unnecessary to the existence of freewill? When god was trying to decide whether to create a world in which animals were instinctively obligated to brutally kill one another or a world in which animals could all exist by consuming fruits and vegetables…why did he needlessly opted to require brutality? Just to be clear, my objection is not that god allows animal to inflict suffering upon other animals, but rather my objection is that god requires it. Lion’s in the wild are genetically obligated to mercilessly kill other animals. Lion’s don’t kill other animals because they’re evil, they do it because they have to; they do it because if they do not they themselves will die. Things absolutely did not need to be this way if in fact a god created everything as the Christians insist. It would have been so simple for god to create us all as herbivores, the world is full of them…we know that a creature can exist on an entirely vegetarian diet as thousands of species currently do. God could have created a world in which the consumption of another creature’s flesh would seem disgusting or absurd (much like eating a rock or feces) and this would not have impacted our freewill even in the slightest.
In the modern world, cruelty to animals (particularly avoidable cruelty) is considered an aberration. A person who takes pleasure in inflicting pain upon another creature is considered to be mentally disturbed and in most states in the USA it’s a criminal offense with a potential jail sentence…but who’s going to arrest god? Again, the dietary needs of a lion and our access to freewill are completely unrelated; however the unnecessary requirement that certain animals torture and kill other animals does nothing to prove that there is not god; all it does prove is that if there is a god…then he’s a…not very nice person.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A brief discussion about the problem of suffering (aka the problem of evil).

there is no such thing as the Problem of Evil. allow me to demonstrate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info-gap_decision_theory#Working_assumptions

Working assumptions
Info-gap decision theory employs three simple constructs to capture the uncertainty associated with decision problems:

1.A parameter whose true value is subject to severe uncertainty.
2.A region of uncertainty where the true value of lies.
3.An estimate of the true value of .
It should be pointed out, though, that as such these constructs are generic, meaning that they can be employed to model situations where the uncertainty is not severe but mild, indeed very mild. So it is vital to be clear that to give apt expression to the severity of the uncertainty, in the Info-Gap framework these three constructs are given specific meaning.

Working Assumptions
1.The region of uncertainty is relatively large.
In fact, Ben-Haim (2006, p. 210) indicates that in the context of info-gap decision theory most of the commonly encountered regions of uncertainty are unbounded.
2.The estimate is a poor approximation of the true value of .
That is, the estimate is a poor indication of the true value of (Ben-Haim, 2006, p. 280) and is likely to be substantially wrong (Ben-Haim, 2006, p. 281).
In the picture represents the true (unknown) value of .

The point to note here is **that conditions of severe uncertainty entail that the estimate can – relatively speaking – be very distant from the true value . **This is particularly pertinent for methodologies, like info-gap, that seek robustness to uncertainty. Indeed, assuming otherwise would – methodologically speaking – be tantamount to engaging in wishful thinking.

as illustrated by this critique of info-gap decision theory, while you may have an estimate of the most moral possible way to govern the universe, you are operating from only the information you know, the possible ranges of information relevant to any particular event can be nearly infinite, therefore your estimate, based on only the information you have, is insufficient to draw valid conclusions about the morality of G-d, who by His omniscient nature has access to all pertinent information and is then able to make decisions based on information you do not know.

therefore there is no Problem of Evil.

 

[sjlykowski]

I think the answer provided by the apologist here is largely a cover-all excuse that allows Christian theology to escape any difficult answers. Regardless of what contradictions or moral objections we come across in the Bible, of course every one of those could be answered with: “Well, God just knows more than us.”

I think the problem of animal suffering poses a seal-tight argument against the moral goodness of a God. Look at this way: Pain and suffering is the punishment for man’s sin (the Fall). If animals have not sinned, why do they experience pain, stress, and even agonizing torture? Animals are receiving punishment intended for humans, and this is unjust.

Additionally, if God knew sin was going to bring suffering into the universe, why did he create the animals in the first place? He knew their lives were only destined for death and suffering. With humans, God could foresee their suffering…but he also knew there was at least a chance for eternal happiness. But there was no such hope for the animal kingdom.

(To remind ourself of the reality of animal suffering, I’ve posted the links to these clips–one of a wild boar being eaten alive by lions, the other of a wildebeest’s back half being ripped apart by hyenas. There are worse ones out there…I’ve just selected two examples) 1. youtube.com/watch?v=aHXiGquzCOI 2. youtube.com/watch?v=xSl86frZtr4

Either way, I’m glad a website like this exists, as I do believe Christian theology can occasionally provide strong answers for questions of doubt. But this “Information Gap” doesn’t allow us to hold God accountable for his actions. With this same defense we can begin to defend anything that God does. For example, if God suddenly declared sin a good thing (clearly an outright violation of his holy nature), this would be a clear case of moral inconsistency (which the Bible says can’t happen with God). And yet, might there be some way where God’s infinite wisdom has declared that sin could now be a good thing, and that this is not inconsistent with his nature? If this thought process seems ridiculous to you–and it should–then this same “Information Gap” excuse should not be applied in any other discussion either.

Just my thoughts, but I’m open to any objections. Thanks.

 

[tonyrey]

I think the problem of animal suffering poses a seal-tight argument against the moral goodness of a God. Look at this way: Pain and suffering is the punishment for man’s sin (the Fall).

Not all pain and suffering are caused by men’s choice of evil.

If animals have not sinned, why do they experience pain, stress, and even agonizing torture?

Natural causes.

Animals are receiving punishment intended for humans, and this is unjust.

They are not receiving punishment intended for humans. Pain is a defense mechanism without which animals would not survive.

Additionally, if God knew sin was going to bring suffering into the universe, why did he create the animals in the first place?

Because He knew the amount of pleasure and delight in being alive far exceeds the amount of pain.

Their lives were only destined for death and suffering. With humans, God could foresee their suffering…but he also knew there was at least a chance for eternal happiness. But there was no such hope for the animal kingdom.

Are lives only worth having if they are eternal?

(To remind ourself of the reality of animal suffering, I’ve posted the links to these clips–one of a wild boar being eaten alive by lions, the other of a wildebeest’s back half being ripped apart by hyenas. There are worse ones out there…I’ve just selected two examples)

How often do you think this occurs in the life of animals? Their deaths are usually swift and painless because they are generally throttled by predators and paralysed by fear in every case - as I know from personal experience in Africa when I was charged by a bull elephant. I wasn’t even touched but I nearly died of shock…It was a quarter of an hour before I recovered.

But this “Information Gap” doesn’t allow us to hold God accountable for his actions. With this same defense we can begin to defend anything that God does.

Not at all. If the amount of suffering in the world greatly exceeded the amount of pleasure and joy it would militate against belief in God. As Leibniz remarked, there are far more houses than hospitals.

For example, if God suddenly declared sin a good thing (clearly an outright violation of his holy nature), this would be a clear case of moral inconsistency (which the Bible says can’t happen with God). And yet, might there be some way where God’s infinite wisdom has declared that sin could now be a good thing, and that this is not inconsistent with his nature? If this thought process seems ridiculous to you–and it should–then this same “Information Gap” excuse should not be applied in any other discussion either.

There is a vast difference between moral inconsistency and the amount of evil and suffering in the world.

 

[liquidpele]

.
Are lives only worth having if they are eternal?

Just to pick that out of there, are you saying they are worth living even if not eternal? Because I’ve seen you give the exact opposite argument while defending your belief based on that you don’t believe life has purpose without God. How can animals have purpose or worth when they die and cease existing or knowing God?

 

[tonyrey]

This discussion is specifically going to be about the absurdly horrific suffering that has been inflicted upon animals every hour of every day of every year for the past 200 or so million years.

How much suffering do you think a typical animal experiences in its lifetime?

If one believes that god created our reality, that he created us and everything on this planet; then I think that it is fair to ask just why it is that millions and millions of animals are biologically obligated to inflicted pain and death upon others.

Which would you prefer - a swift death from a predator or a slow lingering death due to an accident, disease, starvation or thirst?

Our freewill could exist just as easily if lions survived on carrots and turnips rather that fresh gazelle flesh.

Do you think a lion would have the attributes of a lion if it ate carrots and turnips?!

So why did god choose to require lions to slaughter other animals when it was utterly unnecessary to the existence of freewill?

The existence of freewill is not related in any way to the attributes of lions.

When god was trying to decide whether to create a world in which animals were instinctively obligated to brutally kill one another or a world in which animals could all exist by consuming fruits and vegetables…why did he needlessly opt to require brutality?

God did not create animals directly but by the process of evolution. Conflict is inevitable in a world where there are many different animals pursuing different goals.

Just to be clear, my objection is not that god allows animal to inflict suffering upon other animals, but rather my objection is that god requires it. Lions in the wild are genetically obligated to mercilessly kill other animals. Lions don’t kill other animals because they’re evil, they do it because they have to; they do it because if they do not they themselves will die.

The predecessors of lions were obviously vegetarians. Predation probably originated due to a lack of other food, as we can see in the case of chimpanzees.

Things absolutely did not need to be this way if in fact a god created everything as the Christians insist. It would have been so simple for god to create us all as herbivores, the world is full of them…we know that a creature can exist on an entirely vegetarian diet as thousands of species currently do.

Life began in the sea where predation is rife!

Again, the dietary needs of a lion and our access to freewill are completely unrelated; however the unnecessary requirement that certain animals torture and kill other animals does nothing to prove that there is not god; all it does prove is that if there is a god…then he’s a…not very nice person.

The onus is on you to design a world without predation…Could you design a world with its present richness and variety composed entirely of vegetarians? We can afford to become vegetarians because we have the intelligence to grow crops on a large scale. Gorillas spend 45% of their time eating and searching for food - and consequently have not developed beyond their present stage. Mammals would probably have become extinct if they had all been herbivores and multiplied throughout the world without population control by predators. We have seen what happens when man attempts to improve the biosphere…

 

[tonyrey]

Just to pick that out of there, are you saying they are worth living even if not eternal?

Of course they are! Is the beauty of a butterfly diminished by the brevity of its life - or is the Morning Glory less delightful because it lasts only a few hours?

Because I’ve seen you give the exact opposite argument while defending your belief based on that you don’t believe life has purpose without God.

There is a vast difference between human beings and animals without the power of reason.They live in the present whereas we can anticipate death and choose how to live accordingly. They have no moral responsibility and are not called to account for the crimes and unnecessary suffering they have caused. We can and do create purposes for ourselves but they are arbitrary and doomed to frustration if they are unrelated to the purpose for which we are created - to develop our capacity for love and fulfil our pursuit of perfection in every aspect of existence…

How can animals have purpose or worth when they die and cease existing or knowing God?

I have already answered that question!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think the answer provided by the apologist here is largely a cover-all excuse that allows Christian theology to escape any difficult answers. Regardless of what contradictions or moral objections we come across in the Bible, of course every one of those could be answered with: “Well, God just knows more than us.”

actually as the criticism of info-gap theory points out that is indeed the case. you may not like the situation, we all wish we understood everything, but it doesnt change the bare mathematical fact that there is always information that may justify an action that you simply do not know.

so its not a dodge of any kind, its a bare statement of fact.

it think its interesting that on your very first post, you found a thread more than a month old. do you happen to be another member reregistered?

I think the problem of animal suffering poses a seal-tight argument against the moral goodness of a God. Look at this way: Pain and suffering is the punishment for man’s sin (the Fall). If animals have not sinned, why do they experience pain, stress, and even agonizing torture? Animals are receiving punishment intended for humans, and this is unjust.

Additionally, if God knew sin was going to bring suffering into the universe, why did he create the animals in the first place? He knew their lives were only destined for death and suffering. With humans, God could foresee their suffering…but he also knew there was at least a chance for eternal happiness. But there was no such hope for the animal kingdom.

(To remind ourself of the reality of animal suffering, I’ve posted the links to these clips–one of a wild boar being eaten alive by lions, the other of a wildebeest’s back half being ripped apart by hyenas. There are worse ones out there…I’ve just selected two examples) 1. youtube.com/watch?v=aHXiGquzCOI 2. youtube.com/watch?v=xSl86frZtr4

first, there is no such thing as animal suffering, thousands of posts have been written on the subject here, and so far, no one has been able to offer any evidence that animals are capable of emotional response. its is an anthropomorphic assumption. little more, i urge you to explore the threads on animal suffering from the same time period as the thread here that you have resurrected.

Either way, I’m glad a website like this exists, as I do believe Christian theology can occasionally provide strong answers for questions of doubt. But this “Information Gap” doesn’t allow us to hold God accountable for his actions. With this same defense we can begin to defend anything that God does.

as the author of this application of the theory, i agree. there is no defense against it. a non-theist can not do more than offer an opinion, which, as you can see, is simply an opinion, G-d may just know something we dont.

For example, if God suddenly declared sin a good thing (clearly an outright violation of his holy nature), this would be a clear case of moral inconsistency (which the Bible says can’t happen with God). And yet, might there be some way where God’s infinite wisdom has declared that sin could now be a good thing, and that this is not inconsistent with his nature?

these are contradictory to his nature. can a woman be both pregnant and not pregnant? of course not.

If this thought process seems ridiculous to you–and it should–

it is ridiculous, only because it is impossible.

then this same “Information Gap” excuse should not be applied in any other discussion either.

as your premise is obviously impossible your conclusion automatically fails. the conclusion drawn though tells me a lot.

you dont want to deal with the info-gap problem, you cant refute it. but instead of accepting the truth, we should just ignore it, because then you cant criticize G-d?

heres a humdinger of a thought. maybe we should accept the truth instead of desperately trying to make the truth what we wish it to be?

 

[severntofall]

there is no such thing as the Problem of Evil. allow me to demonstrate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info-gap_decision_theory#Working_assumptions

as illustrated by this critique of info-gap decision theory, while you may have an estimate of the most moral possible way to govern the universe, you are operating from only the information you know, the possible ranges of information relevant to any particular event can be nearly infinite, therefore your estimate, based on only the information you have, is insufficient to draw valid conclusions about the morality of G-d, who by His omniscient nature has access to all pertinent information and is then able to make decisions based on information you do not know.

therefore there is no Problem of Evil.

I guess I’m saying that there is no missing information that could ever justify the creation of a reality that required the occupants of said reality to painfully devour one another. This really wasn’t an attempt to judge god’s morality so much as it was an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of believing that this was the product of an intelligent design.

I agree that there may have been an infinite number of possibilities, but we’re discussing a very finite reality here, and the reality is that the inhabitants of this planet eat one another…because they have to. Such behavior is not vital to our morality or free-will and could have simply not been included without eliminating free-will.

 

[severntofall]

How much suffering do you think a typical animal experiences in its lifetime?

Not even remotely relevant. We’re talking about the fact that your god developed a reality in which the infliction of suffering is a requirement for existence.

Which would you prefer - a swift death from a predator or a slow lingering death due to an accident, disease, starvation or thirst?

Excellent point. I’m just not sure how the fact that each of the fates await most animals makes the designer of this reality anything less than a sadist.

Do you think a lion would have the attributes of a lion if it ate carrots and turnips?!

What would that even be relevant? Are you suggesting that god needed animals to be tortured so lions could exist? The existence of lions is not a required component of our freewill. I cannot imagine that the existence of lions was so important as to justify the brutality necessary for their existence.

The existence of freewill is not related in any way to the attributes of lions.
God did not create animals directly but by the process of evolution. Conflict is inevitable in a world where there are many different animals pursuing different goals. The predecessors of lions were obviously vegetarians. Predation probably originated due to a lack of other food, as we can see in the case of chimpanzees. Life began in the sea where predation is rife!

The onus is on you to design a world without predation…Could you design a world with its present richness and variety composed entirely of vegetarians? We can afford to become vegetarians because we have the intelligence to grow crops on a large scale. Gorillas spend 45% of their time eating and searching for food - and consequently have not developed beyond their present stage. Mammals would probably have become extinct if they had all been herbivores and multiplied throughout the world without population control by predators. We have seen what happens when man attempts to improve the biosphere…

Actually I agree. My comments were really more designed to snipe at creationists. I was actually shocked and pleased by this answer.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I guess I’m saying that there is no missing information that could ever justify the creation of a reality that required the occupants of said reality to painfully devour one another. This really wasn’t an attempt to judge god’s morality so much as it was an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of believing that this was the product of an intelligent design.

I agree that there may have been an infinite number of possibilities, but we’re discussing a very finite reality here, and the reality is that the inhabitants of this planet eat one another…because they have to. Such behavior is not vital to our morality or free-will and could have simply not been included without eliminating free-will.

What bothers you - the *death *or the *pain *of the animals?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I guess I’m saying that there is no missing information that could ever justify the creation of a reality that required the occupants of said reality to painfully devour one another. This really wasn’t an attempt to judge god’s morality so much as it was an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of believing that this was the product of an intelligent design.

bare assertion, how do you know that there is no information that justifies it? further, how do you know it isnt the best possible situation? you seem to be assuming there is a better way, yet this is the exact kind of conclusion that cant be validly drawn. in the end it all boils down to opinion.

I agree that there may have been an infinite number of possibilities, but we’re discussing a very finite reality here, and the reality is that the inhabitants of this planet eat one another…because they have to. Such behavior is not vital to our morality or free-will and could have simply not been included without eliminating free-will.

why do you think that it is wrong for us to eat animals? this is another opinion. its not wrong, its just something you find distasteful.

 

[tonyrey]

                                                                          *How much suffering do you think a typical animal experiences in its lifetime?*
                             Not even remotely relevant. We're talking about the fact that your god developed a reality in which the infliction of suffering is a requirement for existence.

It is relevant to the argument that there is excessive suffering in the world.

Which would you prefer - a swift death from a predator or a slow lingering death due to an accident, disease, starvation or thirst?
Excellent point. I’m just not sure how the fact that each of the fates await most animals makes the designer of this reality anything less than a sadist.

It is necessary to produce a blueprint of a feasible world with sentient creatures and without conflict/suffering to justify this statement.

*Do you think a lion would have the attributes of a lion if it ate carrots and turnips?!*

What would that even be relevant? Are you suggesting that god needed animals to be tortured so lions could exist? The existence of lions is not a required component of our freewill. I cannot imagine that the existence of lions was so important as to justify the brutality necessary for their existence.

The point is that competition is a necessary condition of physical development. The existence of lions has nothing to do with our free will. The universe does not exist only for us!

  *The existence of freewill is not related in any way to the attributes of lions. God did not create animals directly but by the process of evolution. Conflict is inevitable in a world where there are many different animals pursuing different goals. The predecessors of lions were obviously vegetarians. Predation probably originated due to a lack of other food, as we can see in the case of chimpanzees. Life began in the sea where predation is rife!

The onus is on you to design a world without predation…Could you design a world with its present richness and variety composed entirely of vegetarians? We can afford to become vegetarians because we have the intelligence to grow crops on a large scale. Gorillas spend 45% of their time eating and searching for food - and consequently have not developed beyond their present stage. Mammals would probably have become extinct if they had all been herbivores and multiplied throughout the world without population control by predators. We have seen what happens when man attempts to improve the biosphere…*
Actually I agree. My comments were really more designed to snipe at creationists. I was actually shocked and pleased by this answer.

I’m delighted! The truth generally lies between two extremes…

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Which would you prefer - a swift death from a predator or a slow lingering death due to an accident, disease, starvation or thirst?
Do you think a lion would have the attributes of a lion if it ate carrots and turnips?!

That’s not really the point. The objection is why did god create such ruthless killing machines? Your answer that “do you think a lion would have the attributes of a ruthless killing machine, if it didn’t need to be a ruthless killing machine” does not really address the point.

The question is why is god making ruthless killing machines in the first place? Why not just give all animals an ability similar to photosynthesis, then there would be no need for the millions of deaths that occur on a daily basis.

It makes no sense to me and i totally agree with the issue… “If one believes that god created our reality, that he created us and everything on this planet; then I think that it is fair to ask just why it is that millions and millions of animals are biologically obligated to inflicted pain and death upon others.”

ADW.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s not really the point. The objection is why did god create such ruthless killing machines? Your answer that “do you think a lion would have the attributes of a ruthless killing machine, if it didn’t need to be a ruthless killing machine” does not really address the point.

The question is why is god making ruthless killing machines in the first place? Why not just give all animals an ability similar to photosynthesis, then there would be no need for the millions of deaths that occur on a daily basis.

It makes no sense to me and i totally agree with the issue… “If one believes that god created our reality, that he created us and everything on this planet; then I think that it is fair to ask just why it is that millions and millions of animals are biologically obligated to inflicted pain and death upon others.”

ADW.

OK – I’ll ask you: Which do you have a greater problem with, the pain or the death?

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

OK – I’ll ask you: Which do you have a greater problem with, the pain or the death?

Personally the death, for i believe life is special and we all (including animals) only get one brief moment to enjoy nature’s gift.

That is why i am a vegetarian, i don’t believe i have the right to take life just because i am in a position to do so. In fact given human intelligence and there fore ability to live without the need to take life, i feel we have a responsibility that the other animals cannot possess.

I am aware this is just my personal opinion though. Hence why i don’t preach vegetarianism .

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Personally the death, for i believe life is special and we all (including animals) only get one brief moment to enjoy nature’s gift.

But what is the alternative? No animal ever dying?

Many people would prefer a quick, violent death to a slow, arduous one. Shouldn’t we expect that animals might feel the same way?

That is why i am a vegetarian, i don’t believe i have the right to take life just because i am in a position to do so. In fact given human intelligence and there fore ability to live without the need to take life, i feel we have a responsibility that the other animals cannot possess.

I respect this position, and I think it is a reasonable one to take. But it is not the only reasonable position to take.

 

[latin_rite]

Personally the death, for i believe life is special and we all (including animals) only get one brief moment to enjoy nature’s gift.

That is why i am a vegetarian, i don’t believe i have the right to take life just because i am in a position to do so. In fact given human intelligence and there fore ability to live without the need to take life, i feel we have a responsibility that the other animals cannot possess.

I am aware this is just my personal opinion though. Hence why i don’t preach vegetarianism .

You say that you are a vegiterian because you don’t want to take a life? Do you wear clothes? If so how many animals do you think have been displaced or killed in order for you to have clothes? Cotton farms use pesticides to kill pest that eat cotton. Do you live in a house? How many animals have had their habitats destroyed so you can live where you do? Not to mention the trees that have been cut down to build your house. You don’t live in a house which has any wood? Well the concrete that hold the bricks of your house togther relases lots of co2. Which futhers the damage caused by global warming. Just imangine all the little polar bears and seal who have their habit reduced because you don’t want to live in a cave any more. Do you own a computer? How many animals have lost their habits and therefore their lives because you want to surf the internet? Just about every thing modern humans do to make their life more comfortable or easy cost animals their lives. Just because you don’t hunt or eat animals, doesn’t mean that you have not been responcible for the deaths of thousands of animals. For sure we can excist without taking the life of any animal. But do you think you would be able to live that life? because you sure arent living it now.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

You say that you are a vegiterian because you don’t want to take a life? Do you wear clothes? If so how many animals do you think have been displaced or killed in order for you to have clothes? Cotton farms use pesticides to kill pest that eat cotton. Do you live in a house? How many animals have had their habitats destroyed so you can live where you do? Not to mention the trees that have been cut down to build your house. You don’t live in a house which has any wood? Well the concrete that hold the bricks of your house togther relases lots of co2. Which futhers the damage caused by global warming. Just imangine all the little polar bears and seal who have their habit reduced because you don’t want to live in a cave any more. Do you own a computer? How many animals have lost their habits and therefore their lives because you want to surf the internet? Just about every thing modern humans do to make their life more comfortable or easy cost animals their lives. Just because you don’t hunt or eat animals, doesn’t mean that you have not been responcible for the deaths of thousands of animals. For sure we can excist without taking the life of any animal. But do you think you would be able to live that life? because you sure arent living it now.

Well there is no point in being a one man martyr. I agree that issues are a lot more complex than just eating, however i don’t have the ability to change the world on my own. I would love to see global warming properly addressed, i would love to see the devastation of the rain forests addressed etc. Like i said this is not something i could do on my own.

Eating animals is something i can personally address, and it is also something as an individual i am in direct control of. It is unfair of you to charge me with the crimes of the entire human race when these things are out with my control.

As i have said i am not trying to convert anyone, i was merely justifying a response to a question.

ADW.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey
Which would you prefer - a swift death from a predator or a slow lingering death due to an accident, disease, starvation or thirst?
Do you think a lion would have the attributes of a lion if it ate carrots and turnips?!
That’s not really the point. The objection is why did god create such ruthless killing machines? Your answer that “do you think a lion would have the attributes of a ruthless killing machine, if it didn’t need to be a ruthless killing machine” does not really address the point.

Do you regard yourself as a “ruthless killing machine”? Even if you are a vegetarian you still have to kill or cause death in order to survive. Do you believe that is sufficient reason for not giving you the opportunity to live (and criticise the fact that you are a “ruthless killing machine”?

The question is why is god making ruthless killing machines in the first place? Why not just give all animals an ability similar to photosynthesis, then there would be no need for the millions of deaths that occur on a daily basis.

Do think a photosynthetic existence would rule out the necessity of death?

It makes no sense to me and i totally agree with the issue… “If one believes that god created our reality, that he created us and everything on this planet; then I think that it is fair to ask just why it is that millions and millions of animals are biologically obligated to inflicted pain and death upon others.”

Can you devise a physical system in which advanced life is possible without having to depend on other life in order to survive? If so let us have the details…