The Art of Killing--for Kids

[spencelo]

Another reason why the line is drawn at people: You can end up with the human equivalent of mad cow if you consume nervous tissue of your own species. Even without any moral opposition on the basis that we are all children of God that risk would be pretty persuasive to me.

I don’t understand your suggestion that if we don’t draw the line at humans, then humans will consume each other. No, if we draw the line broader than humans, that means humans and other animals are within the sphere of moral consideration–their equal interests are given equal weight.

I believe animals have emotions. My dogs have convinced me of that. I love my dogs, and I think that in their own way they “love” me. But any moral outrage at the death of a dog, is to me due to it being an unnecessary waste, or the harm it causes to the humans who care for it (though I do have sympathy for animals that mate for life).

In other words, animal cruelty is wrong only if it’s wasteful? If I kicked your dog, I think you’d be rightly angry at me for harming him or her, because what I did was wrong to the dog - not just to you, the property owner.

In addition, Spence, your earlier statement about tranquilizing deer and then giving them a lethal injection is actually disrespect in my opinion.

My tranquilization comment was made in response to the claim that hunting actually alleviated suffering on the hunted animals. If hunters were serious about alleviating wild-animal suffering, they could kill in far less painful ways, but they don’t.

On a side note, how do you feel about people who consume roadkill? There are many who will see a dead deer on the side of the road and use the venison in the same manner as those who hunt. Is what they are doing morally wrong as they have no active role in the killing or suffering, or is that a moral neutral?

I don’t believe consuming roadkill is wrong – assuming there was not intentional infliction of death on the part of the consumer.

 

[POJIUJH]

I know morality is objective – hence I’m an atheist.

So then morality is something evolved, as it cannot be metaphysical. A concept suited for our own personal survival - according to some lovely German writers. If morality has evolved then it was previously different. If a person takes it upon himself to torture children, he is no more objectively evil according to evolutionary perspective than your own view.

Morality + evolved = subjective.

Get reading and thinking. This is what atheists believe. Read even their own works if you don’t believe it, assuming you know the difference between rationality and empty rhetorical statements, like the one you just made

Take it to the philosophy section and discuss the objectivity of morality (infact, the objectivity of anything). Be intellectually honest. Until that question is answered, no question in the world is worth answering.

 

[spencelo]

Not at all. Cows aren’t extinct. Chickens aren’t extinct.

Cows and chickens aren’t natural predators, unlike my hypothetical humans (who are natural-born serial killers).

But in your scenario these are human killers. And it’s possible to contain them. So why would it be okay to kill them?

But it’s not possible to just contain them in my scenario. As I stipulated, the human killers in my scenario have to kill to survive.

 

[nickybr38]

Cows and chickens aren’t natural predators, unlike my hypothetical humans (who are natural-born serial killers).

But it’s not possible to just contain them in my scenario. As I stipulated, the human killers in my scenario have to kill to survive.

So put them in a pen with all those predators you want to kill and you have a natural solution to your problem without ever compromising your moral positioning.

I have no problem with containing your humans who must eat humans to survive. I have no problem with letting them eat each other. I do have a problem with the idea that we should destroy an entire species because they are morally objectionable to us.

 

[spencelo]

So then morality is something evolved, as it cannot be metaphysical. A concept suited for our own personal survival - according to some lovely German writers. If morality has evolved then it was previously different. If a person takes it upon himself to torture children, he is no more objectively evil according to evolutionary perspective than your own view.

Morality + evolved = subjective.

Get reading and thinking. This is what atheists believe. Read even their own works if you don’t believe it, assuming you know the difference between rationality and empty rhetorical statements, like the one you just made

Take it to the philosophy section and discuss the objectivity of morality (infact, the objectivity of anything). Be intellectually honest. Until that question is answered, no question in the world is worth answering.

I’m more than willing to discuss atheistic metaethics in another thread, but I note briefly that your understanding is severely limited and a distortion of many non-theistic ethical theories.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/

Moral philosophy is difficult, and your talking-points caricature overlooks (and gets wrong) many of the complexities and nuances of the various debates. See also: amazon.com/What-Matters-Berkeley-Tanner-Lectures/dp/0199572801

 

[spencelo]

So put them in a pen with all those predators you want to kill and you have a natural solution to your problem without ever compromising your moral positioning.

I have no problem with containing your humans who must eat humans to survive. I have no problem with letting them eat each other. I do have a problem with the idea that we should destroy an entire species because they are morally objectionable to us.

I don’t understand your solution. In my hypothetical, those humans must kill and eat other humans, and so if you “contain them,” you are in effect killing them (by starving them). But even in the alternative, where you “let them eat each other,” you are in effect letting them wipe each other out of existence–so the result is the same.

 

[nickybr38]

I don’t understand your solution. In my hypothetical, those humans must kill and eat other humans, and so if you “contain them,” you are in effect killing them (by starving them). But even in the alternative, where you “let them eat each other,” you are in effect letting them wipe each other out of existence–so the result is the same.

I still say breeding them for food is the ultimate solution and instead of a death penalty we’ll just throw our most hardened and dangerous criminals into the trough as food. After they’ve been humanely put down of course.

Hypothetically this is like the perfect solution. Solves your problem (no more animal factories) and solves the problem of too many humans causing suffering!

PS: I’ve got stuff to do so I’ll be AFK for at least 24 hours. I encourage everyone else to pick up the debate for me.

 

[spencelo]

I still say breeding them for food is the ultimate solution and instead of a death penalty we’ll just throw our most hardened and dangerous criminals into the trough as food. After they’ve been humanely put down of course.

Your solution ignores an important part of my scenario: that the human killers must inflict extensive pain and death in order to survive, so putting criminals down “humanely” isn’t an option. But even if I allowed the modification, suppose there were no hardened criminals. What then? The only possible option, besides letting them kill, is to cause their eventual extinction. Of course, you can change the scenario facts to find your preferred solution, but that doesn’t confront the actual issue I’m raising.

 

[InAllThingsLove]

I get to humans consuming other humans if the line isn’t drawn there because it’s a fact that humans do consume each other in times of desperation. Ever read up on the Donner party and on the starving time in Jamestown?

Also, how should we give their equal interests equal weight? Can they participate in society? Even if you say they should be weighed like children or those with mental disability, as they cannot participate fully in society either, can you really say they are equal? Given the choice between saving the life of a chicken and saving the life of an infant, do you really think there isn’t a correct answer? If one strays into that arena where do you draw the line?

I disagree that killing in itself is cruel. Kicking a dog that wasn’t already coming after you would be cruel, regardless of the connection to me or anyone else, because it would cause pain and fear that the animal would have to live with. Your argument that killing an animal is cruel basically comes down to “because it just is,” whereas you can provide reasons that torture etc. is cruel.

 

[spencelo]

I get to humans consuming other humans if the line isn’t drawn there because it’s a fact that humans do consume each other in times of desperation. Ever read up on the Donner party and on the starving time in Jamestown?

No but I’m aware of those sorts of situations. My hypothetical was intended to support the point that causing the extinction of natural predators, if that would cause less suffering in the world, is ethically defensible.

Given the choice between saving the life of a chicken and saving the life of an infant, do you really think there isn’t a correct answer? If one strays into that arena where do you draw the line?

If the infant only has a few more days to live, whereas the chicken has several happy years, I’d say save the chicken. Equal interests ought to be given equal consideration–otherwise, you can’t explain why racism is wrong.

I disagree that killing in itself is cruel. Kicking a dog that wasn’t already coming after you would be cruel, regardless of the connection to me or anyone else, because it would cause pain and fear that the animal would have to live with. Your argument that killing an animal is cruel basically comes down to “because it just is,” whereas you can provide reasons that torture etc. is cruel.

Killing is immoral, whether some particular instance of it is cruel, because that harms the animal (or human). The same is true of animal cruelty, torture, etc, : the wrongness is in the deliberate harm inflicted.

 

[spencelo]

I agree, but in vast majority of cases, hunting is immoral.

 

[SamH]

Agreed.

 

[Slaney]

I don’t like it, fished as a child but haven’t in over 30 years, I get my food in a store and from my garden plot.
I personally would not kill an animal for fun, if I was starving or my children, well yes I would.

The food we buy in supermarkets (the meat section) has to be killed by someone, but unnecessary killing of animals, well No ! not for me…were supposed to be stewards of the earth, but we aren’t doing a good job of it…

 

[spencelo]

Because it inflicts pain, terror, stress and death on an animal without adequate justification. “It’s enjoyable” isn’t an adequate justification, though that’s typically how recreational hunting is justified.

 

[spencelo]

Are you denying that hunting doesn’t inflict pain, terror, stress, and death on an animal? Come on. In my post, I quote directly from avid hunters themselves who acknowledge fully what hunting involves: animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/the-art-of-killing-for-kids-2/

And see:
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Fblog%2Fanimal-emotions%2F200907%2Fstalking-hunting-stress-and-emotion&ei=SKBbULKgCOm80AGEj4GYAQ&usg=AFQjCNGgPDweJ90yOXVpvxx4FIMG5Lrqlw

 

[pete_29]

Here’s one: hunting inflicts suffering, pain and death on sensitive creatures when there’s no need to do so.

So do your posts!!!

 

[spencelo]

My initial post was “designed” to provoke civil discourse about an important ethical issue–that’s my “agenda.” I hope I’ve done that as best as I could.

 

[spencelo]

So do your posts!!!

Then you must be a masochist if you can’t stop reading them!

 

[pete_29]

Then you must be a masochist if you can’t stop reading them!

I’ll let you know when I KILL a deer or two this fall.

 

[shipwrkd]

My initial post was “designed” to provoke civil discourse about an important ethical issue–that’s my “agenda.” I hope I’ve done that as best as I could.

Hunting is not against any civil or Church law but seems to be against your law. As many have posted, I think your law is in the minority in both this thread and your blog. I believe you’ll have to go elsewhere to gain support for your agenda. You are upping your post count, however. At this rate you’ll make Forum Master in hardly any time at all. I am finding that it’s futile to reason with people on certain issues.

BTW, what’s your opinion on gun control