Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA
I am more understanding of how people would make the choice to kill animals to survive when people don't have access to other foods (though I still don't think it makes killing the animals a *good* thing). But when the killing is not necessary for a person's survival, then killing animals for food seems like pure hedonism to me. I don't mind hedonism at all (I'm certainly hedonistic in many ways)...but I am troubled when it causes others to experience unnecessarily pain and suffering or an end to their lives.
|
hip hop bunny hop, you replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop
What I find most troubling here is that you're attributing human characteristics to animals; in particular a class of animals which are not self aware. So, really, why should one care whether that animal meets it's end by being hit by a truck, getting devoured by something higher on the food chain, or peacefully in a field... when it makes no difference to the animal in question?
|
Realizing that animals like rabbits and pigs have emotions and can suffer from pain, stress, boredom, and fear, is not attributing human characteristics to these animals, but rather recognizing their *own* characteristics, I feel. People in the animal industry deal with (or sometimes ignore) all these animals' emotions. For example, Temple Grandin designs slaughterhouses for cows such that the chutes are curved, preventing cows from seeing what is ahead in order to reduce their stress and fear. You can read about cattle stress in the "Design" section of this slaughterhouse article:
Slaughterhouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your basic question appears to be this: how do we determine which beings are ones we should be concerned about and try not to kill? I feel this is a really important question and is at the crux of the vegetarian/meat-eating debate.
It sounds like you feel we should care only about those beings who are "self-aware." How are you defining "self-aware," hip hop bunny hop?
I feel most animals whom people eat (mammals, birds, and fish) are very self-aware in that they feel their bodies and their emotions. For example, a dog certainly feels her own mouth inside (as we do), and she feels her feet and legs move and is aware of the sensations. Dogs and parrots also appear to be able to experience depression, since dogs and parrots who have symptoms of depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder recover when given Prozac, the same drug that works on people.
Also, I'd like to point out that a young
human baby, say a 1-month-old, does not appear more self-aware than adult livestock animals...and actually less so in some ways. People used to think very young human babies couldn't experience pain, since little babies' brains are still rewiring quite a bit and babies don't *appear* to be very aware of what's going on. Some people seem to have similar beliefs (which I feel are false) about non-human animals such as cows, pigs, chickens, fish, etc.
I feel that how an animal dies, whether peacefully in a field or chased down and ripped apart by a predator, makes a big difference to an animal like a rabbit! I am curious why you think the type of death would *not* make a difference. It sounds like you feel rabbits are unfeeling machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
I understand it's the consequence, specifically the consequences for the animal by which you rate how an action scales morally. By now, I guess it's clear that I don't agree .. If I applied your views very strictly, that would mean a lot of the people I know and like a lot rate about as high morally as sadists who revel in torturing animals. Yet they don't! It seems quite unfair to me.
|
Tore, I agree with you that someone intentionally torturing an animal (knowing this is causing pain) is morally worse than someone accepting that an animal will suffer during raising and slaughtering the animal.
However, I don't feel it is a morally good thing for bystanders to stand by and then benefit from an animal experiencing fear and pain at the hands of other humans and their machines.
I don't think most people who eat other animals and their body parts *want* those animals to experience fear and pain...but they accept this suffering. I suspect many people discount the importance of animals' pain, since humans can't feel it. This doesn't make meat-eaters sadists. But it does make them people who stand by and do nothing when someone else, an animal, is frightened and then killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
As an example, let's say you're in the english countryside and witness two scenarios. In the first, you see a man with a rifle shoot a hare, killing it instantly. In the second, you see a man slowly torturing a hare to death while clearly getting enjoyment from it's suffering.
|
I definitely agree with you that a man slowly torturing a hare to death is doing something much more morally reprehensible than killing a hare (nearly) instantly with a gun shot to her head. However, I feel that killing a rabbit by a gun shot to her head is also morally wrong...just not as bad as torturing her first!