Life In 19x19

Tchan you say your genuinely interested in the answers to your questions but I have to admit I'm somewhat doubtful that's truly the case. It's not just the questions themselves but also the way you've already responded to someone who answered one.

tchan001 wrote:You are now classifying living organisms by their worth rather than talking about the ethics of killing individual living organisms regardless of their worth.

What was that if not a "gotcha" response?

As for the answers to the questions:

1) I've no idea what I would do in such an extreme situation but it's not like meat eaters are any happier eating their friends than vegetarians so I'm not really sure what it is you're asking.
2) Animal disease control methods are something that bother me because I think a large reason for the difference in approach when compared to human disease control is that infected animals (or even animals that are only suspected of infection) are no longer a saleable product and so the extreme option is chosen as a means of preserving stock instead of with the goal of saving as many lives as possible.

It's a perfectly consistent position that vegetarianism/vega ism is morally required, but that the preservation of human life is strongly ( or even absolutely) more valuable than preventing animal suffering or death. So certainly a vegetarian could approve of culling birds infected with avian flu.

But there will probably be a range of opinions on that subject, as evidenced by Splatted.

I would like to point to some (unstated) postulates that may be underlying the positions being taken. Not as set collectively being accepted but obne or more of them perhaps.

"Humans are (or should aspire to be) something higher, better, than (other) animals" <<that there is something higher, better, etc.)

"Nature (the natural world) is cruel, evil, etc," <<think about carnivores>>

For example, we humans who are rather clearly evolved as omnivorous animals don't have to be so. We could choose to be vegetarian. This is presumed to be better but that would carry the implication of an underlying belief "a herbivorous animal is better than a carnivorous animal" or perhaps instead a belief "we humans are not animals; we are above all that" (we are different in kind, not just in degree).

Please, I am by no means trying to denigrate such underlying beliefs, just saying that we should recognize the deep down bases from which we are coming.

Mike Novack wrote:such underlying beliefs, just saying that we should recognize the deep down bases from which we are coming.

( my emphasis. )

I for one don't belong to the above "we".
I don't accept some of the so-called postulates or axioms mentioned so far in this thread.

If the above "we" is replaced with "some people," it would be an accurate statement.

tj86430 wrote:In Finland, one of the main reasons (besides getting the meat) for hunting large animals (such as moose) is to keep the population in check and thus avoid a lot of lethal (both to the moose and humans) road accidents.

Also a lot of small predators that are not indigenous in Finland (mostly originally escaped from fur-farms) are hunted because of the damage they do to indigenous species.

Another option would be to hunt humans, thus reducing the population and avoiding a lot of lethal road accidents. Obviously that would be a ridiculous argument but it is equally logical.

DrStraw wrote:

tj86430 wrote:In Finland, one of the main reasons (besides getting the meat) for hunting large animals (such as moose) is to keep the population in check and thus avoid a lot of lethal (both to the moose and humans) road accidents.

Also a lot of small predators that are not indigenous in Finland (mostly originally escaped from fur-farms) are hunted because of the damage they do to indigenous species.

Another option would be to hunt humans, thus reducing the population and avoiding a lot of lethal road accidents. Obviously that would be a ridiculous argument but it is equally logical.

A tangent, but this just makes me think of Death Race 2000.

Many people also euthanize their pet, when the pet is going to die soon and is in great pain.

(and yes, before anyone draws any parallels to human euthanasia, I think it should be allowed under certain conditions)

While many people subscribe to the belief that for one reason or another it's normal for humans to eat meat, it's interesting to note that this perception is changing. When I was a kid, vegetarians were no where near as common as they are today. According to Wikipedia, it's gone from 1% in 1971 to 13% of the US population now identifying themselves as vegetarian or vegan. I'm not sure why this is, but my guess is that information is easier to acquire nowadays, and the awareness of the jaw-dropping industrial production conditions is harder to explain away, particularly to kids who have not yet developed such a strong attachment to the taste of meat. Millions of people have proven that having animals killed for the pleasure of eating is neither necessary nor an efficient use of natural resources. Why shouldn't the trend continue? The "normal" of today is not necessarily that of tomorrow.

Would it be fair to say that the OP is essentially asking the following question (and related sub-questions)?

QUESTION (1): What is the set of conditions under which it is ethical for a human to kill a non-human life form?

The set of conditions may include the motivations and circumstances of the human doing the killing. It may also include relevant properties of the non-human life-form.

QUESTION (1A): Can the conditions you gave as answers to (1) be derived from first principles?

QUESTION (1B): What are those first principles?

QUESTION (1C): Do you agree with the first principles given by others? The answer to this one can only be YES/NO because first principles really cannot be justified.

I personally do not have a strong opinion on this issue because it's such a tough question, which means I cannot make up my mind. That said, any discussion of it sometimes seems premature given that even human life is not given much respect these days.

DrStraw wrote:Another option would be to hunt humans, thus reducing the population and avoiding a lot of lethal road accidents. Obviously that would be a ridiculous argument but it is equally logical.

Equally logical if one thinks that human life is of equal worth to moose life, which is a big assumption.

Mike Novack wrote:For example, we humans who are rather clearly evolved as omnivorous animals don't have to be so. We could choose to be vegetarian. This is presumed to be better but that would carry the implication of an underlying belief "a herbivorous animal is better than a carnivorous animal" or perhaps instead a belief "we humans are not animals; we are above all that" (we are different in kind, not just in degree).

This borders on being confused. When we say that Hitler is a bad man, while decaying meat has a bad smell, we are not saying that they are bad in the same way. Most of us would say Hitler was evil, or immoral, or unjust. Each word might reflect different assumptions, but we would not apply any of them to the smell.

In the same way, a vegetarian might think that when a non-human animal eats another animal, the pain is bad. But they need not think it is immoral.

hyperpape wrote:

DrStraw wrote:Another option would be to hunt humans, thus reducing the population and avoiding a lot of lethal road accidents. Obviously that would be a ridiculous argument but it is equally logical.

Equally logical if one thinks that human life is of equal worth to moose life, which is a big assumption.

Couldn't agree more. I can think of far more humans who life is worth way less than a moose than I can think of those whose life is worth more.

At home I rarely eat meat, it's just not necessary, and my gal is a vegetarian (very occasionally, lapsed vegetarian. Bacon addiction ruins lives).

That being said, my concern with cutting out meat entirely is ecological. Though I believe it is heavily over-consumed, I think meat can be part of a sustainable structure. The consequences of releasing our entire cattle population into the wild would be catastrophic. Neither they, nor their environment are prepared for the wild (Owing to our breeding approaches). Their population now relies on our existence.

I have every concern for an animal's life and well-being. But everything dies and I don't think there's anything wrong with making use of those resources.

This is not the way we currently consume meat. But if we want to avoid having to wipe out entire populations under our purview, then I think we need to find a way to justify the exchange of resources.

DrStraw wrote:

hyperpape wrote:

DrStraw wrote:Another option would be to hunt humans, thus reducing the population and avoiding a lot of lethal road accidents. Obviously that would be a ridiculous argument but it is equally logical.

Equally logical if one thinks that human life is of equal worth to moose life, which is a big assumption.

Couldn't agree more. I can think of far more humans who life is worth way less than a moose than I can think of those whose life is worth more.

Sounds a bit like the same old dogma just with changed algebraic sign (±) … (been there, done that)

While I can understand—better: empathize—a lot with what I believe to be the underlying notion of this statement, I’d rather NOT just turn the old “human is the crown of creation” motto upside down … meanwhile I prefer something like “well, if many of my assumptions have been wrong, perhaps it’s better not to jump to new assumptions (judgements of worth) and just OBSERVE.«

Like, when finding out that I’m doing something wrong, it’s often a good idea not hastily to do something else, but first come to a halt and do a reality check.

Just a few thoughts.

Greetings, Tom

shapenaji wrote:At home I rarely eat meat, it's just not necessary, and my gal is a vegetarian (very occasionally, lapsed vegetarian. Bacon addiction ruins lives).

That being said, my concern with cutting out meat entirely is ecological. Though I believe it is heavily over-consumed, I think meat can be part of a sustainable structure. The consequences of releasing our entire cattle population into the wild would be catastrophic. Neither they, nor their environment are prepared for the wild (Owing to our breeding approaches). Their population now relies on our existence.

I have every concern for an animal's life and well-being. But everything dies and I don't think there's anything wrong with making use of those resources.

This is not the way we currently consume meat. But if we want to avoid having to wipe out entire populations under our purview, then I think we need to find a way to justify the exchange of resources.

I assume this is meant as a joke. If we all suddenly decide to stop eating meat then the suppliers would stop producing the animals and in one generation they would all be gone. It would take that long for everyone to make the switch.

DrStraw wrote:
I assume this is meant as a joke. If we all suddenly decide to stop eating meat then the suppliers would stop producing the animals and in one generation they would all be gone. It would take that long for everyone to make the switch.

In order to maintain animal quality of life, you're in favor of wiping their species off the planet?