• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is your excuse for killing animals?

Brocolis

New Blood
B
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
23
(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?
 
As long as the animal doesn't understand its situation — it's about to die or is being kept alive to be eaten — I don't think it matters. It's also important that other animals aren't affected by its death.

This would even apply to humans. For example, imagine you're having a nice day, walking down the street and then... nothing. A car coming from behind hits you, instantly killing you, you have absolutely no concept of your impending death and therefore it's meaningless to you — not your family and loved ones. And therefore no harm is done to the person.
 
Last edited:
Brocolis said:
I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.
Click to expand...

There is something special about the human race from my perspective.

I'm a part of it.

That's where the "golden rule" and most morality comes from, they are tools to construct a society that we all participate in. Animals don't interact with out society in that way.

Now if I were to kill someone's pet, that would be messing with a human, someone part of this whole crazy fabric I have to interact with.
 
Up until the Chinese found that humans can eat plastic... for awhile, anyway.. humans had to eat -something-.
Animals are handy for that.
Back in the Garden, before the Fall, everything ate fruits and nuts and grass, no animals were harmed by ingestion, nor harmed each other.
Lions and lambs were the best of pals.
Then, things went to... hell, I guess... and latent carnivores turned from broccoli to brook trout and bovines for food.
Then came the Redemption, and all of that was reversed... wonnit?
I killed animals for sport. Quail, dove, duck, rabbit, deer, woodchuck, beaver, copperhead; the usual stuff for a growing boy in a normal family living in the boonies.
I will avoid killing most of everything now, it became too easy way when to go out, get the animal, bring it home, clean it, eat it...
The butcher does that for me now, I don't need no steenken' license to buy skinless chicken thighs.
 
Actually, you are making some assumptions about our positions.

Brocolis said:
I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.
Click to expand...

I don't really believe in the golden rule as more than a generally good idea. I don't like hurting others, and I know it pays to consider the well-being of others. Still, in some situations I would do unto others something I wouldn't want done to myself.

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.
Click to expand...

That I believe in evolution doesn't mean I can't consider the human race to be special. It's perfectly logical to know we share ancestors with animals and still care less about the animals than other humans. The reason I don't care about animals as much is mostly that they don't have minds as effective as humans, and as such I don't consider them to have a "soul".

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?
Click to expand...

Well, that's just it. I don't follow the Golden Rule, and even if I did, the evolutionary perspective doesn't mean all beings are equal. I don't harm something because they have faults; I harm them to gain something.
 
The law of nature is that carnivores eat other animals. We primates are omnivores, which does mean that we're to a greater or lesser extent meat-eaters as well, and therefore it is not against nature to kill and eat animals. With our intellect and an evolutionarily-driven sense of justice and fairness, we have become somewhat desirous of lessening that impact as a contribution to the world around us, but it is not by any means yet a requirement. Perhaps at some point in the future that will happen, we'll see it as part of the requirement of a sentient being to avoid eating other animals - perhaps. At this point, they are still in our diet and without extraordinary means are a requirement for us. There seems to be no other point in trying to deny that the world does operate as a food chain, and therefore no reason to exclude one's self from it.
 
Just as cats eat mice, frogs eat flies, humans will eat other more simple/less intelligent animals.

-PbFoot
 
shadron said:
The law of nature is that carnivores eat other animals. We primates are omnivores, which does mean that we're to a greater or lesser extent meat-eaters as well, and therefore it is not against nature to kill and eat animals. With our intellect and an evolutionarily-driven sense of justice and fairness, we have become somewhat desirous of lessening that impact as a contribution to the world around us, but it is not by any means yet a requirement. Perhaps at some point in the future that will happen, we'll see it as part of the requirement of a sentient being to avoid eating other animals - perhaps. At this point, they are still in our diet and without extraordinary means are a requirement for us. There seems to be no other point in trying to deny that the world does operate as a food chain, and therefore no reason to exclude one's self from it.
Click to expand...

That is a much more succinct and eloquent way of putting it. I think nothing else needs to be said after that.
 
In the immortal words of one Maynard James Keenan "Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life".
​
I hunt to put meat in my freezer. While hunting most certainly isn't my primary source for meat, as I do buy meat from the store, it is my preferred way to acquire animal protein. I'd much rather have a freezer full of game meat, for several months, than to be continually buying meat, from numerous animals, from the slaughter house. I can literally have meat in the freezer for up to a year from one animal, say a large deer or an elk.
​
Also, when I say "hunt" I mean hunting for food. Not trophy hunting, not large fenced-in outfitter hunting, but boots on the ground in public woods, using my senses, tracking critters that ARE afraid of humans and are far more weary. It's not easy and is not a given that I will harvest an animal. The "success" rate is not high.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
That is a much more succinct and eloquent way of putting it. I think nothing else needs to be said after that.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?
 
shadron said:
The law of nature is that carnivores eat other animals. We primates are omnivores, which does mean that we're to a greater or lesser extent meat-eaters as well, and therefore it is not against nature to kill and eat animals. With our intellect and an evolutionarily-driven sense of justice and fairness, we have become somewhat desirous of lessening that impact as a contribution to the world around us, but it is not by any means yet a requirement. Perhaps at some point in the future that will happen, we'll see it as part of the requirement of a sentient being to avoid eating other animals - perhaps. At this point, they are still in our diet and without extraordinary means are a requirement for us. There seems to be no other point in trying to deny that the world does operate as a food chain, and therefore no reason to exclude one's self from it.
Click to expand...

Straight and to the point. Good job!:)
 
The law of nature is that carnivores eat other animals
Click to expand...

The law of nature is not an actually law. Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life. You don’t rape somebody when you want sex or steal candy from a child when you are hungry. You should not kill an animal when you want to barbecue their flesh.
Well, that's just it. I don't follow the Golden Rule, and even if I did, the evolutionary perspective doesn't mean all beings are equal. I don't harm something because they have faults; I harm them to gain something.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty good argument. Kinda selfish though :D
 
Watch seagulls or ravens fighting over food.
Lions chasing hyenas from their kills. (Lions are mostly scavengers.)
That's natures way.
We don't have to fight for it, mostly, is the only difference.
 
chum said:
No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?
Click to expand...

It has nothing got to do with the Golden Rule, and if anything, what his and my answer implies is, "we don't believe in the golden rule". The Golden Rule is another made up thing by humans. Nature does not have any moral rules. If you don't believe me, just take a look at nature. Animals killing other animals out of hunger or fear of being attacked.
 
The intellectual capacities of humans make them equipped to extend the lifetimes of animals on a large scale, via:

1. Arranging favourable living conditions.
2. Controlling the environment.
3. In the long-term, colonising other worlds.

Thus, killing animals indirectly furthers their species, by furthering humanity.

I suppose we could get the nutrients found in flesh from soy and the like, but it has been argued that this would lead to a reduction in the number of animals on earth, as their presence on farms wouldn't be required. I don't know, haven't considered it.

Anyway, I think that it may be justified from a utilitarian stance (as described above). I'd say that it may or may not contradict the golden rule, depending on whether you consider it to apply to animals, as others have suggested. Personally, I'd say that the utilitarian position is more important, as the golden rule is more of a simplification of morality, a short-cut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom