Seal Clubbing

[GrimKingGrim]

God created animals for man to use; all animals, in whatever way we see fit, they are God’s gift to us. God even made clothing for Adam and Eve out of animal skins to replace the PLANT based clothing that Adam and Eve fashioned in order to show us the superiority of leather and fur over plant fibers.

Then why is it that animals don't seem to agree with that assessment?

 

[Albion]

Then why is it that animals don't seem to agree with that assessment?

How do you know what they think about it? And what difference would their opinion make?

By the way, no one has yet made the case for not cutting your lawn. When do we get to "Grass has feelings, too, and it deeply resents being victimized, etc.?"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Shooting them is apparently more common. My concern is with the massive number that are killed. Humans have a pretty bad track record when it comes to filling demand over available supply.

Being an omnivore with a decent knowledge of farm animal abuse, I am a poor judge of this ethical dilemma.

True. Almost every dairy barn has a baseball bat or two-by-four leaning against the wall to discipline recalcitrant cows (cows that are reluctant to give up their calcium).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In nature the prey always has a fighting chance of getting away which is not the case in a slaughterhouse.

I hope you eat only organic veggies.

Earthworms and other soil life, including bacteria, have no chance against the plow, disc, harrow, and acid treated fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides as the fields are prepare to grow.......vegetables!

 

[Hank]

Any time any animal or plant, bacterium, whatever is killed by any other, there is a victim and a victimizer. The word "victim" is not reserved for humans.

The survival rate of any given life form drops to 0 over time. But how does one accuse time as a victimizer?

When the US super stars and EuroDoGooders made a clothing campain against seals, and actually influenced potential buyers with fear mongering and cruelty propaganda, seals were no longer in demand. No point in hunting seals when no one buys it. Seals eat too. So they all went out to sea and ate a lot of fish. Strangely enough, there was no PETA or other fanatics begging seals to stop cleaning the fish stock and leaving some to the fisher man.

 

[Conscious Z]

There is nothing immoral about killing animals out of necessity, such as for food or warmth. But for looks? Please. You don't have to have a degree in ethics to know this is wrong.

In modern society, killing animals for food or warmth is not a necessity.

 

[Conscious Z]

Just to experience a taste would fall into luxurey the environment must be considered when choosing which animals to eat.

There is no reason to eat any animals except for taste. In our modern world, there is no nutritional reason to kill an animal.

 

[Conscious Z]

True, there is a possibility that the prey will escape the predator but it's flatly absurd to say that a more humane death is to be found in nature. Compared to a well run slaughter house, say one use systems designed by Temple Grandin, any death awaiting an animal in the wild is much more cruel.

I thought Catholic guilt was bad, then I found out about Vegan guilt.

Vegan "guilt" only exists because vegans have undergone proper moral reasoning and realized the absurdity of killing sentient creatures for something as flippant as taste. It's like saying "abolitionist guilt" or "egalitarian guilt." It is proper guilt, although I must say few vegans actually feel guilty because they are comfortable in knowing that they are not contributors to the problem.

Also, the argument that "death is swift" is irrelevant. Would you object to me killing you if I promised that death would be swift? While I agree that human suffering is not exactly equal to animal suffering, the difference is a matter of degree rather than kind. If it is wrong to kill a human, it is still at least somewhat wrong to kill an animal.

 

[Conscious Z]

There's nothing wrong with harvesting animals for luxury reasons.

As long as they're not a protected species, out of season, or being abused/tortured instead of being killed quickly and humanely, then there shouldn't be any issue.

We need to respect and treat humanely the animals we use and harvest.

I think we could do with using animals as a resource a lot less than we do now, but that's just my own opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with using them, even if it's for "luxury" items.

You are free to become whatever you'd like.

I am fine being an omnivore and predator.

Also, I am not up to date on the hunting regulations of seals, but AFAIK killing a mother who has offspring still dependent on her is poaching. Which is greatly inhumane.

1. You are confusing law and ethics. Whether something is in-season or not is a legal consideration, not an ethical one.

2. It isn't immoral to kill a sentient creature in order to obtain a luxury good? I saw you post once that you were opposed to the torture of humans in just about every case. Why do you value the experience of humans so much more than the experience of animals? Is being clubbed over the head until one dies so inconsequential just because one is a non-human animal?

3. Being "free to be whatever one likes" is also a legal statement, not a statement about ethics.

I really don't think you've thought this position through.

 

[Conscious Z]

Seal clubbing is just as moral as lobster fishing except for two things: baby seals look cuter and so we think of them as though they were human babies. We don't care about lobsters. Second, clubbing anything seems barbaric, but if it's quick and effective, it's certainly no less humane than boiling the creature alive!

We're not speaking of a human killing a human. OK?

Then you are using the word in a way that doesn't shed any light on the topic here or lead us to think that any particular way of handling the matter is better than the other.

So here's my suggestion. Those people who find hunting offensive should avoid doing any hunting, just like vegans choose not to eat meat. And that's all there is to it.

How do you know what they think about it? And what difference would their opinion make?

By the way, no one has yet made the case for not cutting your lawn. When do we get to "Grass has feelings, too, and it deeply resents being victimized, etc.?"

First, seals are almost certainly more conscious that lobsters. There is legitimate debate over whether lobsters are conscious at all. You obviously believe that consciousness exists on a spectrum because you believe humans are more conscious than seals (I presume). As such, the degree to which one is immoral in killing a given animal is also on a spectrum. Note: I don't support lobster fishing either. You are essentially pointing to one bad practice to justify another bad practice.

Second, it's clear that you don't understand the actual argument for not killing animals for food. I'll give it to you in a nutshell. The animals we eat for food are conscious creatures. When we kill them, there is suffering. Causing the suffering of a conscious creature for no good reason is wrong, therefore killing animals for food is wrong. Plants are almost certainly not conscious, thus the discussion about mowing one's lawn is silly.

Third, you seem to draw a distinct line between humans and animals. I'm not sure why that is. I agree that the human experience is not identical to the animal experience, but our levels of consciousness are on a spectrum. If it is wrong to kill a human for no good reason, it is at least somewhat wrong to kill an animal for no good reason.

 

[Conscious Z]

Man is probably less brutal than nature regarding killing of critters.

I hope you eat only organic veggies.

Earthworms and other soil life, including bacteria, have no chance against the plow, disc, harrow, and acid treated fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides as the fields are prepare to grow.......vegetables!

Non-human animals aren't capable of moral reasoning, therefore it doesn't make sense to use them as an example for human behavior. By your logic, I am morally justified in killing you if I see you as a threat to my food source or my ability to find a mate.

Earthworms and other soil life, including bacteria, are almost certainly not conscious.

As a side note, eating meat actually causes the death of more plants than eating only plants does.

 

[Conscious Z]

God created animals for man to use; all animals, in whatever way we see fit, they are God’s gift to us. God even made clothing for Adam and Eve out of animal skins to replace the PLANT based clothing that Adam and Eve fashioned in order to show us the superiority of leather and fur over plant fibers.

Ladies and gentlemen, when people ask atheists "What has Christianity ever done that was so bad? Why are you so hateful towards the religion?" this is why. The Christian proposition is not without actual, real moral consequences.

 

[He is Risen 72]

I think a tree needs a hug.

 

[KitKatMatt]

1. You are confusing law and ethics. Whether something is in-season or not is a legal consideration, not an ethical one.

2. It isn't immoral to kill a sentient creature in order to obtain a luxury good? I saw you post once that you were opposed to the torture of humans in just about every case. Why do you value the experience of humans so much more than the experience of animals? Is being clubbed over the head until one dies so inconsequential just because one is a non-human animal?

3. Being "free to be whatever one likes" is also a legal statement, not a statement about ethics.

I really don't think you've thought this position through.

1. It's unethical to poach, which is taking animals out of season.

2. Yes, I'm against all forms of torture against humans. I'm also against all forms of torture against animals. I didn't say anything on this thread about clubbing, because I don't know anything about that method of hunting. I don't know how quick, effective, or efficient it is. If one hit can instantly kill a seal, I don't see how that's inhumane.

3. And? I don't really see your point.

 

[Conscious Z]

1. It's unethical to poach, which is taking animals out of season.

2. Yes, I'm against all forms of torture against humans. I'm also against all forms of torture against animals. I didn't say anything on this thread about clubbing, because I don't know anything about that method of hunting. I don't know how quick, effective, or efficient it is. If one hit can instantly kill a seal, I don't see how that's inhumane.

3. And? I don't really see your point.

1. Why is poaching unethical in all cases but hunting is not? Let's say someone lives in a state where there are tons of deer, and they kill one the day before the season starts. Why is that unethical, yet killing one the next day would not have been?

2. Would you be in favor of killing humans so long as it was quick and painless? If not, why not? I agree that there is a difference in degree between killing humans and killing animals, but if killing a human for no good reason is bad, killing an animal for no good reason is at least somewhat bad.

3. You said:

You are free to become whatever you'd like.

I am fine being an omnivore and predator.

I am pointing out that such a statement is a statement of one's legal rights, not of the moral status of such an action. Of course we're free to eat meat or not eat meat....but that fact doesn't tell us anything about the moral status of eating meat.

 

[Albion]

First, seals are almost certainly more conscious that lobsters. There is legitimate debate over whether lobsters are conscious at all. You obviously believe that consciousness exists on a spectrum because you believe humans are more conscious than seals (I presume).

When people too quickly use the word "obviously" in a debate--and also attribute ideas to other people without actually knowing what they do believe--it almost always damages their argument. The above is a good example of that.

First, seals are almost certainly more conscious that lobsters. There is legitimate debate over whether lobsters are conscious at all. You obviously believe that consciousness exists on a spectrum because you believe humans are more conscious than seals (I presume).

Which of those do you think you'd like to go with? --it's obvious or you presume?

YOU may fancy the "they're conscious" line, but most people do not make that their guide. Elsewise, they could not feel angst over the killing of baby seals but not think the same about deer hunting. IOW, your argument fails.

Second, it's clear that you don't understand the actual argument for not killing animals for food. I'll give it to you in a nutshell. The animals we eat for food are conscious creatures. When we kill them, there is suffering. Causing the suffering of a conscious creature for no good reason is wrong

That is ONE argument among many. Apparently it's the one you favor. But I'm willing to bet that you're also against killing animals for food if there is no suffering.

Third, you seem to draw a distinct line between humans and animals. I'm not sure why that is.

Because there is a difference?

 

[Conscious Z]

When people too quickly use the word "obviously" in a debate--and also attribute ideas to other people without actually knowing what they do believe--it almost always damages their argument. The above is a good example of that.

How about you actually address the argument I did make in response to your post rather than nitpicking my usage of one word and then making a general observation about debates?

If you do not in fact believe consciousness exits on a spectrum, then clarify what you do believe. It seems there are two possibilities if that is the case:

1. Humans are consciousness but animals aren't.
2. Humans and animals are both equally conscious.

Given the current body of knowledge on animal biology, both seem incredibly unlikely.

 

[KitKatMatt]

If a human wants to end their own life, then I support access to a quick, painless death. I support assisted suicide and the right for a person to choose euthanasia for themselves.

Clearly this is different from killing an animal, because an animal did not choose to die. However, I don't see any other predator asking permission from their prey to be allowed to eat them.

Your morals are not my morals. I didn't state the "you can be whatever" thing as something legal in the first place, just a matter of how we each can choose our own paths in terms of what we eat.

 

[Conscious Z]

Which of those do you think you'd like to go with? --it's obvious or you presume?

Rather than mincing words, what is your view on animal consciousness if it is not that consciousness exists on a spectrum? Do you believe that animals are not conscious or that they are equally as conscious as humans?

YOU may fancy the "they're conscious" line, but most people do not make that their guide. Elsewise, they could not feel angst over the killing of baby seals but not think the same about deer hunting. IOW, your argument fails.

My argument fails because some people disagree with it? How does that disprove my argument?

That is ONE argument among many. Apparently it's the one you favor. But I'm willing to bet that you're also against killing animals for food if there is no suffering.

I'm on the fence on that topic, and here's why. First, it's hard to imagine a case where we could practically kill animals on a large scale without causing suffering. Many animals have rich emotional lives that involve other animals, and it is well-documented in many species that there is often mourning after an animal is killed. Further, the techniques used to kill an animal without suffering are likely not going to be foolproof, and the standard in which we raise the animals would be so much higher that it is likely impossible from a practical standpoint.

Second, and more importantly, I cannot reconcile my belief that it is wrong to kill a human, even if suffering is not involved, with the idea that it is acceptable to kill an animal if he doesn't suffer. While there is a difference in humans and animals, it is a difference in degree. Thus, if it is wrong to kill a human, it is at least somewhat wrong to kill an animal.

Hypothetically, if we knew there was zero suffering involved in killing an animal, I would not oppose killing the animal, but that may commit me to saying the same about killing a human.

Because there is a difference?

I agree that there is a difference, but it is a difference in degree. If it is wrong to kill a human, it is at least somewhat wrong to kill an animal. I asked why you draw a distinct line. No morally-relevant line exists between us and other animals -- it's all shades of grey.

 

[Conscious Z]

Clearly this is different from killing an animal, because an animal did not choose to die. However, I don't see any other predator asking permission from their prey to be allowed to eat them.

I'm not sure you actually want to look to nature for moral guidance. If that were the case, would I be morally justified in killing you because I'm hungry or I perceive you to be a sexual competitor? The fact that a practice exists in nature does not mean it is moral for mankind to do it.

Your morals are not my morals. I didn't state the "you can be whatever" thing as something legal in the first place, just a matter of how we each can choose our own paths in terms of what we eat.

Of course we can choose whatever we want to eat, but we can't eat whatever we want and be morally justified in doing so. I'm not sure what you mean by "Your morals are not my morals." There are things that are morally right and things that are morally wrong, whether you agree with them or not.