Seal Clubbing

[KitKatMatt]

Many things are morally relative. I find diets one of those things.

 

[Conscious Z]

Many things are morally relative. I find diets one of those things.

Diets aren't a moral issue at all. Intentionally causing suffering to a sentient creature for no good reason is a moral issue, and there is moral truth to it. It's wrong.

 

[dinonum]

I don't know of any way to morally justify the slaughtering of any life just for something like luxury.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Yes, it's wrong to cause suffering to any creature.

That's why it's important to quickly and humanely slaughter the animals we use. And to raise them in humane settings so they live comfortably and happily in good health until we need them.

 

[nebulaJP]

God created animals for man to use; all animals, in whatever way we see fit, they are God’s gift to us.

Where does the Bible say any of the above? Which verse?

 

[Chany]

Yes, it's wrong to cause suffering to any creature.

That's why it's important to quickly and humanely slaughter the animals we use. And to raise them in humane settings so they live comfortably and happily in good health until we need them.

So, would you say that harming something unnecessarily (without any good and justifiable reason) is wrong?

Also, would you say death is a harm?

 

[Chany]

I don't know of any way to morally justify the slaughtering of any life just for something like luxury.

There are a couple social contract moralities and certain desire-utilitarians who believe it is okay.

 

[Conscious Z]

There are a couple social contract moralities and certain desire-utilitarians who believe it is okay.

Could you give an example of a case where desire utilitarians would condone this?

 

[KitKatMatt]

So, would you say that harming something unnecessarily (without any good and justifiable reason) is wrong?

Also, would you say death is a harm?

I'd say it is wrong, yes.

I don't think death is harm in all cases, but is in some.

If I killed my neighbor, or my neighbor's dog, that's harm.

If I was my neighbor's doctor and he has asked to be helped to end his life, or I am my neighbor's veterinarian and he asked to put his dog to sleep, that's not harm. There are obviously conditions for each of those things, but this was just a simplified example.

 

[He is Risen 72]

Where does the Bible say any of the above? Which verse?

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."


Genesis 1:28

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

I was addressing the supposed 'cruelty' of killing, not the morality of it.

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

Apparently you've never put a worm on a fishhook.

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

Plant eating animals enrich the soil with their manure resulting in abundant plant life.

The great British agronomist Sir Albert Howard observed that "It is those cultures that incorporate animal husbandry into their agricultural system that are the most healthy, and the most prosperous."

His special emphasis was the incorporation of animal manures into large composting programs, as necessary amendments to promote healthy soils. He then made a very compelling case for the connection of healthy soil with human health.

Source: The Soil and Health, and, An Agricultural Testament, by Sir Albert Howard (1873-1947).

Albert Howard was 'knighted' for his advancement of knowledge in the field of agronomy and agriculture, and is the father of the modern organic agriculture movement.

 

[Chany]

I'd say it is wrong, yes.

I don't think death is harm in all cases, but is in some.

If I killed my neighbor, or my neighbor's dog, that's harm.

If I was my neighbor's doctor and he has asked to be helped to end his life, or I am my neighbor's veterinarian and he asked to put his dog to sleep, that's not harm. There are obviously conditions for each of those things, but this was just a simplified example.

Actually, I don't think what you are describing is not a harm; at least, not in the sense that no harm is occurring. Death marks the loss of life, the loss of future goods. This marks one of the important reasons we find death to be bad. There are others, but I do not want to focus on them here. The loss of one's consciousness, the ability to have these goods- this is always a loss experienced in death. The person always loses something in death, so it is therefore a harm for a person to go from existence to nonexistence. Death is always, in some sense, a harm, whether that death is at 10, 40, 80, or 800.

What is being confused is the fact that death is not a harm at all and that death is a lesser harm given the circumstances. Let's use an example:

A man walks up to you, restrains you, and tells you that you have two options- he can either punch you really hard in the arm, or he can brutally cut off your limbs one by one. Which do you choose? The lesser of two harms, of course. You choose to be punched over losing all your limbs. This does not mean getting punched in the arm is not a harm; all it means is that, given the conditions and circumstances in the real world, the best option available is getting punched in the arm.

Death is similar. I (optimistically) assume that when you refer to aiding a man kill himself, you are referring to a terminally ill/severely handicapped/incredibly pained man for whom death is to be a release. These conditions do not defeat the harm of death. If the person had the regular quality of life of a healthy 20 year-old, then death is a harm. This holds the same whether they are 80 or 800 if all things are equal. If the have the same prospects of the future and quality of life in their 800s as their 20s, then death is harmful to them. However, in the situations you describe, the circumstances are very different: there is little hope for the future and the only thing currently present is pain and suffering.

This is what confuses us: the person would rather die than experience the pain the currently undergo. I would like to emphasize the word "rather", as it indicates a choice between two alternatives. It is in this dichotomy that one finds two harms: the harm of death and the harm of suffering, illness, and pain. There is still harm in death; it is just that, given the realistic circumstances, the harm of death is a better option to take than the harm of the level of suffering in the person's present and future.

Even if you reject my conclusion, this does not apply to most animals. Most animals that are killed for meat are not sick, old, or injured; nothing is stopping them from having a good life. In these cases, death is a harm to them.

 

[KitKatMatt]

You assume correctly in terms of a man wanting to end his life. I didn't want to get into everything, which is why I said some conditions definitely applied. I also wouldn't want to put someone's dog to sleep unless it was suffering (which is different from killing a healthy animal for food or parts, because the dog's body is not going to be eaten or used for other products).

I still don't see death as an always bad thing. Death has to happen to sustain life.

I repeat again that I don't agree with treating anything inhumanely or letting anything suffer.

Those are just my views though. I know they're not perfect, but that's what they are.

 

[Conscious Z]

I was addressing the supposed 'cruelty' of killing, not the morality of it.

Then I suppose I don't see the relevance of cruelty here if it doesn't mean anything in terms of morality.

Apparently you've never put a worm on a fishhook.

I have. What does that have to do with consciousness? Responding to stimuli is not sufficient for consciousness. Earthworms don't have a CNS, thus they aren't conscious.

Plant eating animals enrich the soil with their manure resulting in abundant plant life.

The great British agronomist Sir Albert Howard observed that "It is those cultures that incorporate animal husbandry into their agricultural system that are the most healthy, and the most prosperous."

His special emphasis was the incorporation of animal manures into large composting programs, as necessary amendments to promote healthy soils. He then made a very compelling case for the connection of healthy soil with human health.

Source: The Soil and Health, and, An Agricultural Testament, by Sir Albert Howard (1873-1947).

Albert Howard was 'knighted' for his advancement of knowledge in the field of agronomy and agriculture, and is the father of the modern organic agriculture movement.

We don't have to eat animals in order to have plant-eating animals.

 

[Conscious Z]

I also wouldn't want to put someone's dog to sleep unless it was suffering (which is different from killing a healthy animal for food or parts, because the dog's body is not going to be eaten or used for other products).

Sure, people don't eat dog, but eating beef (or chicken, pork, etc.) isn't necessary either. All of those are optional. So how does the fact that we actually eat the cow, even though we don't need to, make its death more justifiable?

I still don't see death as an always bad thing. Death has to happen to sustain life.

The death of animals does not have to happen to sustain human life.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then I suppose I don't see the relevance of cruelty here if it doesn't mean anything in terms of morality.

The point is that man is less 'cruel' about killing animals than animals themselves. You can hardly impute immorality to animals killing other animals.

What does that have to do with consciousness? Responding to stimuli is not sufficient for consciousness. Earthworms don't have a CNS, thus they aren't conscious.

So if one isn't conscious of it being put to death isn't immoral? Don't we put criminals to sleep before the lethal drugs are injected?

In the worm's case I'm talking about feeling pain, not being aware of the exact cause of it.

We don't have to eat animals in order to have plant-eating animals.

Animals are a bigger part of our livelihood than just food. We use almost every part for some productive purpose, from leather to medicines.

How far are you willing to take this argument? To the jungles of the world where people subsist on the critters they can kill and eat? And where do you draw the line between being fully aware that they are being killed and the 'stimulus' of just feeling some pain?

 

[Chany]

You assume correctly in terms of a man wanting to end his life. I didn't want to get into everything, which is why I said some conditions definitely applied. I also wouldn't want to put someone's dog to sleep unless it was suffering (which is different from killing a healthy animal for food or parts, because the dog's body is not going to be eaten or used for other products).

I still don't see death as an always bad thing. Death has to happen to sustain life.

I repeat again that I don't agree with treating anything inhumanely or letting anything suffer.

Those are just my views though. I know they're not perfect, but that's what they are.

There is a distinction between a death as a harm to the individual who dies and death as a harm to others. Clearly death sometimes greatly benifits others in the greatest good sort of sense. However, we evaluate the badness of death in regards to the individual. We do not say that the death of a rich man who gives money to thousands of poor people is not a harm. Nor do we say that the death of a very sick man is not bad at all because it alleviates the suffering of the family. It still harms someone, the individual who dies. That is who we care about when describing the misfortune of death.

The situation you describe (death a necessary for substaining life) is still resolved in the same way as the case I already described. There are still two harms- death and more suffering/death. All you are doing is picking a lesser overall harm.

 

[nebulaJP]

God created animals for man to use; all animals, in whatever way we see fit, they are God’s gift to us.

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Genesis 1:28

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Those verses do not support your comment. All that it says about humans’ relationship to animals is that humans are in charge: humans may rule over animals. If I go on vacation and you come over to my house and watch my cats, you may rule over them while I’m gone. You are in charge. That is not to say that they were brought into existence in order to be a gift for you or that you may do whatever you please with them.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Sure, people don't eat dog, but eating beef (or chicken, pork, etc.) isn't necessary either. All of those are optional. So how does the fact that we actually eat the cow, even though we don't need to, make its death more justifiable?

Are you sure about that? Not only is Asia particularly famous for dog recipes, as well as cat and rat, but apparently Canada has a taste for Dog.

Dog meat legal, health inspector says - Canada - CBC News

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Those verses do not support your comment. All that it says about humans’ relationship to animals is that humans are in charge: humans may rule over animals. If I go on vacation and you come over to my house and watch my cats, you may rule over them while I’m gone. You are in charge. That is not to say that they were brought into existence in order to be a gift for you or that you may do whatever you please with them.

The point is that God created some animals as suitable for food for man i.e. the 'clean' vs. the 'unclean'.