Seal Clubbing

[nebulaJP]

Or, another option, why not base it on the likelihood of the organism to experience pain similar to ours?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All of the animals currently on hand are released into the wild, preferably in areas where they wouldn't do much damage to the native fauna/flora. Manure would be a thing of the past, it really isn't entirely safe anyway, but there may be other organic options, such as "worm poop". If not, we would just stick with the conventional, modern fertilizers.

What you are proposing is the end of domesticated ruminants. No more milk, meat, cheese, leather goods, etc. No more lab animals either.

I don't think you would stop there. Soon there would be no cats, dogs, or other household pets. Horses would follow, as riding them or using them for labor is deemed cruel as well. Of course hunting and fishing for sport would end, as would commercial fishing which is by any measure more cruel than sport fishing.

The result would be the deforestation of all arable land on earth, which would be needed to provide enough vegetable protein for mankind to survive. The resulting collapse of the lumber and paper industry would displace millions of workers.

Chemical fertilizers, being the only source of replenishing soil nutrients would soon run out, especially phosphorous, but only after it's use has irreparably damaged the soil. Food wars would erupt killing millions, or mankind would starve itself down to a fraction of our current population. All human progress would cease as all of our efforts would be dedicated to just surviving on the diminishing nutrient starved vegetation.

So important is incorporating animals into our agriculture.

 

[nebulaJP]

The result would be the deforestation of all arable land on earth, which would be needed to provide enough vegetable protein for mankind to survive. The resulting collapse of the lumber and paper industry would displace millions of workers.

Chemical fertilizers, being the only source of replenishing soil nutrients would soon run out, especially phosphorous, but only after it's use has irreparably damaged the soil. Food wars would erupt killing millions, or mankind would starve itself down to a fraction of our current population. All human progress would cease as all of our efforts would be dedicated to just surviving on the diminishing nutrient starved vegetation.

So important is incorporating animals into our agriculture.

Lets starts here: What is your evidence that the result would be the deforestation of all arable land on earth? It sounds like you are just making stuff up.

 

[nebulaJP]

U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists | Cornell Chronicle

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Why would the animal’s lack of responsibility for its actions determine whether or not it is wrong to kill it? Why not base it on whether the animal can experience similar emotions to us, such as fear, joy, sadness, boredom etc.?

Whatever your definition, it is always arbitrary. Everyone simply draws the line at different points. But there is no really solid reason to draw the line at one particular point more than another. Pain, emotion, consciousness are all nebulous concepts which are difficult to define and run along a continuum.

Taken to one extreme is the hyper-vegan who argues that killing bacteria by washing your hands is murder.
Taken to the other extreme is a cannibal.

Everyone else falls somewhere in-between.

Where do you draw the line?


I personally take a "Circle of Life" mentality. Death is part of life. Killing for food is part of life. Death is a consequence of life. We are the apex predator.

 

[nebulaJP]

I personally take a "Circle of Life" mentality. Death is part of life. Killing for food is part of life. Death is a consequence of life. We are the apex predator.

"We are the apex predator" is no different than "we eat animals because we can" which is no different than a rapist declaring he can rape a woman whom he finds alone and defenseless.

 

[Desk trauma]

Lets starts here: What is your evidence that the result would be the deforestation of all arable land on earth? It sounds like you are just making stuff up.

While he is over stating the case a bit the majority of the forests in the US would be destroyed by the out of control deer populations were hunting banned and once those were gone farmland would be next even without the addition of tens of millions of feral cows, pigs and sheep.

 

[nebulaJP]

While he is over stating the case a bit the majority of the forests in the US would be destroyed by the out of control deer populations were hunting banned and once those were gone farmland would be next even without the addition of tens of millions of feral cows, pigs and sheep.

Is seal clubbing moral or immoral (I don't believe that you have answered the OP)? This thread is about ethics/morality - not ecological, logistical or economic concerns. The abolition of a human rights violation, such as slavery or child labor, will have economic implications but they have no bearing on the morality of the rights violation. It is no different when discussing animal rights - none of this is relevant to the morality of using animals.

 

[Desk trauma]

Is seal clubbing moral or immoral (I don't believe that you have answered the OP)?

Moral.

 

[nebulaJP]

Moral.

Why?

 

[Desk trauma]

Why?

I find no problem with harvesting wild animals in a controlled manner. As I said at the start of the thread the only reason that the seal harvest is an issue is because they are cute and the manner they are killed is dramatic.

 

[nebulaJP]

I find no problem with harvesting wild animals in a controlled manner. As I said at the start of the thread the only reason that the seal harvest is an issue is because they are cute and the manner they are killed is dramatic.

Is it moral to bludgeon puppies?

 

[Desk trauma]

Is it moral to bludgeon puppies?

I thought we were sticking to the subject of the OP and only talking about the seal harvest?

 

[nebulaJP]

I thought we were sticking to the subject of the OP and only talking about the seal harvest?

No, we're sticking to morality/ethics. This is the Ethics and Morality Sub-forum. So, someone is harvesting puppy skins on your street, bashing them over the head with a club. Regardless of whether or not this is legal, is it moral?

 

[Desk trauma]

...someone is harvesting puppy skins on your street, bashing them over the head with a club. Regardless of whether or not this is legal, is it moral?

So long as they were his animals.

Edit:

Is moral issue the harvesting of animals or the method?

 

[nebulaJP]

So long as they were his animals.

If ownership matters, then if you own a slave, or your wife or child, is it moral to do the same to them? Why or why not?

 

[nebulaJP]

So long as they were his animals.

Edit:

Is moral issue the harvesting of animals or the method?

The 'harvesting'. So why do I even mention the clubbing you ask? I don't know, it's particularly brutal, isn't it? Would you rather be shot or clubbed over the head with a blunt object?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lets starts here: What is your evidence that the result would be the deforestation of all arable land on earth? It sounds like you are just making stuff up.

Because all arable land would be needed to replace animal sourced food. We're not just talking about America but the whole of humanity.

Eskimos and others who depend almost entirely on animal food sources, especially fats, for survival would disappear into the greater society.

Even now the rainforests are being cut down for fuel, (to graze cattle), and to produce soybeans for Monsanto. American farmers are still removing tree-lined fenceline 'shelterbelts' to make room for more plantings, of corn especially.

The additional acreage needed to replace protein from commercial fishing would be enormous.

As the nutrient starved soil becomes depleted the protein content of crops will decline, requiring yet more acreage to be cultivated.

Society would change from growth and progress to a scramble for subsistence.

The plain fact is that mankind needs animal sourced foods for survival.

 

[Desk trauma]

If ownership matters, then if you own a slave,...

Being the rank speciesist that I am the owning of animals vs the owning of humans arguments are simply nonsense.

The issue I take with your argument is while it focuses on the failings of livestock handling or how wild animals are harvested in the end those methods are irrelevant to the argument if the issue is that killing animals is wrong. If that is the issue the method does not matter anymore then how I chose to commit a homicide would matter it would remain immoral and illegal no matter how swift the death I delivered was.

 

[Desk trauma]

The 'harvesting'.

As I have said if the issue is the killing the method it is done is irrelevant to the argument as what should stop is the killing its self. It's rather like focusing on the weapons used in a war rather then the conflict its self.