Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?

[w_alloy]

[ QUOTE ]


I think from an evolutionary view that its the opposite, theres nothing wrong with torture/killing bunnies, but the behavior is wrong. In a communal/gregarious society that behavior would be selected against (who wants to live with someone callous/crazy enough to pointlessly torture an irrelevant living being? A lot of serial killers get their start doing this) and taboos and repulsion is manifested toward these actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definantly agree with this, and it is a good point. I alluded to it in my frist post. This explains things very nicely from a 3rd person view, but how do you feel on the subject?

The vast majority of social norms that have evolved specicically help a society when they are enforced. However, this does not have any negative impact except by appearence. In the case of slaughterhouses and animal testing, it actually has a very positive benifit when people deviate from the norm.

So again, I do not think that the quoted passage is a good reason to personally maintain this moral in certain situations.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
The next time you need a babysitter, hire the person who is willing to kill a bunny with a butterknife.


[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[hurlyburly]

I hope I understand what your asking, but here goes:

We get one shot at life. Everything gets one shot at life. If there is something alive that is more destructive than beneficial, it's rational to kill it.

[ QUOTE ]
it is immoral to torture a rat, or an unwanted mut, or to mass slaughter cows. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What need does torture satisfy? Certainly nothing beneficial. Torturing it for no reason other than that it's alive and you want to watch it suffer? Boys will be boys, I suppose. I have more trouble when adults do this.

Killing any non-rational animal is not immoral, but torturing them to death is wrong for two reasons; it doesn't satisfy the intent conveyed to the recipient for past crimes and it can do irreparable harm to the perpetrator. If a pit bull mauls a child, it won't find remorse by being skinned alive or drug behind a car. Killing it quickly is sufficient, as much for future danger as past crimes.

As far as cows go, they're bred and raised as food. If beef and poultry went off the market tomorrow, there would be a lot fewer cows and chickens. They only exist for their utility. So they are "paying" for their lives by being food later. Harvesting millions isn't the same as torturing one, but I don't agree with their treatment in many cases while they're alive, so I'm choosy about meat. But that's a personal choice.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think there is a big difference between feeling that killing bunnies with butterknives is wrong, as I strongly do, and thinking this behaviour is wrong, which I, frankly, don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

The next time you need a babysitter, hire the person who is willing to kill a bunny with a butterknife.

[w_alloy]

You make many assumptions about justice and life which make it impossible for me to argue with you. Your points about torture have already been adressed. I'm not sure if you didnt read the thread or are going for a cheap laugh. You are taking a small part of the issue and blowing it up.

I feel like if I discuss parts of your post I will have to discuss the whole thing, which I do want to waste time doing. You have brought far to many beiliefs to this discussion; you need to discuss these beliefs not the effects they have on your moral relativism.

[West]

I should mention that I haven't read any of the other replies in this thread, and I'm not sure if I'll bother to or not. This subject has been debated around here numerous times before.

[ QUOTE ]
People think it is generally bad for anything to suffer, and bad for anything to die. But why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should be clear about the obvious fact that suffering and dieing, and their counterparts, torturing and killing, are not exactly the same things.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that those of you who are not religious, and view the world objectively and with an open mind (as I strive to do) need to defend your postion on this if it is anything other than "It matters not at all, except by the effect it has."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if everyone would agree on what "not religious" means, but I think your suggestion is ridiculous in any case. I assume you do believe that human suffering and death does matter, morally? If so, what exactly makes human suffering and death more important morally, than other animals.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I stronly suspect that a large portion of agnostic and athieistic readers of this board maintain that it is immoral to torture a rat, or an unwanted mut, or to mass slaughter cows. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider it immoral to torture another animal for the same basic reason I consider it immoral to torture a human being: I wouldn't want to be tortured myself. It's not exactly that simple - I also wouldn't want to be killed and eaten, but I think the realities of our existence as we know it allow for a lot more justification on this than for torture, for obvious reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
morals exist, and in a larger sense all norms and values, becuase they help society in so many ways (we could spend a lot of time on this but I do not wish to). This is the view of morality that I have found the majority of smart non-religious people hold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the idea of why the concept of morality exists isn't the same thing as what morality actually is, or should be. (If morality exists as a concept to us because of the benefits it has brought to human society, it doesn't follow that what is moral is only what "benefits" human society.)

A question for you: if you were ever "called on the carpet" by some sort of higher power, and asked to justify humans torturing animals, how would you defend it? What would you say that doesn't boil down to being on top of the food chain and might makes right?

[w_alloy]

It seems I am on a whole different paradigm than the rest of the board. I would appreciate it if you would read this to help me, not because I wish to be argumentative. In order for me to understand this disconnect between me and the rest of the world, I need to understand why you make the assumtions you make.

[ QUOTE ]

I consider it immoral to torture another animal for the same basic reason I consider it immoral to torture a human being: I wouldn't want to be tortured myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, as I thought most people understood it, animals cant have "wants" as we conventially understand them becasue they are not sentient. If animals werent sentient this logic wouldnt flow. But I, as well as most of the people here apperently, view animals as sentient. I understand the semantics involved in this word, but I dont want to spend much time on it.

Second, you again are making a huge jump from you to the rest of the world. This is a faith based belief. I have not done near enough research on this, and havent had any upper level philosophy or ehtics classes, and I'm sure this has been discussed ad naseum by people much smarter then me.

That being said, you arent reasoning this out at all:

[ QUOTE ]

I consider it immoral to torture another animal for the same basic reason I consider it immoral to torture a human being: I wouldn't want to be tortured myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a good reason!! Unless you are a relativist, this does not make sense. What does your wants have to do with anything, especially general morality in the world? This seems to be the same general argument everyone is making.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the realities of our existence as we know it allow for a lot more justification on this than for torture, for obvious reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

What justifications? To what higher power or ethic? You are again assuming, and I cant follow you here.

[ QUOTE ]

A question for you: if you were ever "called on the carpet" by some sort of higher power, and asked to justify humans torturing animals, how would you defend it? What would you say that doesn't boil down to being on top of the food chain and might makes right?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question is absolutely ludicrous. Do you know what justify means? This is what this whole thread is about. You bringing a higher power into it suggests you are making assumptions which are not conducive to the type of discussion I want to have.

Regardless, I would respond by saying it has never been shown to me why this behaviour is inherently bad. I just know (if anyone out there stil cares about this and is even reading my posts) that people will say it has been shown to me and I have been blind to the logic. However, I maintain, IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO ME. People are making assumption which I dont agree with.

Which brings me to my last point.
[ QUOTE ]
I assume you do believe that human suffering and death does matter, morally?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont. I should have realized I needed to include this in my orginal topic. I did not want this thread to be me defnding my stance to everyone, but everyone defending their stance to me. I didnt realize everyone would use the assumption that human life is "valuable" on some kind of cosmic and supernatural level to say people are animals and hence there life is valuable too. This is not the logic I see in today's society; if this were the case either a) Murder would be against the law only as a social contract (like a peace treaty between all individuals). b) Murder would have a very simliar punishment as murder of more sentient animals, and there would be much more preservation and laws regarding the treatment and lives of animals. It is not plausible to me to support such a large disconnet, if scaling valuation is really what you belive. All values are relative, if humans are animals you cant say murder is always terrible, but murder of animals is sometimes ok especially if this is there purpose (how the f*ck can you divine their purpose, besides by arbitrarily assigning them this because you facilitated thier birth).

This kind of turned into a rant. Maybe I should have just focused on the last part. Irregardless, I regret starting this thread because its infuriating and depressing nature have caused it to become -ev. Ironicly I wish the thread dead just as it starts, because all of the above was just me clarifying what I was asking.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems I am on a whole different paradigm than the rest of the board. I would appreciate it if you would read this to help me, not because I wish to be argumentative. In order for me to understand this disconnect between me and the rest of the world, I need to understand why you make the assumtions you make.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't wish to be argumentative either. I'm honestly not always that great at expressing what I'm thinking "verbally", but I will try to clarify where I'm coming from.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I consider it immoral to torture another animal for the same basic reason I consider it immoral to torture a human being: I wouldn't want to be tortured myself.



[/ QUOTE ] First, as I thought most people understood it, animals cant have "wants" as we conventially understand them becasue they are not sentient. If animals werent sentient this logic wouldnt flow. But I, as well as most of the people here apperently, view animals as sentient. I understand the semantics involved in this word, but I dont want to spend much time on it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean when you say sentient. I believe that animals experience pain. The Golden Rule applies (do unto other things the way you'd have done unto you). I don't need to know animals' "wants" for this.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, you again are making a huge jump from you to the rest of the world. This is a faith based belief. I have not done near enough research on this, and havent had any upper level philosophy or ehtics classes, and I'm sure this has been discussed ad naseum by people much smarter then me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are saying exactly, and what it is that you say is a faith based belief. That animals are sentient? Again, you'd have to clarify what you mean by that. I apologize, but I still haven't read anything else in this thread (normally I would, but as I alluded to, I've already participated in discussing this issue before in numerous threads).

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, you arent reasoning this out at all: [ QUOTE ]
I consider it immoral to torture another animal for the same basic reason I consider it immoral to torture a human being: I wouldn't want to be tortured myself.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a good reason!! Unless you are a relativist, this does not make sense. What does your wants have to do with anything, especially general morality in the world? This seems to be the same general argument everyone is making.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the Golden Rule is the only logical place to start when it comes to morality. And I think it makes perfect sense.

Technically, IMO, on a personal level, my "wants" don't have anything really to do with morality, in the sense that an individual can be screwed up and have a skewed sense of what ought to be (I apologize that I am probably not expressing myself very well here). Yes, I think that in a general sense, what is moral does have to do with what's best for "everybody".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the realities of our existence as we know it allow for a lot more justification on this than for torture, for obvious reasons.

[/ QUOTE ] What justifications? To what higher power or ethic? You are again assuming, and I cant follow you here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean justifications in terms of being objectively "right" (moral). Human beings eat meat. Maybe one day we won't any more, but we evolved killing and eating animals to survive, and we exist in a world of limited resources. Killing (as humanely as possible) and eating animals is on a completely different part of the moral spectrum than torturing animals.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A question for you: if you were ever "called on the carpet" by some sort of higher power, and asked to justify humans torturing animals, how would you defend it? What would you say that doesn't boil down to being on top of the food chain and might makes right?


[/ QUOTE ]This question is absolutely ludicrous. Do you know what justify means? This is what this whole thread is about. You bringing a higher power into it suggests you are making assumptions which are not conducive to the type of discussion I want to have.

Regardless, I would respond by saying it has never been shown to me why this behaviour is inherently bad. I just know (if anyone out there stil cares about this and is even reading my posts) that people will say it has been shown to me and I have been blind to the logic. However, I maintain, IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO ME. People are making assumption which I dont agree with.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what type of discussion you want to have (similar to what I said above, your wants are technically immaterial AFAIAC, ha ha). You basically said in your initial post that you don't "think" that animal suffering is "wrong" or "bad". I'm attempting to tell you why I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume you do believe that human suffering and death does matter, morally?


[/ QUOTE ] I dont. I should have realized I needed to include this in my orginal topic. I did not want this thread to be me defnding my stance to everyone, but everyone defending their stance to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably wasn't the only one who thought this was arrogant on your part. If you essentially don't believe that, all things being equal, suffering is bad, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe if you go touch a hot stove or something it will help you see where I'm starting from when I consider morality.

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt realize everyone would use the assumption that human life is "valuable" on some kind of cosmic and supernatural level to say people are animals and hence there life is valuable too. This is not the logic I see in today's society; if this were the case either a) Murder would be against the law only as a social contract (like a peace treaty between all individuals). b) Murder would have a very simliar punishment as murder of more sentient animals, and there would be much more preservation and laws regarding the treatment and lives of animals. It is not plausible to me to support such a large disconnet, if scaling valuation is really what you belive. All values are relative, if humans are animals you cant say murder is always terrible, but murder of animals is sometimes ok especially if this is there purpose (how the f*ck can you divine their purpose, besides by arbitrarily assigning them this because you facilitated thier birth).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that what the law allows, nor what we as human beings do in practice necessarily matches up to what is "moral" (does anyone?) I don't think it's a revelation to say that human society has room for moral improvement. And again, with regards to animals, I'm primarily picking on the the suffering/torture aspect of your question, rather than simple death.

[bearly]

thru this long discussion has anyone been able to extract anything meaningful, or coherent, from the original post?

[hurlyburly]

Tried, but failed. I didn't take enough notes while forming my moral relativism. (oops, another cheap laugh)