If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You have misinterpreted what I have said. If I don't know how a person in the slaughterhouse feels, then as far as I'm concerned, so long as they follow the correct protocol, I don't care, and it makes no difference to my experience, so in that way, it's unknown and detached. I would drive myself mad if I thought about the experiences of others. When I listened to a patient's heart the other day, he probably got a good view down my top. It doesn't concern me whether or not he got pleasure out of it, so long as I did the job and made the correct diagnosis. When I was deadlifting the other day, a couple of guys were staring. Could have been for their pleasure, whether it was a learning experience of a lower body move or if they were just staring at my arse. If I worried about every little detail out there, I probably wouldn't leave the house, so back to the point, if someone gets a sadistic pleasure from killing an animal in the slaughterhouse, it honestly doesn't matter to me, and I'd rather they get their kicks there than elsewhere, as I said, so long as everything is done correctly and humanely as possible, I can't see the huge problem in that.
We place different moral values on different things, whether they're cultural constructions or whatever. I don't see how this makes a soldier throwing a puppy off a cliff no worse than people choosing to eat meat, or kill for food.
Who, soldiers or workers in slaugtherhouses?
As I said earlier, if it were humans being thrown over a cliff and killed "for a laugh" or humans slaughtered and eaten because they tasted nice, I would find it hard to say which one was worse. The type of "pleasure" that the killer in each case was getting from it wouldn't really be a relevant consideration, and to me it is much the same in this case, with animals.
If it were a beloved pet that had been thrown over the cliff by the solider, or a beloved pet had been killed and eaten, it seems to me the owner would be equally as devistated and disgusted with the actions of either killer. The only thing that makes the difference in this case is that it is a cute puppy that has been thrown over a cliff, and an animal that we view traditionally as providing us with meat that has been killed for food, and that is what I don't get.
On a kind of day-to-day level I do see what you're saying; we intuitively want to say that the solider case is the worst case, but why? Using the examples I've given above, how do we come to that conclusion?
You've over complicated it there, it's not a good anology.
Cannabism isn't generally a human trait. Eating other animals is.
Of course because as the owner of that pet they would have an emotional attachment to it. That is not true of animals generally.
Again I think you're over complicatin it.
I don't have a problem with dogs being put down humanely if they're strays. Nobody eats them then.
There no difference to the animal, nobody disputing that. It end up dead in either instance. But to say meat eaters are as sick as the fella who just chucked the animal over the cliff for sadistic pleasure is complete ridiculous
When I eat meat I take pleasure from it as food, not because I'm thinking about how it suffered. That's the difference bwteen the soldier and me. He takes pleasure in pain and I take pleasure int he flavour of steak.
Why not. We do it with humans?
They do in China
link
Ohhh harsh...
But funny.
The problem is that you are viewing them in the same way as a carrot. Your problem seems to be with the ending of life in general, not the infliction of suffering, in which case, you should draw no distinction between ending the life of a carrot for you to eat, and ending the life of a cow for me to eat. The reason there is a difference between the two is that a cow can suffer, whereas a carrot cannot. And so the issue isn't ending a life for "pleasure" (in which case, you can draw no distinction between the type of life you choose to end), it is the infliction of suffering for pleasure. And the amount of suffering inflicted is how we judge morality, not the mere fact that a life is ended. That's why bullfighting is less moral than hunting with a rifle, for example. And it's why death from a bolt to the head is more moral than death from being drained of blood, or drowning.
If considerations about eating meat were based solely on the animal's capacity to suffer, then there would be nothing "wrong" with the idea of a vegetarian eating a cow that had died of natural causes. I think there is more to it than that, which is why I am not focusing on suffering.
Leaving aside the fact that the judgement of pain is a very subjective thing, I still probably wouldn't be inclined to agree with what you've proposed. To use a human analogy, I wouldn't view human death by a bolt to the head as "more moral" than death from being drained of blood, and I can't for animals just because they are animals. Although you might feel more pity for humans killed slowly than quickly, it wouldn't make either killing more morally justifiable or acceptable.
Anyway I think I'm gonna leave this for now, some interesting points have been raised and I'm actually supposed to be writing a 5k essay for my MA based on a paper titled "eating meat and eating people" and some of the ideas in this thread have certainly given me some stuff to think about, so thanks
I don't think it's useful to compare killing animals to killing humans. We are genetically pre-determined to avoid killing fellow humans wherever possible for very good evolutionary reasons. There is absolutely no such instinct for animals, and the extent to which people do have an emotional reaction to the killing of animals, it is almost certainly a by-product of the instinct to protect other humans. That is why, as you mention, the "cuter" and animal is ("cuter" meaning more similar to human babies) the stronger the emotional reaction to it. And that's why I suspect many of the people who have replied to this thread with emotional responses have been known to use fly spray for example. And I can't get into the mind of a fly, but I suspect a fly choking on toxic fumes inevitably suffers far more than a puppy being thrown off a cliff.
But just to pick you up on it, people most certainly do consider certain methods of killing a human to be "less moral." Lethal injection is more humane than an electric chair, is more humane than beheading, is more humane than being hung slowly, etc. It is immoral to take a human life precisely because it is human, not because it is life. But within that spectrum, we decide which is less moral based on the suffering caused to the victim. And the other main factor that people bring into it is the percieved helplessness of the victim, which I suspect is the criterea that leads to Skive's list.
We are animals, just like all the other creatures on the planet. You could even go so far as to say that rape is part of male programming, as it happens in the animal kingdom too and is an epidemic of the human race for varying reasons.
However, we have evolved to have imaginations, to create religions and cultures and from those religions and cultures has come the idea (apparently, but it depends on the country and context) that murder and rape are not permissible.
Or possibly more to do with the fact that human beings needed to eat and the environment in which they lived did not provide enough plant life to survive on.
I agree on this. People are too soppy about it.
Is it immoral? Why is it immoral? Who said it's immoral?
Who said that a human life is any more important than a man's life?
Morals are human constructs. Once upon a time it was moral to own slaves, to murder women accused of witch craft, to rape and pillage. Some people think it's moral to use the death penalty.
That doesn't make it 'right', it is just one person's view.
The idea that humans are above the animal kingdom (in my opinion) has been popularised by the very same religion which says women are below men, that homosexuality is a sin (amongst a shit load of other stuff which people seem to forget when looking for an easy target), the very same religion which was once used to justify slavery.
There are no universal morals.
somebody else?
Rape may be part of human programming, but animals haven't quite got around to creating moral codes which say that rape is wrong and systems of law which punish rapists. You say that 'we are animals, just like all other creatures on the planet' then you go on to list some of the things that set us apart from every other creature on the planet, yet you don't believe we are above them? What is the sense in that?
It was never 'moral' to do any of those things. It may have been socially acceptable at the time, but it wasn't 'moral'. If people at the time thought it was moral to murder women, or rape, or own slaves, then they were wrong. I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that. THEY-WERE-WRONG.
Just because people disagree on something doesn't mean that neither of them is right. Just because I have a point of view, doesn't mean that my point of view is right. Either those people who believe the death penalty is right are wrong, or those people who believe it is wrong are right. They can't both be right. It is as if you're saying that if a man believes it is right to go out and rape somebody, then he is right in thinking that, and we are no more right in thinking that it is a bad thing to do, than he is in thinking he is right in doing it. What madness is this?
Yeah that was my point. Someone else said that the relevant consideration wasn't that a person was getting pleasure out of the animal suffering, OR that the animal was dying, but that it is the capacity of the animal to suffer which is the moral consideration.
I don't think the capacity of the animal to suffer IS the moral consideration, because if it were then as you say, someone with learning difficulties, or in a coma, can't suffer as much as other people can so it would so it would seem causing harm to them is not as bad as causing harm to someone with full human capacity for suffering, which seems obviously wrong to me.
But the point is, we view murder as wrong (and I'm talking about murder and not self-defence) whatever methods were used. I don't want to discuss the death penalty but if someone were kidnapped and killed by electric chair, then the same person kidnapped someone else and behead them, we wouldn't jump up and say - the first murder was more moral than the second murder. That just isn't how we react to the issue.
What I'm saying is that even if you believe animals have 50% of the moral weight as humans, that moral weight shouldn't change depending on how the animal is killed, just as it doesn't for humans. We view murder as wrong, someone might say a person suffered less in one instance than in another but it doesn't make one murder more acceptable than another. Why can't the same be said of animals? We might say the animal suffers more in one instance than in another, but does it make it any less wrong in one instance than another if it doesn't for humans?
Personally the idea that one murder can be than another just seems strange to me. We might say one person suffered less in their death than another, but does that make the first death MORE morally acceptable?
Maybe it is socially acceptable at this time to eat meat, but it doesn't make it moral. Maybe we are completely wrong about animals (and I include myself in this). As you say, just because one very large group of people think something is socially acceptable and think another group (in this case animals) aren't worthy of moral consideration, doesn't make them right.
Why is eating meat, not moral, after all humans have been eating meat since the beginning of time and it is a main source for our protein. So if eating meat is not moral what is moral to eat?
We are different, but I don't see us as above. We are more intellectually capable than other creatures, but this is a spectrum and not a line to be drawn between us and the biodiversity on which we need to survive.
Also, look at how we are creating our own destruction, how we are destroying our own planet. We have created a lot of beautiful things, but also enough nukes to kill the world several times over, instruments of torture, humans invented slavery, eugenics, concentration camps, sex trafficking, land mines, hate crimes, depleted uranium...
I don't call that being 'above' anything. I see it as being barbaric like a lion, although often out of hatred, or misogyny, or lack of empathy.
Human beings, like other non human animals follow 'pack leaders' who set morals for us. The only difference is how they communicate their dominance and how we have used our intelligence to harm other human beings for this power, this wealth...
So, do I believe that human beings are above other animals? Do I fuck...
We have different interests and higher intelligence and are as deserving of compassion, but we are by no means anything more holy.
No.
Morals are human constructs.
Neither of them are.
Don't think of things as 'moral'... Try thinking of it from a utilitarian sense, of interests and needs. That we we can act less colonial and can better support a lot of human rights movements in other countries (for example, women's rights organisations in the Middle East).
Rape is appauling because of the harm it causes a woman, for whatever reason the man decides to do it... It probably cannot outweigh the grief which comes from it, how the people around her will suffer from her suffering, how it will impact on her life.
The same with murder.
We speak of morality, from laws and our own socialisation in a (post) Christian society. Morals change over time. I am sure that if we debated this thirty years ago people would be saying homosexuality is 'wrong' and many people still believe it to be immoral.
As much as it would suit many people's egos to believe that we hold some sort of superior moral high ground above animals and other cultures, I'm afraid that personally I don't believe that we do.
Depends on your perspective.
We have been doing a lot of things since the beginning of time that we would consider to be amoral now.
For me, I turned vegetarian when I was 21 and vegan when I was 23. I did it because it causes less harm to the planet, animals and non human animals. So for an environmental and utilitarian reason, rather than a moral one.
However, some people will give different reasons as to why they view meat consumption as amoral.
Well of course. Doesn't change the fact that we evolved to have no moral instinct to spare animals life. Nor do any other animals have instincts to avoid killing members of other species. Any extent to which it appears they do, it will be because it will benefit their own survival somehow.
"Morals" are human constructs, but the instincts that they are based on aren't.
Studies would suggest otherwise. Ask people a moral dilemma devoid of any cultural or religious factors, and you will get the same results almost exclusively. Those questions about whether it's right to send a runaway train into the path of one man to save five men end up with the same results whether you ask them to a European or someone in the remotest tribe in the world. There is absolutely no way you can claim there are no universal morals, because not only does nobody know yet, but there are plenty of studies to suggest that there might be.
...and whats more philosophers tend not to like this proposition because it treads on a contemporary philosophical consensus that philosophy itself has moved from a discipline that answers questions to one that refines and constantly breaks open new ones.
I agree 100%
I havent watched it because I'll cry
people dying in Iraq, for example, is horrific to even imagine but the fact that we don't see it on tv or youtube is different.
killing people is -in my opinion- just as immoral as killing animals
and that guy is something undescribable just like all the other people in the world who are just like him! :impissed:
You mean unless they are different to us. Or we make them in to slaves of course.
Human beings have a 'pack' mentality. Several experiments have shown this.
Unless they are from another gene pool... For example, if a male lion comes across a pride and wins a fight with the alpha, he will kill and eat the baby lions and then start his own family.
Then how come 'morality' is so diverse from culture to culture?
Really? I'd like a link to this. Have never heard of the study being applied to people of different cultures. It depends on the man or men on the traintrack doesn't it. For example, five murderers and one school girl.... Five Nazis, one doctor.
Really? Please link to some proof that there are absolute morals and that these have been tested on a wide range of people.
As I still see it too complex to be hard wired in to some people.
Plus, if we do have some morals hard wired in to us, then some non human animals must too. We can apply what we see in nature to human behaviour... Well I think we can.
This - warning, could be upsetting
It's what's been floating around as of late.
As for eating meat, we have evloved to do so, just like any other meat eating creature. Why deny hundreds of thousands of years evolution to go along with the unatural thought that bringing death to other critters is somehow now wrong, even though much of life is dependant on another critters death.
I just don't see it and to be honest I don't care.
but it doesnt show it. it might report about it, and show the rooms and maybe blood on the wall, bullets on the floor etc but it doesnt actually show it happening. which is my point.
and an animal will only eat you/attack you if you pose a danger to it or its family. obviously if a tiger has gone without food for weeks and is basically dying it will have no problem deciding whether to kill a human but also there will be SOME animals that would eat a human if it had the opportunity.
just because an animal COULD eat you, doesnt mean it WOULD.
Agreed.
I'm not really following this but to add a little bit that is animals natural instinct. It also has a purpose and is needed for that animals survival if no other food is availible. Throwing animals off cliffs is not human's natural instinct and has absolutly no purpose apart from satisfying some sick cunt's vile aims.