Should humans feel guilty for our treatment of animals?

[BrandonR]

Should humans feel guilty for our treatment of animals, from an evolutionary point of view? I eat plenty of meat and I don't necessarily feel guilty, but I'd like to keep this from going into a vegetarianism debate and discuss more of the ethical issues of nature.

Evolutionarily speaking, all animals started out more or less equal. Humans just kicked every other animal's ass and evolved to the point where we can hunt and eat and do just about anything else we want to any species we want. Should we feel guilty or be proud of our specie's ability to rise above the rest in such a vast way? Or is my thinking just arrogance? After all, isn't killing and eating weaker animals just nature at its best?

[Argent Towers]

I think we should feel guilty for stuff like factory farms. That is fucked up and inhumane; it's also very unhealthy for our own sake. But it is certainly cruelty to animals, in my opinion, and I think the people who operate factory farms should feel guilty. (Actually, I think they should be put in jail, but I'm not the dictator of America yet.)

I don't think there's anything to feel guilty about when it comes to hunting, or to the traditional manner of slaughtering animals. When the animal has the opportunity to live its life under humane conditions, and then is quickly and painlessly killed, I think that's just fine and dandy. Humans after all are at the top of the food chain; we're meant to eat meat; I just don't think it is humane to stuff animals together in factory farms and have them shitting all over each other and giving each other (and us) diseases.

[Markxxx]

I agree with Argent, it's not the killing but the method of killing and breeding the animals is the factor. Read "Fast Food Nation" for more info on factory farms and such.

[Paul in Qatar]

Hard to figure. I tend to get broody about our treatment of animals, but I brood about a lot of things.

The first thing is we must be kind to animals so we learn how to be kind to each other. Next, we must be kind to animals because it is a positive moral good.

But what does "kind " mean? Am I kind to a parrot by giving it a long life of luxury if that life is inside a house?

Am I kind to people if I propose to ban do away with companion animals? Am I kind to people if I deny them low-cost protein?

All sorts of moral considerations.

But we can all agree we ought to be as kind as we can be and must oppose unnecessary cruelity.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

......Evolutionarily speaking, all animals started out more or less equal. Humans just kicked every other animal's ass and evolved to the point where we can hunt and eat and do just about anything else we want to any species we want.......

If you are going to begin your argument by equating humans to all other animals, just more successful, then why would you conclude by holding humans to a higher standard than other animals? I don't see a lion feeling guilty when it eats a gazelle......TRM

[Marley23]

I don't see the point in feeling guilty about it, but in general I don't feel guilty about things I didn't personally do.


Evolutionarily speaking, all animals started out more or less equal.
Uh, no. Animals have always killed and eaten each other, and there has been plenty of ass kicking.
Should we feel guilty or be proud of our specie's ability to rise above the rest in such a vast way?
Not in the slightest. I do think animals should be treated humanely and that our use of them should be intelligent, for our sake if for no other reason, but there is nothing to feel guilty about and it doesn't make sense to do so.
Or is my thinking just arrogance?
Self-centeredness, maybe, more than arrogance. Humans are a part of nature and species were being eaten and going extinct long before we showed up. We do things on a larger scale, it's true. That's not inherently wrong.
After all, isn't killing and eating weaker animals just nature at its best?
I don't know about "best," but that's what it often IS, yes.

[kanicbird]

Should humans feel guilty for our treatment of animals, from an evolutionary point of view? I eat plenty of meat and I don't necessarily feel guilty, but I'd like to keep this from going into a vegetarianism debate and discuss more of the ethical issues of nature.


My take on it is no, God does not want us saddled with guilt, and going further in my own personal beliefs is that God is merciful and will protect the animal from pain, though it may appear otherwise, as part of the learning process of man.

[Bryan Ekers]

No, for reasons that have nothing to do with God.

[begbert2]

Evolutionarily speaking, the only things we should be ashamed of are things which reduce the number of children being born and surviving to reproduce. Which may or may not include things like wasting time trying to be nicer to the animals you're eating - or limiting your possible sources of nutrients by refraining to make spotted owl burgers. The list of things to avoid certainly doesn't include being ruthless and brutal in our use of the animals and our environment, unless by doing so we destroy the food source we're taking advantage of.

[Scumpup]

No. Animals are a renewable resource to be exploited. The resource should be properly husbanded, but your question strikes me as asking whether we should feel guilty over our treatment of cereal crops.

[XT]

Yes (just to be contrary)...we should all immediately stop eating and make the world like that After Humans show!


Ok, no...there is nothing to feel guilty about, especially from an evolutionary standpoint. As long as the genes are getting propagated all is good as far as evolution is concerned.

Evolutionarily speaking, all animals started out more or less equal.

Well, we all started from the same basic origins...is that what you mean? But as the various species split apart they used widely varied strategies to propagate themselves. OUR species went from scavengers to hunters and that seems to have worked out fairly well for us thus far.

Humans just kicked every other animal's ass and evolved to the point where we can hunt and eat and do just about anything else we want to any species we want.

We have been apex predators for quite a while...our current dominence has more to do with our technology than evolution. We have the same basic hardware as humans have had for 10's of thousands of years now...the only real difference is the software.

Should we feel guilty or be proud of our specie's ability to rise above the rest in such a vast way?

Guilty? No. Since we are a sapient species though we should be aware of our role in nature and we should strive to become caretakers of our world...and perhaps we should feel a bit of guilt that we haven't done a very good job of this up to now.

After all, isn't killing and eating weaker animals just nature at its best?

Depends on a species strategy. Some very successful species live entirely on plants, some are parasites, some hunt (and are in turn hunted)...and some, like us, do it all.

-XT

[Cat Fight]

I agree with Argent, it's not the killing but the method of killing and breeding the animals is the factor. Read "Fast Food Nation" for more info on factory farms and such.

Second the recommendation. Even if you don't give a toss about any kind of animal but human, it doesn't mean you won't be a little concerned by the abuse of slaughterhouse workers, ill treatment of animals that can affect humans (e.g. hormones), the environmental effects of factory farming, etc. Not exactly the stuff pride is made of, even if videos like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BxqT1MT_Sg&feature=channel) aren't likely to turn your stomach.

Just because you are able to do something doesn't mean you should. You could have some kids and abuse them as long as they're smaller and weaker than you – doesn't mean you should.

Also, it's a tad... I don't know, tacky, to assume humans have kicked ass as far as the food chain goes when there are over a billion underfed people in the world (not to mention countries where meat – any meat – is a rare delicacy).

[ITR champion]

Should humans feel guilty for our treatment of animals, from an evolutionary point of view?
There is no such thing as an evolutionary point of view. The phrase is inane. Evolution is not a point of view any more than gravity is. Should humans feel guilty from a gravity point of view?

[Lobohan]

My take on it is no, God does not want us saddled with guilt, and going further in my own personal beliefs is that God is merciful and will protect the animal from pain, though it may appear otherwise, as part of the learning process of man.So god protects animals from pain when killed, but makes it look like they're in pain... so we can learn.

That's a really silly view to hold.

On topic: I would switch to synthetic meat if it were available for the same cost and tasted anywhere near as good. I don't want to hurt animals, but I want to eat meat more.

I would only feel guilty if the animals were treated poorly. Most factory farms treat animals well enough from my point of view.

[begbert2]

There is no such thing as an evolutionary point of view. The phrase is inane. Evolution is not a point of view any more than gravity is. Should humans feel guilty from a gravity point of view?Well, I am feeling kind of down.

My take on it is no, God does not want us saddled with guilt, and going further in my own personal beliefs is that God is merciful and will protect the animal from pain, though it may appear otherwise, as part of the learning process of man.I can't believe I missed this the first time through.

Remember, when you cause other people pain, they aren't *really* feeling it, they just *act* like they are. So ignore all the screaming and begging and go through life brutalizing and slaughering at will, because you're not really hurting them and it's really all a-okay!

Scary. Very, very scary.

[kanicbird]

So god protects animals from pain when killed, but makes it look like they're in pain... so we can learn.

That's a really silly view to hold.

I know how silly it sounds and for that matter scary, I believe it is only something that one can understand in coming to God through His Son Jesus.

[geezermom67]

My two thoughts on this are that one, we've come to a point where the cruelty of the animal industry has hit some kind of high with factory farms. At the same time, at least for the majority of us, we are at a point where we no longer have any need of animal products to survive.

So, basically, we are treating animals worse than ever before and we need them less than ever before. I do have a problem with that. Do I feel personally guilty...not so much because I avoid animal products as best as I can. At the same time, I feel some sense of guilt for belonging to a culture that participates in this mess, in the same way I feel guilt about living in a country that invades others for the flimsiest of reasons.

[Cat Fight]

17 posts and no reference to swine flu – sorry, H1N1? Come on, people. Panic.

As I mentioned before, even if you couldn't care less whether a pig can feel pain or is smarter than your pet dog, if you care about your own health, you should care about factory farming (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/swineflufarm/).

At an environmental level, the conditions which shaped H3N2 and H1N2 evolution, and increased the variants’ chances of taking a human-contagious form, are well understood. High-density animal production facilities came to dominate the U.S. pork industry during the late 20th century, and have been adopted around the world. Inside them, pigs are packed so tightly that they cannot turn, and literally stand in their own waste.

Diseases travel rapidly through such immunologically stressed populations, and travel with the animals as they are shuttled throughout the United States between birth and slaughter. That provides ample opportunity for strains to mingle and recombine. An ever-escalating array of industry-developed vaccines confer short-term protection, but at the expense of provoking flu to evolve in unpredictable ways.

[Lobohan]

I know how silly it sounds and for that matter scary, I believe it is only something that one can understand in coming to God through His Son Jesus.Or conversely, it just might be the clumsy rationalizations of a sociopath.

You know, either or. Whichever. :D

If you find the kicking and screaming of animals being slaughtered hard to reconcile with a loving god, the sensible thing is to question your beliefs, not descend further into childish fantasy.

But I'll stop responding to your gibberish now, since we're derailing an otherwise interesting thread.

[BrandonR]

So clearly the next question is, am I a species-ist (specist?) for saying "human power!"? :)

[TooSchoolforCool]

No. Animals are a renewable resource to be exploited. The resource should be properly husbanded, but your question strikes me as asking whether we should feel guilty over our treatment of cereal crops.

Cereal crops can't suffer or feel pain.

I can see the view that pain and suffering are necessary evils in order to live the way we want, and that the pain and suffering of animals is so much less in quality that it can't compare to our even mild discomfort. Heck, I just ate a chicken.

But I've never really understood the absolute denial that, yes, when we torture something and it screams in pain, and then we do that on a mass scale, that's maybe not the best of all possible things in the universe.

None of the arguments floated in order to legitimize it make much sense. Yes, animals in nature are horrible to each other. Yes, even the most developed have at best the most rudimentary of moral sense, and none other than us can abstract it into principles.

So what?

At what point does that have any actual relevance to the question of whether something is wrong, all other things aside? These are tactics of moral avoidance, not sincerity.

If a virus arose that permanently made any infected human toddlers lose their capacity for speech and abstract thought and empathy for each other, could we skewer and roast them? If not, why not? What is it, aside from lazy convention and in-groupishness, that somehow makes the species line important, when it does not, in fact, seem to denote much of anything relevant to moral capacity?

[Scumpup]

They are animals. They mean more to you on an emotional level than they do to me. All your hypothetical drama with toddlers is a perfect example of your desire to reduce this to an emotional matter with how you feel, of course, being the right way to feel.

[A.Selene]

No, I don't think we should feel guilty.

The question seems to be where to draw the line in terms of treatment of lifeforms. In my ideal world, I'd like to avoid harming anything with a central nervous system, anything that has the capacity to feel pain. But I like eating meat and it's not an ideal world, so I use another bar to judge the morality of treatment of lifeforms: if it has sentience, or seems to be approaching it, I think we should avoid harming it. So we should feel guilty for slaughtering humans to eat, and perhaps some guilt for apes/dolphins/etc. Cows? Fire up the grill.

[geezermom67]

No, I don't think we should feel guilty.

The question seems to be where to draw the line in terms of treatment of lifeforms. In my ideal world, I'd like to avoid harming anything with a central nervous system, anything that has the capacity to feel pain. But I like eating meat and it's not an ideal world, so I use another bar to judge the morality of treatment of lifeforms: if it has sentience, or seems to be approaching it, I think we should avoid harming it. So we should feel guilty for slaughtering humans to eat, and perhaps some guilt for apes/dolphins/etc. Cows? Fire up the grill.

So, you don't think cows are sentient? How are you defining sentience?


As for the thought that animals don't really feel pain, God just makes them look like they do...why does anesthesia work on animals? Wouldn't they act as if they were still in pain if given a local anesthesia, since they don't really feel pain anyway?

[Magiver]

I think we should feel guilty for stuff like factory farms. That is fucked up and inhumane. Is it inhumane? We tend to inject human emotion onto animals. I buy cage free food because I'm not sure but I have no way of knowing one way or another.

[Paul in Qatar]

Is it inhumane? We tend to inject human emotion onto animals.


No. While we can debate the intelligence of animals, people of good will cannot deny animals have emotional lives on some level. For me the clearest argument in favor of this point is that emotion- and mood-altering drugs work on animals.

But of course a more extensive case can be made on our observations of animals over the centuries. Darwin pointed out animals nuzzle each other to show something like love. Few societies ascribe emotions to rocks or trees, but I guess all recognize that animals have emotions.

Mistreating animals seems to cause them distress. Now what we ought to do about that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[Magiver]

No. While we can debate the intelligence of animals, people of good will cannot deny animals have emotional lives on some level. For me the clearest argument in favor of this point is that emotion- and mood-altering drugs work on animals.

But of course a more extensive case can be made on our observations of animals over the centuries. Darwin pointed out animals nuzzle each other to show something like love. Few societies ascribe emotions to rocks or trees, but I guess all recognize that animals have emotions.

Mistreating animals seems to cause them distress. Now what we ought to do about that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. When I see a cougar pacing in a zoo cage I have to believe the animal wants to roam. Chickens, however, are one notch above lettuce. I empathize with them from a human perspective but I'm not seeing the same need to travel the countryside. I'd like to think my food enjoys sunshine and the occasional worm but that's my human perspective.

[foolsguinea]

Argent Towers pretty much covered my feelings on it in post #2. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11109874&postcount=2)

[The Tao's Revenge]

No. Animals are a renewable resource to be exploited. The resource should be properly husbanded, but your question strikes me as asking whether we should feel guilty over our treatment of cereal crops.

Which brings up the problem; what makes them this way? Cereal doesn't feel pain, but animals do. It's a bad comparison. In the past people felt this way about other classes of people, but that's changed in the better parts of the world.

Is it intelligence? Does that mean it'd morally okay for the really smart to eat or enslave the dumb? Is it that dumb people are still same species that makes this wrong? If so why does that matter? Are bonobos deserving of more moral consideration because they're a similar species?


It's a question I've wondered about much.