I’m having a debate with a group of my friends and we were talking about killing of animals for food.
A few think killing a fish for food is okay, but killing a deer or moose is wrong.
Why would killing a bug game animal be different from killing a fish?
I’m of the opinion that it is okay to kill both fish and big game animals for food.
Any other opinions?
MtM
Sure. Its ok to kill any form of non-sentient animal for food so long as you kill it quickly and humanely and use most of it.
If I were alone in the woods eating nothing but fish for weeks and bambi walks by, I am having venison for lunch!
I think this belongs in GD, but here goes.
And please bear in mind that I rarely like to offer my opinion on controversal topics, but since hunting season is rapidly approaching and is on my mind, I’ll try.
My position is that since the majority of humans (myself included, although I’ll grant that there is a significant dissenting minority) are omnivores. As such, we eat meat. There’s no way around killing animals in order to do so. Why is it significant who is doing the killing; some slaughterhouse worker or a hunter/fisherman?
Why would killing a moose be any different, ethically, than killing a steer? If your friends are OK with eating beef, but not with eating moose (for ethic’s sake - let’s leave out the taste issue), than perhaps they would like to expand on their reasoning.
My own personal stance is that wild game is no different ethically than domestic meat. I do hunt and fish, and I think it’s just a little hypocritical for someone to be opposed to one form of food and not the other. I think it’s very important to have a good understanding of where your food comes from, be it meat or vegetable. Animals, whether hunted or raised domestically, should be treated with respect. That does not preclude my eating them, however.
Julie
I think their reasoning goes something like
Bambi is cute, but a sheepshead isn’t
Those teeth looked remarkably human, didn’t they?
:: shiver ::
No, that was not cute!
:eek:
Looks just like this girl I knew once.
Probably smells just like her, too.
A Gay Bishop? Can’t beat that!
It sounds like they are trying to play God, in determining which “life” is worth more.
Who are they to say that a fish’s life is “worth less” in the universe than a moose’s life?
Who are they to say that it is immoral to eat the flesh of moose, but not immoral to eat the flesh of fish?
The fish might have a very different opinion.
As far as that goes, even plants have life.
Only those who eat no living things(at all) can possibly try to take or argue a moral point. For those few people who do not eat any animals, nor fish, nor plants, nor bugs, nor their by products(i.e no living thing), deserve to be listened to.
So you think it is morally equivalent to squash an ant and to kill a random stranger? In view of the fact that it is impossible to live without killing something, it seems that we are forced to make some moral choices. This is not “playing God”, it’s character development.
Many people, including myself, approach the question of killing animals for food from the standpoint of suffering. So far as anyone can tell, animals with more developed nervous systems seem to experience suffering that is in some sense similar to what we humans experience. You may argue that nobody can be sure that another being suffers or does not suffer, but that argument applies to human suffering as well. Nobody can be sure that other humans experience pain as we do, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK to go around jabbing people with pins.
In general, fish have less complex nervous systems than land animals. Also, fish are more commonly caught from their natural environment, whereas land animals are usually farmed under conditions that often induce suffering, so eating fish is less likely to contribute to suffering of the type experienced by a chicken in a 12-inch square cage.
Plants do not have nervous systems, so it is very unlikely that, for instance, a tree suffers when it is cut down. And don’t bring up that experiment where they supposedly showed plants having some kind of neuroelectrical reaction on being threatened with fire - that was debunked years ago.
“~whereas land animals are usually farmed under conditions that often induce suffering”
A suffering animal won’t grow and thrive. A comfortable animal that’s not stressed and has plenty to eat will grow and thrive. Growth (production) of the animal is the object of animal agriculture. Suffering by a farm animal is counter-productive, and is avoided by knowledgable livestock producers.
