Disclosure - I actually haven’t ever killed a mouse. If I did, I would use the method that would involve the least distress to me. I kind of doubt that would include killing it with my bare hands, though - I prefer to flush spiders down the toilet rather than crushing them, which seems comparable to dumping live mouse in the trash.
Do you think that ant was walking about quite pleased with its little world prior to your assault? Do you think it has learned anything from its experience?
Anything that reacts to anything has some form of senses; if it appears to react aversely to stimuli, then it feels something analagous to pain.
Making a categorical dismissal of insect pain seems no different to me than categorically dismissing pest pain.
Maybe. So what? I’m not worried about their ability to be educated, I’m worried about their ability to experience pain (as defined to a direct averse reaction to external stimuli). You might be able to make a case that things that die in one hit don’t ‘feel pain’, but when you jump on a critter with Mario and it flashes or whatever, it’s not doing so because it’s happy to see you.
Mice can carry diseases. Some of those diseases can be transmitted by being bitten by a mouse, which could happen if you’re dealing with a live wild mouse. And some of us just find the thought of touching a live or dead mouse icky.
As death-penalty advocates know, it’s hard to find a way of killing a living creature that is effective, humane, inexpensive, not too messy, and that is something that most people are willing and able to do. With mice, there’s also the issue of whether a method requires special equipment that you don’t have around the house.
You can kill a trapped mouse with a hammer or other similar tool. Problem is, that’s messy, it’s not something everyone is willing to do, and it might not be that humane if your aim with the hammer is off (especially likely for someone reluctant to do it).
But the most common mouse traps, snap traps, are usually humane and provide a quick, not very messy death. Generally when you’re not even there. Why not use them? Why use a glue trap?
People in this thread have already mentioned trying snap traps. They don’t work nearly as often as glue traps.
Ok, then get the glue traps with poison bait if you don’t have a heavy object to kill the mouse with. If you can’t do anything else, fine, just use a glue trap. Mice are dangerous pests, they could eat through the insulation in wiring and cause a house to burn down.
If you would rather let the mouse go through a slow death just because killing it might be icky, I would find that a little callous, but hardly the worst behavior humans exhibit. I’d really only worry about someone who actually enjoys the slow death of an animal.
Why do I have this moral responsibility to prevent pain? When was that established? I have a responsibility to not cause humans pain (unless it’s in the form of, you know, making them pay my paycheck or whatever). That’s because I traded it for the promise that they won’t cause me pain. That’s the social contract.
Animals have no such social contract with me. I am their better. I am their superior. Thus, I can kill them for my benefit. Their pain, a word which I hesitate to use but acquiesce to, is absolutely inconsequential to me.
The friend is under no obligation to end the “suffering” of this mouse because animal suffering means nothing.
ETA:
Exactly. Deriving enjoyment from such things is a little sick and definitely weird, but there is no evidence of that in the OP. The objective act of killing mice (in any way you want) is not morally corrupt.
You only think you’re their better or superior because you’re not watching a lion claw your guts out.
Other than that part, I’m pretty much in this boat, perhaps without quite the enthusiasm - I dunno that animal suffering means nothing, but I certainly don’t assess it using the same mental or moral mechanisms as I do human suffering.
That’s because he’s a callous a-hole, just like you it seems.
Seems like you did not read the OP. Read it again.
It is morally corrupt when you use a method that causes unnecessary pain, when the option is there to minimise said pain. It means you’re intentionally causing suffering intentionally with no remorse, being indifferent about it. That is almost as bad as getting enjoyment out of it.
No, not really. I’ve already addressed this.
It is different because the “pest” we are talking about are mammals with fully developed nervous systems who react to pain the same way as we do. Take a look at the link I added.
It’s a computer program created and written by humans. Code. What goes on in our brains and in animal brains is far more complicated than a computer program. So much that we don’t even know everything about how it works yet, unlike something like C++.
That seems like a pretty big leap from indifference to enjoyment.
To you, maybe. We have that moral responsibility because since we are the dominant species of the planet - we have an obligation not to abuse those “under” us. If animal suffering meant nothing, we would not have animal cruelty laws, we wouldn’t have this discussion and you would not get castrated if people found out that you were neglecting your dog (hypothetically speaking).
All this shows, to me, is a complete contempt and lack of respect for other lifeforms.
The mindset to deliberately induce suffering to the animal is still there, that’s what makes it immoral. There’s no reason to prolong it’s misery unless one were a complete twit of a person. If said person doesn’t like that kind of thing done to others, then he shouldn’t be doing it himself.
I would not be surprised if people who hold such a heartless attitude to animals are regular jerks to people. If someone says animal suffering “means nothing”, then I can see why. Smacks of a sociopath talking.
If the mindset to deliberately induce suffering to the animal is still there, then it’s not the kind of indifference I’m talking about. I meant indifference as a lack of mindset, and I don’t think indifference to a mouse in a gluetrap is a strong indicator of immorality. Mice can be a dangerous nuisance, and as I stated before, dispatch them quickly if you can.
I didn’t say animal suffering ‘means nothing’ either. That was someone else.
Indifference if you’re not involved vs indifference when you’re actually doing it are different things. The latter is immoral because the person knows suffering will take place, and he knows he’s causing it - but doesn’t do anything to minimise it (ie. mercy killing). This is, btw, indifference to it’s pain - but the person still went out of their way to cause some more. Entertaining for them or not, I wouldn’t really call either moral.
That they’re a nuisance is besides the point; we’re not discussing the merits of killing them, we’re discussing the method used.
I was referring to that other douchebag, not you.
I don’t think we’re far apart on this. I just think the idea of enjoying the suffering of an animal to be an indicator of a disturbed mind. Indifference would be a question in the area of morality or character, and not necessarily a flaw that would indicate much more about a person. I should point out, even though I can’t prove it, I think most people use glue traps out of selfishness, not indifference. They care more about their unease in dealing with a crushed mouse than any thought to the mouse’s slow death. And I’ll assume you are not calling me a douchebag as well. Otherwise, this conversation is about to take a turn.
I think it’s more a flaw of our species, as I think attitudes like this just breed more senseless cruelty.
It’s probably just ignorance on the most part. A lot of people don’t realise how bad they are, and assume it’s more humane simply because it seems less violent at first (when it really isn’t).
Of course not. I’ve enjoyed your contributions on this thread.
Well, yeah, but I meant “superior” in the “lions never built the internet” sense.
No it’s not. There is no reason to factor animal suffering into your decision making, at least not any further than how it makes you feel.
That’s precisely the reason that we DON’T have a moral responsibility to limit suffering. We’re the dominant species. Nature doesn’t have a “fair is fair” rule. The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Cats toy with their prey. Lions sometimes hunt for fun. Whales bat their captures seals around like a volleyball before eating it. Why should humans have to feel remorse about doing even less than that?
Your reasoning is circular:
Animal suffering is bad. We have a moral responsibility to limit it. Why? Because animal suffering is bad. Why is it bad? Because we have a moral responsibility to limit it.
So break the cycle and answer the following: Why is animal suffering a bad thing to have in this world? You can’t use the premise “It’s immoral”.
GavinB, you’re way out of line here. You are not allowed to insult other posters in Great Debates or any SDMB forum except the BBQ Pit. This is a formal warning to stop making comments like these: