Same here. Those who hunt purely for “sport”, just to hang the head as a trophy on their wall, are not people I want to be around.
If they have no problem with killing deer, etc. just for entertainment, what’s to stop them from harming people for entertainment?
Most serial killers start out torturing and killing animals, by the way…
~Eris~
But, but, but… Hitler was a vegetarian. Me (and Godwin) hope that settles this matter.
I’ve seen a cat toy with its prey before it kills it. I don’t think it’s necessarily in the natural order of things to go for the quickest death, just that the kill is assured. That’s why I think it needs to be stated that a fast and painless death is the best way to kill an animal for food. For economic and food quality issues there should be certain standards in industries that ensure this is done.
As for the treatment of animals before their deaths, I think the health of the animals is of utmost importance. When too many animals are kept too close together and when costs are reduced to a bare minimum you can produce enviroments which can make the animals sick. I’m referring to mad cow disease which was caused by feeding cows ground up sheep or even other cows. Or diseases like the Newcastle disease are spread quickly through flocks.
A systemized way of doing things would be beneficial all around to the animals, consumers and ´the farmers.
But who is going to pay the farmers or ranchers the costs needed to reform to new methods?
Here’s an article that speaks about the methods used in killing chickens that needed to be exterminated because they were diseased. No standard was applied to the killing and here’s the creative way some people found to kill chickens:
http://www.hfa.org/newcastle/cruelty_release.html
Here’s a site about the chickens in Ontatrio.
http://www.ofac.org/factsheets/fact10.html
I think that it has straightforward rules about raising chickens and it doesn’t have to be about the right or happienss of the little cluckers.
Perhaps the fact that animals != people? It’s just as (il)logical to say, “If they have no problem with killing animals for food, what’s to stop them from killing people for food?”
Not that I endorse the torture of animals, or anything, but I find it hard to ignore such blatantly flawed logic.
Jeff
I don’t know if I see the “illogic” – it’s really an analogy, rather than an literal equivalence. We all recognise the capacity of animals to feel pain and distress (log in here to dissent from this POV), this is the commonality upon which that analogy is built. Your non-endorsement of the torture of animals is noted.
Attack the argument, not the man.
Just for the record: what I’m talking about is the mistreatment of the animals through either ignorance, indifference or laziness, not sadism or malice.
Human Rights
With respect to the issue of human rights, humans need to treat other humans better than animals because of the nature and necessity of human relationships.
Humans must be able to get along with each other in order to survive. Whether humans are stomping around in “the wild” or living in the artificially-imposed, close-proximity communities of our “civilised” societies today, humans need a basic level of cooperation. In order to create order and balance in such circumstances, humans require the social contract to guarantee a basic set of rules to play by. John needs to know that Bob is unlikely to threaten John or John’s family or negatively impact John’s way of life. John can feel safer because he knows that he himself subscribes to a set of basic values and so does Bob, therefore, it is easier for the two of them to establish a relationship or at the very least not feel openly threatened by each other.
Interpersonal relationships are inherently more complex than human-animal relationships because humans are sentient and intelligent and logically as a result feel a broader range of emotions than any other animal. Therefore humans require a more sophisticated set of rules for dealing with each other than they normally would when dealing with the environment or other animals.
And let’s not forget that humans need relationships with other humans more than they need relationships with animals. Humans are by nature (or nuture) a gregarious species; humans require a sense of belonging to a group of other humans. Humans would be unable to form relationships without a common set of values and empathy for the other’s point-of-view. Sure, humans sometimes own pets (note the word “own”) but the nature of that relationship is inherently superior-versus-inferior, it is not based on equal terms.
So from that basis of human rights, how do we extrapolate the need for animal rights? From a survival point-of-view, humans don’t need friendly cooperation from animals in order for humans to survive (although it would help in “the wild” in many instances). The one thing that is required is that humans must ensure that their food is healthy and clean, that humans who eat the food are unlikely to suffer ill effects from it. Therefore it helps if the animal is treated well [to a sufficient level] so that the meat is healthy and clean - if that means putting animals in clean pens, and not beating them half to death everyday, so be it - but the animal never warrants the same level of respect as a fellow human being.
Only if you assume, as you do, that morals are based on egotism, either personal egotism or egotism for the species. All you have done is shown why animals have been treated badly. You haven’t even touched the subject of whether or not it is right.
I can understand how that post could be viewed as egotistical (either personally or for the species) but does that invalidate the facts? (i.e. Humans need humans more than humans need animals. Interpersonal relationships are more complex)
Exactly, so the challenge is for others to argue the case for why animals should not be treated badly.
My argument does not have a moral basis, if anything, it has an amoral basis. My argument is not based upon proving that mistreating animals is “right” or “wrong”, I’m interested in exploring the concepts of rights themselves.
Just suppose for a moment that we started breeding humans for food; we wouldn’t bother teaching them language or anything, just keep them as animals - penned up and fed. The whole purpose these humans would be to be bred, raised and grown for our dinner plates; doomed to a bloody and gruesome death from the day they were born, should we care if they were comfortable?
Or on the other hand, does it really matter whether you or I die peacefully in our sleep, or screaming and thrashing as we’re eaten alive by hyenas? - the end result (that we are dead and the memory of suffering is erased) is the same, so what difference does it make how it happens?
The original post asked why animal cruelty was an issue. This is at heart clearly a question of morals.
“Rights” are, of course, entirely arbitrary and fictitious. They only exist as long as we pretend they do, much like countries, football teams, corporations, laws and presidents.
So, we look to what rights we want to bestow, and upon whom we want to bestow them. While most of human history has (officially) been a hodgepodge of hypocrisy, there are really only two defensible points of view:
It all comes down to what kind of society you want. Do you want the kind of society where you can be raped or beaten by anyone who happens to have bigger muscles than you, or do you want the kind of society where that doesn’t happen? I’ll personally go for door number two.
Since animals can feel pain and distress, same as humans, I see no reason why the rights we choose to bestow upon ourselves would be any different from the rights we choose to bestow upon them.
Priceguy, I agree with almost everything in your last post but I don’t understand the reasoning (other than on an emotional level) behind the desire to extend perceived “human rights” to animals.
Interesting thought, in that scenario it would depend on spiritual beliefs (to which I obviously don’t subscribe) as to the morality of whether it is “right” or “wrong”.
From an objective point-of-view that scenario could potentially fall into the same category of how humans treat animals today - there would be a predator-prey relationship between the cannibals and foodstock humans. In such a situation we can deduce that it is more than likely that there would be an in-grained perception in the cannibals’ society that they (the cannibals) are superior to the foodstock humans - in much the same way as humans today feel they are superior to animals (if we didn’t feel that way we wouldn’t eat them… would we?). So this analogy could still hold to the same reasoning in my earlier post, albeit on a different distinction of ethnic/genetic/social group instead of species.
That’s true. However, humans treating humans well is for mutual gain in terms of day-to-day survival where as humans treating animals well is for…?
Where did I say anything about human rights? I’ve only spoken about rights. The real question is why they should be limited to humans. What basis is there for that?
The “problem” with your “contract based” ethics is that when there is no mutual benefit then one party will feel free to mistreat or exploit the other; that is to say, it is not in itself a moral position, there are no “right” things to do, just things that benefit an individual most. The world’s history is full of examples of such ethics in practice, consider slavery for instance.
I will re-iterate, the reason why anyone would wish to minimise the suffering we inflict upon animals is because we recognise that suffering is a bad thing in itself, regardless of who, or what, is doing the suffering.
There’s nothing left to say if you will not, or cannnot, subscribe to this view. Go ahead, do what thou wilt.
Are you suggesting that cruelty is less offensive if it is done out of indifference or laziness or even ignorance? How can that possibly be? We are talking about a pretty fundamental concept such that cruelty should be apparent to anyone regardless of education or culture so that tosses ignorance out (unless you’re two years old). As for laziness or indifference to me that just reinforces the notion to me that the person causing the suffering is every bit as despicable as someone causing it intentionally and with malice. To you is it a lesser crime if I torture my kids by locking them in their room and feed them only bread and water because I am too lazy to be bothered to do more?
The Great Unwashed put it well by saying that suffering is, in and of itself, a bad thing regardless of the target of the suffering.
I agree with the notion that humans require a more sophisticated set of rules to abide by but I disagree with the premise you lay out to come to that conclusion. Animals are most definitely sentient and intelligent and possess every emotion I have witnessed in humans. Granted some animals are smarter than others and I haven’t had a conversation with animals exploring their emotions but I have had dogs (among other animals) most of my life and I have seen my dogs express anger, jealousy, happiness, sadness, anxiety…you name it.
I do not mention this as a nitpick as I think it is very relevant to the discussion. By assuming an animal lacks emotions or intelligence or especially sentience you have no more reason to treat them well than you do a rock. If this truly is your stance then I suppose extending any type of concern towards animals would seem about as reasonable as extending them to a glass of water. I just disagree completely. If for some reason you haven’t had cause to be around animals for an extended length of time (not just petting zoos or meeting them on the street) maybe this attitude is understandable. Get a dog you have to take care of for a month or more and I bet you can’t help but notice there is more to them than just fuzzy little automatons.