What is worse?

Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1478
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
What is worse?

To kill an animal or to harm an animal? Obviously its worse to kill a human than to harm a human, but to me it seems the opisite way around with animals or at least some animals. It is worse to harm an animal, we kill animals all the time and think nothing of it but if you harm one you are in for it. Any ideas why this is? And no food isnt the only time we kill animals and thing nothing of it, think rats etc. im sure there are many other examples of animals we kill not for food like hunting rhinos or lions.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Well my point of view, we

Well my point of view, we usually kill an animal to consume it, however harming an animal usually is out of some from of cruelty, therefore not acceptable in our society as there is no benefit from harming an animal, killing, again food and whatever else you can get from the carcass. Injuring is just plain cruel.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Great question.  I think we

Great question.  I think we are full of hypocrisy...either animals are beneath us or they are not.  If they are beneath us, then we can do whatever we want to them.  If they aren't, then eating hundreds of thousands per day is horrific.  I honestly don't see the middle ground.

I think they are beneath us, however I do have empathy...seeing an animal harmed makes me feel bad, especially one that is cute and I have lots of pets, and I am very attached to them.  But if someone wants to go dog fighting, I really don't feel I can take the moral high ground and tell them how evil they are while I eat my hamburger.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
I agree with mellestad on us

I agree with mellestad on us being full of hypocrisy about this. We are.

For the most part we don't spare a single thought for the once life of the mince meat filling in our sandwiches, yet we cringe awfully if confronted with the thought of eating a person or a pet. It is forgotten quickly that, at the slaughterhouse, 100 head of cattle can die in a single day staked in the spine; but just one human in a hundred years killed this way could be remembered in the history books.

We aren't consistent in our reasoning when it comes to death. Unsurprisingly, since death is the eternal mystery to the living, it's not something that conforms well to reason.

 

One thing we are consistent on is the act of causing suffering. Suffering is something humans can understand and generally will agree on unanimously is the worst violation of all, moreso, even than killing.

Torture and/or maiming of an animal or human, doesn't matter which, will elicit a more severe reaction than slaughter of the same through negligence or misadventure. So I think we try to be consistent on what we can properly empathise with, like pain and injury -- but when it comes to death and killing we are too in the dark to be reasonable and consistent about what is right or wrong, so we just aren't. JMHO.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

latincanuck wrote:

Well my point of view, we usually kill an animal to consume it, however harming an animal usually is out of some from of cruelty, therefore not acceptable in our society as there is no benefit from harming an animal, killing, again food and whatever else you can get from the carcass. Injuring is just plain cruel.

 

I agree with this, society tends to place what is "good" as beneficial to society, and what is "bad" as what is harmful to itself. So, the reason why killing animals is not "bad" is due to society having a use for it. 

 

On the other hand, empathy tends to make people relate to other mammals, especially with our detachment from our food sources. (chicken comes from a supermarket!) So due to this, there is a disconnect where some animals gain entrance into human society and thus society does not want to harm, as they provide a benefit to the whole. Like pets.

 

Harming an animal for no reason however gives no benefit to society, and indeed we know harms it by desensitizing people to harm to other living beings for likely personal enjoyment (I can't think of any reason for any person to harm animals..so entertainment is all that is left, since it can be applied to everything). It is often linked to unstable mental states, and violent crimes against people. So, it is bad.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Tapey wrote:

Obviously its worse to kill a human than to harm a human

 

Is it? Look out the American penal system. Executions happen often, but the only concern with killing people then is the pain suffered in the process, not the fact they are actually killing someone.

 

I would say this isn't that obvious. Not everyone has the same will to live, and many people might prefer to die rather than to suffer. Do you think soldiers prefer to torture people, or kill them? Which one do you think they can sleep easier at night over?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1478
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
all pretty good answers when

all pretty good answers when in comes to food but what about when a hunter kills a lion just so he has braging rights no real reason. Is that worse than harming the lion. Or what about when you lay a rat trap?

 

 

btw clockcat do you want me to punch you in the face or kill you.... its up to you? harm or death. But i do see your point, a certain amount of harm may actually be worse than death.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Tapey wrote:

all pretty good answers when in comes to food but what about when a hunter kills a lion just so he has braging rights no real reason. Is that worse than harming the lion. Or what about when you lay a rat trap?

 

I believe that falls under "entertainment" and is generally looked down on society, except in the more conservative places where it is somewhat accepted as "tradition" because at one time it did give benefit. (Diminishing numbers of other predators, or for fur)

 

Rats are considered a pest and harmful to society due to their nature of capability to carry diseases, not to mention natural disruptive nature in the homes they claim. Therefore, killing them around your home is accepted, and even considered "good" to do.

 

 

:3

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Tapey wrote:

btw clockcat do you want me to punch you in the face or kill you.... its up to you? harm or death. But i do see your point, a certain amount of harm may actually be worse than death.

 

Me? I would probably want to live to spite the world regardless. But then again, not everyone is like that.

 

 

I would rather see someone's pet punched as well rather than see it shot in the face, though.

 

 

If a child was going to be born without skin, and would live their life perpetually without skin, I would say abort it before it becomes self aware.

 

 

I think it is more of a weight issue, how much do you feel suffering is worth, and if they can persevere through it? 

 

 

If it is something that is to be perpetual, like for the rest of your life you will suffer ___... then I would be much more inclined to consider death, depending on the will to live for that creature. As I do not suffer from any debilitating conditions, I personally would not accept that. I could see a point where say, if I would feel like rivers of ants were crawling under my skin at all hours of every day and I lost my capability to communicate, with no chance for either to be corrected....then I would probably wish for death.

 

 

Say a coma of perpetual agony.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1478
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I believe

ClockCat wrote:

 

I believe that falls under "entertainment" and is generally looked down on society, except in the more conservative places where it is somewhat accepted as "tradition" because at one time it did give benefit. (Diminishing numbers of other predators, or for fur)

 

Rats are considered a pest and harmful to society due to their nature of capability to carry diseases, not to mention natural disruptive nature in the homes they claim. Therefore, killing them around your home is accepted, and even considered "good" to do.

 

 

:3

true killing lions is looked down upon but is it better than beating the lion with a baseball bat and letting it live?

Im not gona argue about the rats thing but that would mean its better to kill them than to harm them. so it does fall inline with its better to kill an animal than to harm it, but for differant reasons.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Tapey wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

I believe that falls under "entertainment" and is generally looked down on society, except in the more conservative places where it is somewhat accepted as "tradition" because at one time it did give benefit. (Diminishing numbers of other predators, or for fur)

 

Rats are considered a pest and harmful to society due to their nature of capability to carry diseases, not to mention natural disruptive nature in the homes they claim. Therefore, killing them around your home is accepted, and even considered "good" to do.

 

 

:3

true killing lions is looked down upon but is it better than beating the lion with a baseball bat and letting it live?

Im not gona argue about the rats thing but that would mean its better to kill them than to harm them. so it does fall inline with its better to kill an animal than to harm it, but for differant reasons.

 

For things considered "pests", yes. But that is just because it is harmful to society. For "pets" it is different.

 

I have several friends with pet rats, and if someone walked up and killed one..well, it would not be something society would look well upon.

 

 

Like I said, it has to do with if it is beneficial to society or not. Pets are accepted, and have a place already reserved for them in society as beneficial creatures.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Harming an

ClockCat wrote:

Harming an animal for no reason however gives no benefit to society, and indeed we know harms it by desensitizing people to harm to other living beings for likely personal enjoyment (I can't think of any reason for any person to harm animals..so entertainment is all that is left, since it can be applied to everything). It is often linked to unstable mental states, and violent crimes against people. So, it is bad.

Some of the most compassionate people I know are hunters or work in slaughterhouses.  If you are talking about animal torture, I would have to see the literature...my guess is that there is a mental 'defect' that causes people to want to torture things, rather that people randomly try torturing things and it turns them into psychos.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

mellestad wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Harming an animal for no reason however gives no benefit to society, and indeed we know harms it by desensitizing people to harm to other living beings for likely personal enjoyment (I can't think of any reason for any person to harm animals..so entertainment is all that is left, since it can be applied to everything). It is often linked to unstable mental states, and violent crimes against people. So, it is bad.

Some of the most compassionate people I know are hunters or work in slaughterhouses.  If you are talking about animal torture, I would have to see the literature...my guess is that there is a mental 'defect' that causes people to want to torture things, rather that people randomly try torturing things and it turns them into psychos.

 

I think I covered hunters in #7. Slaughterhouses are creating a food source, which is beneficial to society.

 

I never spoke about compassion. Laughing out loud Just that what is good or bad culturally is determined by usefulness or harm to society as a whole. Some things used to be good, and due to lack of direct harm to society end up grandfathered into it accepted as "tradition".

Theism is why we can't have nice things.