But why is it wrong to kill a child and eat it? What distinction do you make between "killable" and "unkillable?"Hitokiri_Gensai said:Personally, i believe that if youre going to use what you kill then its ok. FOr instance, hunting. I love to hunt, but i never hunt wastefully. ANything i kill is either eaten by myself or i give it to friends or family.
is it any different than a bear killing a smaller animal for food then? by your arguement, no. its not right for us to harvest plants either, because they exist too. So, ultimately your arguement says that we're not given the right to survive. We cannot will food into existance by sheer mental power so, we harvest plants and animals for survival.peruvianskys said:But why is it wrong to kill a child and eat it? What distinction do you make between "killable" and "unkillable?"Hitokiri_Gensai said:Personally, i believe that if youre going to use what you kill then its ok. FOr instance, hunting. I love to hunt, but i never hunt wastefully. ANything i kill is either eaten by myself or i give it to friends or family.
Is it intelligence? Pigs are smarter than newborn children. The pain a pig feels is biologically the same as the pain a baby feels, and they understand their stress on roughly the same intellectual level, so why is killing a pig understandable while killing a baby is considered a heinous crime?
And anyone who says "It's okay to shoot a deer if you eat it," I guess I ask why that's the case. Why is it okay to end a conscious creature's life just because you make some use out of it? Deer exist, period. They don't exist for us. We have no more right to the meat of a deer than a deer has to the meat of a human, or a human has to the property of another human. The idea that use justifies killing rests on the assumption that we are somehow 'owed' the bodies of animals that have been here a lot longer than us.
Question for hunters: Would you kill a bear in order to stop it from harming a child that it would later eat? And if so, why? What is the difference between a bear making use of the meat of a baby and a human making use of the meat of a bear? The relationship between the two parties is the same in both cases, mainly, neither has a right to the other.
In short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYvTMHii6Pw
Plants don't feel pain, suffering, or emotional distress when harvested. Plants have no will or desires or emotions or brains at all. Not to mention that human beings can live perfectly healthy lives on completely plant-based diets.Hitokiri_Gensai said:is it any different than a bear killing a smaller animal for food then? by your arguement, no. its not right for us to harvest plants either, because they exist too. So, ultimately your arguement says that we're not given the right to survive. We cannot will food into existance by sheer mental power so, we harvest plants and animals for survival.
well at any rate, i respect your opinion, but i also dont agree. I like to eat meat, and i also like to hunt. I dont kill to let it rot in the ground, and i believe that thats fine.peruvianskys said:Plants don't feel pain, suffering, or emotional distress when harvested. Plants have no will or desires or emotions or brains at all. Not to mention that human beings can live perfectly healthy lives on completely plant-based diets.Hitokiri_Gensai said:is it any different than a bear killing a smaller animal for food then? by your arguement, no. its not right for us to harvest plants either, because they exist too. So, ultimately your arguement says that we're not given the right to survive. We cannot will food into existance by sheer mental power so, we harvest plants and animals for survival.
Thus, you have two choices: A perfectly healthy diet that causes no suffering, and a less healthy diet that causes a huge amount of suffering. Which one is more moral? Obviously we have to destroy things to eat them, but we can choose to destroy the things that don't feel pain and suffering like we do. If you don't need to cause terrible suffering, and you do it anyway, that's wrong by any definition. All hunting is hunting for sport if you don't need the meat to survive.
There is no logical reason to value human or mammalian life simply because it is emotional or intelligent.CarlMinez said:I'm not sure If I agree with that.zehydra said:If it is human. The nature of survival is that species survive at the expense of others. While I believe killing a person is wrong, it's not because of pain (that's a totally different issue), it's denying them life.
If we go and say then, "killing ALL living things is wrong because it is denying them life", then we would have no way of living. We would all starve to death. All other limitations, such as "capable of pain" or "sentient" are arbitrary in the context of the question of the right to life.
There is no logical reason to value a life over another life simply because it's a member of homo sapiens. I value human life because humans are emotional, intelligent creatures. Just like most mammals and birds, and I value their lives as well.
Or an even healthier diet that has meat. Humans are omnivores, meat is good for you. Not in the quantities the average person eats it but if vegetarians didn't watch their diets I doubt they would be healthier. Besides who's suffering? Me? I don't mind killing for food. The animal? They're dead. You can say how they're mistreated at large farms, but the chickens at my grandpa's house had a wonderful life until they were dinner.peruvianskys said:Plants don't feel pain, suffering, or emotional distress when harvested. Plants have no will or desires or emotions or brains at all. Not to mention that human beings can live perfectly healthy lives on completely plant-based diets.Hitokiri_Gensai said:is it any different than a bear killing a smaller animal for food then? by your arguement, no. its not right for us to harvest plants either, because they exist too. So, ultimately your arguement says that we're not given the right to survive. We cannot will food into existance by sheer mental power so, we harvest plants and animals for survival.
Thus, you have two choices: A perfectly healthy diet that causes no suffering, and a less healthy diet that causes a huge amount of suffering. Which one is more moral? Obviously we have to destroy things to eat them, but we can choose to destroy the things that don't feel pain and suffering like we do. If you don't need to cause terrible suffering, and you do it anyway, that's wrong by any definition. All hunting is hunting for sport if you don't need the meat to survive.
Yes there is. Because their death and discomfort adds to the amount of suffering the world. If you take ethics into consideration I guess. You could just say that you don't give a fuck about suffering and then your argument would be really understandable. But I think this subject sorta requires that you take ethics and morality into consideration.zehydra said:There is no logical reason to value human or mammalian life simply because it is emotional or intelligent.CarlMinez said:I'm not sure If I agree with that.zehydra said:If it is human. The nature of survival is that species survive at the expense of others. While I believe killing a person is wrong, it's not because of pain (that's a totally different issue), it's denying them life.
If we go and say then, "killing ALL living things is wrong because it is denying them life", then we would have no way of living. We would all starve to death. All other limitations, such as "capable of pain" or "sentient" are arbitrary in the context of the question of the right to life.
There is no logical reason to value a life over another life simply because it's a member of homo sapiens. I value human life because humans are emotional, intelligent creatures. Just like most mammals and birds, and I value their lives as well.
Sure there is. Why do you value human life in the first place? Because you can look at someone and determine if their genome allows them to mate with members of the species "homo sapiens?" I doubt it. You value human life because of the kinds of things humans do and the mental qualities of humans that you interact with. Depending on where you draw the line of what these qualities are, you might also include many animals. As a thought experiment, would you value the life of an alien species which looked and acted exactly like humans?zehydra said:There is no logical reason to value human or mammalian life simply because it is emotional or intelligent.
I'm the same way but I trend to use killing/hunting as a last resort. I have no issues eating meat but I can't seem to kill anything but in case I have to for to survive, I'm pulling out the knife and make meat meals. Also If I can scare (the animal) or talk down the attack (to the human), I would do that first before the defend by the blade/gun.Zakarath said:I'd say what matters is not the creature's sapience but rather your motivations for killing it.
You see it as a threat? Okay.
You're killing it for food? Okay.
You're killing it just for the hell of it? Not okay.