View on Killing Animal Poll - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
View Poll Results: What are your views on killing animals?
OK to kill animals as long as they are treated humanely before slaughtering 0 0%
OK to eat animals (including human's closet cousins, the Great Apes) if you are poor & starving 0 0%
OK to kill animals that are not considered "sensient beings" (having feelings) 0 0%
OK to kill animals only in self-defense 0 0%
It is NEVER OK to kill an animal for any reason. 0 0%
OK to kill animals only if they are seriously ill or injured 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 09-07-2006, 10:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Is respectfully and kindly raising non-sentient animals for a humane slaughter wrong?



I'm not sure.



Mother nature has a sadistic streak: When animals die in the wild, their lives and deaths are often full of pain and suffering.



If that is the norm for wild animals, how would a flock of barnyard chickens that are fed daily and slaughtered quickly and with less sufffering than their wild counterparts wrong? What about hunting, where a skilled hunter often shoots a clean kill? Is it wrong for a human to kill a deer, but right for a pack of wolves to hamstring a deer, bring it down, and then kill it by ripping it apart?



But another part of me believes that since we are human beings, we are better than mother nature and we don't have to participate in her sick games. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.



:unsure:



I do know this much: As a personal choice, I'm avoiding meat, eggs, dairy and other animal products.



[Hey, didn't we have an :unsure: smilie somewhere?]
das_nut is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 09-07-2006, 10:24 AM
Veggie Regular
 
puppyluv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Is respectfully and kindly raising non-sentient animals for a humane slaughter wrong?



I'm not sure.





Well that was ANOTHER choice I should have put on the poll. Sorry about that, but thanks for your input anyway.
puppyluv is offline  
#33 Old 09-07-2006, 11:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Well I mainly feel that killing animals for human purposes is acceptable only for self-defence -and by self-defence I mean a direct threat from a non-human, not some indirect "self-defence" like vivisection.



Concerning some "primitive" tribes and their killing of non-humans, it is not really acceptable or non-acceptable to me but rather falls outside the boundaries of my morality. What I can say in general is that wherever killing non-humans is justified, killing humans for similar reasons is justifed too.



If we say that it's okay to shoot an animal who has lived free for most of his/her life and may suffer a painful death in nature, then it is also okay to kill many humans who may be expected to die painfully at some remote time, and this would sound strange to me.



The idea that if killing is necessary for survival then it's okay is questionable because am I then justified in kidnapping people to have them involuntarily donate organs to me or someone close to me in order to help them? And how about experimenting on a couple of humans to try to cure AIDS? I think survival situations inside the "normal boundaries" of society don't justify killing, and the exceptional survival situations, e.g. on a desert island, fall outside of morality - possibly because when someone is starving to death, (s)he ceases to be a morally responsible agent.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 09-07-2006, 11:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
puppyluv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Well I mainly feel that killing animals for human purposes is acceptable only for self-defence -and by self-defence I mean a direct threat from a non-human, not some indirect "self-defence" like vivisection.



Concerning some "primitive" tribes and their killing of non-humans, it is not really acceptable or non-acceptable to me but rather falls outside the boundaries of my morality. What I can say in general is that wherever killing non-humans is justified, killing humans for similar reasons is justifed too.



If we say that it's okay to shoot an animal who has lived free for most of his/her life and may suffer a painful death in nature, then it is also okay to kill many humans who may be expected to die painfully at some remote time, and this would sound strange to me.



The idea that if killing is necessary for survival then it's okay is questionable because am I then justified in kidnapping people to have them involuntarily donate organs to me or someone close to me in order to help them? And how about experimenting on a couple of humans to try to cure AIDS? I think survival situations inside the "normal boundaries" of society don't justify killing, and the exceptional survival situations, e.g. on a desert island, fall outside of morality - possibly because when someone is starving to death, (s)he ceases to be a morally responsible agent.



That is a great post even though it still leaves questions, but that is certainly OK. Anyone who thinks they have all the answers usually don't have a clue. But your post brings up another question in my mind and that is:



"Just what does survivial of the fittest mean to humans?"



I suppose I should start another poll for this question. But I will discuss it a little now. Some people think that survival of the fittest means that since we humans are at the top of the heap so to speak and are the smartest species on the planet (although I think that may be questionable at times), that we have the right to dominate all the other species and in fact subjugate them to our will. Of course morals do not usually come into play when speaking of evolution or "survival of the fittest," but what about sustainability? Morality aside (for a moment) but is it REALLY the smartest thing to do to use up the earth's resources in a way that may prevent future generations to have what we now have? The beef,hog and poultry industries alone are using up great amounts of land and water and the resulting manure from these vast operations is polluting both the atmosphere and ground water throughout North Amercia alone. The water table that runs under the heartland of the United States is becoming depleted mostly from agricultural products that are grown for animal feed. One manure pile in Montana was as high as a building and burned for over a year. Manure lagoons overwash during heavy rains and pollute wells, creeks and rivers. If this is survival of the fittest, I wonder if some other species my surpass us one day as the brightest and best. Right now, humans do have dominion over all the earth, but unless we stop letting our prejudices and greed take control of sensible thinking, humans may not always have the upper hand. Is mass scale factory farming and killing off of fragile species that are an integral part of the earth's ecosystem REALLY either the smartest or the most moral thing for humans to do? I doubt it.
puppyluv is offline  
#35 Old 09-07-2006, 12:01 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Amy SF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 20,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by puppyluv View Post

Thanks for drawing my attention to that omission. I wish I had included it in my poll, but I don't think I can change the poll questions. Maybe others will just add that to their posts. Also I didn't see the option of making the poll private, Sorry. But if most people most a corresponding message anyway it won't make any difference if it is public or private. Thanks for participating!



But since I'm a mod, I can!



So I added a poll question about whether it's OK to kill animals who are seriously ill or injured, and that's what I voted for, because they are usually (but not always) suffering in that case. Otherwise, I would go with the previous last question (not killing animals under any circumstances).

*this space not for sale*
Amy SF is offline  
#36 Old 09-07-2006, 12:28 PM
Veggie Regular
 
puppyluv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy SF View Post

But since I'm a mod, I can!



So I added a poll question about whether it's OK to kill animals who are seriously ill or injured, and that's what I voted for, because they are usually (but not always) suffering in that case. Otherwise, I would go with the previous last question (not killing animals under any circumstances).



Thanks!
puppyluv is offline  
#37 Old 09-07-2006, 09:11 PM
Newbie
 
beccazep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18
I voted 1) ok for self-defense 2) ok if animal is seriously sick or injured

buuuuuut...

I wouldn't apply this to every case.



I think that if a person provokes an animal that they know can potentially kill them, it would be (hypothetically) ethically wrong to kill the animal. I refuse to be a speciest and say "well, isn't a human life more valuable than an animal's?". The attacking animal would certainly die, even if the human was the initial attacker; it's natural instinct to defend oneself. Anthropocentric, in way as well



I definitely think that it is morally acceptable to end a domestic animal's life if it is in serious pain. I also support doctor-assisted euthanasia on the same basis. I don't see the sense on someone going on to live in pain just for the sake of living.



I think it goes case-by-case with injured wild animals. I wouldn't want any sentient being to suffer, but you kill of an animal you think is close to death and you may end up messing with the natural chain.
beccazep is offline  
#38 Old 09-07-2006, 09:19 PM
Newbie
 
beccazep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Is respectfully and kindly raising non-sentient animals for a humane slaughter wrong?





Just wondering, which animals would you consider non-sentient? Fish?

I have heard so many different sides to this...
beccazep is offline  
#39 Old 09-07-2006, 09:35 PM
Newbie
 
Saddhu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 51
It's only ok to kill in self-defense if there is no practical, nonlethal alternative. It can also be acceptable to hasten death in the end stages of a terminal illness / injury. If there is no chance of recovery and only pain, I can see ending life as the most humane option.
Saddhu is offline  
#40 Old 09-07-2006, 09:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Seb_0810's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,320
I chose what I believe causes the least suffering for an animal. So I think it is only okay to kill an animal ONLY when they are in pain and terminally ill.
Seb_0810 is offline  
#41 Old 09-08-2006, 03:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
puppyluv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by beccazep View Post

Just wondering, which animals would you consider non-sentient? Fish?

I have heard so many different sides to this...



I personally don't know what is considered sensient or not. My own personal opinion is that the only animals I would kill besides in self-defense and perhaps to put out of their misery if they were greatly suffering, would be the eradication of mosquitoes to prevent malaria or flies to prevent other diseases (which I would consider self-defense) and even then I would want to make sure the spraying was absolutely neccessary and there were no alternatives. As far as killing bugs on agricultural crops with pesticides, I am not too keen on that if there are organic alternatives.
puppyluv is offline  
#42 Old 09-08-2006, 06:15 AM
Veggie Regular
 
jeezycreezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by puppyluv View Post

I personally don't know what is considered sensient or not.



Me neither.



Now if we're talking sentient, I'd say that since the root of this word is sense anything that can sense is sentient, which is pretty much 99.99999% of Animalia (give or take .00001).



Some people might argue that only animals with a consciousness and/or rudimentary reasoning abilities qualify, so things like jellyfish, clams, and George Bush might not qualify.



They might be right.



I don't know.



But why risk it?



Cheers!

TJ
jeezycreezy is offline  
#43 Old 09-08-2006, 06:47 AM
Veggie Regular
 
puppyluv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeezycreezy View Post

Me neither.



Now if we're talking sentient, I'd say that since the root of this word is sense anything that can sense is sentient, which is pretty much 99.99999% of Animalia (give or take .00001).



Some people might argue that only animals with a consciousness and/or rudimentary reasoning abilities qualify, so things like jellyfish, clams, and George Bush might not be qualify.



They might be right.



I don't know.



But why risk it?



Cheers!

TJ



OK so I mispelled it. Spelling is not my strong suit and I don't have a dictionary handy.



Speaking of sealife, I have heard that octopi (or octopusses-whatever! LOL) are fairly intelligent.
puppyluv is offline  
#44 Old 09-08-2006, 08:50 AM
Veggie Regular
 
jeezycreezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by puppyluv View Post

OK so I mispelled it. Spelling is not my strong suit and I don't have a dictionary handy.



I meant no offense.
jeezycreezy is offline  
#45 Old 09-08-2006, 09:27 AM
 
compassionate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 680
Octopi clearly are not very smart. They need to learn to NOT attend hockey games. Never goes well for them.



Unless the Leafs are playing, then they're safe.
compassionate1 is offline  
#46 Old 09-08-2006, 09:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
puppyluv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeezycreezy View Post

I meant no offense.



No Oh Fence taken.
puppyluv is offline  
#47 Old 09-08-2006, 11:10 AM
Newbie
 
beccazep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by puppyluv View Post

I personally don't know what is considered sensient or not. My own personal opinion is that the only animals I would kill besides in self-defense and perhaps to put out of their misery if they were greatly suffering, would be the eradication of mosquitoes to prevent malaria or flies to prevent other diseases (which I would consider self-defense) and even then I would want to make sure the spraying was absolutely neccessary and there were no alternatives. As far as killing bugs on agricultural crops with pesticides, I am not too keen on that if there are organic alternatives.



Sentience is indeed a tricky subject!!

Who are we to judge whether some animals are or are not? I personally think that science can only go so far. We can measure the capacity of one's brain with scans and such... but how do we truly ever know??



I agree with killing mosquitos if they are biting you. You can prevent them by eating garlic. This goes for horses as well!

If we eliminated them for the sake of diseases such as malaria, we would also eliminate species of fish whose staple food is mosquitos. And then the fishes' predators may die, and so on and so forth....
beccazep is offline  
#48 Old 09-08-2006, 03:58 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
I eat tons of garlic and mosquitoes still bite me. But I don't try to eradicate them.



In answer to the poll, in all honesty I have to say "I don't know if it's ok."
Ludi is offline  
#49 Old 09-08-2006, 06:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
MZCsmpsns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,467
I voted ok to kill in self defense, and ok to kill a seriously ill/injured animal... these of course are circumstancial. For self defense, if it came down to literally kill or be killed, then I could understand killing the animal... For an ill and/or injured animal I think in some cases it's only humane to euthanize them.
MZCsmpsns is offline  
#50 Old 09-08-2006, 06:45 PM
Newbie
 
beccazep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18
[QUOTE=Ludi]I eat tons of garlic and mosquitoes still bite me. But I don't try to eradicate them.

QUOTE]



Well, me too. But it has definitely worked when I owned horses - just some garlic powder in the feed.
beccazep is offline  
#51 Old 09-14-2006, 09:26 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gas4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,227
I voted only when they're seriously sick or injured, and I hope that someone would do the same for me. I took seriously sick or injured to mean incureable and suffering.
gas4 is offline  
#52 Old 09-14-2006, 09:29 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gas4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,227
Lately I've been having trouble with ants in my kitchen though, and I have to admit that I've killed some of them. I just don't know what else to do about it, I mean, I can't just feed the ants all my food and have a kitchen full of ants. My strategy so far is to remove what they're after and hope they leave, after all, they only seem to be here during spring.
gas4 is offline  
#53 Old 09-17-2006, 09:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bluebutterfly05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 644
Am I the only one who thinks that it's even okay to eat a human if you are truely starving and have no other options to survive?
Bluebutterfly05 is offline  
#54 Old 09-18-2006, 12:38 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebutterfly05 View Post

Am I the only one who thinks that it's even okay to eat a human if you are truely starving and have no other options to survive?



While the thought turns my stomach, if the human is dead and you are starving to death, I think it is okay.
das_nut is offline  
#55 Old 09-22-2006, 06:07 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Ayrlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebutterfly05 View Post

Am I the only one who thinks that it's even okay to eat a human if you are truely starving and have no other options to survive?



Nope your not, cow = meat Human = meat

Me starving means I would eat a human.

Hell if it was my kids starving I would activly hunt another human.

I wonder why of all the things in the world you can eat the thought of eating the dead horrifies people so much, it was not always that way but somewhere alonge the line thats how we developed.
Ayrlin is offline  
#56 Old 09-23-2006, 06:07 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Pescas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 674
I said OK to the top three ones.
Pescas is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off