to think that the word 'vermin' is amongst the most mean-spirited self-serving words in the English language.

[OrmIrian]

Tis a thread about a thread - sort of - well a spin-off from the fox-poisoner thread. Sorry.

Human animals dominate the planet. I think that is a given. Other animals have to squeeze into the spaces that we leave. The truly 'wild' bits of the world are getting smaller and smaller. Tigers for example are getting increasingly rare as they have the temerity to attempt to carry on living in their natural habitat where humans are encroaching. I don't need to tell you what is happening to polar bears. Most of the land in the UK is built-up or farmed. What is left is seen as a playground for humans - mountain bikes, motocross, walkers, climbers etc. Not much space left for other species to thrive. And we pollute the water and the air - a problem for other species even more than for our own.

There isn't a single species that hasn't been affected, usually for the worse, by human activities. Apart from those opportunistic enough and 'clever' enough to benefit from us. To fit into the cracks we leave - pigeons, rats, foxes, squirrels for example. They live alongside us, eating our rubbish, finding homes in the little bits of waste ground that we don't want. But as punishment for that adaptability we give them a name, we call them vermin, and declare them fair game - find them disgusting and try to poison them, hunt them or shoot them. Is it really acceptable to only permit the survival of those creatures that we find appealing and that don't impinge on us.

I am not a beleiver in animal rights. I think that is errant nonsense. But a bit of self-knowledge and compassion when dealing with the creatures we share our space with is needed.

"so if i just decide i want to go on a killing spree and take a semi automatic to a school and let rip, is that ok then? i might enjoy it. i might not. but its still wrong isnt it? would it be ok if i said i didnt enjoy it? would it be any less wrong?"

But vicar, that's my point- you just agreed with me.

Did you mean to?

Orm has argued that killing an animal is permissible as long as you feel a sufficient amount of horror/repulsion; and that those who use the word 'vermin' do not feel any, ergo they are kidding themselves and making the killing more palatable by the use of the word.

I have argued that what is deemed to be 'vermin' is subject to change and is contextual. You seem to agree- or have I misunderstood your post?

"Hitler saw jews were vermin. did that make it ok?"

Please see my previous post- Hitler used the word 'Jew' as a term of abuse; this does not rob the word of its original meaning, ie a follower of the Jewish faith. Nor does it rob the word 'vermin' of its original meaning.

"where do you say draw the line and say that one thing is ok to kill and another isnt?"

Well, I think that is the question on this thread really- and a very interesting one at that. What it is ok to kill and what it is not, tends to be dictated by society's norms and values, which are subject to change.

And that is the question we seem to be asking each other; I cannot understand how killing 'vermin' is wrong by virtue of the label, and yet killing and eating 'meat'/'livestock'/'cattle' is morally permissible as long as it is not enjoyed.

No not everyone kills. But as a species we have always killed and not always purely for food or clothing, most soceities have developed some form of ritualistic or ceremonial killing.
I don't kill personally.
I just find it interesting that on both threads relating to this we are on the one hand accused of arrogance and thinking we are better than every other animal but on the same note we are expected to act in way which is different to other animals i.e. give our actions moral values.
Yet we are also accused of being "the most dangerous animal on the planet" etc.
I guess I'm just a bit confused by the mixed messages I seem to be reading from those who are opposed to the killing.
Because if as people say it's in the foxes nature to kill but not ours for us it is a choice,I don't think I'd agree with that.
I think as a species our superior intellect and social hierarchy has allowed us to recognise things which are most definitely in our nature as they are in other animals (e.g. viuolence and I'd imagine some more primate based mating rituals) but due to the social contracts which have come into play due to the way in which our social structure as a species has evolved we are able to choose to go against our nature quite often.

Cats and things don't kill for fun as such - they do "practice" and catch things they don't consume, "tease" half dead mice etc. They are really just keeping their hand in. (I think, obviously I am unable to fully get into a cat's psyche).

Saying they are doing it for fun, teasing etc is anthromorphosising (sp you know the word I mean). We are putting our interpretation on what they are doing.

I am trying to get some coherent thoughts about there being a pecking order with animals with humans at the top and things like insects at the bottom, with the life of the animal valued accordingly. Large mammals and cute things come near the top, naturally. Using a word like "vermin" had the effect of demoting an animal IYSWIM. So a fox, which should be pretty hugh up, suddenly ends up down with a millipede.

I think the thing is it's all to do with human perceptions, human values, what we think is important. We're so arrogant.

First bit doesn't make sense. I mean that what we see as fun, teasing etc, to them is serious business of practice.

Brain not working as up all night with the kids, sorry.

mayor - we don't like to call ourselves animals in most senses. We like to think of ourselves as superior. But isn't our moral sense part of the price we pay to hold that position. Life would be easier as a sociopath - if we all took what we wanted and sod everyone else. But it doesn't work very well long-term. We have rules and taboos. And one of those is a certain level of consideration for the non-human animals we live amongst.

Where do we draw the line? Yes a very good question.

I would argue that as we are by far the dominant species and not by and large seriously threatened by any other species, it behoves us to act with greater compassion than in centuries past when that wasn't the case. And that calling a fox vermin (thereby making it easier to kill) when it eradicated your chickens and left you short of food was acceptable. Calling a fox vermin when it has eaten your chickens and spoilt your hobby isn't. No suburban weekend farmer with a few chucks is going to starve when their pets get eaten.

By the way 'we' means those of us who live a comfortable first world life and don't rely on our animals as our major income.

And yes tether, it matters hugely how we regard the killing of animals. There are people who enjoy killing for it's own sake and I personally wouldn't like to know them. Most people would find it reprehensible. Killing for a purpose such as providing food is quite different from getting a visceral thrill from causing death. In the same way as we might have some understanding of a man who kills someone who is attacking his family, but not of a man who kills because he thinks he was disrespected and wants to prove himself.

"Saying they are doing it for fun, teasing etc is anthromorphosising (sp you know the word I mean). We are putting our interpretation on what they are doing."

which is kind of my point. I'm not saying that the killing is right or wrong, my understanding of moral principles is probably not in depth enough to fully examine the question. My point was simply that i find it interesting that the side which seem to be vehemently against the killing of the fox on the one hand are arguing that we are arrogant for thinking we are superior to other animals but on the other hand that we are in fact superior and as such have a greater respnsibility.
When to my mind we are exactly the same at a base level.

" But isn't our moral sense part of the price we pay to hold that position. Life would be easier as a sociopath - if we all took what we wanted and sod everyone else. But it doesn't work very well long-term. We have rules and taboos. And one of those is a certain level of consideration for the non-human animals we live amongst."

Now that's a very interesting statement to my mind. Because you seem to mix the ideas of an inherent moral sense and one of social contract. Now if we agree with your first statement that our position has imbued us with an inherent moral sense and that the killing of animals not for essential motives is wrond in of itself we must surely look for a uniform trend in these morals which,if this thread can be used as a microcosm,there seems to be none. Some people seem to agree with poisoning,some agree with poisoning but not hunting,some disagree with killing of animals full-stop.
I'd be much more inclined to agree with your second assertation that we behave in the manner which we do due to social contracts. Yes it might be easier at first glance to live as a sociopath just beating up whoever you want and taking whatever you want,but then what is to protect you from someone else doing the same to you. so as you say we develope rules and tabboos. However where i would disagree with you when you say "one of those is a certain level of consideration for the non-human animals we live amongst", because to my mind these tabboos have developed not out of consideration for the animals but to my mind the consideration of man and what we find distasteful and value.I mean lets face it as someone above said we prioritise the cute and valuable animals over the ugly and annoying.And everyone will set their own bar. The idea of someone beating or mistreating a dog always makes me very angry yet if i saw a neighbour pouring boiling water down an ant hill on his door-step I most likely wouldn't bat an eye-lid.
Sorry for being so long-winded, but to summarise I don't think our treatment of other species differs from any other, we use them in a way we thing is advantageous to us in the same way as every other species.

" don't think our treatment of other species differs from any other, we use them in a way we thing is advantageous to us in the same way as every other species."

No, because we do have a sense of right and wrong re treatment of animals, as you said "the consideration of man and what we find distasteful and value". That alone shows that we place some sort of value on animals above and beyond their usefulness to us. Which I don't beleive is the case for other species - correct me if I am wrong. Of course we all have different levels of consideration but anyone who goes beyond what would generally be considered acceptable is usually seen as some sort of freak. No-one (or few people) would condone drowning kittens or badger baiting these days. Why? If we don't place some sort of worth on these creatures.

And 'inherent moral sense' comes only from our social contract. We aren't inherently moral. We are inherently amoral. We tend to develop the morality of the society we grow up in. Which is why our moral sense switches with generations.

"No, because we do have a sense of right and wrong re treatment of animals"

Do you really believe we do? I can't marry such an idea with what i see around us. We have no uniform sense of right and wrong as humans with regards to animals.how else can you explain the discrepencies around the globe with regards the treatment of animals?we most certainly have soceital concepts about animals values to us which have evolved differently, but to claim that we as humans have a sense of right and wrong towards animals is just to ignore the facts. Even in developed worlds of reasponably similar cultures you have juxtaposed ideas.In Ireland hunting is still legal,in England it is not,Spain still fights the bulls and akes them run in Pamplona.

"That alone shows that we place some sort of value on animals above and beyond their usefulness to us. Which I don't beleive is the case for other species - correct me if I am wrong."

Well i don't believe we do place any value on them above or beyond their usefullness to us. I am of course using the word usefullness in a broad sense in that our enjoyment of an animal purely aesthetically or through fascination in tropical eco-systems etc is a use of these animals by us which we gain something from. As such if pandas died out tomorrow some people woulkd be gutted because of the potential damage to the eco-system,some would be gutted because they just really liked pandas thought they were beautifula and fascinating animals, and some wouldn't care because they simply don't care about pandas. So many of the people who value them only do so in their usefullness to man or the environment.
We value dogs higher than cockroaches not because we think they have some intrinsic value beyond that of the cockroach but because they are of greater value to us because of their usefulness to us.

"No-one (or few people) would condone drowning kittens or badger baiting these days. Why? If we don't place some sort of worth on these creatures."

But the worth we place is only based upon the soceity in which we live. These practices went on for protracted periods of time and still do and were not considered wrong in the slightest, so it could not be said that they are wrong of themselves. And once again they have become wrong only due to man made contracts. Now it can be argued that these were done due to a belief that these animals had some inherent worth but I would argue that they came to be viewed as wrong due to way in which modern soceity wanted to view itself. It had nothing to do with the animals and everything to do with progressing certain sections of mans soceity and promoting the image that the soceity which has banned this is more evolved,more caring and more progressive than those which have not.

"But the worth we place is only based upon the soceity in which we live."

Yes that is what I said further down my last post. That doesn't stop it being a moral judgement. No-one is inherently moral. We are taught (or not) to be so.

"using the word usefullness in a broad sense in that our enjoyment of an animal purely aesthetically or through fascination in tropical eco-systems etc is a use of these animals by us which we gain something from"

But that is how we care for anything isn't it? If you analyse our feelings for our fellow humans it is often devoid of empathy - we like people for many reasons not just because they are human. We like them because they are funny, kind, rich, have a big house, because of shared history, have a lot in common. Society trains us to care about people who otherwise might hold no interest for us. That isn't inherent either.

well to my mind it would because morals and learned values are two different things but we'd largely arguing philosphical theory which is in fairness semantics as far as the thread is concerned.

But where does a moral sense come from then? We aren't born with it.

Well it could be argued either way tbh. It could be argued that due to our nature we have set up our soceity in a way which rewards us caring about the plight of others as it is the best way to guarentee the survival of the species.
you could also argue that it is in fact all self-motivated and selfish but due to the social nature of our species we obtain individual pleasure and reward.
or you could argue that it's not inherent at all and that it is all due to social contract.

The mice that pissed and shat all over my kitchen, house and possessions - they were vermin and I poisoned them. The mice in my garage and garden I let be. No, I didn't revel in it and no, I don't label them vermin to make myself feel better about it. Was I pleased when the bait stopped disappearing ? Yes.

Squirrels are vermin and if they were in my loft they would be killed.

It doesn't make me mean spirited or lacking in compassion.

"But where does a moral sense come from then? We aren't born with it."

Well to my mind moral sense is just another social contract but to sell it to the masses you have to make it more than that. You have to anaologise (sp) the anarchy that would go with the fall of society with the wrath of God or as going against nature itself.
When to my mind the truth about morals is that they only exist to allow us to live our lives as freely as possible without being infringed upon but the trade off for this is that we aren't allowed to infringe upon others. In the middle there's the grey area where we allow certain infringements as we believe they benefit us in the long run or our enjoyment of society as a whole (taxes,certain laws etc).
We are now certainly far from the point of the thread,where as once again I'm not here to say the killing is right or wrong, I don't have the requisite moral authority to make such statements. I was only intrigued by the assertaqtion that it's in a foxes nature to kill but not ours,for us it's a
choice. And i could only think to ask,if it's not in our nature then why have we done it for centuries. surely the more likely answer is that it is in our nature and remains their despite the evolution of soceity. As such man now has a primitive urge to hunt and kill for food which is no longer being met due to modern soceity and this is surely why a great deal of men take a certain pleasure from sport hunting or fishing, however modern civil society has deemed certain animal killings redundant and popular opinion has turned against it. But as I've said all along i think it has nothing to do with any sort of inherint right or wrong or morals. just social evolution.

OK well then I think that my personal moral sense (imbued in me by my parents and the society I live in) dictates that people who kill for pleasure are scumbags.

And by and large society seems to agree with me as so many cruel activities are becoming illegal - badger-baiting, cock-fighting etc. Why is that unless our primitive urge to kill is being suppressed by our continuing evolution. We have a primitive urge to do many things that are not acceptable. We tend to suppress them too.

I agree with you completely. I think people who kill animals for fun or torture them are pretty despicable.

"Why is that unless our primitive urge to kill is being suppressed by our continuing evolution. We have a primitive urge to do many things that are not acceptable. We tend to suppress them too."

I said pretty much the exact thing earlier, which has been my point all along. We have a million primitive urges that we ignore on a daily basis because of the way in which our soceity has been constructed inmho.
My only point was that the people who were being anti-killing seemed to be playing both sides of the argument in a way that didn't make sense to me.
On the one hand they were saying that we are an arrogant species because of the way we value life yet on the other they were making claims about our animalistic virtues and killing not being in our nature.

So on the one hand it seemed to me they were saying we are superior and we have morals and on the other we're so arrogant for thinking we're superior we're just like other animals.

Where as i believe we are simply animals, I don't believe in morals. But I agree with you that we are a highly intelligent social animal who have developed our soceity in such a way that we do make value judgments on certain animals and our treatment of you. For the benefit of our soceity we have decided that certain primitive actions are unacceptable and their suression is desireable.

Well that's Ok then

But I don't think anyone said (I didn't anyway) we were arrogant for thinking we are morally superior, but for the way we permit ourselves to ignore the needs of other species for our own purposes, no matter how trivial.