Use and abuse of animals: where do we draw the line morally ?

[GoreRenewed]

This was prompted by the thread (mine and another) about the Emperor of Exmoor that was shot
recently.

Responses were fairly divided.

1. It's outrageous.
2. It's just an animal there are more important things
3. You have no right to be upset if you eat meat.

I paraphrase disgracefully but I think that is more or less correct.

I completely see that there is hypocrisy involved in my response to this. I feel angry and distressed because it was
a beautiful animal in the prime of life, it didn't need to be culled and I suspect the motivation for the killing was financial on the part of the landowner and something even murkier on the part of the man weilding the gun. However I am not a vegan and I don't beleive in 'animal rights' simply because pragmatism dictates they don't have any, at least not in the sense that we think of 'human rights'.

As it happens this animal probably died quite quickly and with a minimum of suffering and there are undoubtedly millions who don't have that luxury. That might well have been the case for the pigs that gave me the ham that I ate in my salad at lunchtime.

Does that mean that I have no right to object to this. Can I take no moral position on the sufferings of animals or their treatment by us? We use and abuse animals all the time in our society, in ways that are largely invisible to the majority of the population. It is very hard to avoid being party to this in some way.

Is it then logical that because I eat meat I can object to nothing that happens with regard to animals.
"OMG I feel sick, I saw someone beating their dog"
"So what! You're a meat-eater hyprocrite"

"I think angling is barbaric"
"Don't be a hypocrite you eat fish!"

"I would never wear fur"
"Why, you wear leather".

Where do we draw the line? It isn't all or nothing is it?

I'm a vegetarian, but morally, I'm still not perfect.
I eat eggs and drink milk, which means I don't care about the make chickens that are killed because they're surplus to requirements, nor do I care about all the calves that are born just to keep their mothers in milk - because most of them will be slaughtered for milk.

In an ideal world, I would like to see people only killing the animals they are going to eat, then it would be fine to eat eggs and drink milk, as the animals would be killed by their owners for meat.
not processed in an anonymous slaughterhouse or farm like plastic.

DH goes pike fishing every year, and I hate it, because they throw the fish back after they've caught it. He says they check it over and make sure it's okay before they throw it back, but I counter with the fact that they've taunted and tortured this fish by making it think they're feeding it, then dragging it out of its own home by sticking a hook through its face, then kept it in the air, which causes it distress, then throw it back again. (which causes distress again).
I would sooner he eat the fish he caught, because that's more what's supposed to happen.

with that stag, if the man had killed it because he wanted a big party for all his friends where they would eat the meat, then fine, but if he killed the stag purely as a trophy for its head, then that's not on.

colditz
"Why WHY is fur much much worse than leather? "

because leather is a by-product- those animals were already going to be killed for their meat and their leather is taken as well.
with fur, the animal is normally killed just for its fur.

the point, i suppose, is that if it's killed for feed, then it's better than if it's killed for fashion.

but if, as many people say, meat is surplus to a healthy diet, what is the difference between killing for a preferred type of coat and killing for a preferred type of meal, when both equally good coats and equally good meals are available?

one of life's little mysteries - i'm with you on that - meat should be because of necessity, not want, and the same with fur/leather.

But we can't say that because we don't eat meat, or wear leather etc that we are having no impact on animals. Every man-made structure has made animals homeless or resulted in their deaths. Everytime you use a road you are using a resource that has resulted in thousands of little disasters, and still does judging by the numbers of corpses I tend to see. Most people kill rats if they get any in their homes/gardens, they kill fleas on their cats, they kill headlice on their children's heads.

So just playing devil's advocate here there is no way anyone can pretend to have clean hands when it comes to other species. We all benefit in one way or another from the suffering of animals. If the blinkers slip it can drive you mad to think of the slaughter we perpetuate.

I think we tend to make accomodations that we are comfortable with and then defend them as best we can.

that's true, Gore, but then, it's all life-cycles, isn't it - if an animal is killed to ensure another animal's suvival (or health in terms of rats and lice), then that's justifiable - survival of the fittest etc.

but it's the intentional killing of animals when there's no reason to- roads don't count because that's accident - that's not on.
there's no need to kill as many animals for meat or cloth as we do, as there are alternatives (and a lot of it goes to waste too)

Well define 'need' pickle

We only need roads because of the lives we choose to lead. We need new housing because our family demographics have changed and there are more smaller family units. Most of the things we do are choice not neccessity.

I don't argue those things personally but they could be argued.

touche.

I'm not very good at debating my point or rebuttal, so this is probably the time IRL i'd go "splutter splutter stammer"

If someone's living in the houses, then fine - it's those estates of empty houses that drive me mad.

Well, if it's an ethical understanding you want, the whole thing needs unpicked a bit. Ethical= promotion of the good, so you need to establish what "the good" is. So for the average vegetarian, they would probably say that the "good" that they want to promote is a lack of suffering for all sentient beings, and their ethical behaviour would be to avoid acts which cause pain. However, a meat eater may say that their "good" is human happiness, and therefore find that eating meat promotes that. It's fairly hard to agree on ethical behaviour when you don't share the same underlying principles.

Similarly, for some, all creatures, or some creatures carry the same weight as humans morally. For others, human welfare will always come first. There is an argument that states that our environment, including the animals in it, has a spiritual value for humans, and only this value. After all, in the natural scheme of things, there is a great deal of pain and suffering, and it is only humanity who seeks to minimise this. If humans did not exist, who would care about mass extinctions etc?

Can you tell I studied a bit of environmental ethics at uni?

"If humans did not exist, who would care about mass extinctions etc?"

True. But that is one of the very best things about huamns IMO. That we do care about other creatures and our environment. I reckon it's payback for being topdog.

But a great many humans don't care. Or care, but only so far as it doesn't have a detrimental effect on their own life. The suggestion is that we care, but only because of their value to us and what we get out of it. That they have no intrinsic value of their own. Can there be value without valuers?

If the value of an animal is based on their value to humans, then the use of animals for meat etc. is not immoral, provided that this use does not cause us harm, or destroy the entire population, thereby destroying the value. It could be argued that using animals in a fashion which causes them undue suffering does cause harm to humanity, by causing us emotional pain, or by desensitising us to violence.

There is of course an alternative argument which suggests that animals have an intrinsic value independent of humanity, but it gets tricky to argue that this means we should not kill animals, when the natural system which has value is full of death and suffering.

"that using animals in a fashion which causes them undue suffering does cause harm to humanity, by causing us emotional pain, or by desensitising us to violence"

Well yes, that is the argument I tend to use. Violence degrades us, especially violence against the weak.

I eat meat, have shot meat and have raised animals for slaughter.

It is very simple for me. In all of thoe processes suffering should be minimised.

It is simple, and I admire you for that consistency beta. But how do you ensure that that is the case when you don't know the provenance of your meat?

Gore - to be truthful it is hard for shoppers to know the provenance of their food and so really have to rely on labelling and hope that regulations are being enforced properly.