Do humans have an intrinsic right to kill animals?

[Skip Intro]

Some qualifications:

I mean this in the sense of modern society, not remote areas where killing animals for food is necessary for survival.


For the sake of this discussion, if its ok, let's leave out insects and plants, as this is a more focused qestion. I'm not asking about insects or plants.

Do humans have a right to kill animals? Philisopically, do we have a right to kill animals?

[flvegan]

1. "Kill" is an excellent way to phrase it.

I think I'll sit back and watch this one...

:popcorn:

[Cleita]

2. Do animals have an intrinsic right to kill us?

If you look good on the menu, they would think so. If you threaten them, they would also think so. I suppose we have those same reciprocal rights. However, I am not for even killing insects unless they are a true menace. I try to keep all the denizens of my yard happy and not interfere with their life cycles and their eating of each other. I allow mother nature to do her thing.

[mentalsolstice]

20. I dunno...

my lab wants to eat things smaller than herself, so I often have to intervene to keep her from eating my cat or my pug (not the political kind, if that were the case I'd tell her to have at it).

[Cleita]

24. Your Lab is a domestic animal you tamed to be a pet.

We have a Lab too that is trained not to look at our cats as dinner. I'm not talking about our domestics.

[nam78_two]

150. I cannot communicate with animals

I have no idea whether they can understand the pain and suffering that other creatures feel when they kill them...
Humans do not lack this capacity...

I think that means we have to consider animal suffering no? Forget the kill or not argument...is it ok for us to inflict suffering, lots of it, and turn a blind eye to it?

Personally, I don't think so....

[renate]

213. what a great point

Cleita had persuaded me to reconsider my position on killing/eating animals by pointing out that they (carnivores anyway, I assume) would blithely eat us if the situation arose... and then you went and spoiled my joyful return to omnivorism by reminding me that we're aware of the suffering caused by our meat eating and animals may not be.

(BTW, I'm a mostly-vegetarian who eats fish because eating fish is so beneficial to our health, which suggests to me that in evolutionary terms it's necessary or customary or at least sort of "survival of the fittest" for us to do that--flax seed oil is a good substitute for fish oil but it just doesn't have quite the same effect--and I also eat eggs from uncaged chickens {not free-range chickens, because I heard that the legal definition of "free range" can just mean there's a hole in the coop out to a teeny yard}. Anyway, I try to do the right thing animal-product-wise, but oh, my goodness, how I miss meat. Mmmmmm. Which may be why I was so eager to revise my views after reading Cleita's post. Rats.)

[Cleita]

274. I used to be a vegetarian but have to eat some red meat on

doctor's orders. I have since then tried to support animal groups who advocate humane treatment of farm animals while they are living and killing them as humanely as possible when the time comes. I believe that we can eat animal products without brutalizing the animals that provide them.

[Duppers]

228. you've nailed the essence of my argument

We have the capacity of empathy, the capacity to understand suffering and pain of other animals. We, of course, are animals ourselves, barely removed from the caves and jungles. But we have developed and EVOLVED "conscious conscientiousness." If not, why else would this question even arise?

Btw, humans have the ability to thrive on vegetable protein.

(I do my best to spare the lives of high thinking animals by not eating them. My apologies to any Asians folks here, but I find that asian cultures don't give a thought to this sort of question, i.e. they don't give a damn about anything that's not human and that angers me.)

[beam me up scottie]

235. At least the animals follow The Law of the Wild

The Law of the Wild
by Rudyard Kipling

And this is the law of the wild
As true and as blue as the sky
And the wolf that keeps it will prosper
But the wolf that breaks it will die.


Like the vine that circles the tree trunk
This law runneth forward and back
The strength of the pack is the wolf
And the strength of the wolf is the pack.


Kill only to eat, or to keep from being eaten.

Humans are the only animals that kill for fun.

We needlessly, willingly and joyfully inflict pain and suffering upon our fellow creatures.

We do so without remorse, and we do it for enjoyment, greed and vanity.


Give me the wolf pack any day.

[Cleita]

267. Yes, our corrupt and cruel Vice President Dick Cheney comes to

mind. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

309. Yes, but he is just one

among millions.

Internet hunting hopefully will be illegal in all states some day.

But I find the idea to be even more repugnant as the idea of Cheney shooting birds with clipped wings.

[SPKrazy]

286. I Like That About You BMUS

you are truly a kind person

and yet, I'd want you to get my back, and I'd get your back too!

Humans are amazing in the lengths that we (collective we, not necessarily you or I) go to in inflicting pain and suffering.

Although, I'm not proud of some of the things I've done in my younger days to hurt other things, I would not do those things today. Not because of some religious thing, just because it is wrong to do mean things to people, or animals. (now I sound like a terrible person in the past, not that bad ;-))

[beam me up scottie]

310. You make a good point.

I hope all of us learn to be kinder as we get older and realize how precious life really is.

I know I did.

I was willing to kill for my country when I was in the Corps.

I would not do so now.



I do not even kill insects, bees, spiders and other wayward creatures that find their way into my house get caught in a jar and released outside.

[Trillo]

212. I agree, yes,

other animals have the right to kill us, it's one of the ideas that's thought to be behind our tribal nature whereby those who lived in a group received survival benefits over those who did not, and thus those genes were selected for by breeding.

It's a nasty world, this physical place called earth.

[spoony]

273. Good points! n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. Yes. By Nature We Do Have That Right. We Are Not Herbivores. Since Part Of Being An Omnivore Is

eating meat, it would then be a sound logical deduction that in order to do so some animals would be required to perish. Therefore yes, by our very nature, we have an intrinsic right to kill animals.

[Big Kahuna]

9. Err...

Herbivores are vegetarians dude. :dunce:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. What Part Of 'NOT' Herbivores Escaped You?

[Big Kahuna]

14. heh.. sorry

I guess it was the NOT :)

:dunce:

[flvegan]

15. Omnivore is ability, and with that comes choice.

"eating meat...required to perish" is pretty weak.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. No. Being An Omnivore Is In Instinct And Design. If We Weren't To Eat Meat, We'd Be Herbivores.

So yes, when talking about whether we have the intrinsic right or rather if by our very nature we are meant to kill animals, then the answer is a resounding yes. Until as a species we are classified as herbivores (which if that was ever to come the evolution would be tens of thousands of years away), we do in fact have the intrinsic right.

And why are you so willing to be cruel to plants? They have bio-feedback feelings too ya know.

[flvegan]

25. Design for either/or ability, and to then choose.

And we can be herbivores, most folks choose not to, mostly due to taste buds and not need. But hey, if you want to pull the "species card" then be my guest.

As for cruelty to plants, I consume fewer than you do via your dead animal conversion of same (sorry, my only comeback to that tired old remark of yours).

[AlienGirl]

31. My response to the canard about plants is, "Show me evidence."

Remember those awe-inspiring EEG readings that were supposed to show that plants had feelings and intelligence? Turns out, if you hook up a plate of Jell-O to the same equipment, you get waves that resemble those of a conscious human brain! Therefore Jell-O must be thinking!!11

We have abundant evidence for vertebrate animals experiencing roughly the same states of pleasure, pain, fear, and reward that we experience. So in the plant v. animal sentience-off, I'd say animals come out ahead by a kingdom's-length. ;-)

Tucker

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

Just For Sake Of Reality, You Know That Line Was For Humor's Sake Right?

Believe me, I don't think plants feel pain LOL

[AlienGirl]

Do you think animals feel pain?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. Of Course. Personally I Wouldn't Ever Kill One Myself.

I ran over a baby rabbit once by mistake on an entrance ramp to a highway. It disturbed me the whole night.

But my argument isn't a personal or opinionated one. I consider it to be a scientific one.

[AlienGirl]

58. Why not kill your own meat, if you're going to eat it?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. If I Had To Kill My Own Meat I Probably Wouldn't.

[AlienGirl]

63. Have you ever tried?

I used to help the neighbor slaughter chickens.

You know how the body goes flapping around headless? Well, the head also keeps moving, the eyes focus for a minute and the beak opens and closes as if screaming.

Tucker

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Nope. Nor Would I.

Under normal circumstances, of course. Under circumstances of extreme hunger or ultimate survival, then do what ya gotta do.

On an anecdotal note, just the other night during thanksgiving dinner I had been commenting to my father-in-law the discrepancies of perception when it comes to that. I had been referencing how I couldn't stomach the thought of killing an animal for food or really thinking about that piece of steak having truly come from a live cow. I was talking about how uncomfortable it is for most people to think about that aspect of meat. But then I referenced the oddity of perception when it comes to fish. That though most people are uncomfortable with the thought of killing the chicken, choppin it up and then cookin it, most don't have the slightest problem with taking a fish, chopping off its head and proceeding to fillet it right then and there. Kinda strange when you think about it. (I don't eat fish, but I've killed them and filleted them for other fisherman before. Had no problem with it. But I wouldn't do that to a chicken!)

[everythingsxen]

127. Why then have you taken the position of yes we have the right?

If you wanted to be scientific about your viewpoint, you could just as easily say "No" since the question was about us humans in a modern world. In the modern world we can vat grow meat, just meat, that was never self aware. Why not eat that instead of killing animals?

Also, I would point out to you and basically everyone else that says "Yes we have a right to kill animals", you are essentially saying that because we "need" the meat and we are strong enough to take it, we have the right to. Therefor by your logic, we (the US) had a "right" to invade Iraq since they had oil we needed and we were strong enough to take it.

[Selatius]

221. Eating meat is not the same as consuming crude oil, in my opinion.

When it comes down to the issue of sheer survival, oil is not the same as meat.

I would say people have the ability to eat meat and have exercised the ability since the Stone Age, but whether that is a "right" is one I find to be in a gray area, since for many hunter gatherers then as well as nomadic peoples today, meat was and is apart of the diet, especially with a lack of crops and few edible plants like the central plains of Mongolia or the edge of the Sahara in Africa. For them, they don't see it as an issue of human rights as much as sheer human necessity to satisfy daily caloric intake needs.

Human rights such as freedom of speech are artificial constructs of the human mind, but hunger is of the natural world, not the human mind. I'm not attempting to denigrate human rights, but when it comes down to it, people have demonstrated their ability to live without rights, such as people in China, but many cannot demonstrate their ability to live without meat, especially in tne undeveloped world where gross industrial exploitation of workers and poverty are major issues.

To drop bombs for oil is not the same thing as shooting an arrow into a deer for meat. One is based on a want, such as the want for money and power. You can live without that, without greed. Another is a need, such as the need to satisfy hunger. If you're a nomad living in Africa or the central plains of Asia or a Native American living deep in the Amazon, it can be difficult to survive without meat. Freedom from want is possible, but freedom from need is not possible, especially if we examine all peoples who live in what we consider to be primitive conditions.

[AlienGirl]

222. If you're an overpopulated densely-urbanized Western country you need oil to survive

[Selatius]

225. Yes, but most people don't live in industrialized nations

If you were forced to live without crude oil, you could probably do so provided you weren't also deprived of sources of food like meat. Without crude oil, your farming machines are useless, so production of crops becomes an issue of life or death for you now, and if you failed to grow enough crops to last you until the next growing season, you're going to need meat to survive.

[everythingsxen]

223. You seem to have missed the OP

Which specifically excluded wilderness dwelling people who need it to survive. The question was, do we, as city dwelling, urban human critters, have a right to kill animals.

I would submit to you that "America" though an artifical contruct, does in fact need oil to survive. Everything involves oil at almost every level of the economy. Without oil, we are on a fast track to the dark ages. Therefore, America must have the right to attack Iraq and take its oil, since we are "hungry". Even though we could just eat Tofu. (Hydrogen/various other fuels)

[Selatius]

231. I disagree with your assertion we have a right to bomb and kill 655,000 Iraqis for their oil

We have all the oil producing nations on earth selling the US oil already even if we didn't send forth an army, so any oil gained from Iraq wouldn't have affected the fact that we already have oil. It is far more likely the war was started as a means to make a profit, to make money. Those in the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about certainly needed a new threat to justify continued government spending on their guns and bombs. The Cold War is over, and now they have a replacement, the War on Terrorism, as an excuse to continue to have a huge mechanized killing machine.

To answer whether industrialized people have a right to kill animals to eat and in light of rereading the OP instead of skimming over it like I did, I would say it is a fact that you could live without meat or dairy products provided you had alternatives to replace the nutrients and calories a person needs to live everyday. Personally, I generally leave it up to individual choice. If one feels strongly against the consumption of meat, then one should be given the freedom to inform others as to why people should stop eating meat, but I wouldn't go forward and legislate the belief into law. Me, I eat meat sparingly; it's not healthy in large doses. Breads, cereals, vegetables, nuts, etc. are the mainstay of my diet.

To recap:

Does having a choice to eat or not eat meat mean one then has no right to kill an animal to eat meat? I don't think anybody can answer it for you. You, as an individual, must decide for yourself.

[everythingsxen]

291. The question however

was do humans (in industrialized nations) have the right to kill animals. If we assume that the humans in question have adequate supplies of other foods, it is the equivalent of the US having plenty of oil from other nations. The US had a primative need for attacking Iraq, we wanted their oil, we wanted to go to war. We were strong enough to attack, so we did. By the logic extended thus far by the "Yes we have a right" side of things, the US then had a right to attack Iraq.

[Selatius]

312. I'm still hesitant to take it to that step, though, because it looks like a slippery slope argument

By the way you frame the debate, I would most definitely answer that no, humans in industrialized countries have no right to eat any meat whatsoever if that also precludes the wonton death of 655,000 innocent civilians, but as I said, I am hesitant to answer in the affirmative because it looks like a slippery slope argument because the choice to eat meat is a different choice than the choice to consume oil or wage war. There are many who affirm the first question of eating meat, but they would deny the 2nd question as it is about killing people. DUers here have done it, affirmed the 1st question and denied the 2nd question, and will no doubt continue to do so.

For instance, If I held the sentiment that we should raise taxes on every dollar earned after 150,000 dollars, it doesn't necessarily mean I necessarily support a 100% income tax either as it takes the sentiment and extrapolates it to a point the originator of the sentiment had not intended nor possibly wanted.

[everythingsxen]

313. I can see your point, but from my perspective..

it does not seem the same slippery slope. Most of the people who have replied "yes" have said we have some right to kill animals be it god given or biological "we were designed that way". It seems then to me that humans are very good at war, one could even say we were designed for it. Since it can very easily be established that we do not "need" meat in the same way we "need" oxygen, would it not follow then that if we "could" trade for oil (eating something other than meat and/or not killing animals) or we "could" invade a country to take it's oil (killing an animal and/or eating it's meat); does not the extension of the "humans have a right (biological or divine) to kill animals" lead to the same extension about the oil? We have a right to it for the same reason, which is we are strong enough to take it or our nation is designed to need it.

[Katzenjammer]

265. "many cannot demonstrate their ability to live without meat"

Not so. If you look at who brings home the bacon, as it were, in so-called "hunter/gatherer" societies, you find that they should be called "gatherer/hunter" ones (and in fact anthros are trying to rename them accordingly).

Meat is only a major part of the diet in western industrial societies. Elsewhere it's flavoring. My Asian cookbooks can be divided into Western-style and traditional. It's the western-style ones that feature a lot of meat. I have a Japanese cookbook written by two Nisei sisters that includes an anecdote about an exchange student from Japan living with a neighbor. The poor young woman was wasting away, and it wasn't until the neighbor turned in desperation to Mrs Hirasuna (the mother of the authors) and she prepared a traditional Japanese meal that the student ate freely. Her host, not understanding Japanese culture, had been trying to feed her as though she was an honored American guest...but the sight of thick steaks and chops on her plate nauseated her and it was all she could do not to sick up on the table!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

240. Because I Have The Ability To Think Objectively.

And your last paragraph is full of warped logic for the record.

[everythingsxen]

289. So you are thinking objectively,

by saying that direct parallel to your logic is warped logic. Wouldn't that then be saying that your logic is warped?

[nam78_two]

156. Not to flame you

(I like debate not fights)...
But that was one of the reasons that made me go veg. I felt it was hypocritical to eat something that was killed by someone else when I would NEVER be able to kill even a fish :)...

[Norrin Radd]

226. Also, plants provide tempting nectar and fruits to help spread their pollen and seeds via animals.

eom

[MonkeyFunk]

229. That's true...

and many orchards and farms require "domesticated" bees to pollinate their crops.

Do vegans avoid fruit and vegetables from farms that use domesticated bees?

100 years ago, all fruit and vegetables would've relied on the labor of farm animals. Now it relies on the energy from fossil fuels. Is it really that different?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Tired Old Remark? Find ONE Other Time I've Ever Used It. Ever. Just Even Once. Show Me.

After you're done failing to be able to do so, please also look up the definition of intrinsic.

Since in this context it would mean 'Is it part of our very nature and the way we're built to kill animals?', then the answer is a resounding YES whether you wish it were otherwise or not. Since even you admit that we are in fact omnivores and not herbivores, then you must too admit that by our NATURAL DESIGN, by the way our genetics exist, we are designed to be able to eat meat. Choice or not, we are BUILT to handle eating meat. Since in our design we can eat meat, then we have the intrinsic right to do so; since by choosing to eat the meat we obviously would have to kill an animal. If it were NOT intrinsic, we'd be Herbivores. We aren't. We're Omnivores. By nature we are built to eat meat. The quality is intrinsic. That's just simply a matter of Scientific Fact, not one up for personal judgment or opinion.

[Mr_Spock]

46. You are, of course, correct

This is a choice issue, not one of intrinsic genetic programming. Anyone who argues whether or not we instinctively LOVE the taste of red meat is an idiot.

[flvegan]

47. So...

eat all your kill, raw, do you? Designed to eat meat...back to Science 101 for you. I admit that today, you and I have the ability to eat properly prepared meat as part of a well-planned diet.

Of course, I also like to think we were designed to make our choices beyond our selfish wants.

As for the plant comment, it's a tired, worn out comment and you know it. Don't feign injustice with me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. I Wish You'd Re-Read The Post As Well As Look Up What Intrinsic Means. (Not Meant As Sarcasm)

Like I said, the fact it is choice matters not. The fact we have the physical attributes and ability makes the quality an intrinsic one. If there was no intrinsic right within our nature to kill animals for meat we by design would NOT be Omnivores, but would instead be herbivores. Until that is the case, we have the intrinsic right. It is a matter of factual science.

As far as your repeated assertion of the worn out comment, I re-issue my challenge for you to provide ONE other instance where I have ever said such a thing. The line was a lighthearted joke, that I'm fairly certain I have never used before. If I've never used it, then it cannot be a tired worn out comment on my behalf. So feign shmeign. Show me one other time I've used it before you continue to falsely assert that I have done so. Thanks.

[NoSheep]

97. Some CAN'T read..and then some just don't. n/t

[Mr_Spock]

22. It sometimes freaks me out how I instinctively love red meat

I could "choose" not to eat it, but it would be against my inbred "programming".

Chew on that...

[radwriter0555]

110. That's right. If I could choose to not crave and need red meat I absolutely would,

but, as you infer, we're genetically programmed to require this substance in our diets.

I try to eat less and substitute high protein veggies, fruit, cheese, etc., but I really need good bloody red meat at least once a week.

[Mr_Spock]

116. As much as I enjoy it, I rarely eat it myself

That's my choice - doesn't mean I don't marvel at how I instinctively find something that should be gross to be totally irresistible at times.

[Stuckinthebush]

252. Forced vegetarian here....

I gave up meat 2 years ago because of cholesterol problems and my doctor saying that I was a dead man walking. Thanks, Dad, for the great genes!!! :) Good news is that my cholesterol has done a complete 180...

Anyway...I loved red meat. LOVED IT! The prospect of not having it made me depressed for weeks after I became vegetarian. But something happened that freaked me out (and still does). It has been 2 1/2 years since I have placed a piece of meat in my mouth and frankly, i can't imagine doing it now. I have totally lost all desire for any meat - in fact, I have become repulsed by the thought of eating it. It is always a weird thing for me to experience watching someone eat a steak (which I LOVED), and finding myself sickened by thinking about eating it. In fact, it pisses me off to feel that way!

I am coming to the conclusion that my body over 40 years became accustomed to the taste of fat, and kind of became addicted to that taste. So is meat eating a need for us or a conditioned response? I still have no answers because I would never generalize my experience to the population. But I do think that my situation is interesting in that I am not a ideological vegetarian and I remember loving meat and still have the desire to love it. My brain says "remember how good that was?" and my body says "yuck!"

Just some personal observations on the omnivorous nature/nurture debate!

[HardRocker05]

198. well then wouldn't it also be OK to kill people for food? nt

[Katzenjammer]

239. You're confusing "can" with "is", I think.

Being an omnivore means we CAN eat the flesh of other animals, it doesn't impose a requirement. Being an omnivore also means we NEED NEVER eat the flesh of any animal, bird, fish, etc.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

241. If It Was Meant For Us Not To Then We'd Be Herbivores.

We're not, ya know.

[Katzenjammer]

247. Sorry, but you're still confusing "can" with "must"

We can drink coffee. That doesn't mean we must. We can eat the flesh of other creatures. That doesn't mean we must.

Our omnivorous nature doesn't change simply because we choose not to exploit one possible food source any more than our nature as beings-able-to-drink-coffee changes if we never do drink it.

[Quixote1818]

301. Perhaps we should help evolution along and become Herbivores?

If evolution continues to take it's course Humans could eventually lose their Omnivorous tendency's and become 100% Herbivores in the future. It all depends on when you take a snap shot of human evolution. We now can choose to be Herbivores and slowly the human body would change and have ONLY the characteristics of a Herbivore. Perhaps we should help that evolution along since we have the capability to survive without meat. I am sure many animals would appreciate the gesture.

[mike_c]

4. humans are omnivores-- which includes predation-- "rights" don't...

...enter into the discussion, IMO. Does any animal have a right to acquire its food? Of course it does. Herbivores have a right to consume plants, and predators have a right to consume prey. Omnivores have a "right" to do both. Note too that MANY herbivores are facultative omnivores, which is why many scavage dead animals.

[nam78_two]

168. Does that make it ok to factory farm them?

IMO thats the more important question? Just because we have power over them, does it make it ok to be assholes to them?

If we are ok with going with our basest instincts, why not be assholes to other people too :shrug:?
People powerless before us?

Do creatures powerless before us deserve our consideration? That IMO is the more important question...
If they don't, then I guess humans powerless before us don't merit considration either? Simce its all about the law of the jungle?

[Katzenjammer]

244. *EXCELLENT* response!

I was surprised to see the essential shallowness of analysis in Mike's post...it's completely unlike what I think of as his level of discourse. You exposed that shallowness beautifully, thank you!

[muriel_volestrangler]

255. How does raising a completely different question expose an analysis?

Surely you'd have to talk about the original subject, not change it, to have something to say about someone else's opinion.

[Katzenjammer]

256. It doesn't look different to me. I see it as a logical progression that's not excluded

by Mike's thesis that we're entitled to predate other species. Mike didn't suggest that we only have the right to predate other species if we do it by, say, hunting one-on-one with weapons we personally make, such as spears etc. He postulated an unlimited right. So Nam78's question about factory farming, the ultimate in interspecies predatory behavior, seems quite logical and apropos.

[muriel_volestrangler]

261. Well, nam78_two called it a "more important question"

and since mike_c was answering the original question, rather than nam78's different one (about how animals are treated while they're alive), I can't see why he was 'shallow' to you. Does that also apply to the vast majority of others on the thread who didn't address factory farming either?

[Katzenjammer]

262. I interpreted that as meaning "more important because it exposes more"

And I called Mike's exposition "shallow" in part because I perceive him as someone who never has to struggle to go beyond what's on the table, if that's at an inadequate level of analysis. He can always go to the heart of things. So it would normally have been his response that exposed the "structural predation" that's represented by factory farming (and if the topic weren't so narrow, the analogous structural predation in prison labor and the corporate labor prisons in the Pacific territories, and the canned predation in those disgusting farmed "hunts").

[mike_c]

266. ahhh, but that's another question entirely....

I agree with you about raising food ethically. I was simply responding to the OP's question about the underlying morality of killing animals in order to eat them. However, the ethical question you pose cannot be addressed without also asking: is it ethical to not produce enough food to feed everyone? To what extent are factory farms necessary to accomplish that? I don't know the answer so I'm not proposing one-- I just think the two issues are inextricably linked.

[warrens]

280. Absolutely not

And the quicker the meat industry figures that out, the better. I just did a lengthy interview with Marion Nestle, the NYU prof and "radical" nutritionist. Meat's good for you, cruelty is bad for you, was more or less her take.

[ecstatic]

5. Top of the food chain

Wild animals don't think twice about killing/maming us!

[k_jerome]

6. yes. we are soo-peer-eyore. nt.

[BlooInBloo]

7. It's not a right or wrong issue. They're animals. Not people.

Morality and it's orbiting system of concepts applies to people. Not animals. Not rocks. Not blades of grass. People. Morality was created by people for people.

There's already a word that means "to apply concepts designed for people to things that are not people".

[AlienGirl]

16. What, in your opinion, defines "people"?

Is a fetus a person? What about a dead human body? What about a human-chimp hybrid? Is there a thing that is permissible to do to a human-chimp hybrid but impermissible to do to a dead human body?

Interesting questions...

Tucker

[BlooInBloo]

26. Don't got a perfect definition of people. Nor of any other concept. (shrug) So?

But I, and others are nevertheless extremely good, as a matter of living practice (all aspects), at picking out people from non-people. Indeed, we've gotten better at it over time. Which is not to say that we're *perfect*, or that there can't be grey-area/boundary/difficult cases. There can. But they aren't typical - and moreover, that is/can be an issue with ANY concept.

Sigh. DUers always head straight to the semantics. A piece of advice: Don't. It's a mirage - the utility of going down the "what's your definition of X?" is 100% illusory. You can predict how that conversation ends, as well as all of the in-between steps.

[AlienGirl]

34. Humans are typically rather poor at picking out people from non-people

Most humans do not yet recognize chimps, bonobos, or gorillas as "people."

Tucker

[BlooInBloo]

48. Hm. There's little chance of fruitful communication between us. Sorry.

[AlienGirl]

49. Just like 80 years ago. Or 400.

[MonkeyFunk]

54. There's a good reason for that

the definition of "people" doesn't include the other great apes.

[AlienGirl]

55. Why not?

[MonkeyFunk]

65. Why not?

Because words don't mean what we want them to. They mean what they mean. "Blue" isn't an odor, "French" doesn't refer to natives of Patagonia and "defecate" doesn't mean to pick flowers. I didn't make the rules.

[JVS]

271. I'm going to defecate enough to give you a bouquet for that great post

:thumbsup:

[IA_Seth]

279. Thank you thank you

You made me laugh, and I needed that today.

People are people because people say so..think about THAT. Lol.

[Hosnon]

36. I agree with most of what you said except the part about the utility of

semantics.

Words are important because words mean things. Sure, it is a pointless inquiry sometimes (when there is a high degree of agreement, such as with "person") but it is very important at other times. In fact, "person" includes juridical persons in many legal aspects.

This semantic quest may be illusory but that hardly means that all are.

[BlooInBloo]

53. I didn't say words weren't important. The question was given to me as a 'gotcha' question.

I refused to play that idiotic game.

lol! I'm the LAST person who would denigrate the importance of words and their meanings. I will happily denigrate the trite "if you don't have a definition you're not saying anything and if you do have a definition, I'll poke holes in it - for ANY definition" game, however.

THAT doesn't diminish my admiration for Tarski, or any later semanticists (through Brandom, say) in the least.

Just because I don't like the game "hit me in the face with a basketball over and over" doesn't mean I have something against basketballs.


EDIT: Extend the name of the stupid game with the clause " except MINE, which, if you do give, just means you were wrong in the first place". Sorry - forgot about that clause initially.

[Hosnon]

86. Ok - I didn't take it to be a "gotcha" question but as there are none

of the other contextual clues (absent emoticons) used by humans to convey information that point is of little relevance.

I do agree with you on the usual game played: Provide a fool-proof concrete definition of each word you use or I'm going home!

When used as a "gotcha", yes, it is idiotic and annoying. I always try to use vague qualifiers whenever I post to avoid the "exception-trolls".

But when the purpose is not malicious, less absolutist versions of it are extremely useful.

I failed to see the narrowness of your contempt.

[AlienGirl]

88. It seems the other poster is the one who has "gone home"

Rather than inquire into what, exactly, defines personhood and whether there is an ethical difference between a live chimp and a dead human...

Tucker

[BlooInBloo]

105. lol! Someone else fell for the idiotic-semantic -definition-gotcha game...

... on the other branch from my OP in this thread. Better him/her than me.

[Hosnon]

122. I don't think you asked the question with malice. I may be wrong but

what the hell...

The two of you are simply talking past each other. You want to explore the outer limits of "person" while he wants to discuss a topic grounded in a predetermined definition, the one which makes up 98% or so of all instances that could be considered "persons".

Bloo interpreted your question in a certain way. I disagree with his interpretation but do agree that what he has interpreted it as is a major headache on messageboards.

[BlooInBloo]

130. He/she thinks chimps are people. You could be right - it might not have been malice...

... Maybe it was something else.

[AlienGirl]

131. Yes, I think Great Apes meet the ethical requirements for "persons."

[greyl]

205. Let's list some requirements: *

A person:

- is alive
- is aware
- feels positive and negative sensations
- has a sense of self (self-consciousness) with emotions
- controls its own behavior (can be held responsible)
- recognizes other persons and treats them appropriately
- is capable of analytical, conceptual thought
- is able to learn; can retain and recall information
- can solve complicated problems with analytical thought
- has the capacity for communication that suggests thought

Thomas White

Though it can seem futile at first glance, defining "personhood" is very important, and has ramifications that involve many progressive issues.

*according to one thoughtful source

[everythingsxen]

207. Well according to that list...

I would say that Great Apes and Parrots are persons.

I am not to sure about the "controls it's own behavior" since humans rarely do that. However, Apes and Parrots know when they have done something wrong....

[Katzenjammer]

245. Perhaps you should be more clear and use the term "humans" rather than "people"?

Somehow I suspect that your distinction-drawing is based on religious dogma rather than anything we'd consider rational. If I'm wrong, of course, I'll be happy to apologize after you defend your position on rational grounds.

[alcibiades_mystery]

80. I'll remember that next time a microwave a litter of kittens

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

128. Or the next time you eat veal, or animals from American mega-farms, etc..

[HardRocker05]

206. could you elaborate on that? what is the FUNDAMENTAL BASIS of this morality

you speak of? you said morality was made for people by people, but actually it was made by *certain* people, for *certain* people, i.e. throughout pretty much the entire history of the human race morality has been dependent on *who one was,* not simply on one being human. surely you know this, and i'm sure you believe it is wrong to base morality on what sub-category of the human race one falls into, so i was just wondering what you believe is the fundamental basis of the 'animals don't count' morality. i mean it looks as though it is simply based on identity (human vs. animal), and not on any fundamental rational, logical basis. it doesn't seem like there is any reason that your system couldn't be broken down into race/gender/nationality specific moralities, which 'don't apply' to anyone outside of those groups. bottom line is, there is either a rational logical basis to the argument that it's okay to kill animals, or it is simply an arbitrary, speciesist, might-makes-right argument. if the latter is the case, then i ask you, would it be okay for a superior alien race to treat humans the way we treat animals?

[EstimatedProphet]

8. What is the difference between modern society and remote areas?

Why should that make a difference, exactly?

[k_jerome]

51. cell phone service. settling for dsl or cable modem. nt.

[EstimatedProphet]

242. And this makes a difference in how we treat other animals?

[aquart]

10. Good namby pamby grief.

WE ARE ANIMALS. How incredibly condescending to pretend we're different from the other creatures of this earth.

[tritsofme]

89. You sit and type on your computer

The fruit of human ingenuity, and wonder how we are different from other animals on this Earth?

[Big Kahuna]

11. What really bugs me are those humanitarians!

Cannibalism needs to be stamped out!

[TahitiNut]

18. Yep. Only dung beetles are 'moral.'

:rofl:

[NoSheep]

98. Personally, I'm a Capricorn.

[cynatnite]

13. If it's me or them...

damn straight. Kill 'em.

Doing it for food...yes.

Doing it for sport...hell no.

on edit: to ease their suffering or stop the spread of disease...yes.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Sure...

I've killed a number of beloved pets. Well, usually I hired a hit-man (aka veterinarian) to do the job for me. They were acts of mercy, I believe.

Oh, plus we have the right to eat 'em. Not the pets... other critters.

[Bombtrack]

19. Yes, I trust the source of nutrients I require from nature more than I do from humans

And I actually don't believe killing is, ipso facto, wrong. Whether it's plants, animals that have existed in our diet for Millenia, or horrible people who detract from or threaten to harm society/civilization.

[MazeRat7]

23. No... taking any "animal" life is wrong.

While animals are certainly not as evolved as humans, they do feel things like fear, pain, contentment, self preservation, hunger, etc... they are a life forms by any definition of the word.

If you believe it is ok to kill them, then I guess you believe its ok to kill other more evolved life forms (say humans). So when the day comes that its ok for me to go kill my neighbor because I am "more superior" than him... then I guess it would be ok to kill animals as well. :sarcasm:

In the mean time.. I will continue to subscribe to the theory that "you can tell the advancement of a civilization by the manner in which it treats it animals"....


MZr7

EDIT: fixed my subject line so I can quit explaining the context of "life" as it relates to "animals".... gezzzzz :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Is it wrong for ALL animals, or only humans?

And do you really think taking ANY life is wrong? Microbial life? Mites? Mosquitos?

[MazeRat7]

39. The context of the OP said to exclude insects, plants, etc....

So, my use of the word "all" was in context defined by the OP which limited it to "animals", not plants or insects.

Sorry if that was confusing.

MZr7

[MonkeyFunk]

44. No problem....

But what about non-human animals killing other animals? Is it wrong? Are tigers, sharks, spiders et. al. in the wrong when they kill?

[MazeRat7]

50. I can't really answer that question because I'm not a tiger, shark, spider, et. al.

I can only speak as a human being that believes all "animal" life has value. For me to routinely kill in the absence of a "survival/life preservation situation, is something I can not do with a pure heart. Someday when I am maybe a bit wiser I'll have answers to such questions... this is just how I roll today.
Sure its not right for everyone, but its right for me.

MZr7

[MonkeyFunk]

59. Thank you

I respect your position greatly.

"Sure it's not right for everyone, but it's right for me."

If only more people - on ALL sides of the issue - felt the same way.

[mike_c]

32. dude, you are a heterotroph-- you have no choice but to kill your food...

...unless you want to try and live on decomposing detritus-- stuff that's already dead. Until you learn to photosynthesize, you must kill to live. Period. End of story.

[AlienGirl]

38. But I can choose what to kill

Given the choice between killing something sapient and something merely sentient, I will kill the merely sentient thing. Given the choice between killing something sentient and killing something non-sentient, I will kill the non-sentient thing.

Tucker

[MazeRat7]

43. Why must you choose when to kill ? (n/t)

[mike_c]

60. of course-- but in doing so you acknowledge the right to choose...

...how each of us expresses our omnivory.

[Guaranteed]

292. If animals are worthy of the protections that you wish on them, then

they should be able to choose what they kill, too.

[MazeRat7]

41. No... I live fine and dont kill any animals...

What the hell are you talking about ?

MZr7

edit: FYI, I get all the organic compounds of nitrogen and carbon I need from plants... not animals.

[mike_c]

57. so you kill plants instead-- that is a choice you make...

...to limit your omnivory. But every bite of plant tissue you consume was a living being before you ate it.

[AlienGirl]

62. Living, yes. Sentient, no.

[MazeRat7]

67. Sorry AlienGirl.. wrong sub-thread... post deleted.

MZr7

[AlienGirl]

70. I am arguing that animals are sentient but plants are not.

[MazeRat7]

74. Yeah I know.. my bad.. I edited the post since I was lost (as usual) *grin

[mike_c]

68. yes-- this sub thread was because I took issue with the statement...

...that the DUer did not kill "living beings." I think folks need to understand their own biology better than that. We are heterotrophs-- we have no choice but to consume other living beings. We can choose which ones to consume, but any such choice implicitly acknowledges the right to choose. If you have the right to choose to eat only plant tissues-- and I readily acknowledge and respect that right-- then others likewise have the right to make different choices. Which returns us to the subject of the OP.

[Guaranteed]

293. Are animals sentient?

If so, why can't they choose what they kill?

[MazeRat7]

64. True.. but the context (per the OP) was to exclude plants, insects and limit discussion to animals.

Why can't we stay on topic here and talk about "animals"... not insects, bacteria, carbon/nitrogen compounds, etc... gezzzz...

I guess the old school of "when you have no argument... obfuscate" is in full swing :eyes:

MZr7

[mike_c]

71. um-- I'm an entomologist, and I can assure you that insects...

...are animals.

Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Arthropoda
Class Insecta

[MazeRat7]

77. That may be the case.. but insects (a sub-class of animal) were excluded by the OP...

I think your issue is with the OP for excluding a specic class of animal that include said insect genus.

Sorry.

MZr7

[MonkeyFunk]

75. Be fair...

nobody's trying to obfuscate.

You wrote that taking ANY life is wrong. You didn't specify "within the context of the OP".

But... why not discuss which type of life is acceptable to take? I believe, like in most things in life, it's not all or nothing, black or white. We draw a line somewhere, and different people draw that line in different places.

Nobody lives without taking life. It's all a matter of WHICH lives we take, but to pretend that some of us are stone-cold killers and others get by without taking ANY lives is untrue, and actually just polarizes us regarding this issue.

If we recognize that we ALL take life to survive, then we're effectively on the same side, and it's a discussion of WHICH lives to take, not WHETHER.

[MazeRat7]

85. Your right... I edited my initial post to specify "animals" since I thought that was a given...

It sucks being an engineer sometimes... I read a set of requirements and respond assuming everyone else is working from the same set of requirements.....

MZr7

[Sapphocrat]

27. How about "No, unless..."

"No, unless..." one twists that biblical business about having domain over animals into the Coulteresque belief that we're here to "rape the planet," because God said so.

Which I don't believe. If I believed in the Bible, I would take that reference to mean we are stewards to everything we dominate, including animals. (Which doesn't explain Deuteronomy 12, but again, I don't believe in the Bible, particularly the OT.)

I say our very physical makeup provides the answer: Neither our teeth nor our guts were designed* for chewing and processing flesh. That said: Beyond eating animals, what reason do we have to kill them?

Yes, there's "sport" -- but then I think people who take pleasure in blowing away Bambi with a 30.06 have some serious issues.


* "designed" = for lack of a better word; not to be confused with the meaningless phrase "intelligent design"; to wit:

[seabeyond]

35. dog, bear, wild cat attacking you. it has the "right" to eat you, yet...

you dont have the "right" to kill it. what a concept.

[MazeRat7]

45. I believe "survival" situations were excluded by the OP (n/t)

[seabeyond]

66. i read survival for food in remote areas. i have a couple pitbulls

across the street that have attacked other dogs including a rotweiller across the other way. i am not in remote area and wouldnt need it to survive on for food. i would kill them, with no guilt if they came at... well anyone... (was thinking of boys and self, but then we have people walking the street)

if i have the right to kill them to survive or someone has the right to kill to survive in remote areas.... then... the op answered the question

[seabeyond]

78. btw... i hate killing all things. i have broken more windows killing

flies because i am so messed up killing i swing too hard and break windows. cant even kill spiders. let alone animals. i understand the question.... the point is, if killing of animals are ok for any reason, then the right is there. it is ours as a society and individual to decide what the line is.

[alcibiades_mystery]

81. It has nothing to do with "rights" either way

I know you understand this.

Sometimes liberals are so silly. It's like the one thing that they cannot stand is the notion of power. They constantly try to supplant power with "rights," no matter how ridiculous the translation. Intrinsic right to kill animals! The words together make no sense.

[seabeyond]

95. Intrinsic

i couldnt even add that onto "right"

[Hosnon]

106. Right....without more information I assume it is meant in a metaphysical way. And it

is ridiculous to state that "rights" existed before humans created them.

They could be intrinsic in certain systems but the word "intrinsic" would simply be narrowed and the (probable) meaning we are discussing here would be lost.

[alcibiades_mystery]

125. Of course not

Rights are social, not intrinsic. The whole notion is ridiculous.

[Hosnon]

140. Is this tiny little sub-sub-thread our little sea of sanity? nt

[Sapphocrat]

91. Aw, come on, seabeyond, give me some credit.

Nobody was talking survival -- at least, I didn't think so. If we are talking survival, then even I, in all my nonviolent, pacificist, do-anything-to-avoid-physical-confrontation glory, would kill a person posing a genuine, immediate threat against my life, or the life of another.

Yeah, I'd suffer extreme guilt until the day I died, but I have no doubt I'd do it.

[seabeyond]

102. but that is the point. as i have posted i hate killing anyting including

bugs. not my job in this house and i dont know how many windows i have taken out. but, if you can kill an animal.... for any reason then the right to kill is there. how i may justify, or you may justify will be different from another. if we say it is ok for our reasons.... then who am i to tell another their reason doesnt meet my standard.

it is like the people that say abortion is murder. but can have abortion for certain reasons. it still is what it is. cant say those reason are good, while other peoples reasons are bad.

you may not like it. i know i dont like it. but.... someone does have the right to go hunting even if they can go to the store. and i have the right to buy steak in the store. that animal had to be killed.

the question itself doesnt make sense.

[Sapphocrat]

117. You're moving the goalposts.

I never said "justify". I can't justify killing anyone or anything, from houseflies to armed intruders.

I don't believe it's ever a "right," either. With survival at stake, it may be a (questionably) forgivable, normal reaction, in some cases. That's why we split hairs among definitions of "murder," "justifiable homicide," "manslaughter," etc. There are always extenuating circumstances.

As for hunting, OK, I give you this: It's a "right," as long as the law says it's a right. I don't like wearing a seatbelt, either, but it's the law, and I will abide by it. But I'll still complain about it.

[seabeyond]

123. see, you are better than i. just cause i am told i have to, doesnt mean

i do. ah well.

interesting. thanks. i hear what you are saying .... i too have thought this through. i dont have the answer, not for all people, only myself

[pitohui]

114. c'mon, you wouldn't seriously suffer any guilt for that, would you?

people say that, but that's just a way of flattering themselves for their fine feelings, we're friends here, we needn't pretend we'd feel guilty for killing someone who damn well needed killing

i guess i am just a heathen because if someone is trying to kill me, i have no problem fucking them up any way i can

certainly i wouldn't feel guilty about it, indeed, it's almost my obligation, what i feel guilty about is the stalker i left free to stalk another woman (which i know that he did)

[Sapphocrat]

129. Yeah, I really believe I would.

Not because I want to see myself as some modern-day Gandhi (ain't gonna happen in this life!), but for the simple reason that death is SO final, there's no going back, ever. I KNOW I would spend the rest of my life obsessing about what I could have done differently, for just one second, to avoid being responsible for the death of another human being. I would replay the scene over and over again, and re-write it in my head, every time.

That's not saint-like or anything -- I just know I'd self-flagellate myself, forever.

Heck, I do that now, with incidents that happened decades ago, and mean nothing in the course of the cosmos. Like the time I ran to second when I knew better, was tagged out, and lost the game.

It's just my obsession. YMMV. :)

[mike_c]

87. "...Neither our teeth nor our guts were designed for chewing and processing flesh."

This simply is not true. We are omnivores-- every aspect of our digestive system reflects that. We have incisors and canines for gripping and tearing flesh, but modified for slicing hard vegetable matter as well. We have all of the enzymes necessary for digesting meat, indeed we digest meat more efficiently than plant tissues-- much of which we cannot digest at all-- and meat is the only single nutrient from which we can acquire all necessary essential amino in one go. We can eat almost any flesh on the planet and prosper, but 99 out of 100 plant tissues are either non-nutritive or out right toxic to us. Our digestive systems are entirely omnivorous, but with a strong bias toward carnivory.

[Sapphocrat]

100. OK.

There are opposing schools of thought on this.

What you may find amusing is that I am very much the omnivore myself -- no vegetarian or vegan here, by a long shot -- so trust me: I'm not pushing a don't-eat-animals campaign. I just recognize (and respect) both sides of the argument... but I'll be damned if I ever stop making my fabulous oven-fried chicken. :)

[Hosnon]

28. No, because there is no such thing as an intrinsic right.

I don't believe in Platonic forms...rights are human constructs. And even those are dependent upon circumstances.

[seabeyond]

30. if one is attacking me, i have no qualms with my rights to kill it

and then hunting there are positives aspects to a boy with with his father. or hubby hunting, or anyone else that choses. i dont like or value it. but i can appreciate what son gains in doing it. they eat it. i see it no different than me eating the steak from the stores. which takes me to eating meat. we are killing animals. so do i have the right to kil to eat.... yes

[Annces]

33. We don't need to kill them, so why should we kill them

And I don't understand your meaning of "the right". Isn't it all about might equals right? In that respect, we have not risen above our own animal natures.

[0rganism]

37. of course we do, for food or self defense, like any other animal

Now the REAL question is, "Do we have the right to kill other animals just because they eat the same things we like to eat?"

A big part of human civilization as it stands is the notion of killing off the competition.

[karlrschneider]

40. There is no such thing as an "intrinsic right." It is an artificial construct,

much like "sin."

You might as well ask if a lion has the right to eat a gazelle. Humans (which of course simply one type of mammal) have evolved to be omnivores. One can eschew that diet and stick to veggies (or the other
extreme) but neither is 'normal' at this time. (It might be marginally 'natural', though)

[Lisa0825]

69. Do humans have LESS of a right to kill animals than other animals do?

Other animals kill for food, defense, heck, even for fun! (ever see a well-fed housecat play with a mouse?)

I think that humans should only kill animals under certain circumstances and in humane ways, but I do not think eating meat is wrong. I also approve of medical research on lower animals (not domesticated breeds or primates for example) and only for the purpose of saving human lives (not for cosmetics, rogaine, etc).

I disapprove of euthanasia as a method of animal control. I think with hard work and funding, killing animals to make room for more can be ended.

I think people who torture animals or kill them without a valid reason should be MUCH more harshly punished as well as put through serious therapy. Emotions aside, people who do such things are more likely to commit crimes against humans as well.

[AlienGirl]

72. Do humans have less of a right to kill each other than other animals do?

Same-species killing isn't that uncommon, so is it right for humans to kill each other?

Tucker

[Lisa0825]

126. Same-species killing is usually for specific reasons....

depending on the species, of course, but it is usually about self defense, defending territories or offspring, etc, and we do have laws governing under what circumstances it is legal to kill another human. The fact that we have laws about it recognizes that at times we (as a society) do tend to believe that it is acceptable.

[AlienGirl]

132. Humans mainly kill for territory (money or access to mates) too

[Lisa0825]

136. And there are laws....

about protecting our homes and families. Not to mentin the fact that "crimes of passion" are often judged with consideration. My point was that since we consciously make laws allowing certain types of killings of our own species, we obviously sanction killing each other under certain circumstances.... other species kill each other under certain cisrcumstances.... other species kill for food... we kill for food.... I was drawing parallels between humans and other species, but I think my point was lost. I feel that all the animal world kills for various reasons including food and defense, and humans are actually held more accountable due to our intellect. We have laws, and we have groups rightly fighting for humane treatment of animals, and against wrongful killing of our own species and other species. I don't think the question as to whether humans should kill other species is fair since thw entire animal world has animals killing each other.

[StraightDope]

73. Top of the food chain...

Animals that are capable of killing humans do so regularly. We are no different when you get down to our most fundamental nature.

[AlienGirl]

76. Might makes right?

[StraightDope]

84. No, not necissarily. But Nature takes its course, regardless of our notions of morality.

We can never escape that we are as much a part of nature as any other form of life on Earth.

[AlienGirl]

90. Could the same not be said about humans killing other humans? That too is natural.

[StraightDope]

93. It sure is.

We can't escape it. We can try to mitigate the harm that we do, but can never eliminate it. You'd have just as much success trying to keep a troop of chimps or bonobos from killing each other, or from killing other things.

We are no different at the most basal level than are the lower primates.

[AlienGirl]

96. So why do we even try, then?

[StraightDope]

101. Simple!

Because if we don't continually try to exceed our biological limitations, we will never advance our species.

The entire history of our species is inextricably linked with our attempts to outstrip the definition of the condition of humanity that nature has dictated for us. We can try, but over the span of a human lifetime, we'll never see meaningful change. The reason to try is obvious. If we don't, we're doomed to extinction like every other form of life that graces the face of the Earth, or ever has.

For the good of mankind, those of us who are aware of these truisms must struggle against them, even if our efforts are in vain.

[HardRocker05]

203. nature is not forcing you to eat meat; you have a choice. nt

[Guaranteed]

296. What's stopping a lion from eating a plant? nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

79. It is not a right; it is a power

"Nature" - whatever that human construct means - does not give "rights." Humans develop "rights" in communities. "Nature" only produces capacities and powers. Humans have the power to kill animals, in small numbers and in inductrial production. None of this has anything to do with "intrinsic rights." The whole notion is ridiculous, even senseless.

[Xithras]

82. We are what nature designed us to be.

Evolution always takes the easy way out. If we weren't meant to be meat eaters, we wouldn't have evolved the ability to eat meat. We would have remained small-brained leaf eaters like our dear cousins the gorilla.

Nature designed us to be omnivorous for a reason. I try not to argue with nature.

[AlienGirl]

92. Is that any different from saying "A deity made us this way"?

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Yes. Because it's not deliberate. It's the way it turned out.

We're a multi-adaptable life form that can eat plants AND animals. Although many of our fellow primates are herbivores, we had increased protein requirements that came along with increased brain size and possibly restricted food choices due to environment. So we DO eat meat, at least we have for as long as we've been "homo sapiens".

That said, if you don't want to eat meat, don't eat meat. What I object to is fundamentalist, control-minded people who take their moral stance on what most objective observers would say are NOT black and white issues (birth control or abortion are wrong, meat eating is wrong, etc. etc.) and try to impose THEIR Personal decision onto the rest of the world.

Good for you. Don't eat meat. Don't hold your breath waiting for the world to stop doing it, however.

[AlienGirl]

119. We also CAN eat humans

We don't, in this culture, because some know-it-all moralistic noise-hole like me started yapping about it and convinced people not to do it. :-)

Tucker

[Lisa0825]

133. Most species are not cannibalistic, other than under certain

circumstances. So apparently it's not only humans that have a tendency NOT to eat their own.... not just a moral argument... since an animal's goal (human or other species) is to reproduce and promote the species, it goes against its nature to cannibalise. Cannibalism is generally due to overpopulation, environmental stress, or lower animals not recognizing another of the same species.

[AlienGirl]

134. But in our culture, we eschew (hehe, esCHEW!) cannibalism entirely for moral reasons.

Humans, by and large, only recognize their own kin as "people," and so cannibalism is pretty common among humans. (Same goes for the other chimps, who frequently eat their rivals' offspring.)

Tucker

[Warren DeMontague]

137. I'd disagree with the assertion that "cannibalism is pretty common among humans"

Historically, I think it's been pretty rare.

[everythingsxen]

204. It depends on how you want to define "common"

If you want to look at a long view, i.e. all humans over all time who have eaten other humans, yes cannibalism is rare.

If you mean a specific view, in that if there is no other food to eat, cannibalism is incredibly common. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

[Lisa0825]

138. Cannibalism is common in humans?

Care to cite that?

[Warren DeMontague]

135. Actually, I think it's pretty rare for animals to eat their own species

I could be wrong. However, it's certainly not something that's been done an awful lot throughout human history. So I would think the taboo has less to do with moralistic noise-holes and more to do with innate wiring.

[AlienGirl]

141. It's been pretty common among humans. But we could take any other taboo...

Any other common human behavior that we, as a culture, refrain from for moral reasons and make the same argument. For instance, slavery. It's entirely the fault of moralistic noise-holes that we stopped that "tradition."

Tucker

[Lisa0825]

143. I still disagree, and since you provided no citation...

you give me no reason to accept your argument. Cannibalism has been common in very specific cutures in history, but NOT common at all in modern cultures, and even in ancient cultures, it was usually more about the conquest of war or ritualistic human sacrifice than humans as a food source.

[AlienGirl]

144. Do you deny that as a culture we have made moral decisions spurred on by noise-holes?

Is it your contention, then, that all moralistic noise-spouting is futile because we will only do what is "hard-wired" or genetically encoded?

Tucker

[Lisa0825]

147. "All" and "always" are dangerous words.

But much of the time, taboos are based on more than morality, whether or not society at the time realized it. Most cultures have had taboos on incest... how many ancient people do you think truly connected incest with birth defects? Humans have instincts just as animals do, but due to our ability to conceptualize and communicate, we LOOK for ways to explain things, rather than acept that we were "hard wired" for a certain reaction.

[AlienGirl]

148. Then why bother with the whole anti-war thing? Or the democracy thing?

Since we're just gonna do what our genes tell us anyway...

[Lisa0825]

152. Straw man

:eyes:

[AlienGirl]

155. Not at all. I am saying we moralistic noise-holes have a purpose.

[AlienGirl]

153. Also, why is *my* first reaction to socialize with animals, not to kill them?

Are my genes that different? Were my ancestors all bunny-huggers, or am I defective?

[Lisa0825]

157. Unlike Republicans, I don't think "different" means "defective."

I have NO problem with vegetarians or vegans. If that is your choice, I respect it completely. But I do think it is a choice, and not a moral mandate that we as humans should be converted into by those who think their view is more moral.

[AlienGirl]

160. I am merely trying to persuade, not forcibly convert anyone.

Why does it offend you if I think it's immoral to kill animals, if I don't try to turn it into law?

[Lisa0825]

164. I didn't say you offended me.

However, some campaigns (like Peta regularly promotes) do get very offensive in their attempts to convert.... not unlike fundies.

[AlienGirl]

167. Now who's got a straw man? I am not a PETA member and, indeed, never mentioned PETA.

[Lisa0825]

253. Good grief. Now I am sorry I complimented you by PM.

I didn't freakin say you were Peta. I said I was not offended by YOU like I am by some of their campaigns.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. That's not my contention. However, I happen to think that if you want to maintain a pluralistic

society, when it comes to making laws for EVERYONE, you have to eschew black-and-white thinking on moral isses (like meat eating, reproductive choice or birth control) that some minorities think are imperative and either/or, yet most people accept shades of gray.

If you, as I do, believe that one of the highest functions of society is to secure the liberty of individuals, then it is possible to come up with a coherent moral framework against, say, murder, assault, or cannibalism. Because my right to enjoy myself can't come at your expense. My freedom ends where your nose begins.

The problem is in extending that citizenship to, say, chickens or human zygotes, you run up against the freedom of people to make their own reproductive decisions, control their own bodies, or choose their own diets. Most people accept that humans are "created" equal and equal rights under the law are a primary ideal of functioning democracy. Most people do NOT, however, accept that humans and chickens are equal, that eating a human is morally equivalent to eating a chicken. They just don't. And the logic or moral framework for coherently arguing that, say, tree slugs and possums should have rights under the 14th amendment is as nonexistent, both historically and logically, as it is for the "pro-life" argument that fertilized eggs should have the same rights.

Dig? The truly ominous thing about your line of reasoning is, if you accept that YOUR personal moral indignation over meat eating and your personal belief that it's immoral to kill other animals for food - to the point of criminalizing meat eating (one of PETA's long term ideological goals) then you are accepting the SAME kind of logic which says someone else's conviction, as a fellow "moralizing noise-hole", that a fertilized egg (or an unfertilized egg, or a sperm) are "human beings" with "rights" can be legislated into YOUR personal decision making. Your life, your uterus.

Like I said, if you don't want to eat meat, good for you. However, I would argue that, no matter how strong your personal convictions on the matter, you should try to respect that not everyone is going to come to the same moral conclusions, and leave it at that.

[AlienGirl]

169. Again, I am not a PETA member. And this is a thread where the question was asked.

I do not, contrary to popular belief, go around yelling at people for eating meat or wearing fur, and I am not seeking ANY legislation. But where opinions are solicited, I will give my opinion.

Would I like it if everyone decided to go veg? Sure, but I know they won't. But as long as I have free speech I will try to talk them into it, and they can listen, or not, as they want.

Tucker

[Warren DeMontague]

184. Fair 'nuff.

FWIW, I think PETA is coming up repeatedly since PETA is the topic du jour in these threads.

I do know, from long experience with the human animal, that in terms of overall success rates, preaching is a lousy way to convince anyone of anything.

Peace. :patriot:

[AlienGirl]

146. Not all human knowledge is linkable on the Internet

What do you consider a "modern" culture, anyway? Are the Fore (of New Guinea) modern?

Tucker

[Lisa0825]

151. By modern, I mean contemporary, as in during this era...

I am not familiar with the Fore, but even if they contradict my argument, note that I do not speak in absolutes, so finding a culture that contradicts the norm doesn't negate the argument.

[MazeRat7]

99. Was a tree designed to be a table or pig designed to be a ham ???

Just curious. Maybe we were designed to protect lesser things in nature and NOT try to transform those things into pleasures for ourselves... just a passing thought. ;)

MZr7

[Warren DeMontague]

115. If God had wanted man to walk, he wouldn't have invented the bicycle.

Chew on that wisdom, swami.

[MazeRat7]

149. Hummm, I thought man invented bicycles to spite "god"...

because it made them walk.

MZr7

[Warren DeMontague]

170. And If god had wanted man to be naked

he wouldn't have invented boxer shorts.

[Xithras]

124. Deistic claptrap

Evolution doesn't create animals for "higher" purposes.

[MazeRat7]

171. I can't comment either way since the concept of "higher purpose" is not very tangible...

However, the concept of evolution is and as humans we have evolved to a state where do not "require" the consumption of other animals to exist. Therefore transforming them or other living beings for our comfort pleasure is "optional" not "required".

MZr7

[Xithras]

224. "More evolved" is a false concept

Animals evolve to fit an ecological niche, and adapt to create the most biologically efficient form possible for their respective niche. I was simply stating that there is no purpose to evolution other than allowing us to create as many viable babies as possible. That's our one and only natural purpose.

Now, here's where things get interesting. To permit us to create as many babies as possible within the bounds of our biological niche, evolution has equipped us with a number of interesting traits and adaptations to ensure peak physical form (and therefore superior reproductive ability). One of these adaptations, which is also present in some other primates, is the ability to consume meat. We evolved this ability because it gave us a biological advantage, and the adoption of meat-eating in turn led to the development of other traits beneficial to our species (like bigger brains). Rather than being an either/or omnivore, the human body has adapted itself to achieve peak efficiency when fed a diet consisting of BOTH meat and plant material. An improperly balanced diet, lacking one or more of the nutrient sources that the human body is designed to deal with, forces the body to adapt in ways we don't fully understand.

Rather than risk my health on new-agey feel good mumbo-jumbo, I prefer to stick with the diet that has kept us ticking for three million years. Fresh produce from local gardens and farms, organic local dairy and meat consumed in relatively small quantities a couple of days a week, no artificial additives or caffeinated products, very little sugar. I also walk a bare minimum of two miles a day.

The only thing important to me is the science of it all, and if I were to be bluntly honest I'd have to admit that scientific absolutism has always been far more important to me than the murky relative morass of moralism. Most discussions about vegetarianism end up devolving into pointless arguments over moral positions that have no foundation other than the debaters personal feelings. From the standpoint of someone who looks at the world logically, there's no genuinely rational reason to argue for strict vegetarianism. I will agree that most Americans consume far more meat than is healthy for them, but the solution to that doesn't have to be forced veganism.

[Quixote1818]

305. But humans have developed the ability to speed up and manipulate nature

And just because we are omnivores now doesn't mean we wont or can't EVOLVE into herbivores in the future. Humans have developed far beyond most animals and with great power comes great responsibility. Humans can survive and even thrive on eating just plants, so why not help evolution along? If we all start eating just plants, eventually our great, great, great grand children will lose those pointy teeth. When that happens your argument won't work anymore, will it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. What does "modern society" have to do with it?

You lay down your $1 at McDonalds and an argentinian rancher kills a cow on your behalf.

Yes, philosophically, we do. It's why we have incisors.

[pitohui]

103. more than a right, at times we have a duty

for instance if untold millions of dollars were not spent killing nutria rats, an invasive herbivore with a nice fur coat, they would have completely eaten what's left of louisiana's fragile wetlands by now

the nuts succeeded in making people unwilling to wear nutria fur coats but the animals must still be killed or we lose an entire eco-system -- and whether you like it or not, insects, plants, amphibians, reptiles, and birds -- NOT just mammals with their cute fur coats have a right to exist, ancient ecosystems that have existed for millions of years have a right not to be destroyed

so the animals are still killed, it's just that no use can be made of them, so we must drain our already challenged state coffers to pay a bounty for them, so we are actually punished for saving our wetlands, seafood, wildlife habitats etc. for the rest of the country -- it is too bad the food and fur can't be put to use rather than trashed but in the end hysteria always wins, because hysterics breed and sane sensible people use birth control so they outbreed us

sigh


i am increasingly impatient w. hysterics who make decisions based on their viscera rather than their brain

you know as well as i do that killing is a necessary part of survival and not just our survival

we should stop humoring and enabling mentally ill people in denial about reality, they are fine to entertain any fantasy they like about the sanctity of the high holy cat and the high holy fur-bearing animal but they should not be taken seriously when adults are making the needed decisions to protect human life or to protect entire eco-systems

[yewberry]

264. Please stop calling people "mentally ill"

just because you disagree with veg*nism.

Vegetarians & vegans are not any more mentally ill, stupid, hysterical, anorectic or childish than meat-eaters.

[The Straight Story]

104. Hell yes (nt)

[Jed Dilligan]

107. We have no choice but to kill.

A soybean field kills animals just as a slaughterhouse does. It is our lot to kill, and die.

[Subdivisions]

108. Considering humans are omnivorous, it is in our nature to take

both plant and animal as a source of food.

[Quixote1818]

307. But what if we Evolve into Herbivores in the future?

That argument won't work any more will it?

We are constantly evolving, as are humans views on what is and is not moral. Perhaps our mental evolution could out pace our physical evolution and we might come to the conclusion that it sucks to die early no matter what species of animal you are. Killing animals for food should ONLY be as a last resort for survival and not our first choice just because it tastes good. Their are moral issues here weather we allow ourselves to look at them or not. Falling back on where evolution has left our body's at the present time is a cop out, as our minds have most certainly evolved far beyond our pointy teeth.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Insects aren't animals?

That's funny. PETA argues against eating lobster, and lobsters are essentially big ocean insects.

[NoSheep]

111. Humans are animals last time I checked.

[Blackthorn]

112. Your question is flawed. Humans ARE animals.

Does anything have an instrinsic right to kill something else?

[RiverStone]

118. It goes back to our neanderthal roots, but...

...ideally, the killing should be done humanely.

Which sadly, most of the time, does not happen.

Read about production farming in Fast Food Nation.

I try to only buy "free range" and organic bred & fed meats.

[Lisa0825]

142. I would do the same if I could....

It's a shame that free range and organic is not more widely available and affordable.

[undergroundpanther]

120. Do lions, wolves and bacteria have a right to kill us?

You cannot exist without killing something on a planet that functions like this, if you are avoiding meat do you also balk at wiping out billions of bacteria if they make you sick or bugs or aphids if they should threaten your vegetable food supply?.
we didn't make the world this way where to live you kill.Factory farming is barbaric, but so is a cat tormenting a mouse, and a bird of prey tearing a rabbit apart alive, and a screw fly laying it's eggs in an animal or persons skin so when it's larvae hatch it has fresh food and a host,that the screw worms devour alive. Unless one can manage to catch,dig out and kill the maggots before they do too much damage.
http://www.answers.com/topic/cochliomyia-hominivorax
I think this reality is sick and sad.Vegetarians to me are not looking at reality a screw worm would not have an ethical crisis over eating a vegetarian, or a meat eater alive.Because this world is sick, it makes no sense, it is cruel in personal and impersonal ways everything that lives here dies.Even if it is not eaten.
Pain happens, Yes,the viruses that give me the flu torment me and I torment them and we both fight until they are expelled or eaten by my white blood cells or I die. Yes, animals feel pain.They have emotions too. The state of existence here is shot through with pain and suffering and there is NOTHING I can do to stop it, I cannot end death.. I admit hate the way this world is it's evil. Evil with little dots of good from time to time.
Why pretend otherwise? I do eat meat. And I acknowledge yes it came from an animal that suffered a horrible life. My life is horrible too. We are in hell..

[everythingsxen]

121. I said no and I consider myself the quintessential carnivore

In a modern society, with the technology we have available, we should no longer slaughter animals for meat. We have the ability to create vat grown meat, which honestly could be just as good.

Do humans have a "right" to kill animals....

Well that is a loaded question if ever there was one. If you mean in a Biblical sense, no, we don't. We have dominion over the animals, but it says nothing about eating them. If you mean in a practical sense, the predator always has the "right" to kill it's prey. Though that is a completely amoral point of view, since it means that a serial killer has the right to kill his victims and a serial rapist could say the same.

In a completely moral sense, no we do not have the right to kill anything. Sometimes we must in order to survive, but it should only be a last resort action.

On a broader philosophical scale, it is a personal thing for each of us. I think whether it is moral depends on your actions and how you honor the prey. If you raise a chicken and treat it well, feed it well, keep it as happy and safe as you can, then one day you have nothing else to eat and you must kill, you should take it's life quickly and as painlessly as possible. Hunting an animal for sport, if undertaken, should be done in the most honorable way possible. Shooting a deer from a thousand yards with a rifle is a gutless murderer's action. Same with a bow, though to a lesser degree, however bow kills usually cause more suffering. Now, if you stalk your prey for a mile, wearing minimum clothing and using only a short blade, that is hunting and that honors the prey. The deer has a real chance of killing you or escaping. Even better would be to hunt a fellow predator such as a great cat. That is of course *if* you are hunting for sport.

Returning to the original point though, with present levels of technology, we have no real need to kill animals anymore and could sustain ourselves entirely on vat-grown foodstuffs and I think we should.

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

139. I guess so

All humans are animals ... FACT
Animals have always killed and consumed one another ... FACT

Either animals have the right to kill animals or they don't. Because they do constantly kill one another, and always have, I'll conclude that it is their inherent right. Being animals than that means we have this right as well. So the question is does modern society, a predictable natural outgrowth of human nature, erode a fundamental primal right? Are other animals capable of losing their primal rights? Do we have the ability to give up that right? I personally conclude that whether or not the killing of another animal is unethical in a situation is irrelvent. I find it difficult to apply ethics to primal rights, I don't know how the two could blend.

[Lisa0825]

145. For some reason,

your statement "Animals have always killed and consumed one another" makes me think of "matter cannot be created nor destoyed, but only changed from one form to another." (apologies for the likely pitiful paraphrase)

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

285. Shit I just realized a major flaw in my reasoning

Fact #1 all humans are animals.

"I personally conclude that whether or not the killing of another animal is unethical in a situation is irrelvent."

Obivously this statement is bullshit because otherwise I can't apply ethics to murder...

[Codeblue]

154. No

I mean, animals can kill us if they're hungry or if they feel threatened. By the same token, Humans should be able to do the same to them. However, ONLY in those situations. Humans like to kill for sport. Animals tend not to enjoy that.

[aikoaiko]

158. um. pssst. we are animals. nt

[BlooInBloo]

159. Backwards: to these folks, animals are people.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlooInBloo]

172. Dammit all to hell - I missed it! Sigh. Hate the damn whine-to -the-mods-alert-button. Sigh.

I fully believe in letting people be as stupid as they wanna be. Oh well - it's not my site.

[AlienGirl]

173. You have not yet told me why you believe Great Apes are not worth ethical consideration

Great Apes have the same emotions as humans and can communicate about abstract concepts like "What happens when you die?" in human language, with humans. So why are they not worth ethical consideration?

And are you calling me stupid? ;-) Cutie!

Tucker

[BlooInBloo]

175. If I called you stupid, you wouldn't have to ask "are you calling me stupid?"...

... I'm rarely that coy.

Re: what you appear to sincerely believe to be a claim worth discussing: There's nothing to tell. Your claim is preposterous on its face.

[AlienGirl]

178. How so?

[BlooInBloo]

180. I think lamps are people. You turn them on, they're *happy*! :) You turn them off, they're *sad*! :(

[AlienGirl]

183. And if you show me one that communicates its own state of being without human involvement

Then I'll agree.

Do you actually *know* any animals?

Do you think, like Descartes, that the yelp of a kicked dog is just a spring moving?

Do you believe there can be such a thing as a "person" that is non-human? How about an intelligent extraterrestrial? If you believe it is impossible, why?

Tucker

[BlooInBloo]

188. Sheesh. You're the *only* one talking about humans. I spoke about *people*...

... And nowhere did I say, suggest, or imply that they were necessarily coextensive. That's *all* you projecting intellectually indefensible positions upon me for the simple sake of being able establish a beachhead.

And all because I don't believe in that which is patently asinine - that chimps are people - lol!

[AlienGirl]

189. How do you define "people"?

I sit my patently asinine ass at your feet, O Wise One...define for me "people".

[AlienGirl]

191. Great Ape Project, for all who do not think asinine (donkey-like!) is a bad thing to be:

http://www.greatapeproject.org/

:kick:

[BlooInBloo]

194. I never said you, nor any of your body parts were asinine. Projecting again....

But have fun on your infinite loop:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2821698&mesg_id=2821920

[AlienGirl]

195. Getting defensive again, I see. You can't define it "perfectly" so you won't define it at all...

[BlooInBloo]

196. Refusing to play a stupid game is not being defensive. Regardless of what Singer says.

[AlienGirl]

197. Isaac, or Peter? There is a big difference...

Not all Singers look alike. ;-)

[BlooInBloo]

199. I was referring to Peter - since you showed your GAP cards - dunno who Issac is -

[AlienGirl]

200. Peter Singer's a Utilitarian, which IMO makes his reasoning flawed

If you've never read Isaac Singer, you really should get out more. :-)

[BlooInBloo]

201. That's possibly true.

[nam78_two]

190. what makes "people" people?

:shrug:
The ability to feel happiness?
The ability to mourn?
Intelligence?



If so apes demostrate all of the above....

[muriel_volestrangler]

260. Have you a link (or book, if necessary) for the 'abstract concepts' communication?

That sounds very interesting.

[MazeRat7]

174. I know... just once I would like to be able to read those "deleted" "name removed" posts....

Why are they always gone when I refresh :wtf:

Damn you mods... quit doing such a great job.

MZr7

[BlooInBloo]

177. The kicker is: I saw that there was a reply to read, and *chose* to write another 1st! GAH!!!

[nam78_two]

161. Its not about intrinsic right

Skip Intro I am on your side of this argument, but I think the question is a little different :).

If we can evolve beyond so much of what we are "programmed to do" or have the "capability" do, we need to evolve to an extent where we are beyond our instincts...we should be capable of exhibiting MERCY....

If not a lot of RW arguments about poorer countries and peoples would hold true :shrug:

We have a lot of power over animals....does that make it ok for us to use it? IMO NO.....

[rpgamerd00d]

162. Yes, because... animals are tasty and good with ketchup.

And they are a renewable food source.

[everythingsxen]

176. Ah yes but..

given the option of vat-grown meat, which does not have to kill an nimal, would you not choose that option instead?

[Matariki]

165. "intrinsic right" is a non sequitur

the question doesn't make any sense. does an owl have a 'right' do kill and eat a field mouse or whatever? what do you even mean by a 'right'?

[sam sarrha]

179. hey... gOD said we could.....!! and i have the 4570 to prove it

[AlienGirl]

181. On this, I agree with Alice Walker, Albert Schweitzer, and Isaac Bashevis Singer

Fellow stupid, sentimentalistic, moralistic noise-holes all. :-)

Tucker

[nam78_two]

182. :)

:) :thumbsup:

[MazeRat7]

185. This whole debate reminds me of a famous quote by Mahatma Gandhi...

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” ...

I think that pretty much says is all.

My thanks to everyone that contributed, but I think I'm done here for tonight.

MZr7

[nam78_two]

187. yep

:)

[laundry_queen]

263. I eat meat.

And I agree with your quote.

Eating meat and enabling unethical treatment of animals are 2 different things. I don't buy fur, I don't wear leather, we get our meat from local, small, family farms, where the animals are treated well and butchered humanely. We buy organic free range eggs, although are looking for a local source (we are planning on raising our own in a few years). We do, occasionally, end up buying meat from the grocery store, and I hate it, it totally grosses me out. I hate factory farms. I hate feedlots. I HATE how chickens are treated. I loved the book "Diet for a New America." I don't think it's about giving up meat entirely - I think it's about being aware that meat doesn't come in a nice little styrofoam platic wrapped package, all nice and pink - and lobbying the industry for change. Too many people just don't give a shit.

[pinto]

186. I don't know.

:shrug:

[MazeRat7]

202. Ok, I have to laugh at that one.........

I swear this is the only post I have ever seen from you where the outcome was "I don't know"..... Thats too funny. :rofl:

MZr7

[Crandor]

192. "intrinsic" right?

Rights do not exist in nature. They are a part of law, which is created by man.

[bling bling]

193. No, not really.

But that's a complicated question perpetrating like it's a simple question.

I could probably go just about anywhere in this country and kill a rabbit or a squirrel and with little to no protest by anyone else. I could kill a deer but only in certain areas during specific time frames. But I can't go kill a cow or a horse in general because most cows and horses aren't running around free in nature. Generally they're considered the property of the people who paid for them. The owners could kill the cow, though, and typically they do. Of course, I own a cat. But that doesn't mean I can throw it live in the frying pan with a pat of butter. I'm pretty sure I'd get in trouble for that. On the other hand, I can throw a live lobster into a frying pan if I feel like it or boiling water or even a microwave. In fact, if I felt like it, I could even sentence that poor lobster to a slooooowwwwwww tortuous death via beachside clam bake in broad daylight and nobody would blink an eye.

Anyway, I think it's always been pretty much this way. A society's norms and mores rule which animals can be killed, who can kill them, and in what way they can be killed.

So no, I don't think we have any intrinsic philosophical right to kill "animals" per say. It's more complicated than that and in many ways more thoughtful than that too.

[HardRocker05]

208. only if it would be OK for a superior alien race to kill and eat us, because there would

would be no difference.

[Marie26]

209. A right?

Does a lion have a right to kill a gazelle? What do "rights" have to do w/it? It seems like an odd concept - importing concepts of democracy & legality into something that's basically about survival. Do we have a right to kill animals, no. It's just how humans have evolved.

[LeftyMom]

210. Absent the same qualifiers we use for humans*, no.

*Self-defense, defense of another, euthanasia when ethical...

[Trillo]

211. I voted no because

of your qualifications. "not ... where killing animals for food is necessary for survival."

I believe that all other acts of killing, except self-defense and perhaps for suicide, are wrong. But when it comes to killing for food, then there is a rationale. Suicide is a special case and isn't really pertinent but has to do with one's authority over one's self.

Had you not made the qualification, I'd have voted yes. Perhaps I didn't vote correctly, because of my own qualifications added. Since you didn't state "for self defense", then perhaps it wasn't part of the poll, but you did say "modern society" and that tends to imply that killing animals for self defense isn't commonly needed, though our governments do license killings of animals such as seals for defense of the food supply.

Hunting for hunting's sake bothers me, unless it's for the purpose of eating the kill.

Personally, I'd be a lot happier if killing animals 'for food' was both not necessary for everyone, nor more expensive, than doing so.

[Spider Jerusalem]

214. "Right" has nothing to do with it.

Does a tiger have an intrinsic right to kill other animals?

Or, a more pertinent question, do bonobos and chimpanzees have an intrinsic right to hunt other animals? (Because they do, you know.) The two species most closely related to humans are also omnivorous, and hunt for meat. Meat-eating is a normal behaviour for an omnivorous animal. Humans are omnivorous animals. QED.

[G Hawes]

215. Yes, we're at the top of the food chain for a reason.

[everythingsxen]

216. That logic unfortunately carries many damning implications...

such as:

If someone is stronger than you, do they have the right to kill you? Did the US have the right to invade Iraq?

[MonkeyFunk]

218. Not really

because the implications you're drawing are unfounded.

We're not at the top of the food chain because we're stronger. A cow could kill me. A pig could kill me. Many animals we eat could kill us - but they didn't evolve to do that. We're at the top of the food chain for myriad reasons.

This is the classic mistake that people make when they extrapolate Darwin to social policy - they say that the "fittest" should win. Or conversely, people condemn "social darwinism". But there's no such thing - Darwin can't reasonably be applied to anything other than biology.

We evolved as omnivores, as did many other animals. We don't eat other animals simply because we have the power to do so - we do it because it's what we've done for hundreds of thousands - probably millions - of years. Our bodies require animal products (to avoid a fight, I will stipulate that in the 30 years, supplements have become available that obviate that need, but nonetheless, we evolved with those needs.)

Those needs made us eat meat.

Living without animal products is certainly possible, as is chastity. But a smart man wouldn't bet on either becoming popular.

[HardRocker05]

268. sounds pretty much like might makes right; btw 'might' need not be taken literally,

literally; obviously some animals are stronger than human beings, but we have other abilities that give us the POWER to enforce our will on them. if we didn't, we wouldn't be eating them. it's that simple. btw, you can be a healthy vegetarian w/o all kinds of supplements.

[G Hawes]

295. Oh, please.

Being at the top of the food chain is not simply about being physically stronger than another species, and it most assuredly has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

The fact that you could take such a thing from my simple and straightforward post and extrapolate it to being even remotely related to the invasion of Iraq is shocking, not to mention ridiculous. Sorry, but it is just so far over the top that I cannot take your post seriously.

[jpgray]

217. Yep. We also have the right not to kill animals

And we even have the right to choose which right to exercise.

[longship]

219. People Eating Tasty Animals!!

Yum!! My step-son bar-b-qued a wonderfully large brisket tonight.
It was wonderful.

Man has been omnivorous for millions of years. That means that our digestive track along with everything else in our make-up is designed--Ahem! I use that term loosely--to eat meat and many other things.

Not to demean vegetarians, or Vegans, or whatever they call themselves these days, but doesn't posing a question like this fly in the face of millions of years of human history?

Eat food, it's good for you.
Food for many of us, includes meat.

[MonkeyFunk]

220. sigh

this is why these discussions always go off-track. The "People Eating Tasty Animals" joke is SOOOO old and is used for the pure purpose of insulting people on the other side.

I'm a meat-eater. My partner of many years is a vegetarian. We've never ONCE had a conflict over it.

We ALL: vegan, vegetarian, omnivore, kill other living things to survive. Let's just accept that and discuss where the line is or should be drawn. The insults on both sides just ensure that we'll NEVER find any sort of compromise or agreement.

Frankly, I don't want a compromise - I want to be free to eat what I want to eat, and I support the same right for others. But for discussion purposes, they should stop acting like evangelicals and we should stop acting like jerks.

[longship]

230. Sorry.

I don't listen to those people any more than I listen to people who want everybody to eat artificial chemical butter substitute, or those who think beating their knees into pulp by running around on pavement in any way extends their life.

But why do people post this crap on a political forum if not to get a rise out of people?

So other people do not like the rise that results from this?

Indeed, "People Eating Tasty Animals" is an old hack joke. But it is so deserving by the lunatics who think the vast majority of folks on this planet, omnivores all, are somehow misguided by killing an animal for food.

This so-called discussion went off track on the orginal, flame-baiting post.

[MonkeyFunk]

233. I understand

and largely agree.

But when I'm out in the world and a crazy christian accosts me, I just nod my head and back away slowly. Evangelical vegans should be given the same respect.

[Norrin Radd]

227. Do we have the right to factory farming? n/t

[The Straight Story]

232. It ain't my fault evolution failed em, if they were so smart why didn't they evolve

to resist bullets? :evilgrin:

[NuttyFluffers]

234. i really don't understand why insects, which are animals, left out.

and don't get me started on plants...

but since this is gonna end up as an insipid flame war i might as well state: sure, why not. just as much reason as they have an intrinsic right to kill plants, let alone enslave some, smother the ecosystem of others, and torture them (by ripping out the parts we find succulent while they are still alive, let alone drain them of their life nutrients for our uses from sugar to rubber). yeah, why not.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

236. We're OMNIVORES by nature. "Both plants and meat." Of course we do.

What must be considered is the manner in which the killing is done. There are ways, and there are ways, to kill animals, and it really ought to be done in a fashion more humane than it is currently. Also, I don't think animals ought to be killed for the fun of it, just as you would not kill humans for the fun of it.

[HardRocker05]

277. so anything that is 'natural' is OK? doesn't seem like a very solid foundation for morality.

i think that humans killing each other through anger or war or desire to steal their stuff is perfectly natural; it is however very wrong, and should be prohibited.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

278. If carnivores in the animal world can kill others, lower on the food chain,

then sure. We're part of the food chain, too, and we're little better than animals, except for, of course, the power of creation.

[porphyrian]

237. Philosophically, yes, depending on the philosophy. Intrinsically, not necessarily.

"Rights" are a human invention (or discovery, if they were invented previously). They are only intrinsic in as much as we agree that they are, either implicitly or explicitly. So, as you expected in making the poll, this is really a matter of opinion.

It's an even more interesting question when we consider that humans are also animals. Many of the people answering your survey (perhaps including even yourself) probably aren't thinking about people as animals at all.

[hexola]

238. Because they have the right to kill us...(nt)

[RebelOne]

243. I am a vegetarian and the only way I would ever kill an animal

would be in self-defense if the animal were attacking me.

[benEzra]

246. Do bears have the right to kill and eat other animals?

Yes, I'd say. And they are omnivores, just like us.

Humans are AFAIK the only carnivorous primates, but we ARE carnivorous, even if some of us choose not to be.

That doesn't mean wiping out species for fun, nor does it mean a pass for treating animals inhumanely, but it does mean that IMHO any human can eat a cow, a deer, or a chicken (yumm, coelurosaur) without guilt, if they choose to do so.

[Marrah_G]

254. Chimps....

Chimps hunt and eat monkeys. Chimps also kill other chimps for territory and some seem to have murderous tendencies.

Orangatans also eat meat as do Bonobos(less frequently.

[benEzra]

257. I didn't realize that; I had assumed they were obligatory herbivores.

Now that you mention it, I believe you're entirely correct. Thanks for the clarification.

[donheld]

248. Who's to say?

[GliderGuider]

249. It's the wrong question

As the ones doing the philosophizing, we axiomatically have whatever "rights" we choose to give ourselves. To me the more important understanding is that we are a part of nature, and that as omnivores we do kill other animals, whether for food, self-protection or sport. That has been our nature since the dawn of our species or even before, and to dispute it or try to corral it this late date atseems a bit of a Quixotic exercise.

Remember that in every new continental niche mankind has ever moved into, all the indigenous megafauna were gone in five to ten thousand years. Rights and philosophy have no bearing on the question. We are what we are, thanks to our gentics.

[LWolf]

250. I'm troubled by the phrasing here.

Is "killing" an intrinsic right?

Yes. We sustain life by taking other life.

Does that mean that we have a right to kill indiscriminately, and to march proudly for the right to kill? No. There are obvious limits to this particular "right." When is a right no longer a right?

In the case of killing, when it goes beyond protecting and feeding.

Your "modern society" vs "remote areas" is troubling. Modern society doesn't kill the animals it eats; those animals are generally killed in the factory, by workers, before they are dressed, cleaned, and presented under plastic at the grocery store. Rural areas do some of their own killing, and those animals are often kept and killed much more humanely than those consumed by "modern society."

Is your question really "Do we have a right to eat animals?" My answer is yes. We are omnivores.

We have a right to kill animals, but we have a responsibility to do no harm where it is not necessary, imo. Killing for pleasure, as recreation, for a sense of power, or for some sort of species bigotry is, in my opinion, an atrocity rather than a "right."

I'd rather see conversations about our responsibilities when it comes to animals. Our responsibility to spay and neuter our pets and to keep them safely and humanely. Our responsibility to ensure biodiversity, and to share the planet responsibly with all those other species. Our responsibility to keep the livestock that sustains us in healthy, humane conditions.

I'd rather see conversations about the need to respect and honor life, rather than argue the right to kill it.

I have a wether out in the pasture that I'm going to kill one day soon, to stock the freezer. He's had a comfortable, stress-free life, and will do so up until the end. I have a cockerel on the roost out there in the coop who will do the same. Do I have a right to kill them? Sure. They are food. Do I respect them, and take care to make sure that their lives are good while they last? Yes. My chickens free range on about 3 acres. My sheep do the same. I only have a few; just what I need, and any extra goes to a food bank.

[HardRocker05]

275. more might makes right; that's all it is, no matter how the pro-killing people try to dress

dress it up. there is no foundation to this morality at all (other than power), and given how many people share it, it's no surprise what atrocities the human race has committed.

[Orsino]

251. Along with the right (if it exists) must come responsibility.

As noted up the thread, we can choose to eliminate or reduce our consumption of meat. We evolved in an ecological niche that required the slaughter of animals, and I believe that we need a little bit of meat in our diets--but our big brains, built of meat, have given us in modern society more options.

I'm down to one or two servings a week, at most.

[Phoonzang]

258. Other...

It depends on what animal and how.

[GoneOffShore]

259. We're omnivores with a carnivorous bent

To quote Flanders and Swann - "If the Jujube hadn't meant us to eat people, he wouldn't have made us of meat."

[JacksonWest]

269. Yes.

[PVnRT]

270. Irrelevant. Cthulhu will eat you all.

n/t

[Lisa0825]

287. LMAO! You win!

Debate officially over!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LittleClarkie]

298. Because when Cthulhu calls, he calls collect.

Vote Cthulhu in 2008! Why choose the lesser evil.

[JVS]

272. The animals never asked us not to

[piedmont]

276. Yes, and I don't agree with the exclusion of insects from discussion

The OP excludes plants (which aren't animals) and insects (which are animals) but doesn't say anything about which of the other members of Animalia are fair game. Animalia includes:
crustaceans
worms (flat, round, segmented)
echinoderms
arachnids
collembola (Hexapods sure, but not insecta)
mollusks
birds
fish
mammals
sponges
cnidarians
ctenophores
other arthropods
other stuff I haven't named

That said, I voted a context-dependent "yes." For me it depends on how rare the animal is, along with other considerations like tastiness, usefulness, destructiveness of farming/harvesting techniques, etc.
Also, self-defense.

[ComerPerro]

281. This is deliberate flamebait, and you know it

And please expalain to me why its ok to kill insects and plants?

[Nye Bevan]

282. Yes. Take pigs for example.

They make no contribution to our society. They do not write literature, create art or come up with ingenious inventions. Pretty much all they do is roll around in mud, smell bad, and make disgusting noises. So we might as well put them to good use and kill them humanely to make delicious ham and bacon.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

283. I think it's ok for us to kill animals for food....

But it should be done so as humanely as possible.




I don't agree with hunting for fun.

[michreject]

284. I'm not a vegetarian

I enjoy meat. Does it matter if I kill it or a process slaughter house does it?

I love this line:

I mean this in the sense of modern society, not remote areas where killing animals for food is necessary for survival.

It makes it somewhat more civilized to get a steak in a grocery store.:shrug:

[AlienGirl]

288. If it's not an ethical issue, then this is just fine, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbXsxS7N2t0

[upi402]

290. flat front teeth would say, "NO"

Sharp front teeth say, "yes"

Myself, I have tended to be vegetarian for decades, but not religiously.

[Der Blaue Engel]

294. Do animals have an intrinsic right to kill animals?

It's the way nature works. There's no right or wrong to it.

We have a choice about what and how to kill. I think it's admirable when someone's convictions lead them to forgo killing animals and instead kill only plants in order to survive, but I don't think less of people who don't share that conviction. (I used to have it; now I don't. Circle of life. No judgment from me.)

Alyson Hannigan to Conan O'Brien a few nights ago when asked why she quit being a vegetarian: "I got REALLY hungry!"

[Quixote1818]

297. I believe, far off in the future, Animals will be protected

Lets face it, it feels crappy to kill anything and just like we eventually discovered it was wrong to enslave people and that being Gay is normal, we will eventually move to protect Animals and only kill them in a life and death situation. Some people have already figured this out and others will discover this years into the future as society continues to become more liberal.

Think about the fact that some animals have speech. They can use sign language to tell us how they are feeling and what they like and don't like. They are practically human. How could anyone feel good about killing something that has hopes and dreams just like humans?

This isn't something that should be done over night though. The economy would collapse if it did. Mankind has to slowly come to terms that it is wrong to kill anything we don't have to.

[AlienGirl]

299. Leonardo da Vinci believed so too; doesn't mean it will ever happen

[Quixote1818]

300. Few believed we could go to the Moon 200 years ago, yet we did.

Just about anything is possible when you look at the past and the present. If it's the right thing to do, that truth will emerge in human society eventually.

[AlienGirl]

302. The Dinner (an essay)

The Dinner

The fish is brought out, its flesh cut but still weakly alive. This proves that it is very fresh. A napkin covers its eyes so the diners won’t be disturbed by an expression of fear, or pain. The fish buckles, exposing bones and bleeding a little. The diners have chopsticks for the easy parts, and knives for skin and recalcitrant bits of flesh. The diners speak lightly of friends not present and accounts they’ve won. The fish’s gills shudder; the exposed side is eaten to the rib-bones. The diners open the tail. The fish survives almost until the meal ends, almost until all that remains are bones and guts and blood. The diners only notice that the fish isn’t trying to move any more. Satisfied and full, they put their jackets on and leave a tip before walking out into the upscale night.

How the fuck am I supposed to trust people, when this is considered a delicacy?

And yet I know, they can’t help it. Just as hyenas will eat a wildebeest alive, or a cat will play with a terrified mouse, human beings will commit small atrocities and large ones.

They are as blameless as a shark. All the Great Apes are, even though all species create horrors that even they find reprehensible. Like a shark, like a hyena, the Great Apes have no choice but to do these things. It’s somewhere in their instincts to savor the suffering of another. Even one of their own.

In a war on the other side of the world, winning soldiers line the children on the ground. Another soldier, a child himself, only thirteen, picks up the ax. His officers smile and crack jokes as he begins the process. The village children are made to stretch their arms flat against the ground. The kid with the ax aims for the middle of the arms. One girl screams when they pull her arm up to expose it. The soldier with the ax cuts her lips off as punishment. The officers pick up the hands; one gets silly and chases another with a hand stump-end out. Blood is everywhere. Some of the children will live. In a refuge for amputees one girl later says she hardly felt the blade; it was so sudden it didn’t hurt until later. But she used to enjoy drawing.

Blameless and pure as piranhas.

[undergroundpanther]

306. I don't blame the piranhas

I blame reality. For reality, evolution existance, the way we must live .Whatever it is that makes it be this way. I hate this world for what it does to us.HATE it.

[bicentennial_baby]

303. As a meat-eater.....no

We do not have that intrinsic right...I try to honor the sacrifice of each animal I consume when I do so, and have tried to teach those I live with and love to do the same. I'm not perfect, but I do try to be aware of my actions, and how they impact all life.

[HuffleClaw]

304. yum.

insects are far more helpful overall than many, if not most large animals. why exempt them?

but in a nutshell, yes, we can kill and eat all the critters we need to without feeling the least bit guilty as far as i'm concerned. pig, cows, bunnies... horses, dogs... if its to yer liking, chow down!

[Exiled in America]

308. Yes because I love meat and couldn't give less of a fuck what you think about that.

:hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

311. There's no such thing as an intrinsic right.

Rights are something that are granted by a source. If you're religious, you can believe in "God-given" rights, but that's still not quite the same as intrinsic.

There are all sorts of things like habeus corpus and "not being tortured" that every body *should* be granted as rights, but that's a completely different issue.

So far as I know, citizens of every country of the world have a legal right to kill animals, though.

[twenty4blackbirds]

314. No, so we must be very aware of why we are killing anything.

[bloom]

315. Do humans have a right to destroy the planet?

Of course that would be as a group - humans - but individual actions apply.

So down in the Southern Oceans there is corporate farming of the oceans - giant vacuums sucking up krill (plankton). Those krill go into making Fish oil capsules and to fish farms where fish are raised for human consumption. Meanwhile - the ocean life is dying off. It's something like 10% of what it was. Do people have the right to do that? (I say no - we don't).

Chicken farms, cow farms and pesticides and all sorts of things contribute to the destruction of the water supply. Do we have the right to destroy the water supply? (I say no - we don't).

If everyone stopped eating animals (except insects - that would be ok) - it would go a long way toward healing the planet.


The thing is that human consumption is destroying the planet and causing extinctions - esp. the consumption of food - and esp. the consumption of meat. If everyone stopped eating meat - while there would be more food for everyone - and while there would be less pollution to the environment - the world would still be overtaxed.

When people were part of a small community - people would think about the needs of everyone in the community. The more we know about how big the world is - it seems that people care less about the needs of others and more about their own.

For animals who do not know the consequences of their actions - there is nothing to worry about. For those who do - there is. It makes sense to me that people - knowing the consequences of our actions - would seek to minimize the detriments of those actions - and modify them when possible.

So it seems to me that the question could be - do people have a "right" to be clueless. And I say that as long as we are conscious - we are not clueless - however we might want to be.