Is there anything immoral about killing low intelligence animals if a) the animal doesnt see and coming and feels no pain and b) there is no larger utilitarian outcome like ecosystem damage or something.
Is there anything immoral about killing low intelligence animals if a) the animal doesnt see and coming and feels no pain and b) there is no larger utilitarian outcome like ecosystem damage or something.
Be there a legitimate reasoned argument for doing so? Then sure.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Every human act that affects another living thing (plant or animal) has an effect on the biosphere, which is the global community of all living things. All living things are, therefore, intrinsically and necessarily linked, however remotely in our limited human view.Quote by: Darklordabc
So, you need to clarify "like ecosystem damage or something".
Also, I assume when you say "low intelligence animals", you mean non-human animals, not human beings with severe brain injuries or birth defects.
Lastly, does your moral question entail the converse? Namely, is it moral to protect a low intelligent animal from the person who thinks it's not immoral to kill it?
For example, is it morally a good thing for me to try to stop a person from killing (humanely) a small frog with 12 gauge shotgun for no reason other than they want to?
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
I believe we are the dominions of all creatures on Earth, so of course I find it completely fine to do as we will with them when it comes to necessity.
However, I am against vain cruelty of animals. I find anyone who finds pleasure in hurting them to be immoral.
Better question: would it be immoral to kill a brain dead human? Or a mentally challenged human?
If u know that that human was going to hurt society/world/et al, would u kill it and feel good about it?
Better question: would it be immoral to kill a brain dead human? Or a mentally challenged human?
If u know that that human was going to hurt society/world/et al, would u kill it and feel good about it?
Why would you want to? Unless it poses a threat to you, don't kill it. Just let it be.
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
If u let a braind dead person be, itll die, so yeah I guess :p.
But u wouldnt kill person a even tho u knew for a fact she was gonna pose a threat to human kind?
I'm assuming when you mean brain dead, you mean an irreversible state of coma. Technically, brain death is the legal indicator of actual death.
I don't think it is immoral at all to kill a brain dead human. In fact, I think it is immoral to keep them alive.
With mentally challenged people., I'm a bit torn with this.
See, I feel a little conviction on the matter of mentally challenged people. They are not granted the dignity that a normal person gets. They will never get married or have kids, or live a regular life. They remain children forever.
If a mentally challenged person could be normal for five minutes, know all there is to life, and be asked if they wanted to continue on., what would they say?
I don't really have an answer. I just figured I'd give some food for thought.
I think it's wrong to hunt animals in a modern society, where it's done exclusively for petty enjoyment, for the same reason people tend not to assume that only their lives have value (unless they're Objectivists). Notably, many young children have trouble understanding the virtue of sharing -- that if their life and happiness have value, so do others'. Hunting is just a scaled-up version of the same mindset, where you commit murder instead of hogging toys.
And why would damage to an ecosystem matter? Ecosystems are just collections, or networks, of "low intelligence animals". If the life of a single animal has no value, neither does the ecosystem in which it lives. I think there's something very wrong with moral systems that deny the value of individuals, but affirm the value of concepts like "society" and "ecosystem".
I distinguish hunting from the killing of farm animals, however. In the latter case, the animal's life necessitates its death. As long as that animal is well-treated in its life (and on most farms in the US, they're not), I accept its death as something of a necessary evil.
Other animals, like humans, without question, invariably strive to remain alive. It is something they PREFER to do. Regardless if you take them by surprise or make their suffering minimal when you end their life, this interest in continued existence still remains. That they value their own lives is a reason, in itself, not to kill them.
Would you find it permissable to kill a human that both could not feel pain and was unware of the impending attack? If your answer is "no" then I believe your question is inherently built upon prejudicial grounds. It seemingly assumes that other species cannot value their lives as we do.
Last edited by Primum non nocere; 7th September 2011 at 04:00 AM.
Couldn't agree more.
I'm assuming that what you mean here is that since we brought farm animals into existence merely to be killed that this is indeed what will happen to them? This is, of course, stating the obvious. If we stopped consuming animal products then the production of domesticated food animals would eventually cease.In the latter case, the animal's life necessitates its death.
Why do you see it that way? It is in no way "necessary" to consume animal products in order to maintain optimal health for instance. Some of the primary reasons we use to justify the consumption of animal products today are that they "taste good" or that it is our "tradition". How is this better than hunting in your eyes?I accept its death as something of a necessary evil.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks