Stepping on ants? Here's something to think about.

[Unlucky]

----

[SethfromMI]

if I can, I won't kill them. mosquitoes may be the exception (but I argue you either kill them or they keep biting you). I don't just purposely kill insects for the heck of it though, even though I have no emotional attachment to it

[Uniquemind]

I was sitting in class this morning and since it's the last full day of school (only have exams left), my mind was off in la-la-land.

And in la-la-land I began to think about bugs, IDK why, weird stuff comes to me during these times.

Anyways, I started to thinking about what if we had insects the size of cats and dogs.. if people would be thrown in jail for killing/abusing them.. I mean right now, they land on your arm, you slap them, they're dead, you think nothing of it. Because they're so small.

So then I wondered if size was the deciding factor in whether or not something was okay to be killed.

But then I thought, human babies for example, they're smaller and less intelligent than a pig, and yet many of us eat pigs.

Or if you'd rather me not compare animals to humans, here's another example, we keep dogs as pets and eat cows though cows are bigger than dogs.
As for intelligence, pigs are said to be (on average) smarter than dogs and they are bigger than some breeds.

So I concluded that size and intelligence has nothing to do with whether or not it is morally justifiable to kill a living being.

So in this I ask you all, your opinion on the matter, does this conjure up any thoughts for you? Do you think you'll take up hovering instead of walking to avoid potentially stepping on an ant, or just stop leaving your house altogether?

In my opinion, killing insects is unavoidable. But if there were an alternative available, I don't see the trouble in taking it.
Like right now my apartment has quite a few flies. And what I do is I catch them and release them outside. Because I know it's not necessary to take a fly swatter to them.

What do you think about all this?



Well your forgetting to judge context.

Even humans can be killed if they are posing a direct threat to your life. Society accepts that.

Other details you need to look in addition to what you thought about already are:

1. Why are we going to take the life of ___?

2. Does the living thing have the ability to feel complex abstract emotion? (Humans, Dogs and Cats yes, snakes cannot do this neither can bugs)

3. How fast do they reproduce if you take the life of one of them? (It is artificial to feel you can't take the life of something, because you are part of nature too, and nature accounts for a certain percentage of any species surviving VS reproducing).


Certainly bugs have high reproductive rates because nature KNOWS a good portion of them will die through some means.

[Unlucky]

----

[Horatio Nelson]

No, size nor intelligence does not determine if something is justifiable to kill. Situation and circumstance determines that. i.e I'm starving, this animal will provide food for me = justified.

As for feeling complex abstract emotion, someone in a vegetative state, their brain pronounced dead to an extent and they're living off machines. Does their life have no value because they can no longer feel these emotions?

As cold and cruel as this sounds, yes. A brain dead person has no intrinsic value. The person is no longer, what is left is a husk, keeping them on life support is only prolonging the inevitable.

[acidjoe]

This is a very interesting concept you have going.

I for one usually trynot to kill insects. I don't think there's really a reason to killing them unless they are trying to harm you haha.

[DriveAlive]

I agree that this is a very interesting topic and I would love to get this disscussion going in more detail. I, for one, am afraid of insects, especially spiders. This means that I usually don't kill them but run away or have someone else do it. I kill ants and other non-spider insects in my house, but never outside. I would never step on an ant outside because that is their environment and they have every right to live there.

The discussion on which animals are valuable is a complex one. I hope I am not alone here, but I sometimes feel like I care more about the lives of some animals than that of humans. For example, I am usually much sadder if I hear that a cat has been killed than a person. I know this isn't the usual view on the value of human lives, but that is just my initial emotional response. I guess I usually feel more for the powerless.

I would also like to add that I am a hunter. While some here would argue that I can't possibly respect the lives of animals if I hunt, I would argue that true hunters have more respect for animals than anyone else. Killing what you eat instead of buying it from a store creates an emotional connection to your food. You know that taking a life was necessary to sustain yours. It gives you a whole new appreciation and respect for the animal.

[Unlucky]

----

[Jaffe]

Interesting thread. I like the points made by Uniquemind (fitting username!)

I think, though, that taking life is on two different levels/contexts: Biological and emotional.

Killing mosquitos, fleas, mites, whatever... is biological. They spread disease, make life uncomfortable, whatever.

Killing for food is biological. I like fish, chicken, hamburgers.... and my body likes, sometimes even craves, the protein and nutrients from it.

The brain-dead person in the hospital, that's emotional. Biologically that person is of no value. To society, he is a burden. But emotionally, he still exists and has value.

Dogs and cats and other pets... are emotional. Biologically, meat-eating animals provide less nutrient to us than do plant-eating animals, so you might argue that not eating dogs is biological. But in some countries, they eat dogs and cats. And in some, they don't eat cows. So.... thats emotional at least partly.

I have no problem killing something if its needed. It doesnt bother me at all to kill pesky insects. Even ants, if they are in the house. Killing rodents doesnt bother me, at least the mice/rats kind. Killing for food, if I needed to do it (or even knew how) would not bother me. Killing for pleasure or sport or to be superior or to play god.... that, I could never do.

[Uniquemind]

Interesting thread. I like the points made by Uniquemind (fitting username!)

I think, though, that taking life is on two different levels/contexts: Biological and emotional.

Killing mosquitos, fleas, mites, whatever... is biological. They spread disease, make life uncomfortable, whatever.

Killing for food is biological. I like fish, chicken, hamburgers.... and my body likes, sometimes even craves, the protein and nutrients from it.

The brain-dead person in the hospital, that's emotional. Biologically that person is of no value. To society, he is a burden. But emotionally, he still exists and has value.

Dogs and cats and other pets... are emotional. Biologically, meat-eating animals provide less nutrient to us than do plant-eating animals, so you might argue that not eating dogs is biological. But in some countries, they eat dogs and cats. And in some, they don't eat cows. So.... thats emotional at least partly.

I have no problem killing something if its needed. It doesnt bother me at all to kill pesky insects. Even ants, if they are in the house. Killing rodents doesnt bother me, at least the mice/rats kind. Killing for food, if I needed to do it (or even knew how) would not bother me. Killing for pleasure or sport or to be superior or to play god.... that, I could never do.

Awkward moment: they do eat dog in China.

[Primenumber]

I faced this dilemma for sometime ago and I try to only kill if it's necessary.
I had a Buddhist friend who tried to answer a similar moral question: there was a fly in his water bottle (still alive) and he could not decide whether he should kill it to shorten its suffering or let it die in its own pace. He spent so much time debating that it eventually died anyway:D

[Babs]

Intelligence and companionship are the main factors, in my opinion. We don't eat dogs because they make great companions, they're smart, and they probably taste lousy. For the longest time, we thought pigs were unintelligent so we ate them. Now we know that pigs are very intelligent, but eating pigs is a cultural norm now so we keep eating them.
No one cares of you step on an ant because they're pests, they bring nothing to the table.

[lukene]

I have always had difficulty accepting any form of death, even ants. Whenever there are ants in my sink I help them out and ones that are wet I place on a tissue to dry out and hopefully recover. I constantly get in arguments with my friends when they step on bugs... it might all sound ridiculous but it makes me feel so upset.
However, I am a total hypocrite and eat meat, although I am phasing it out now that I'm going to be cooking for myself.

[Unlucky]

----

[Judean Zealot]

Fairly simple. Animals are non rational, and have no hardware for the attainment of truth. That being the case, they are necessarily assigned a lower tier place in the grand scheme of things.

In any event, I would posit that any non-utilitarian killing is immoral, insofar as it reinforces the negative passions in man, as well as serves as an implicit denial of the divinity inherent in all of creation.

[Uniquemind]

Fairly simple. Animals are non rational, and have no hardware for the attainment of truth. That being the case, they are necessarily assigned a lower tier place in the grand scheme of things.

In any event, I would posit that any non-utilitarian killing is immoral, insofar as it reinforces the negative passions in man, as well as serves as an implicit denial of the divinity inherent in all of creation.

This I second.


I'll also add, unless I misinterpreted this post, that there is a place for everything and everything should be done in it's place in balance with fluctuating context.

Even killing, but if you must kill with grace, respect, purpose, and logical reason, not in a fit of passion, pride, or emotional ritual.


---

Let me also add that America, and maybe Europe too, eat to much meat. It is a cultural ritual, that isn't based in logical necessity anymore but rather a habit.

[Judean Zealot]

I'll also add, unless I misinterpreted this post, that there is a place for everything and everything should be done in it's place in balance with fluctuating context. Almost everything. Falsehood never has a place.

But cool! My first response on VT. I'm a staff member of Govteen, but I've never been here before. :)

[Uniquemind]

Almost everything. Falsehood never has a place.

But cool! My first response on VT. I'm a staff member of Govteen, but I've never been here before. :)

No even that has a place. There are contexts and times where one has had to lie or tell a falsehood in order to protect someone from a social movement sparked by individuals who have decided to take actions based on imbalanced moral principles. (Take those who lied to legal German officials to hide Jews from the SS).


There is a time and place for all things given context.

However in a perfect world, you are correct such falsehoods would have no place anymore.

[Judean Zealot]

No even that has a place. There are contexts and times where one has had to lie or tell a falsehood in order to protect someone from a social movement sparked by individuals who have decided to take actions based on imbalanced moral principles. (Take those who lied to legal German officials to hide Jews from the SS). Even that is not falsehood qua the truth. It is, most definitely, deception, yet that deception is grounded in and pointed at that most truthful reality of man's duties. We also at times deceive a child in order to induce him towards education or some other truthful end, this is only trivially a misrepresentation of the truth. I am referring to falsehood in a more robust sense: the misrepresentation of a truthful form, or idea, with the aim of subverting the truth. Your case is a misrepresentation of a petty state of being, and is rather a fulfillment of the truthful Ideal.

[lukene]

People in certain countries eat dogs and say they taste good.
And from having known pigs and cows in the past I can say they are smart and can make good pets.
And with our new knowledge of the intelligence of pigs.. wouldn't you say we, as intelligent beings ourselves, would opt not to kill them?

Hamsters bring nothing to the table, but many children enjoy having them.
Ants can be pests though, I can agree with you there.



I've always been like that as well, though to a lesser degree.
So you're thinking about going vegetarian?
I thought, I planned and then I was for like 2 months. Then one day, after school I had a headache and was convinced I was dying and mum broke me... evil woman.
The hardest part is making sure you are getting everthing your body needs, like I was too busy planning meals to even think about eating meat. In the end it came down to being to busy and tired after school to cook my own meal every night.

[Unlucky]

----

[DriveAlive]

Yeah I guess it can be tiring. Going vegetarian can make it so your life circles around what you eat and you forget to relax and focus on other things.

Though what many people don't realize is that plants have protein, iron and everything else that meat has. Broccoli for example has 11.1 grams of protein per 100 calories and steak only has 6.5 per 100 calories.
So as long as you're eating enough calories in a day it shouldn't matter what you're eating, plants or meat.

I've been vegetarian for 5 years and I don't even eat that protein-infused fake meat and I haven't had any health issues as of yet.

Then again, I might have just jinxed myself.
Watch, the next time I go to the hospital I'll find out I'm anemic or something. :P
As an omnivore animal, I think that humans are made to eat both meat and plants. With that said, I do not fault anyone for wanting to be a vegetarian. In fact, I believe it to almost be noble. On the other hand, I really have a hard time dealing with people who eat meat, yet are opposed to hunting.

[Unlucky]

----

[Jaffe]

As an omnivore animal, I think that humans are made to eat both meat and plants. With that said, I do not fault anyone for wanting to be a vegetarian. In fact, I believe it to almost be noble. On the other hand, I really have a hard time dealing with people who eat meat, yet are opposed to hunting.

I agree, we are omnivores by nature's design. But, as you kind of point out, we are intelligent beings and can make the choice to be herbivores or carnivores. I won't get into a health discussion on the issue, but I do respect people's right to make their own decision.

I do not like guns. But I am not opposed to hunting. If I had to do it, I think I could kill something for food. I don't want to. I hope I never have to. I know something had to die so I could barbecue it. But I like having that removed by a few steps. From a health viewpoint, hunting probably provides healthier food, because you are eating close to the source, and the animal has been eating a variety of natural foods. From a sustainability/spiritual viewpoint, the animal certainly lived with more freedom than most domestic animals. Still, I like the illusion of being insulated from the act of killing.

Yeah, people who say "hunting is wrong" then go sit down and have themselves a steak are being rather hypocritical. There's very little difference in killing an animal yourself and paying someone else to do it for you.

I think there is actually a big difference. And in this case, the hunter is probably the more correct person. I choose not to hunt. I choose not to be personally involved in the killing of what I eat. And in doing so, I understand that I am sacrificing some part of myself that refuses to see the circumstances of providing my food. But I still choose to do it.

Granted though, from a strictly this-is-sustenance survivalist viewpoint, there is little difference.

[DriveAlive]

I agree, we are omnivores by nature's design. But, as you kind of point out, we are intelligent beings and can make the choice to be herbivores or carnivores. I won't get into a health discussion on the issue, but I do respect people's right to make their own decision.

I do not like guns. But I am not opposed to hunting. If I had to do it, I think I could kill something for food. I don't want to. I hope I never have to. I know something had to die so I could barbecue it. But I like having that removed by a few steps. From a health viewpoint, hunting probably provides healthier food, because you are eating close to the source, and the animal has been eating a variety of natural foods. From a sustainability/spiritual viewpoint, the animal certainly lived with more freedom than most domestic animals. Still, I like the illusion of being insulated from the act of killing.



I think there is actually a big difference. And in this case, the hunter is probably the more correct person. I choose not to hunt. I choose not to be personally involved in the killing of what I eat. And in doing so, I understand that I am sacrificing some part of myself that refuses to see the circumstances of providing my food. But I still choose to do it.

Granted though, from a strictly this-is-sustenance survivalist viewpoint, there is little difference.

I would certainly like to discuss this hatred of guns either in private chat or in the gun rights thread. I just don't want to hijack this one. On topic, I personally disagree with your choice to ignore the cruelty of slaughterhouse meat, but I am glad that you admit that you choose to pretend to be ignorant regarding it. Not many people can admit this.

[lukene]

Yeah I guess it can be tiring. Going vegetarian can make it so your life circles around what you eat and you forget to relax and focus on other things.

Though what many people don't realize is that plants have protein, iron and everything else that meat has. Broccoli for example has 11.1 grams of protein per 100 calories and steak only has 6.5 per 100 calories.
So as long as you're eating enough calories in a day it shouldn't matter what you're eating, plants or meat.

I've been vegetarian for 5 years and I don't even eat that protein-infused fake meat and I haven't had any health issues as of yet.

Then again, I might have just jinxed myself.
Watch, the next time I go to the hospital I'll find out I'm anemic or something. :P
Yeah, I had a list of vitamins, minerals etc. that vegetarians can be deficient in and what vegetables were a good source of them.
Hahaha I'm sure you're perfectly healthy, in fact probably much healthier than most people.

[Jaffe]

I would certainly like to discuss this hatred of guns either in private chat or in the gun rights thread. I just don't want to hijack this one. On topic, I personally disagree with your choice to ignore the cruelty of slaughterhouse meat, but I am glad that you admit that you choose to pretend to be ignorant regarding it. Not many people can admit this.

Yeah, I will PM you. You'll probably regret it, since I like to talk, even if its talking-by-writing. But you can always just drop out and I will respect that.

I might get brave enough to actually post in the gun rights thread sometime, but I don't deal well with fanatics. So thats just a maybe.

[DriveAlive]

Yeah, I will PM you. You'll probably regret it, since I like to talk, even if its talking-by-writing. But you can always just drop out and I will respect that.

I might get brave enough to actually post in the gun rights thread sometime, but I don't deal well with fanatics. So thats just a maybe.

Please do pm me or post because I can promise I like to talk even more

[Uniquemind]

Even that is not falsehood qua the truth. It is, most definitely, deception, yet that deception is grounded in and pointed at that most truthful reality of man's duties. We also at times deceive a child in order to induce him towards education or some other truthful end, this is only trivially a misrepresentation of the truth. I am referring to falsehood in a more robust sense: the misrepresentation of a truthful form, or idea, with the aim of subverting the truth. Your case is a misrepresentation of a petty state of being, and is rather a fulfillment of the truthful Ideal.

If you are framing "falsehoods" and "truths" with this philosophical framework I will agree with your point of view for it's consistency now that you clarified.

Keep in mind though many people don't subscribe to this understanding of falsehoods and truths, and this will revert to the literal appearance of saying a truth or a lie in the narrow sense.



Actually I'd like an invite to a thread regarding the debate between vegetarianism, carnivore diet, and herbivore diet for humans.


I currently believe in a meat reductionist diet, but I am totally looking out for meal ideas with no meat but will provide all the nutrients needed without deficiencies.


As for hunting I have no issues with it generally, but I do have problems depending on what is being hunted.

[DriveAlive]

If you are framing "falsehoods" and "truths" with this philosophical framework I will agree with your point of view for it's consistency now that you clarified.

Keep in mind though many people don't subscribe to this understanding of falsehoods and truths, and this will revert to the literal appearance of saying a truth or a lie in the narrow sense.



Actually I'd like an invite to a thread regarding the debate between vegetarianism, carnivore diet, and herbivore diet for humans.


I currently believe in a meat reductionist diet, but I am totally looking out for meal ideas with no meat but will provide all the nutrients needed without deficiencies.


As for hunting I have no issues with it generally, but I do have problems depending on what is being hunted.
I would love a thread to debate the different diet choices and to hear why some people choose to eat the way they do. Also, what do you mean by you having a problem with what is being hunted?

[Uniquemind]

I would love a thread to debate the different diet choices and to hear why some people choose to eat the way they do. Also, what do you mean by you having a problem with what is being hunted?

Basically your being unnecessarily mean if you hunting endangered animals or poaching.



But like the deer over population issues is an example where hunting helps because their natural predators are a lot less than 150 years ago.

[DriveAlive]

Basically your being unnecessarily mean if you hunting endangered animals or poaching.



But like the deer over population issues is an example where hunting helps because their natural predators are a lot less than 150 years ago.

Well, poaching is not hunting so I will not count that. I do believe that hunting some endangered species can be beneficial. I am going to be hunting African dangerous game when I graduate from high school. I have already hunted in Africa before. The reason why hunting african game is so important is that by paying to hunt these species, it becomes beneficial for the people in the area to protect the animals and their environment. Otherwise, the animals would be killed by poachers or farmers. As the expression goes, if it pays it stays.

[Uniquemind]

Well, poaching is not hunting so I will not count that. I do believe that hunting some endangered species can be beneficial. I am going to be hunting African dangerous game when I graduate from high school. I have already hunted in Africa before. The reason why hunting african game is so important is that by paying to hunt these species, it becomes beneficial for the people in the area to protect the animals and their environment. Otherwise, the animals would be killed by poachers or farmers. As the expression goes, if it pays it stays.

Although to be fair to animals, humans are taking up a disproportionate percentage of land use away from what was normally their habitat.

There is a lot to be argued that we are too populous on the earth.

[DriveAlive]

Although to be fair to animals, humans are taking up a disproportionate percentage of land use away from what was normally their habitat.

There is a lot to be argued that we are too populous on the earth.

Thats exactly my point. Animals are forced out of their natural environment and killed by peoplle who do not see any value to these animals. They could make more money by exploiting their habitat for resources or farming land. By hunters paying to hunt these animals, it gives them a monetary value, which is a reason for the locals to preserve the natural habitat and protect the animals in the area.

[Uniquemind]

Thats exactly my point. Animals are forced out of their natural environment and killed by peoplle who do not see any value to these animals. They could make more money by exploiting their habitat for resources or farming land. By hunters paying to hunt these animals, it gives them a monetary value, which is a reason for the locals to preserve the natural habitat and protect the animals in the area.

I don't get that because in either case the endangered species count goes in the negative direction.

It sounds like that goal can be accomplished mainly by re-educating a popular belief that fuels locals hunting species they do by tradition for whatever faulty beliefs that motivate them.

Ex: hunting elephants for their ivory husks because they're seen as good luck or used in magical-eastern medicine. *rolls eyes*




FYI: I'm not disagreeing with you though.

[DriveAlive]

I don't get that because in either case the endangered species count goes in the negative direction.

It sounds like that goal can be accomplished mainly by re-educating a popular belief that fuels locals hunting species they do by tradition for whatever faulty beliefs that motivate them.

Ex: hunting elephants for their ivory husks because they're seen as good luck or used in magical-eastern medicine. *rolls eyes*




FYI: I'm not disagreeing with you though.

Well the only way the hunting system that I am talking about works is if the animals are hunted in limited numbers (only a limited number of permits are issued each year) based on sustaining the population and the money of the hunt goes to preservation and protection of the species. For instance, people were all up in arms a while back about the auction of a black rhino hunt. While a black rhino is highly endangered and was killed, the rhino in question was a male past the breeding age that was a danger to the breeding age males. Also, the money raised by the auction was used by the anti-poaching forces that protect the black rhinos. If hunting of endangered species is controlled, it is very beneficial to preserving the species.

[Uniquemind]

Well the only way the hunting system that I am talking about works is if the animals are hunted in limited numbers (only a limited number of permits are issued each year) based on sustaining the population and the money of the hunt goes to preservation and protection of the species. For instance, people were all up in arms a while back about the auction of a black rhino hunt. While a black rhino is highly endangered and was killed, the rhino in question was a male past the breeding age that was a danger to the breeding age males. Also, the money raised by the auction was used by the anti-poaching forces that protect the black rhinos. If hunting of endangered species is controlled, it is very beneficial to preserving the species.

Right this makes more sense now you described the scenario in more detail.