Killing & hurting; your arguments.

Why is it ok to purposely and knowingly kill or hurt any creature for any other reasons than:

• acquiring food to survive (1);
• protecting oneself or others from bodily harm (2).

Why is it, when in the process of '(1)' or '(2)', ok to not to prevent unnecessary suffering (of the creature in question) where reasonable possible ?


I want to hear you arguments.


P.S.
I consider abortion to be a separate matter. Please do not bring it up here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because you are stronger. If you want a longer answer because of their skin, body, ability to being employed by us, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Research

Pest control

Environmental preservation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for your answer.
Is this your conviction, or are you just coming up with an argument ?

 

It's never OK to harm another. I wouldn't even consider (1) a valid reason to kill.

 

Thanks.

Environmental preservation.. good point. I knew I forgot something.
This is a complicated matter, in my opinion though.
I assume you are referring to invasive species that need to be killed off to preserve the natural wild-life ?

 

Thats one. Then there is the environmental advantage of using animals for transport and work as compared to machines that destroy the atmosphere. Probably become more popular once we run out of oil

 

'Never' is a big word though.
What if you are attacked by a mountain lion ? You have the right to protect yourself.
Do you swat mosquitoes ?

Also, I don't think it's realistic that you disagree with (1).
Maybe you overlooked the fact that plants are creatures too ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

People need to eat, the only problem with this is that we are with so many.

 

Do you consider using animals to do work for us, hurting them ?

 

What are your arguments for 'research' and 'pest control' ?
I don't consider the words above to be arguments on themselves.

 

Do they have a choice in the matter?

Research: for drugs and disease prevention

Pest control: if my home is overrun by ants, I'm not going to ask them to pay rent and put the seat down after using the bathroom.

 

Both. Actually Sam brought up a few good points too. Here is a challenge: let's turn back time by 10 000 years and ask this question again! Do you get the same answers? Does your answer remain the same?

P.S.: Please consider that using horses or oxes for farming also can be considered as hurting them...

 

Heh, plants don't have minds, they're not sentient. I don't kill anything. That may be unbelievable but it's true nonetheless. Not even a fly, I'm very careful when I am around little things because they get squished very easily. i saved a wasps life once because he thought having a bath in honey was a good idea. Silly sod. Of course you can't be irrational and allow yourself to be harmed by an animal and if you can't escape it would only be natural to save yourself first, but it's not my first reaction and I wouldn't dare consider it my right to kill anything.

 

How about the destruction of insects or other animals that destroy your property or livestock? Termites destroy homes as well as ants, beetles and other various critters so killing them would be prudent to keep ones home safe from being consumed. Also if you own livestock you would want to protect your investment by killing critters that are attacking and destroying your means of income. You could trap them as well.

 

Obviously not, but I fail to see how it's hurting them. Unless, of course, they are not looked after well.

Do they absolutely need animals for that ? Isn't it a money issue ?

Fair enough. You meant local pest control.
Are you for or against the use of chemicals ?

 

There are always humane ways of dealing with these things. As I say, we should never be irrational and appear crazy. If I have a pet I don't just leave it to be eaten alive by fleas because I don't want to hurt them. I would use citronella and comb the cat. I can say, for others, killing is almost a compulsion. Some even enjoy it.

 

Largely the same answers, yes.
Although research wouldn't be in the picture obviously.
Besides, this isn't 10 000 years ago.

Your answer was basically that it's ok to hurt animals because we can.
Does that mean that I can go into the woods and shoot any animal and as much animals as I like, and it would be ok according to you ?

That's debatable.. I'll leave it at that for now.

 

Hmm so if I switched an animal with persons, you'd have no issues? Lets say, to pull a carriage?

I'm doubting there would be many volunteers to study the toxicity of drugs in vivo

I'd prefer an anteater, but in the absence of such, chemicals work. Not my first choice, but the more convenient one.

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

Maybe I should put "protection of lively hood where reasonable" down as point (3).. ?