How do you feel about people who kill animals for the sheer fun of it?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Saven, May 3, 2009.

  1. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    The key there is "intentionally do harm." Buddhism is a practical belief system. There are some traditions which are vegetarian, in places usually that have lots of vegetables, places which follow the original tradition of accepting what is offered, and places where meat is on the diet.

    This has perennially pissed off the people who believe eating is a big hairy moral issue, but what you eat is not a part of the practice.

    If some thing is edible, you can eat it.
    If something is alive, try not to hurt it.

    Life is complex and sometimes these conflict. Work out your solutions and see how you did, then learn if possible from any mistakes.

    It is not a part of Buddhism to interfere with the prey/predator relationship even if the predator is human. Nature has an order to its flow that must be respected.

    Becoming a predator however is not recommended for Buddhists even if other people wish to do that. Likewise becoming a theif or a soldier or a gambler or a drunk or a prostitute, etc. are all not recommended. Of course being human, Buddhists can be found doing all of those.

    And those people aren't to be condenmed even if it is best not to emulate them.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,535
    Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
    Do Buddists consider it unethical to intentionaly do harm... if that harm is necesary for ther survival.???

    For esample:::

    If a Buddist kills an animal for food to keep themself from starvin... was that act intentional... was the animal done harm.???
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I draw a circle around livestock. And I completely agree that meat consumption should be drastically decreased.
    Why do you draw the line at the sentient-animals-level? Do you regard everything below that line as just objects one can manipulate and destroy at one's leisure? Don't you find it ethically repugnant to kill plants or insects just because you like to do so?
    I really don't see why sentience makes an living organism more important. And besides, most people will argue that only humans are sentient. Not that I agree with that..
    What is your definition of sentience?

    I have no idea what your point is here.

    Do you have sources for those percentages?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Being necessary doesn't mean something isn't unethical.

    I'm reminded of a story about a prospector and his dog who got snowed in, in the back country. After a bit his food ran out. Things were looking pretty bad so he took his dog, cut off his tail, then shared the soup with him.
     
  8. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,535
    So is it unethical for a Buddist to kill an animal to keep himself from starvin.???
     
  9. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    That's the general consensus. Going around killing things is unethical, in that it is specifically causing harm. Who you are killing generally doesn't feel your necessity. And its generally considered wise to limit your unethical behaviours when you can.

    When you can't do your best to make amends and learn from the experience.

    The 5 avoids are: avoid harming others, avoid lying and steaing, avoid abusing sex and intoxicants. But really you could boil it down to avoid harm to yourself and others.

    Being unethical and suffering for it is part of life, possibly even unavoidable. If it happened to actually be necessary, you might not feel as bad about it, but that doesn't mean its suddenly happy, happy, joy, joy.
     
  10. amark317 game developer-in-training Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    I used to only advocate hunting if the person had no access to other food sources (like stores, supermarkets, butchers, etc.). Of course, that was when I was 9.

    but to answer your question, as long as the animal has a fighting chance (e.g. hunting, in which you actually have to look for it), then it is o.k.

    However, this stuff that these demented kids do (reference short-lived Youtube video of those kids shooting a cat with a bow & arrow, then beating it on a picnic table 'til it was dead -- that's just one example) is sick, wrong, and should be criminally punishable.

    however, I must admit,that when I was about 11, my older brother and I stoned a frog that we found in our back yard to death. By the time we were done, it had one leg hanging by a thread. I admit that what we did was cruel and wrong, and have never done something so cruel to an animal (except insects) since.
     
  11. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    That for those people it doesn't need much to do the same with humans.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    OK, then, given that each person has their own conception of what "moral" is, maybe it's useless to even consider whether it is "moral / immoral" to kill animals for the sheer fun of it. Basically, you would be taking a poll as to each individual's stance on said "morality". Unless, of course, that was your intent in the first place...


    Perhaps a consensus of what a given society finds acceptable? Especially if you look to the "ideal" conduct, as opposed to the totally subjective acts or attitudes that many use in definitions of "moral". This "universal" code alludes to what behavior would be preferred over other alternatives, regardless of circumstances. This is why we can almost universally say "murder" is immoral. (without splitting hairs as to what, precisely, constitutes, murder) Still, we are assuming an "objective" stance, which may or may not exist.


    Oh, my, this one is so much easier. Many people, including myself, have killed animals with regard "for the feelins of the animal bein killed.!!!" I certainly have experienced killing an animal without any pleasure felt by myself. Call me a liar on this, and I will report you up to the highest authority in the land. The reason you may, or may not (depending upon your sensitivity) be able to relate here, is probably because you have not experienced this event.

    You talk a lot about things of which you have no clue (hence "clueluss", I would imagine) and cause confusion and dissension amongst the participants. Exactly what type of person would have no regard for the feelings of animals? If you've read any of the mythology associated with the American Indians (who had a great respect for wildlife in general), you would see the great respect that they had for the very animals that they slaughtered and ate. They killed and ate these animals basically because they had no alternative, or at the least because their culture survived that way. For real, it is possible to kill animals for food without the "sheer fun" that you allude to...


    As to today's diet, do you eat hamburgers? No? Bully for you...
    However, those that do, probably pull up to McDonalds and order a Big Mac. Nonetheless, these cows were originally killed by someone who shows up for an 8:00AM - 6:00PM shift to do their job - put a slug in the poor, pitiful cow's skull. Guess what - bet they don't sit around "concerned wit our own plessure". They have a job to do.


    Now that you understand (giving you the benefit of the doubt, which you will surely refute in your next idiotic post) some of the ways in which an animal may be killed "wit-out reguard for the feelins" of the humans involved, perhaps you can give us a more realistic opinion. Or perhaps, you can continue regurgitating the same BS...


    No one excepting you, perhaps. Or were these people inexcusably "concerned wit [their] our own plessure wit-out reguard for the feelins of the animal bein killed"?


    Perhaps we could experiment by starving you for a while and then feeding you skunk collected from "road-kill" - let us know whether the majority of your "fun/enjoyment woud be from how the food itself makes 'em feel as they eat it an ther fun/enjoyment woud have nuthin to do wit whether they took part in the animals death.!!!"
     
  13. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,535
    Origonaly posted by clueluss husbund
    As far as i know.!!!

    So you now agree wit me... that what is or ant "moral" is an individual concept.!!!

    Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
    ...so what do you thank "moral" is.???

    Sure... an it coms down to an individual choice as to whether they buy into the moral consensus of ther community.!!!

    Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
    How bout... concerned wit our own plessure wit-out reguard for the feelins of the animal bein killed.!!!

    You said earlier:::
    "Don't we need to define "sheer fun of it"?"

    In reply i suggested:::

    "How bout... concerned wit our own plessure wit-out reguard for the feelins of the animal bein killed.!!!"

    For som reason you seemed to have taken offence at my atempt to com together on the meanin of the term "sheer fun of it" as it applies to killin animals :shrug:

    I used to be a hunter an fisherman an ive killed lots of animals... but when i was about 12 i shot a squrrell off the side of a tree... an i picked it up an looked at it an it cam to me... i dont like doin this an that was the las squrrell or rabbit i ever killed.!!!

    But ive killed animals for the fun/enjoyment i received from huntin an shootin 'em wit little regard for the animals feelins... an ive also killed sufferin animals to quickly put 'em out of ther misery.

    When i becam a vegerarian over 35 year ago i also quit fishin... but i dont thank people who hunt an fish are emoral... ther morals are jus diferent than my curent morals.!!!

    I thank somone whos starvin woud realy enjoy eatin a dead animal... an i dont thank a starvin person woud care if they killed the animal or it got struck by a car... ther fun/enjoyment woud be from how the food itself makes 'em feel as they eat it an ther fun/enjoyment woud have nuthin to do wit whether they took part in the animals death.!!!

    Sinse you'r aparently disagreein wit what i said... you'r now arguein that a starvin person woudnt enjoy eatin a animal unless they had taken part in its death

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,535
    Buddism seems light on "hokus-pokus" type stuff... especialy when compared to Christan/Muslum ect. beleif systems.!!!
     
  15. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    My God, but you do have reading comprehension problems, don't you? Or maybe I have problems writing clearly - obviously one of the two is true, it is very evident throughout your post. If you would like me to pick up the burden, fine.

    But something - something just isn't right here!
     
  16. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,535
    O you'r doin as fine as you can... no dout... an you'r funy to boot... but for the purpos of meaninful discusson... mixed in wit you'r atempts to personaly redicule me... try to include som specific thangs you disagree wit me about... eh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    LOL... i suspect you'r dismay cam after you calmed down a bit an discovered that you actualy agree wit me mor than you want to admit to you'rself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Depends on the flavor. I happen to be a secular Buddhist.
     
  18. Xylene Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,398
    A million years ago, fair enough--in those days, you had to hunt to eat, or else you had to kill the animal before you became its lunch. Very occasionally, that's true now--there are still some communities that are in the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However, I'd argue that particularly in such societies, as with all so-called primitive communities throughout Human history (ever since we had enough brains to pick up a sharp stick and use it as a spear) thrill-killing would be absolutely out of the question. There's no point in annihilating the game in your hunting area just for the sake of killing...you'll be destroying your tribe with a wildlife famine. That's why the world's indigenous societies have so many rules regarding the hunt.

    Only when the actual need for hunting has been removed, because there's no threat of starvation or becoming a meal for the nearest wildlife, will you find people killing for the sheer fun of it. That is the preserve of so-called civilised societies.
     
  19. SilverShadow Fox Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    If evolution programmed humans to feel that way then why do a lot of people have issues with it?
     
  20. SilverShadow Fox Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    Human, with morals. I want to know how you feel about serial killers who go out hunting little kids for the fun and thrill of it. Those serial killers are stronger than the kids...what's the problem with thatt?
     
  21. SilverShadow Fox Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    agreed!!!!
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,391
    The General and the Particular

    Two problems with that inquiry:

    (1) We cannot conclude that "evolution programmed humans to feel that way". Specifically, the evolutionary result is what it is, but how humans perceive, translate, and express it is subject to other factors.

    (2) Not all primal instincts are acceptable in society.​

    There is a germ of a valid question there, but it is far too general an inquiry to arrive at an answer of any particular utility.
     
  23. SilverShadow Fox Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    Thank you for ripping his arguement to shreds. I sallute you :yay:
     

Share This Page