5 ms·

Please define humane. Killing an animal that doesn't want to die is not humane.

by bbrree66 6y ago

missedthecue 6y ago
when the alternative is them starving to death, it is quite humane.
- bbrree66 6y ago
  That is illogical. That's like saying: I chopped someone's arm off so the only humane thing is to shoot them. Maybe don't do the terrible thing in the first place (breeding them to be slaughtered), and you won't have this issue.
  - ksdale 6y ago
    Doesn't it follow from this that it would be beneficial to kill wild animals so that their far more numerous offspring won't die grisly natural deaths?
    - bbrree66 6y ago
      Let's start with the human-created suffering then we can discuss this question.
      - ksdale 6y ago
        Why? If we can create moral good by preventing the existence of animals, do we have a duty to prevent the existence of as many animals as possible?
        hprotagonist 6y ago
        There was an ethics paper that won a student prize at oxford ..? or cambridge ..? that argued this exact position. I can't put my fingers on it right now though, it's really annoying. edit: http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-the-suffering-of-wild-animals/ http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-... Ethical consequentialist vegetarians believe that farmed animals have lives that are worse than non-existence. In this paper, I sketch out an argument that wild animals have worse lives than farmed animals, and that consistent vegetarians should therefore reduce the number of wild animals as a top priority.
    - vzidex 6y ago
      Yes, but only because we (humans) wiped out the natural predators of many wild animals - the typical example being wolves and deer in North America. We then do indeed kill wild animals so that their populations don't explode due to a lack of predators - in Canada and the US you typically need a "tag" to hunt wild animals, basically a ticket that allows you to kill X number of a specific species. These tags are distributed in limited numbers, and extensive work goes into surveying populations of wild animals to distribute the right number of tags. Proceeds from selling tags go to conservation efforts, including the surveying efforts previously mentioned. As someone trying their hardest to follow a vegan diet, I fully support hunting wild animals for food and population control. However, that situation is worlds removed from animals that are bred for the sole purpose of being raised and slaughtered in factory farms. EDIT: to rip off another comment in this chain - the issue of hunting wild animals is orthogonal to the issue of factory farming. i.e., the two issues have little to do with each other and you cannot/should not use one as moral justification for the other.
      - ksdale 6y ago
        I meant kill them in general so that they don't have offspring at all, as most animals in nature die what we would consider grisly deaths. (Which, to be clear, I think is wrong.) I'm not a fan of factory farming, but I don't agree that hunting and raising farm animals are orthogonal issues. My own views are more complicated than I care to get into here, but I think it boils down to - 1) Is it always wrong to kill animals for food? and 2) Would those animals rather exist than not, prior to dying? I think the answers to those questions are no (or else we have to declare eg lions immoral) and yes (assuming the conditions they live in aren't absolutely horrific, which also leads me to believe that factory farming should basically go away and we should reduce our meat consumption as much as we need to to make that possible). I try to limit my meat consumption and find meat that I believe has been raised ethically, but I don't believe veganism is required (though I totally respect those beliefs!)
        vzidex 6y ago
        Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response. I'd agree with you that I'd be OK with meat consumption if the animals being raised for meat were raised under "optimal" conditions for their happiness, and only slaughtered at the end of long, fulfilling lives. What burst my bubble on that idea, however, and really gave me the urge to strive towards a vegan diet, was just how completely implausible that image is. Even if your meat comes from "ethical" sources, I have three big issues: 1. Animals are typically slaughtered far short of their natural lifespans. Cows, pigs, and chickens have natural lifespans of 20, 20, and 10 years, and live 3, 2, and 0.2 years under factory farming conditions [1]. Even if the meat you're consuming comes from animals that live fantastic lives - the stereotypical image of open pastures, a "natural" diet, loving care from the farmer - those lives are almost definitely being cut short for the sake of profitability. 2. The animal products industry puts a humongous amount of effort into keeping consumers from thinking about the origins of their food. Part of this effort is whitewashing the process as much as possible. I don't feel like finding specific examples off the top of my head, but it's cases like "cage free chicken" meaning that the birds are kept in a massive, communal shed with 24/7 artificial lighting, very little cleaning, veterinary care, etc. It's very possible that even if the meat you're buying is labelled with "humane" and "ethical" terms like free-range, cage-free, etc. that those terms mean very different things than you might assume. 3. Modern livestock are bred to produce the maximum amount of product (meat, milk, eggs, wool) as possible. This leads to chickens whose legs collapse underneath them from their weight after a few months of life, cows which have chronically infected udders from the quantity of milk they produce, etc. Even if you take these breeds and raise them under "humane" conditions, they'll still have miserable lives without extensive veterinary care. That all said, if you do indeed source your meat from sources that you have verified give their animals fantastic comfortable lives, let them live (most) of their natural lifespan before slaughter, and only raise heritage breeds that don't suffer just from being alive, then I'm all for your meat consumption - and very curious how much your meat costs! [1] https://www.four-paws.us/campaigns-topics/topics/farm-animals/life-expectancy https://www.four-paws.us/campaigns-topics/topics/farm-animal...
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    That's an orthogonal issue. They were bred, they are here now; there's no possibility in their immediate future for something other than death, but there are options available for how that death happens.
    - bbrree66 6y ago
      Yes, I am speaking generally that we can avoid situations like this going forward by not doing it in the first place.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        That's a fair point, but if we want to truly reduce animal suffering, we have to reengineer the entire biosphere. We have to take control of the "circle of life" to ensure a humane end for all animals. Because natural life isn't in any way better for animals; your options there are to suffer and die of starvation, or suffer and die by being torn apart and eaten. The life and suffering of wild animals is the ultimate "out of sight, out of mind".
        bbrree66 6y ago
        This is a red herring. Let's start with the suffering that we are purposely creating, in mass. The numbers of factory-farmed animals dying dwarfs anything else.
  - bborud 6y ago
    The difference comes down to cost and chance of success. Say you hit a deer with your car and break its hind legs. The chances you can nurse it back to health are very slim. Not least because the deer is likely to have a stress-induced response to being handled by humans that will adversely affects it chance of survival. And if the deer survives this, you are going to face a long list of further hurdles. From avoiding starvation, dehydration to avoiding infection. And eventually you would need to reintroduce the animal to the wild. How much are you willing to pay for a deer you've hit to have its hind legs repaired and put in a cast? How much are you willing to pay a professional to nurse it back to health. Because to be frank: if you haven't taken care of a deer before, you are pretty likely to kill it. And the deer is going to be frightened and miserable the whole time. So how much are you willing pay to keep a deer you have hit alive? $10.000? $20.000? More? What's your cutoff? Would you sell your car? I've seen people spend that kind of money on pets. And it isn't always pretty when people squeeze more life out of a suffering pet for their own sake. Now, if you chopped someone's arm off the chances of survival (depending on circumstance) and the willingness of someone to pay for it would usually be quite different.
pembrook 6y ago
Animals in the wild don’t age gracefully and go to hospice where they die in peace surrounded by family and morphine. There are 4 main ways an animal dies “naturally” in the wild: 1) slow starvation due to lack of food/winter 2) slow starvation due to being injured or a health issue 3) slow, painful starvation due to being maimed by a predator 4) being violently eaten alive by a predator Any of the “killed by a human” options are far more humane.
- bbrree66 6y ago
  Animals in the wild are not animals that we created. Your argument is irrelevant.
  - pembrook 6y ago
    It is actually your argument as to whether or not we “created” them that is irrelevant to the topic of this post. They exist. The question is what to do with them in the most humane way possible. Unless your solution is time travel?
    - bbrree66 6y ago
      I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to miss the point or not. Yes, there are no good options for the bad situation we are now in. My point is that we can avoid situations like this in the future. I hope your snarky comment about time travel made you feel super smart! It made me think so.
      - pembrook 6y ago
        Now I see why this article was removed from the front page. It appears this is one of the topics HN cannot discuss rationally.
        bbrree66 6y ago
        I agree you are unable to discuss this rationally.
hprotagonist 6y ago
I'm willing to grant that animals are capable to some degree of wanting at all. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption. How do you feel about mercy killings? If you find a deer in the woods that's got a gangrenous leg and is laying on the ground, I would argue that it is my obligation -- my moral responsibility -- to cut its throat or pith it, if I can. We are part of nature. We constitute "letting nature take its course", and those options are a whole lot better than getting eaten alive by a coyote.
mnm1 6y ago
Sure it is. There are perfectly humane ways to kill an animal quickly with respect. My grandparents and uncles used to do it all the time. What's inhumane is the mass factory farming way of slaughtering. Killing animals is as old as humanity. Torturing animals is new to factory farming. Anyway, it's just a matter of opinion. Most of humanity doesn't care, never will, and no amount of moral grandstanding, vegetarianism, veganism, protest, or anything will change that. That's why I gave up being a vegetarian after fifteen years. That and the negative health effects of constantly eating mostly carbs, but that's besides the point.

Please define humane. Killing an animal that doesn't want to die is not humane.

missedthecue 6y ago

when the alternative is them starving to death, it is quite humane.

bbrree66 6y ago
That is illogical. That's like saying: I chopped someone's arm off so the only humane thing is to shoot them. Maybe don't do the terrible thing in the first place (breeding them to be slaughtered), and you won't have this issue.
- ksdale 6y ago
  Doesn't it follow from this that it would be beneficial to kill wild animals so that their far more numerous offspring won't die grisly natural deaths?
  - bbrree66 6y ago
    Let's start with the human-created suffering then we can discuss this question.
    - ksdale 6y ago
      Why? If we can create moral good by preventing the existence of animals, do we have a duty to prevent the existence of as many animals as possible?
      - hprotagonist 6y ago
        There was an ethics paper that won a student prize at oxford ..? or cambridge ..? that argued this exact position. I can't put my fingers on it right now though, it's really annoying. edit: http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-the-suffering-of-wild-animals/ http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-... Ethical consequentialist vegetarians believe that farmed animals have lives that are worse than non-existence. In this paper, I sketch out an argument that wild animals have worse lives than farmed animals, and that consistent vegetarians should therefore reduce the number of wild animals as a top priority.
  - vzidex 6y ago
    Yes, but only because we (humans) wiped out the natural predators of many wild animals - the typical example being wolves and deer in North America. We then do indeed kill wild animals so that their populations don't explode due to a lack of predators - in Canada and the US you typically need a "tag" to hunt wild animals, basically a ticket that allows you to kill X number of a specific species. These tags are distributed in limited numbers, and extensive work goes into surveying populations of wild animals to distribute the right number of tags. Proceeds from selling tags go to conservation efforts, including the surveying efforts previously mentioned. As someone trying their hardest to follow a vegan diet, I fully support hunting wild animals for food and population control. However, that situation is worlds removed from animals that are bred for the sole purpose of being raised and slaughtered in factory farms. EDIT: to rip off another comment in this chain - the issue of hunting wild animals is orthogonal to the issue of factory farming. i.e., the two issues have little to do with each other and you cannot/should not use one as moral justification for the other.
    - ksdale 6y ago
      I meant kill them in general so that they don't have offspring at all, as most animals in nature die what we would consider grisly deaths. (Which, to be clear, I think is wrong.) I'm not a fan of factory farming, but I don't agree that hunting and raising farm animals are orthogonal issues. My own views are more complicated than I care to get into here, but I think it boils down to - 1) Is it always wrong to kill animals for food? and 2) Would those animals rather exist than not, prior to dying? I think the answers to those questions are no (or else we have to declare eg lions immoral) and yes (assuming the conditions they live in aren't absolutely horrific, which also leads me to believe that factory farming should basically go away and we should reduce our meat consumption as much as we need to to make that possible). I try to limit my meat consumption and find meat that I believe has been raised ethically, but I don't believe veganism is required (though I totally respect those beliefs!)
      - vzidex 6y ago
        Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response. I'd agree with you that I'd be OK with meat consumption if the animals being raised for meat were raised under "optimal" conditions for their happiness, and only slaughtered at the end of long, fulfilling lives. What burst my bubble on that idea, however, and really gave me the urge to strive towards a vegan diet, was just how completely implausible that image is. Even if your meat comes from "ethical" sources, I have three big issues: 1. Animals are typically slaughtered far short of their natural lifespans. Cows, pigs, and chickens have natural lifespans of 20, 20, and 10 years, and live 3, 2, and 0.2 years under factory farming conditions [1]. Even if the meat you're consuming comes from animals that live fantastic lives - the stereotypical image of open pastures, a "natural" diet, loving care from the farmer - those lives are almost definitely being cut short for the sake of profitability. 2. The animal products industry puts a humongous amount of effort into keeping consumers from thinking about the origins of their food. Part of this effort is whitewashing the process as much as possible. I don't feel like finding specific examples off the top of my head, but it's cases like "cage free chicken" meaning that the birds are kept in a massive, communal shed with 24/7 artificial lighting, very little cleaning, veterinary care, etc. It's very possible that even if the meat you're buying is labelled with "humane" and "ethical" terms like free-range, cage-free, etc. that those terms mean very different things than you might assume. 3. Modern livestock are bred to produce the maximum amount of product (meat, milk, eggs, wool) as possible. This leads to chickens whose legs collapse underneath them from their weight after a few months of life, cows which have chronically infected udders from the quantity of milk they produce, etc. Even if you take these breeds and raise them under "humane" conditions, they'll still have miserable lives without extensive veterinary care. That all said, if you do indeed source your meat from sources that you have verified give their animals fantastic comfortable lives, let them live (most) of their natural lifespan before slaughter, and only raise heritage breeds that don't suffer just from being alive, then I'm all for your meat consumption - and very curious how much your meat costs! [1] https://www.four-paws.us/campaigns-topics/topics/farm-animals/life-expectancy https://www.four-paws.us/campaigns-topics/topics/farm-animal...
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  That's an orthogonal issue. They were bred, they are here now; there's no possibility in their immediate future for something other than death, but there are options available for how that death happens.
  - bbrree66 6y ago
    Yes, I am speaking generally that we can avoid situations like this going forward by not doing it in the first place.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      That's a fair point, but if we want to truly reduce animal suffering, we have to reengineer the entire biosphere. We have to take control of the "circle of life" to ensure a humane end for all animals. Because natural life isn't in any way better for animals; your options there are to suffer and die of starvation, or suffer and die by being torn apart and eaten. The life and suffering of wild animals is the ultimate "out of sight, out of mind".
      - bbrree66 6y ago
        This is a red herring. Let's start with the suffering that we are purposely creating, in mass. The numbers of factory-farmed animals dying dwarfs anything else.
- bborud 6y ago
  The difference comes down to cost and chance of success. Say you hit a deer with your car and break its hind legs. The chances you can nurse it back to health are very slim. Not least because the deer is likely to have a stress-induced response to being handled by humans that will adversely affects it chance of survival. And if the deer survives this, you are going to face a long list of further hurdles. From avoiding starvation, dehydration to avoiding infection. And eventually you would need to reintroduce the animal to the wild. How much are you willing to pay for a deer you've hit to have its hind legs repaired and put in a cast? How much are you willing to pay a professional to nurse it back to health. Because to be frank: if you haven't taken care of a deer before, you are pretty likely to kill it. And the deer is going to be frightened and miserable the whole time. So how much are you willing pay to keep a deer you have hit alive? $10.000? $20.000? More? What's your cutoff? Would you sell your car? I've seen people spend that kind of money on pets. And it isn't always pretty when people squeeze more life out of a suffering pet for their own sake. Now, if you chopped someone's arm off the chances of survival (depending on circumstance) and the willingness of someone to pay for it would usually be quite different.

pembrook 6y ago

Animals in the wild don’t age gracefully and go to hospice where they die in peace surrounded by family and morphine. There are 4 main ways an animal dies “naturally” in the wild: 1) slow starvation due to lack of food/winter 2) slow starvation due to being injured or a health issue 3) slow, painful starvation due to being maimed by a predator 4) being violently eaten alive by a predator Any of the “killed by a human” options are far more humane.

bbrree66 6y ago
Animals in the wild are not animals that we created. Your argument is irrelevant.
- pembrook 6y ago
  It is actually your argument as to whether or not we “created” them that is irrelevant to the topic of this post. They exist. The question is what to do with them in the most humane way possible. Unless your solution is time travel?
  - bbrree66 6y ago
    I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to miss the point or not. Yes, there are no good options for the bad situation we are now in. My point is that we can avoid situations like this in the future. I hope your snarky comment about time travel made you feel super smart! It made me think so.
    - pembrook 6y ago
      Now I see why this article was removed from the front page. It appears this is one of the topics HN cannot discuss rationally.
      - bbrree66 6y ago
        I agree you are unable to discuss this rationally.

hprotagonist 6y ago

I'm willing to grant that animals are capable to some degree of wanting at all. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption. How do you feel about mercy killings? If you find a deer in the woods that's got a gangrenous leg and is laying on the ground, I would argue that it is my obligation -- my moral responsibility -- to cut its throat or pith it, if I can. We are part of nature. We constitute "letting nature take its course", and those options are a whole lot better than getting eaten alive by a coyote.

mnm1 6y ago

Sure it is. There are perfectly humane ways to kill an animal quickly with respect. My grandparents and uncles used to do it all the time. What's inhumane is the mass factory farming way of slaughtering. Killing animals is as old as humanity. Torturing animals is new to factory farming. Anyway, it's just a matter of opinion. Most of humanity doesn't care, never will, and no amount of moral grandstanding, vegetarianism, veganism, protest, or anything will change that. That's why I gave up being a vegetarian after fifteen years. That and the negative health effects of constantly eating mostly carbs, but that's besides the point.