Moral or Immoral to swallow a live fish?

[Swift]

I'd prefer it if my pet dog died instantly than in a long drawn out and painful death.

Ah, so you're making it more personal. Now I can understand your viewpoint.

 

[Danoff]

I'd prefer it if my pet dog died instantly than in a long drawn out and painful death.

Me too. But my question is fundamentally why? Why do you not mind boiling a lobster or beating a suffocating fish to death (after pulling it up with a hook impaled through it's jaw)? But a dog in pain is emotionally difficult?

It's a matter of personality right? But that's a very difficult thing to pin down.

But then we go back to the point of the thread, swallowing the fish. Is it more humane to beat it to death or gut it alive (as is often done) than to swallow it whole? And why should we care? Fish have no personality.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Me too. But my question is fundamentally why? Why do you not mind boiling a lobster or beating a suffocating fish to death (after pulling it up with a hook impaled through it's jaw)? But a dog in pain is emotionally difficult?

I'd love to see the reasoning in boiling a lobster alive. Personally I've never seen the reasoning as to why it mush be done like that.

Fish aren't suffocating until their gils have dried out, something that probably doesn't happen inbetween hooking it and bringing it out.

But then we go back to the point of the thread, swallowing the fish. Is it more humane to beat it to death or gut it alive (as is often done) than to swallow it whole? And why should we care? Fish have no personality.

I'd prefer it if you just placed it in your mouth and bit it's head off or chewed it. Though ofcourse, that wouldn't be pleasent for the person eating it.

Fish have no personality, neither does a brain dead person and I doubt cows have much of one aswell.

I see I've ended up in a debate with the Opinions forum heavy weights, please, have mercy.

 

[Danoff]

I'd love to see the reasoning in boiling a lobster alive. Personally I've never seen the reasoning as to why it mush be done like that.

I've always heard it makes them taste better.

Fish aren't suffocating until their gils have dried out, something that probably doesn't happen inbetween hooking it and bringing it out.

How is that possible? They breathe constantly and since they no longer have water to breathe, they start suffocating as soon as thye're removed from the water.

Fish have no personality, neither does a brain dead person and I doubt cows have much of one aswell.

Which is why we don't mind hurting them so much. But maybe you do, so I guess you're not a hypocrite. I suppose that you don't think animals should be used for testing chemicals and medicines then either...

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd love to see the reasoning in boiling a lobster alive. Personally I've never seen the reasoning as to why it mush be done like that.

From Ochef.com

Q: Why do we have to cook crabs and lobster alive?

A: Technically we don't have to — but they have to be really, really recently deceased. Lobster and crabs decay so quickly after death that they present health risks if not cooked immediately.

Some people are not comfortable tossing what are essentially live bugs into a pot of boiling water, though, and there are debates on the most humane way to dispatch them. Some people plunge a heavy chef's knife into the back of the lobster's head, about an inch behind the eyes, to do them in before cooking. The same can be done for crabs. This method clearly kills them instantly, although they may continue to flop around for a bit — just as they do in the pot of boiling water. In our experience, it takes at least as much fortitude to kill them with a knife as to toss them in the pot.

If your question stems from humanitarian or vegetarian-inspired grounds, there is no getting around the fact that all the meat we eat was once alive and killed specifically for our consumption, whether we do the actual killing or not. And while very few of us have to slaughter a pig, cow, or chicken to feed the family these days, generations of our forebears did so. The only way to remove yourself from the actual process — though not the deed — of killing a lobster or crab is to purchase frozen lobster tails and pre-cooked crabs, or order them in a restaurant.

As stated the way to kill a lobster otherwise is to chop its head in half or bash it in with a hammer. Neither are pleasant to see.

 

[Famine]

Lobster meat has a very short shelf-life. Cooking it live ensures it's fresh.

 

[Grand Prix]

From Ochef.com



As stated the way to kill a lobster otherwise is to chop its head in half or bash it in with a hammer. Neither are pleasant to see.

I've heard that you can put the live lobster in the freezer so it goes in a coma, though. Then when you put it in the pot it stays in the coma just long enough to die in that state.

 

[Joey D]

Just think of it as sushi...really crappy sushi but still sushi.

I fish all the time, and I certinaly don't catch and release...I catch and fillet, because I enjoy eating Walleyes (Pickerels for you non Michiganders), Samlon, and other stuff like that. But I don't really treat the fish humanly, I put a hook through the mouth, bring it into the boat, hack the sides of it off with a knife and feed the guts to the seagulls. Meh sue me.

 

[Dougboy]

i fish too, but i keep them in the boats livewell until further notice

and i think its moral to swallow a live fish. If ur scared of it swimming around in ur tummy, then chew it first

 

[FoolKiller]

Just think of it as sushi...really crappy sushi but still sushi.

I fish all the time, and I certinaly don't catch and release...I catch and fillet, because I enjoy eating Walleyes (Pickerels for you non Michiganders), Samlon, and other stuff like that. But I don't really treat the fish humanly, I put a hook through the mouth, bring it into the boat, hack the sides of it off with a knife and feed the guts to the seagulls. Meh sue me.

You feed the guts to the seagulls? That's like throwing your bait overboard. Hook those suckers up and cast back in. Open up the stomach and if you find anything undigested use that too.

If you gut a fish right there then you have a perpetual source of bait.



Grand Prix I know some people do the frozen lobster thing, but I never heard that it dies any quicker than when you drop it in awake, which is pretty quick. As far as I know it is just a way to make it not as noticeable that it is alive when you drop it in.

 

[James2097]

Wow can a lobster really handle being frozen and be ok? Seems unlikely to me, but hey they are pretty simple jiggers so who knows.

Swallowing a live fish is no different than killing it in any other way. Whether its moral or not is up to each individual's take on killing animals in general. Meat eaters will be fine with it, vegos won't be. But to me there is no meaningful distinction between swallowing the fish live and chewing it, whacking it etc etc...

Or is it somehow more moral to literally pour some acid on the fish until it dies? Thats the same thing really... We are just strangely uncomfortable that the killing occurs within our body or what? We're still responsible for killing it so whats the big deal?

 

[Famine]

That's nothing. Look up "tardigrades" (or "water bears"). The crap you can put those things through is astonishing. And they live in water butts.

 

[James2097]

Water Bears:
- can transform into a dry state which can return to life after years
- in dry state need only a drop of water to revive
- in dry state survive acid and solvent attack
- in dry state survive very high and very low temperatures
- in dry state survive high pressure and radioactive radiation
- have been found under 5 m layers of ice
- have been found in oceans 6000 m below the surface
- have been found on mountains, 6000 m high

WOW, like just WOW! Thanks Famine.

Sorry for being off topic, but those water bears are really amazing! You can put acid on them and radioactive radiation, and then just add water and they're cool! WTF MATE!

 

[Famine]

Edit: They're one of the most recently-discovered Phyla (1777). Phylum is one step down from Kingdom (Animal/Plant/Bacterium), so an entire Phylum being discovered is a big thing.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Just to make it clear I'm not vegetarian, I'm not vegan, I don't go protesting at all, I don't plan to go protesting, my favourite meat is lamb (no jokes, please) and I realise that most livestock are treated like crap. However I don't see why that means we take that as a reason to treat other things like crap.

How is that possible? They breathe constantly and since they no longer have water to breathe, they start suffocating as soon as thye're removed from the water.

That's what I heard of my Biology teacher. Although agriculture is his speciality he does regulary teach GCSE and he does like to go off on a tangent (He's pretty much tought us how to brew alcohol at home, many things about potatos and about most of his ailments.)

Which is why we don't mind hurting them so much. But maybe you do, so I guess you're not a hypocrite. I suppose that you don't think animals should be used for testing chemicals and medicines then either...

You don't mind hurting a brain dead person so much? Each to his own I suppose.
Testing for medicine I agree with, testing for cosmetics I don't.

The lobster thing is interesting, I'm surprised at that being the reasoning.

 

[Danoff]

The lobster thing is interesting, I'm surprised at that being the reasoning.

Here is my reasoning... brain size and capacity.

For something like a person, with higher level brain functionality, self-awareness, an understanding of mortality, and a conciousness... that entity gets rights.

For something like a dog/pig/lion/other semi-intelligent animal, something that can be taught tricks, taught to recognize its name - something that has a decent degree of emotion and understands the mortality of those around it - even if it has no sense of self or abstract. That type of thing should not be tortured, and it may make you a bad person to torture it - but legally, it has no rights.

Farther down the food chain - (small) fish, (small) birds, mice, rats, bats, snakes, lobsters, etc. These things have very little brain power. Minimal emotional response (if any), no sense of self or mortality, probably even little concept of pain. These things also have no rights, and I don't think you're bad person for killing one - no matter how.

The last link on the food chain are insects/plants. Which are so far down the line that one need not even be aware that they are killing a living thing when they stomp on one of these.

That's the pecking order. At the top of the food chain, religious people could place God.

 

[///M-Spec]

The thought of boiling a live lobster gives me a strong feeling in the pit of my stomach.

...like hunger.

I'm off to the grocery store. See y'all.


M

 

[Delirious]

Alright, when would you guys consider it moral or immoral as far as eating animals?
(Examples being Swift hunting and killing deer due to starvation; going to Meijer and buying ground beef in a wrapped package, etc.)

 

[ExigeEvan]

Completely moral to eat meat. Nothing wrong with it. Just do the logical thing, kill it quick (even if you are a crap shot and can only find a blunt rock.)

 

[Swift]

Completely moral to eat meat. Nothing wrong with it. Just do the logical thing, kill it quick (even if you are a crap shot and can only find a blunt rock.)

Gotcha! 👍

 

[Danoff]

Completely moral to eat meat. Nothing wrong with it. Just do the logical thing, kill it quick (even if you are a crap shot and can only find a blunt rock.)

How far do you take that? Do we need to kill insects quickly? Is pulling the wings off of a fly immoral? Do we need to kill plants quickly? Bacteria?

 

[Blake]

my favourite meat is lamb (no jokes, please)

Oh god, that’s too good

And I completely agree with your brain size and capacity post danoff 👍

Blake

 

[James2097]

An animal would have to be pretty damn stupid for me to be happy about killing it (personally). I understand the hypocrisy that cows and pigs and chickens etc get killed and I eat them, I suppose its just a stupid human trait that if you don't personally kill an animal it seems easier to eat it without thinking about its welfare... Still, I admit I suffer from the entirely unique human response that the cuteness of an animal and its appeal and friendliness to us plays a big part in me wanting to protect its welfare...

The reason I worry about killing animals that are often considered dumb and emotionless is because our understanding of their emotions may just be incomplete. We tend to only show care about animals if they show their emotion and friendliness to humans, but what if they show emotion to other animals?

I'll give you an example. Its common practise for people to go duck hunting. This I am appalled at because I had a pet duck for 17 years (yes old duck eh?) and it was the most friendly and happy duck you could get, and it really had a lot of personality and emotion. I was more upset when it died than when some people die (my Grandma for one, whose death was expected for years)... Maybe some of you need to know that emotion and a sense of mortality are maybe more standard among animals than you assume...

One time a swallow flew into the window of my parents house and got knocked unconcious, laying there with its feet up in the air. My duck (who's duck cage was often also inhabited by many swallows swooping around and keeping the duck company) became obviously upset (short, quiet worried quacks, also long low really quiet troubled quacks - similar response to when ducks percieve a threat or danger to the group) and waddled over to the hurt (dead?) swallow and sat down next to it to gaurd it, and to keep it warm. She (the duck) nudged it gently with her beak to see if the swallow was alive and the swallow didn't move. Still, she stayed there for half a day, in a really stressed state, constantly watching out for dangers like eagles or snakes... she was super stressed.
Eventually the swallow became concious again and flew off. My duck instantly became happy again and went off dabbling for slugs and stuff in the garden. If my duck can display such a strong sense of mortality and care for other animals (not even those of the same species - she just happened to like swallows (incidentally she hated blackbirds and magpies etc - chased them like a raptor- head down charge - very funny to watch!)) then perhaps we could be a bit more caring also... still, its very hard to judge when an animal is smart enough to be self-aware and concious of its mortality, pain etc..

The swallow may not be aware of the concept of 'self', but my duck was still worried for it and valued its life! Just like how we are worried for our pets, or any animal we spend a lot of time around, they become important to us regardless of their intelligence... In a way the swallow was my duck's pet and the duck my pet... so its funny like that...

 

[JacktheHat]

I refer you to point 2:

Whichever way you cut it (pun intended), you're still depriving something of its life so that you may prolong yours.

And I stand by my statement:

If you're going to kill an animal, for whatever reason, it should be done with due respect.

I don't believe it's inhumane to kill an animal. I think it's inhumane to kill an animal cruelly.

 

[tabs]

Your duck rules, James2097. 👍 👍

Also, I just had some great sushi earlier. Just thought I'd share.

 

[Famine]

I don't believe it's inhumane to kill an animal. I think it's inhumane to kill an animal cruelly.

So is it humane to kill a person for food, if you don't kill them cruelly?

 

[JacktheHat]

So is it humane to kill a person for food, if you don't kill them cruelly?

No, humans are sentient beings.

 

[Blake]

So you’d prefer two humans to die of starvation then for one to kill the other and survive?

Blake

 

[JacktheHat]

So you’d prefer two humans to die of starvation then for one to kill the other and survive?

Blake

That depends on the situation. If there was no other food source and one consented to being killed for food then that might be humane.

 

[Duke]

So you’d prefer two humans to die of starvation then for one to kill the other and survive?

Blake

YES.