Moral or Immoral to swallow a live fish?
- Thread starter Delirious
- 97 comments
- 3,059 views
- 383
Famine
Yes, but they are also sentient beings. Unlike the rest of the animal kingdom.
- 383
danoff
Sentient isn't the same as smart. George junior is a good example of that.
- 5,622
- eMadman
there was a gorilla a several years back that was trained to do speak with language. That ape also has a pet kitten which it cares for.JacktheHat
http://ask.yahoo.com/20000905.html <-- that's just scary
- 383
emad
That may make it more intelligent than George but it doesn't make it sentient.
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
JacktheHat
Nevertheless, they ARE animals, and you clearly said:
JacktheHat
It may interest you that sentience is denoted by self-awareness. Dolphins, chimpanzees and pigs - that's right... Your Sunday crackling - exhibit self-awareness. They can recognise themselves in a reflection.
So humans, dolphins, chimpanzees and pigs are sentient beings, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, not just humanity on its own.
So, is it inhumane to kill these four animals, no matter how sensitive you are to the method of death? Or is it just inhumane to deprive anything else of life to pad yours out a bit? Or is it humane to kill anything if you don't do it cruelly.
Or do you have some other indicator to pick humans out as "different"?
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
It's great how you take everything to the edge of reason 👍
An insect is not classified as 'meat'. It has flesh but you don't see insect steaks in the shops or anywhere else for that matter.
I don't think bugs need to be killed 'quickly', but 'playing' (Amuptating parts etc) with them is also quite twisted. Plants need not be killed quickly, they are a lower being again.
- 1,620
Danoff,
My duck definately cared for the swallow. She knew she wasn't in any danger herself, especially as I was there. She ALWAYS felt very safe around me or any member of my family. She probably thought she WAS human, she had never seen another duck and had been brought up by my family her entire life, so she was extremely different to normal ducks and normal duck behaviour. Probably the most tame and friendly duck in the world... totally wacked out, she couldn't fly or swim in a mature grown-up duck way, as she'd never been taught by a mother duck! She just splashed around in her pool and went crazy having fun in the water (racing around and seeing how much water she could splash me with) until she got tired and I had to scoop her out and let her rest, but she'd always want to overdo it and get too tired... She used to like me to push her body under the water so she'd bounce up to the surface again... this is a really abnormal, crazily social and happy duck here. I KNOW her behaviour, and whether she is scared, happy, SUPER happy, bored, curious, guilty (when we caught her eating all the lettuces in the vegetable garden, man did she look guilty!) etc. Over 17-18 years of her life I knew pretty damn well what all the different inflections in her behaviour and quacks meant... ok I probably sound pretty weird...
ANYWAY...
If my duck felt in any danger her response was to ALWAYS get straight back into her little house ASAP and quack for me to close the door. However, she stayed out and sadly prodded the swallow with her beak now and then, it was pretty obvious to me she was worried not for herself, but for the swallow.
Also, sitting down isn't something ducks do when they think they might need to move quickly. If the sitting was a "hiding" mechanism she wouldn't have done it on an open brick verandah for all to see. Besides, my duck saw the swallow hit the window, and knew it was an accident. She knew about glass from a very young age, as she often tapped on the windows with her beak to get me to come outside and play. She also liked looking at her reflection in the window, moving her head from side to side to check herself out.
This is not a scared kind of duck we're talking about here. Say if there was some people having a pic-nic, she would waddle over to say hi, steal our watermelon and then go to sleep on the dog (a friend), which was also asleep. Not very scared IMO. She only EVER got back in her duck house when she spotted legitimate threats: a fox far away, an unfamiliar cat or dog or (the most scary) a Wedge-tailed Eagle circling high up in the sky. None of those threats were around when she stressed over the swallow.
If you were there, you would never have questioned the duck's intentions. My duck was smarter than a good proportion of people IMO, certainly showing more empathy and friendliness than many of them. She was smarter than the dog for sure.
She used to pretend to be worried (quack loudly and in a troubled tone) when there was no threat around just so the dog came running over (which was trained to protect the duck) for no reason. The dog would dumbly run back when it saw everything was ok, then came another quack... and so on... very funny to watch!
Anyway, enough of me sounding like a total duck- obsessed freak!
My duck definately cared for the swallow. She knew she wasn't in any danger herself, especially as I was there. She ALWAYS felt very safe around me or any member of my family. She probably thought she WAS human, she had never seen another duck and had been brought up by my family her entire life, so she was extremely different to normal ducks and normal duck behaviour. Probably the most tame and friendly duck in the world... totally wacked out, she couldn't fly or swim in a mature grown-up duck way, as she'd never been taught by a mother duck! She just splashed around in her pool and went crazy having fun in the water (racing around and seeing how much water she could splash me with) until she got tired and I had to scoop her out and let her rest, but she'd always want to overdo it and get too tired... She used to like me to push her body under the water so she'd bounce up to the surface again... this is a really abnormal, crazily social and happy duck here. I KNOW her behaviour, and whether she is scared, happy, SUPER happy, bored, curious, guilty (when we caught her eating all the lettuces in the vegetable garden, man did she look guilty!) etc. Over 17-18 years of her life I knew pretty damn well what all the different inflections in her behaviour and quacks meant... ok I probably sound pretty weird...
ANYWAY...
If my duck felt in any danger her response was to ALWAYS get straight back into her little house ASAP and quack for me to close the door. However, she stayed out and sadly prodded the swallow with her beak now and then, it was pretty obvious to me she was worried not for herself, but for the swallow.
Also, sitting down isn't something ducks do when they think they might need to move quickly. If the sitting was a "hiding" mechanism she wouldn't have done it on an open brick verandah for all to see. Besides, my duck saw the swallow hit the window, and knew it was an accident. She knew about glass from a very young age, as she often tapped on the windows with her beak to get me to come outside and play. She also liked looking at her reflection in the window, moving her head from side to side to check herself out.
This is not a scared kind of duck we're talking about here. Say if there was some people having a pic-nic, she would waddle over to say hi, steal our watermelon and then go to sleep on the dog (a friend), which was also asleep. Not very scared IMO. She only EVER got back in her duck house when she spotted legitimate threats: a fox far away, an unfamiliar cat or dog or (the most scary) a Wedge-tailed Eagle circling high up in the sky. None of those threats were around when she stressed over the swallow.
If you were there, you would never have questioned the duck's intentions. My duck was smarter than a good proportion of people IMO, certainly showing more empathy and friendliness than many of them. She was smarter than the dog for sure.
She used to pretend to be worried (quack loudly and in a troubled tone) when there was no threat around just so the dog came running over (which was trained to protect the duck) for no reason. The dog would dumbly run back when it saw everything was ok, then came another quack... and so on... very funny to watch!
Anyway, enough of me sounding like a total duck- obsessed freak!
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
I basically use a similair system to yourself. Except my 'dispocsable lives' line enters alot later than yours does. Bugs are a disposable but like said previousley shouldn't become a play thing.danoff
Yes I would say it is immoral to kill a snake slowly. A snake is much the same as any other animal above the 'bug/insect' level, to me.
Blake
Premium
- 10,976
- NSW, Australia
- haswell00
Heres one then: would you kill someone if it meant that youd survive?Duke
Im not talking about eating them or anything like that, but if someone held a gun to your head and said I will kill you both if you dont kill that guy. What would you do? Do you put your own life above the value of others? Do you kill the guy because it means only one person will die? Or do you let both of you die because you cant bring yourself to end another human beings life to save your own?
Blake
- 23,800
- Philippines
Wow... this thread is so... tangential. 
As to the posts re: bugs and bacteria. That's actually a valid point. All organisms have "feelings" or emotions on some level. Emotions being defined as irrational reactions to environmental stimuli or perceived needs (fear, greed, joy, lust, etc). Who's to say that plants do not fear being cut down? Fish definitely feel fear. And pigs and cows (especially pigs, they're smarter than dogs) do feel fear, and do have a sense of self, so on facing death, not only experience fear, but terror.
I think the moral question is: to what end?
If you're killing for sport or for fun, it's inhumane (technically), and, some might argue, inhuman.
If you're killing for food, then it's humane? It's definitely human, and very VERY natural.
The concept of humane treatment is certainly unique to humans. Chimps commit fratricide, and so do dogs and some other higher mammals. Lions and other predators commit fratricide and infanticide in territorial and authority squabbles. Dolphins kill baby dolphins and porpoises for SPORT. Anyone else remember one video where a "playful" dolphin bit and dragged a swimmer down a couple dozen feet to almost certain asphyxiation? So when we're talking about killing as only being natural if it's for food, then that's hypocritical. Animals kill all the time, for all sorts of reasons.
As for cruelty to animals: Same as above, same example with dolphins. Chimps will beat rivals to death.... slowly. Cats "play" with mice before eating them, pack predators often hound prey to death before asphyxiating them. The quick kill is often a myth. But animals can also be strangely fraternal. Dogs and cats can often show a strange affection for creatures they'd usually consider as prey (chickens, ducks, etc.). Dolphins are very friendly towards humans, though aggressively and homicidally inclined against other big aquatic mammals (other dolphins and porpoises, seals, too)
*****
What our guide should be is the intentions and intended outcomes of the action. If we treat animals "cruelly" or "inhumanely" or kill them just for the heck of it, or with the expressed intent of causing the creature pain, then that is immoral. It is treating entities as mere objects. This translation can often be carried over to humans, and often is. Torture of animals is often a precursor of sociopathic behaviour and is a hallmark of disturbed nutcases and serial killers.
If it is merely a by-product of a necessary process, i.e.: the gathering of food, or for the security of health and home, then we do not intend the harm personally against the creature or individual in question. In this case, we are not attacking the entity per se, we are merely prioritizing the human entity over the animal entity. Thus, in cases where survival is not an issue, we can still view animals as sentient entitites deserving of respect and fair treatment. And this,in turn, extends to our attitude towards humans. If someone is trying to kill you, go ahead and have a go at him. Defend yourself. Otherwise, why pick a fight? This is how most of humanity lives... or wants to live. There is still that abberant part of society that wants to go out and kill anyone with the wrong shaped ears or funny noses.
One side note: On putting dogs and cats "to sleep". If you can humanize a creature and kill it, then ergo, you should be able to kill a human if the need seems great. I've always thought Kevorkian had it right: if a guy wants to go out with dignity, it's his life... errh... death.
It can be argued that these view would lead one to believe that cannibalism is A-Ok (merely prioritizing the needs of one entity over another), but I'm still hung over the whole issue. Hey, if your mate is going to die anyway, at least he can go out knowing he gave you a good meal.
Also, who's to say that people are more important than animals? I think so, but then, that's just a personal, biased opinion.
As to the posts re: bugs and bacteria. That's actually a valid point. All organisms have "feelings" or emotions on some level. Emotions being defined as irrational reactions to environmental stimuli or perceived needs (fear, greed, joy, lust, etc). Who's to say that plants do not fear being cut down? Fish definitely feel fear. And pigs and cows (especially pigs, they're smarter than dogs) do feel fear, and do have a sense of self, so on facing death, not only experience fear, but terror.
I think the moral question is: to what end?
If you're killing for sport or for fun, it's inhumane (technically), and, some might argue, inhuman.
If you're killing for food, then it's humane? It's definitely human, and very VERY natural.
The concept of humane treatment is certainly unique to humans. Chimps commit fratricide, and so do dogs and some other higher mammals. Lions and other predators commit fratricide and infanticide in territorial and authority squabbles. Dolphins kill baby dolphins and porpoises for SPORT. Anyone else remember one video where a "playful" dolphin bit and dragged a swimmer down a couple dozen feet to almost certain asphyxiation? So when we're talking about killing as only being natural if it's for food, then that's hypocritical. Animals kill all the time, for all sorts of reasons.
As for cruelty to animals: Same as above, same example with dolphins. Chimps will beat rivals to death.... slowly. Cats "play" with mice before eating them, pack predators often hound prey to death before asphyxiating them. The quick kill is often a myth. But animals can also be strangely fraternal. Dogs and cats can often show a strange affection for creatures they'd usually consider as prey (chickens, ducks, etc.). Dolphins are very friendly towards humans, though aggressively and homicidally inclined against other big aquatic mammals (other dolphins and porpoises, seals, too)
*****
What our guide should be is the intentions and intended outcomes of the action. If we treat animals "cruelly" or "inhumanely" or kill them just for the heck of it, or with the expressed intent of causing the creature pain, then that is immoral. It is treating entities as mere objects. This translation can often be carried over to humans, and often is. Torture of animals is often a precursor of sociopathic behaviour and is a hallmark of disturbed nutcases and serial killers.
If it is merely a by-product of a necessary process, i.e.: the gathering of food, or for the security of health and home, then we do not intend the harm personally against the creature or individual in question. In this case, we are not attacking the entity per se, we are merely prioritizing the human entity over the animal entity. Thus, in cases where survival is not an issue, we can still view animals as sentient entitites deserving of respect and fair treatment. And this,in turn, extends to our attitude towards humans. If someone is trying to kill you, go ahead and have a go at him. Defend yourself. Otherwise, why pick a fight? This is how most of humanity lives... or wants to live. There is still that abberant part of society that wants to go out and kill anyone with the wrong shaped ears or funny noses.
One side note: On putting dogs and cats "to sleep". If you can humanize a creature and kill it, then ergo, you should be able to kill a human if the need seems great. I've always thought Kevorkian had it right: if a guy wants to go out with dignity, it's his life... errh... death.
It can be argued that these view would lead one to believe that cannibalism is A-Ok (merely prioritizing the needs of one entity over another), but I'm still hung over the whole issue. Hey, if your mate is going to die anyway, at least he can go out knowing he gave you a good meal.
Also, who's to say that people are more important than animals? I think so, but then, that's just a personal, biased opinion.
- 383
Famine
Don't be a pedant.
Famine
Self-awareness and having conciousness are not the same thing.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Actually, consciousness is merely the state of being. Autists have consciousness, but are not self-aware in the sense that they can define the boundaries between "self" and "not-self". But suffice to say, any creature above a certain size or level of complexity is self-aware. They'd have to be to interact with others of their kind.
- 383
Blake
In the words of Descartes, "Cogito, ergo sum".
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
JacktheHat
Don't type things you don't mean.
Humans are animals. We're made of meat - to which sharks and tigers (and tiger sharks) would attest.
JacktheHat
You send "sentient". Self-awareness IS sentience.
I'm intrigued how you'd separate consciousness from self-awareness too. Please elaborate.
JacktheHat
So anything which thinks is conscious?
I can provide you with myriad examples of problem-solving - which requires thinking - in the animal kingdom, from rudimentary tool-use amongst chimpanzees and eagles down to safe-breaking from octopodes. And octopus is on the menu in Chinese restaurants...
But you've still not answered my questions. You stated that "I don't believe it's inhumane to kill an animal. I think it's inhumane to kill an animal cruelly.". Is it humane to kill a human animal if it isn't a cruel death, and can it really be humane to deprive ANY animal of life for the comfort of yours?
If the answer to either question is "no", then your position is inconsistent.
- 383
Famine
You defined self awareness as recognising your reflection in the mirror, that is not the same as consciousness. Consciousness is the ability to have cognitive thought as well as awareness.
Famine
Yes it is humane to kill a human in circumstances where their quality of life is not maintainable.
Yes it is humane to deprive an animal of life to further your own as this is a humanistic value.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
niky
You're going to have to establish for me that plants and bacteria have "feelings". But are feelings really the test here? Are we worried about hurting the animal's feelings? Causing it fear? Is that really what makes this inhumane? Or is it pain? Or is it something else entirely?
I see different degrees of wrong being done between killing a human, a dog, and a plant. I see different categories of mind (consciousness) being eliminated. I see different capacities for thought, for experience, for understanding, creativity, and even emotion being eliminated.
Plants have almost no capacity for those things. They have no consciousness, no thought and so no wrong is done by killing them. Dogs have a greater degree of mental capacity, but still nothing close to human - which is why I think it is ok for the law to distinguish between people and dogs.
But if I said it was wrong to kill a dog I'd be a hypocrite... because I like bacon and pigs are smarter than dogs.
Torturing something that has a decent capacity to feel pain and understand bodily harm (like a dog) makes you a bad person. But fish?? Comeon! Fish have a fraction of the mental capacity of a dog. When was the last time you saw someone teach a salmon to fetch?
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
JacktheHat
Concept of self IS consciousness.
"Cognitive" thought? Define please.
JacktheHat
Which wasn't the question. You STATED that:
JacktheHat
You can substitute any animal for the word "animal" in that sentence, so that it reads:
"I don't believe it's inhumane to kill a badger. I think it's inhumane to kill a badger cruelly."
"I don't believe it's inhumane to kill a caddis fly. I think it's inhumane to kill a caddis fly cruelly."
"I don't believe it's inhumane to kill a cow. I think it's inhumane to kill a cow cruelly."
Seeing as a human is an animal, it is also perfectly reasonable to subtitute "human" for "animal" in that sentence, so that it reads:
"I don't believe it's inhumane to kill a human. I think it's inhumane to kill a human cruelly."
Do you agree with this sentence - without imposition of further conditions upon it (such as "quality of life"), seeing as you didn't impose further conditions upon it originally?
If not, why type it? If so, justify killing a human (not a brain-dead human, or a paralysed human - a regular human) in a non-cruel manner.
JacktheHat
Shall I go through this again?
"Yes it is humane to deprive a badger of life to further your own as this is a humanistic value."
"Yes it is humane to deprive a caddis flyl of life to further your own as this is a humanistic value."
"Yes it is humane to deprive a cow of life to further your own as this is a humanistic value."
"Yes it is humane to deprive a human of life to further your own as this is a humanistic value."
- 383
Famine
The act or process of knowing including both awareness and judgement.
Famine
Very nice wordplay, although I have already stated that I differentiate between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Therefore when I use the term 'animal' I am talking about animals other than human.
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
JacktheHat
So if an animal can exhibit cognition, to your definition, it should be classed with humans and not killed for any reason (other than relief of suffering, or certain criminal acts)?
Or are humans an extra bit different?
- 383
Famine
Go on then, "what animal also exhibits cognition?".
Similar threads
