Jul 08, 2008 05:46AM GMT
Question
•
Science - Environmental
Is killing animals justified?
There is a growing correlation between the cruel treatment of animals and cruelty toward humans, and that correlation is indicative of the growing insensitivity to life, a mentality that allows the killing of innocent animals with complete disregard for suffering and pain, and a merciless brutality that is becoming prevalent in today’s society. The belief that the life of an animal has no intrinsic value ultimately leads to the belief that NO life has intrinsic value. What distinguishes us from the animals is morality. If killing an animal is not a moral issue, then our mentality is simply animalistic. Gandhi said, “If you want to judge how civilized a nation is, judge them by the way they treat their animals”.People believe that killing animals is just the “facts of life”, I’m sure. Our society kills animals every day, and we have hardened our hearts against their suffering and pain because we don’t witness it ourselves, unless we work in a slaughterhouse or on a farm. How can a child distinguish between the necessary and the unnecessary killing of innocent animals, if adults can’t? Is it that much of a shift in thought to be as insensitive to the life of a pet as we are to a chicken? The only distinguishing difference is sentimental attachment to the pet, and obviously, there are people who are cruel to pets. How can you explain to a child (or an intelligent adult, for that matter) that the cow’s life is less valuable because we eat them? (Or, do we eat them because they are less valuable? In what way are they less valuable?)
It is due to our culture of violence against animals that the line is being blurred. There is a mentality that we have sole discretion when it comes to the life of animals, as if their lives belong to us, as if we are not accountable to a higher authority for taking that life. Do kids automatically know the difference between what kind of animal is appropriate to kill and what kind isn’t? We now understand that children who are deliberately cruel to animals often develop the tendency to be cruel to people, yet we ignore the fact that adults are setting that very example. What are we teaching them? As they grow, they will see for themselves that not only are people indifferent to the lives of animals, but we are becoming increasingly indifferent to the lives of people, too.
Society must understand that there is a fundamental flaw in the philosophy of killing animals. If an average person cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable killing, who is qualified to make the distinction? We have developed a complex hierarchy in our treatment of animals and in our regard for their lives, in order to justify the killing of some animals for the enjoyment of eating them, while maintaining that it is inhumane to kill other animals for the enjoyment of killing them without eating them. Consequently, the way the law deals with this confusing and hypocritical system of justice for the immoral killing of animals varies to such an extent that it becomes arbitrary at times. If morality distinguishes us from the animals, then being inhumane is also immoral. After all, the word inhumane means “not” human. If we are being immoral, it means we are acting like animals. How can it be that being inhumane is a crime, but being immoral to some animals isn’t?
Some people argue that animals do not have a "soul", and therefore, they are nothing more than animated forms to be used and discarded at will. However, there is no scripture that indicates that animals do not have a soul. In fact, if one were to strictly adhere to biblical authority, there are plenty of verses that prohibit the killing and eating of animals.
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it." (Genesis 9.4-5)
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of goats. When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear, for your hands are full of blood." (Isaiah 1.11,15)
"It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood. (Leviticus 3.17). . . And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of strangers who sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set My face against that soul that eateth blood." (Leviticus 17.10)
From these verses and others not included here, we can certainly see that God's law, as set down in the Bible, was against the eating of flesh and blood and the killing of other entities. However, there are some people who try to legitimize the eating of meat by draining the blood and, thus, make the meat "kosher." Of course, this idea doesn't really work. Blood permeates meat, so how can one be free from eating blood by trying to drain it from the flesh? This is not very realistic, and it certainly does not free one from the violence that must be inflicted on the animal when it is killed in order to eat its flesh. The real point of the matter is not to kill. This is clearly stated in Exodus (20.13) in the Hebrew "lo tirtzach", which, when accurately translated, means "thou shalt not kill."
In fact, the Bible compares the killing of cows to murdering a man: "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man." (Isaiah 66.3)
As we can see from the above verses, and others, God never gave authority to man to kill His creatures. He gave man dominion, that is true, but what is dominion? A king has dominion over his realm, but that does not mean that he should kill his citizens as he pleases. He must rule them and protect them from violence. What kind of king slaughters his own citizens?
Leo Tolstoy said, "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields".
Loading...-
Answered Yes. Killing animals is justified.
Hunting for instance is highly regulated. Without hunters some of the deer population here in ohio would starve to death. Not to mention the increase of car deer accidents. Im all for the ethical harvesting your own food. My son is 12 and I feel like a kid again. Teaching him archery has been allot of fun. Hopefully he will bag his first deer this year
-
I don't understand your logic. If you don't kill them, nature will? Do you collect all of your own food, or do you just enjoy the kill? If your son practiced his archery on the family dog, would that be acceptable if he were also willing to eat it? Where do you draw the line?
-
Why do people like you bait questions, and attack others when they give an honest answere? Maybe Im missing something, but I dont believe you know me or my son... For you to insinuate he would shoot his dog because I taught him archery tells me how ignorant you really are..........
-
I did not insinuate that he would shoot the dog simply because he knows how to. I was asking how you teach him to differentiate between what is acceptable and what is not, or if you feel that he even needs to differentiate. It was an honest question, but I understand your need to defend yourself.
-
Obviously this was a baited question I dont want to argue, and I'm not trying to change your opinion of eating meat or hunting............
I respect the fact that you choose not to hunt. I understand it isnt for everyone. I hope you understand that as a hunter I have a great love and respect for the outdoors.
I ask you this as a non-hunter, what have you done in the last year to improve the plight of ducks because of loss of breeding grounds, and control the overabundance and starvation of deer in urban areas? How many parks and preserves have your sales tax dollars funded? Everytime I go to the store and buy ammo or fishing lures
or any of a number of products for outdoor use I benefit wildlife. What do you do?
When was the last time PETA or ALF or any of the other animal rights groups did anything but help a bunch of animals starve? Their heart is in the right place, it's just behind the wrong cause, there is no greater lover of nature and helper of all things wild than a sportsman. -
Answered Yes. Killing animals is justified.
I grew up on a farm. I have been involved in the slaughter and preparation of many animals. So part of the problem I think you hit on the head: people in today's society are removed from the source of that McDonald's burger or the hamburger under cellophane plastic in the supermarket. You get a much keener appreciation of things when your hands are directly involved.
From the time I was a kid I was taught three rules: if you kill it, it better be that it was attacking livestock or someone, or you're planning on eating it. Rule two, you kill it cleanly and quickly. Rule three, you treat the animals that you're raising for slaughter well. (My grandfather had roughly 120 acres in pasture land and ran no more than 100 cattle so they had plenty of room. He didn't just let them eat grass, but shelled out to buy good food and to get vets to come out and check them at the least sign of trouble.) I once broke the first and killed a sparrow. A tiny little bird, who cares right? My grandfather saw me and made me clean, cook, and -eat- that sparrow. The thing was no bigger than my hand. It was an exercise in absolute frustration preparing it. Prepared it was barely a bite and that mostly bone. To finish driving the point home...that was supper that night...for me at least.
So I'll agree with you that there's a problem, but the problem is not in that we eat meat still, but in that there's no connection for most between that meat and the life that it's presence means...I grew up on a farm. I have been involved in the slaughter and preparation of many animals. So part of the problem I think you hit on the head: people in today's society are removed from the source of that McDonald's burger or the hamburger under cellophane plastic in the supermarket. You get a much keener appreciation of things when your hands are directly involved.
From the time I was a kid I was taught three rules: if you kill it, it better be that it was attacking livestock or someone, or you're planning on eating it. Rule two, you kill it cleanly and quickly. Rule three, you treat the animals that you're raising for slaughter well. (My grandfather had roughly 120 acres in pasture land and ran no more than 100 cattle so they had plenty of room. He didn't just let them eat grass, but shelled out to buy good food and to get vets to come out and check them at the least sign of trouble.) I once broke the first and killed a sparrow. A tiny little bird, who cares right? My grandfather saw me and made me clean, cook, and -eat- that sparrow. The thing was no bigger than my hand. It was an exercise in absolute frustration preparing it. Prepared it was barely a bite and that mostly bone. To finish driving the point home...that was supper that night...for me at least.
So I'll agree with you that there's a problem, but the problem is not in that we eat meat still, but in that there's no connection for most between that meat and the life that it's presence means was sacrificed. There's no association with the gory details of how it appeared on your plate. There's no appreciation that something -died-. It's just a McBurger after all, right?
No, it's something much, much more.(less) -
Yes, that is my point. There is no appreciation of the Life itself, that animals are part of the earthly kingdom and have been invested with the same desire to survive as we have. There is no animal that willingly dies for us, so that we may eat them. It is by OUR desires that they must die, not theirs. Your farm may have treated animals well, but do slaughterhouses, now called "factory farms"? The three rules you were taught regarding the treatment of animals ensured that you never saw another living being as simply an object, but what about research animals? Another 100 million animals or more a year in the US are subjected to "research" that is unimaginably cruel and painful. Live vivisection, injection with poisons, electrocution, sensory deprivation and overload, radiation exposure and on and on. Where do your 3 rules apply here?
We are led to believe that animal research is necessary to protect OUR health and develop medicines that save OUR lives, but this premise is based on the false assumption that what works or doesn't work on animals applies to humans. If penicillin were tested on animals first, we would never have it, because it kills animals. In fact, there is growing evidence that the AIDS virus was a direct result of the attempt to produce a Hepatits vaccine for humans from cultures developed from infected chimpanzees that had not been properly screened. Clinical trials on animals waste time in the development of medicine, because no matter how the anima...Yes, that is my point. There is no appreciation of the Life itself, that animals are part of the earthly kingdom and have been invested with the same desire to survive as we have. There is no animal that willingly dies for us, so that we may eat them. It is by OUR desires that they must die, not theirs. Your farm may have treated animals well, but do slaughterhouses, now called "factory farms"? The three rules you were taught regarding the treatment of animals ensured that you never saw another living being as simply an object, but what about research animals? Another 100 million animals or more a year in the US are subjected to "research" that is unimaginably cruel and painful. Live vivisection, injection with poisons, electrocution, sensory deprivation and overload, radiation exposure and on and on. Where do your 3 rules apply here?
We are led to believe that animal research is necessary to protect OUR health and develop medicines that save OUR lives, but this premise is based on the false assumption that what works or doesn't work on animals applies to humans. If penicillin were tested on animals first, we would never have it, because it kills animals. In fact, there is growing evidence that the AIDS virus was a direct result of the attempt to produce a Hepatits vaccine for humans from cultures developed from infected chimpanzees that had not been properly screened. Clinical trials on animals waste time in the development of medicine, because no matter how the animals react, clinical trials on humans still have to be done before approval can be given. But, what it DOES allow is the bulk of the clinical trials to be done on animals to lend credence to the testing on humans, which can be done on a limited basis BASED on animal testing. The pharmaceutical companies can push ever more dangerous drugs on humans without long trials, and so we see an increase in dangerous side-effects and death from these drugs. With all the billions of dollars spent in "research", why are there more and more deadly diseases, instead of less? Ebola, several different types of diabetes, heart disease, cancers, AIDS, even the common cold still cannot be cured, (although now they give it a REALLY fancy, medical name called Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease..C.O.L.D., or COPD for Pulmonary, which means lungs.) In fact, the only disease that has been completely wiped off the earth is smallpox, and there was no animal testing done to develop that vaccine, and it is still a threat to us through biological warfare.(less) -
The rules don't, and I suppose that's my point. Rather than curtailing the consumption of meat, I ask how do we get kids to understand what it means? Didn't they used to do field trips to processing plants and so forth in schools? Though I guess the meat companies would prefer that not happen as it would certainly lead to many of those kids growing up to -not- eat meat.
Still, I will agree with programs to educate, but I know that I won't agree to go vegan, sorry. -
I don't know if I agree that we were "made" to eat meat, although I will admit that eating meat has been part of the human diet for a long time. I do know what I'm missing. I've been vegetarian for 13 years, so for 30 years, I ate meat. I don't want to ban eating meat. I want to ban violence and senseless killing. On this issue, I would just like to have dialogue to discuss the ethics and morality of what we do in the name of taste.
-
Answered None of the above
Killing just to Kill is not acceptable! Killing for food and for clothing is!!
I was raised on a farm and worked a short time in a meat packing plant.
The animals where not abused and there death was swift and painless
I do not hunt but If you lived in the area I do you would be just as happy as I that there are hunters. Every day there are at least 5 car/deer accidents. Without the thinning that number would be a lot more and the deer would suffer do to lack of food in our long winters?
So now with that said when I used to hunt I used all of what was shot for food
That is justified! To hunt to just get a trophy is wrong -
Do you have any idea of how many amimals would die if they where not thined out? There is not enough food for them to last through the winters. If there Numbers increase more then they do now there will be more animal suffering then you can image. You ever seen a deer clipped by a car? They suffer and Die over a long period of time.
And are you telling the families that live only on what they grow and kill are doing wrong to survive?
Where does this argument end?
The stronger eat the weaker -
Your argument doesn't seem logical to me. If animals weren't slaughtered, they would die? Even if it is necessary to thin out a population to restore balance, there is no comparison to maintaining scientific slaughterhouses that kill 9 billion animals a year just for food. It is a gross misuse of resources, and barbaric to consider a living being nothing more than a "product" on a conveyor belt.
Answered Yes. Killing animals is justified.
moderated...