Hunting and Furries

[Cape_F0X]

Dark humor is dark

[Sev]

If someone wants to hunt large predators, then they should do it with nothing other than a spear. It at least needs to be fair to the animal.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

So what you're saying is that ending sentient life is inherently unethical, but what justifies it is necessity for survival? Then what about plants? There is recent research that suggests that plants have a primitive form of consciousness, on top of their responsiveness to stimuli (which in itself is not yet sentience).

Reference for that? I find it really hard to believe they've found anything like that for multiple reasons. Specifically, no structures in plants to support consciousness and no adaptive value for a plant to have consciousness. Even assuming it's true, a primitive form of consciousness would have a lesser moral value than a more developed form of consciousness. Killing plants would still minimise the impact on other sentient beings.

Sentience is not a good metric either, because it is difficult to qualify or quantify.

The world is a messy place.

The ability to consent as a cut-off point does not work, because who in their right mind would consent to being hunted?

Funny you should say that. I've been reading the second volume of Richard Dawkin's autobiography and he was a friend of Douglas Adams and references his works a few times. One particularly relevant one I'll share here (edited for brevity).

A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.

"Good evening," it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, "I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in the parts of my body?"

/.../

"I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to," said Arthur, "It's heartless."

"Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten," said Zaphod.

"That's not the point," Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. "Alright," he said, "maybe it is the point. I don't care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just... er [...] I think I'll just have a green salad," he muttered.

To bring things a bit closer to Earth, one might answer Bernd Brandes. A German engineer who answered an advert to be killed and eaten and gave his consent for the act. I believe the man who killed and ate him was still successfully prosecuted but I'm not sure there was ever an ethical problem with what he did.

That reminds me of a few things that might be interesting to think about. Firstly there's ancient Greek myth of Hyperborea. A land where the sun never sets whose inhabitants are not touched by sickness or old age. And... "Death comes to them only when, owing to the satiety of life, after holding a banquet and anointing their old age with luxury, they leap from a certain rock into the sea: this mode of burial is the most blissful."

Secondly, suicide booths also appear in the floating city in the manga Battle Angel Alita. A fantastic manga which everyone should read. There's a scene there of Alita going into a suicide booth and then tearing it apart, emerging from the wreckage with the blood-caked machinery. Really one of the less gruesome scenes.

Lastly, is a booth like that so different from having to travel to Switzerland or one of the other countries that allow euthanasia? It would certainly be cheaper and more convenient.

[Sev]

And thus give you less time to reconsider...

[Raven Song]

Back onto hunting (even though I really do like this discussion... I believe in freedom of choice and if I choose to end my life because I feel I can no longer contribute to the planet for whatever means, I should be allowed to make that choice).

There's a big argument over fox hunting in England. Always has been. Foxes are pests and kill sheep. But hunting is inhumane because dogs... But fox traps are inhumane because starving...

So what the Countrymans Association did was round up 500 foxes and relocate them to London... We have foxes and they are pretty and they didn't have to die...

Unfortunately that wont work with elephants... They'd struggle to get down London's streets without clipping cars...

[Leeward]

Intentional suicide (assisted or otherwise) is a concept unique to species that have the ability to ponder their purpose, such as humans. For species that cannot, suicide would be either accidental or involuntary. You can't expect a springbok to all of a sudden experience ennui and decide to walk right up to a cheetah and say "Take my body! I am ready!"

[Contrast]

This is just an interesting little piece of side-info, but certain types of spider mothers liquefy their own bodies in order to feed their young. It's called "Matriphagy". It may not be completely intentional, but it's still interesting.

http://entomologytoday.org/2015/03/27/a ... eir-young/

[Sev]

And there are some species of spiders where the males lunge onto the female's fangs after mating.

Although the male Latrodectus hasselti may sometimes die during mating without the female actually consuming him, this species represents a possible strategy of "male sacrifice." The male redback, while copulating, "somersaults" and twists his abdomen directly onto the fangs of his mate. Approximately 65% of males are consumed at this stage. Males that "sacrifice" themselves gain the benefit of increasing their paternity relative to males who do not get cannibalized.

[Raven Song]

And older members of certain species, including wildebeest and wolves, will purposefully leave their herds/packs when they are too weak to keep up with the group. In the case of most of these older creatures, it's basically suicide... because an old wildebeest doesn't walk around the savannah alone for long...

Suicide isn't a human concept... It's a natural act humanised...

[Leeward]

That's not suicide, that's exhaustion and/or instincts putting the group ahead of the individual.

[Contrast]

That's not suicide, that's exhaustion and/or instincts putting the group ahead of the individual.

The dolphin who played Flipper (Cathy was her name) might have committed suicide out of depression, according to the man who captured and trained her (Ric O'Barry). Dolphins need to surface to breathe, but apparently she simply refused to come up for air. He believes she chose to end her own life, and that is why he has dedicated his life to freeing captive dolphins.

This is highly debatable, since we cannot possibly know what she was thinking or why she behaved that way, but it's still food for thought.

[Leeward]

That's why I said "such as humans". Other species have been observed to display some kind of notion of self as well, most notably elephants, great apes, and, you guessed it, cetaceans.

[Sev]

I don't know about self awareness, but even my tarantulas seemed to have their own personalities.

[Raven Song]

su-i-cide
[soo-uh-sahyd]
noun
1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
2. destruction of one's own interests or prospects:
Buying that house was financial suicide.
3. a person who intentionally takes his or her own life.

It is not defined as a human act. If an animal purposefully is observed walking away from the group, like wolves do, it isn't because "they can't keep up". It is, in my opinion, a cognitive decision for the best for their pack.

http://www.oddee.com/item_98725.aspx

I found the dog one particularly interesting because there was also the case of Tornado, a young Arab stallion who purposefully self harmed... My friend has a parrot who also purposefully self harms himself...

Until we have a better understanding of animal psychology we'll never really know if it is "true" suicide... but I don't see how what we call instinct in an animal is any different from us.

But that's just me.

[Ryall]

This issue of suicide seems like a bit of a side-track.

The just of RavenSong and Rakuen's argument seems to be that killing a lion or game is unethical because they're sentient, and killing sentient beings is only okay when it's necessary.

But why? Because they can suffer?

Suffering and death are an inevitable for the likes of game and lions.

Hunting causes those animals less suffering than their other likely causes of death: starving, or being eaten alive.

Those animals will suffer and die one way or another. Hunting doesn't change that.

The only thing that hunting might affect is the lifespan of those animals. Those animals might have lived longer, and had the opportunity to experience more happiness had they not been killed early.

Personally I don't think the happiness of lions or buck have any kind of moral weight to it, but even if it did, there's no guarantee they would have lead happy lives had they not been alive longer, but what is certain, is that the hunter who hunted the animals, will be very happy that he was allowed to hunt those animals. The park owner, will be very happy that he received a large amount of money from allowing the hunter to hunt. The park employees, and the park owner's family, will also benefit from that money.

The end result is a trade of the lion's possible happiness, for the definite happiness of some humans, plus probably less suffering for the lion.

That doesn't seem unethical to me.

[Leeward]

It is not defined as a human act. If an animal purposefully is observed walking away from the group, like wolves do, it isn't because "they can't keep up". It is, in my opinion, a cognitive decision for the best for their pack.

The cause is not the same as for humans though: that is out of a selfless instinct/desire to put the survival of the species above survival of the individual, not out of a desire to stop living.

http://www.oddee.com/item_98725.aspx

A lot of these anecdotes are rather dubious, in my opinion. The dolphin, dog, and bear I can believe might want to escape their misery (which you could consider a form of self-preservation). The others may not necessarily have been intentional.

I found the dog one particularly interesting because there was also the case of Tornado, a young Arab stallion who purposefully self harmed... My friend has a parrot who also purposefully self harms himself...

Self-harm in animals is actually fairly common, and is usually the result of extreme boredom and under-stimulation in captivity.

Until we have a better understanding of animal psychology we'll never really know if it is "true" suicide... but I don't see how what we call instinct in an animal is any different from us.

I agree, we don't know enough to be able to fully gauge whether it is instinct or consciousness, but I think we can safely assume that suicide in insects (e.g. bees) is a reflex meant to protect the community as a whole rather than a conscious decision.

The end result is a trade of the lion's possible happiness, for the definite happiness of some humans, plus probably less suffering for the lion.

I fully agree with you there.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

While we have had some interesting diversions, it does seem like this is getting quite far from topic.

[Sev]

That always happens, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

It does make the topic more varied, and, as a result, the threads last longer.

[Leeward]

It's not that far off, only tangential.

[Sev]

I somehow think that this fits the theme of many recent threads...

http://imgur.com/gallery/5HuoZ

[Raven Song]

Leeward said a word I've never seen before...

I learned a new word today....

[Sev]

On a parallel note, this is whole conversation is positively obtuse!

[Leeward]

Tragically, points of view are asymptotic: they can get closer and closer until they're practically identical, and yet they can never be exactly the same.

[Sev]

Tragically, points of view are asymptotic: they can get closer and closer until they're practically identical, and yet they can never be exactly the same.

Together, not the same.

[Raven Song]

Big ups to him as a musician because playing anything at speed like that without tonal reference would be confusing...

[Sev]

At least if he made a mistake, no one would know.

[Ryall]

The end result is a trade of the lion's possible happiness, for the definite happiness of some humans, plus probably less suffering for the lion.

I fully agree with you there.

I was pretty much just paraphrasing what you had been saying all along, but I am glad there was someone who shared this view with me.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

The end result is a trade of the lion's possible happiness, for the definite happiness of some humans, plus probably less suffering for the lion.

I fully agree with you there.

I was pretty much just paraphrasing what you had been saying all along, but I am glad there was someone who shared this view with me.

That same argument could work for killing babies, particularly those of poor families. The baby might grow up to suffer and have a miserable life while killing the baby could make some psychopath very happy. Presumably you are not suggesting that that should be allowed, even if the happiness economics are pretty much the same.

[TotemCoyote]

As long as it's in the culling seasons and you have a legal ticket for the animal (which will not be a predator, I guarantee you) then I believe it's fine. I do believe only in using a bow for a few reasons. It's much cleaner than a gunshot, it doesn't scare every animal in the vicinity and it takes a lot more skill which somewhat levels the playing field. Also if you are going to sit in a hide and wait for the animals to come to you... I find that wrong. That's not hunting... that's waiting then killing. Properly hunt and track.

But yeah, only in the culling seasons and only for specific herbivorous animals will I ever consider to hunt.

[Leeward]

The end result is a trade of the lion's possible happiness, for the definite happiness of some humans, plus probably less suffering for the lion.

I fully agree with you there.

I was pretty much just paraphrasing what you had been saying all along, but I am glad there was someone who shared this view with me.

That same argument could work for killing babies, particularly those of poor families. The baby might grow up to suffer and have a miserable life while killing the baby could make some psychopath very happy. Presumably you are not suggesting that that should be allowed, even if the happiness economics are pretty much the same.

And that's why I am not against abortion.