epepke

But most vegetarians, and probably all vegans, don't care. At all.

I know one vegetarian who admitted this. He said something like, "I'm a vegetarian not because of what it does morally to the animals, but what it does morally to me." I respect the utter hell out of him for admitting to this. But it isn't true of most vegetarians.

BillyTheKat

It strikes me as not only inconsistent but also out-of-step with the state of things (for whatever that's worth) to suggest that moral consideration is only accorded to suffering that has been perpertrated by a moral actor. For instance, we would consider the protection of fellow humans from suffering and predation as a moral issue regardless of the nature of the predator, whether it be a psychopathic serial killer, a lion with a taste for human flesh or a virus.

Are we possibly talking past each other here?

The AntiChris

Almost certainly.

I'm drawing a clear distinction between the the infliction of suffering by a non-moral agent (non-moral concern) and the potential alleviation of that suffering by a moral agent (moral concern).

I think the two are getting confused here. The suffering, in this specific case, only becomes a 'moral' concern if and when a moral agent can reasonably be expected to alleviate that suffering.

Chris

Will I Am

If it causes less suffering to kill the kangaroos quickly (ie, with a rifle) than to let them die naturally, is it wrong in this instance to kill kangaroos? And, if so, does this not undermine the argument for veganism?

(I dunno what a “vegan�? is… someone from Vega, I think).

Humanity has adversely affected millions of species on this planet, of which, the kangaroo species are some.

By your logic - we should shoot them all, because it’s more humane. Every single whale, elephant, panda, mongoose, ant.

It’s more humane to shoot all the pandas, rather than let them suffer from a gradual starvation from loss of habitat.

The only sure way to end human-caused animal suffering, is to end the animals. Or the humans.

You're saying.



(Edit: I know exactly what a Vegan is)

Starshark

No, that is just a very blunt use of reductio ad absurdum. It is not, for example, more humane to shoot a whale that is minding its own business and in perfect health than to let it live. There are no conditions in the ocean currently that require any culling of whales.

My argument also does not call for the killing of every single kangaroo. Only enough that the numbers remaining are sustainable.

No. I'm not.

Pollytheist

I make quite a few considerations before I decide on which meat to take.
I base my judgement on the premise that death is inevitable but torture is not. At least repeated torture on a daily scale like what is experienced by chickens in battery based factory forms for eggs and also battery or non battery broiler forms. So eggs and chicken are unacceptable to me unless they are free range. But since the former is a critical ingredient in many dishes like pastries , I don't make a fuss and insist that all edible items be egg free. i avoid any item is made mainly from FF eggs.

If we take just cruelty into account, consumption of an organism in the lower- rung taxa such as molluscs,crustaceans and fish would be better off than red meats. But if we include the ecological costs and collateral damage of fishing practices used to obtain these organisms - eg. the impact of shrimp trawling on turtles,rays and dolphins, these meats become ethically unacceptable.
An added ecological arguement is whether the species consumed is native or introduced. If introduced, my concern for them is inversely proportion to the scale of their invasiveness . I would be least bothered if rats, rabbits and feral cats in Australia and elsewhere die inhumane deaths provided it serves the purpose of eliminating them whereas camels in the same continent should be dealt with more humanely.
The third factor of course is the palatbility and taste . The fourth being of course cuteness and likeability.I would never think of eating a parrot even if it is an invasive species in a particular region.
It amuses me, though, that a person from rabbit- ravaged Australia could find rabbits cute.

premjan

Some people would say that animals have less consciousness than people (some people would pipe up and demand a definition of consciousness) so it is more defensible to be cruel to animals than to people. What do you think? Some people argue for an actual threshold based on neurological properties below which an animal would not be particularly able to regret any cruelty that were done to it. How about that?

Jennie

What about situations where the animals are destroying other species? For instance the deer population in the Eastern US are severely damaging the forests, to the point of endangering wildflower species.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...4_ginseng.html

I'd assume that not only is the ginseng in trouble; but that the whole habitat is, given the known voraciousness of deer.

long winded fool

What business to humans have interrupting the natural selection taking place among other species? Why should we assume that allowing one non-human species to wipe out another is a bad thing? That is, after all, how life got where it is today. Maybe it's wild american ginseng's time to go?

Sarpedon

the reason that there's so many deer is because we killed all the wolves.