After reading through some previous discussions I started thinking about the argument posed by many people in regards to animals eating other animals. In response to this I would first start out by suggesting that there is nothing inherently immoral or wrong with killing another living being. In cases of self-defense, humane euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, or abortions when a mother’s life is in jeopardy for example, many people (though not all as these are obviously controversial issues) would agree that the act of taking a life is justified and therefore not wrong. The same could be said for carnivorous/omnivorous animals. Even if animals possessed a sense of morality and were influenced by human constructs such as good and evil, their behaviors still would be considered justified. They cannot be blamed for acts of self-preservation and survival- which preying upon other animals is - as the alternative would be starving to death. Killing and eating behavior is not motivated by economic or geographic reasons and it is certainly not one based on convenience or accessibility; it is done purely out of necessity. For this reason, I feel that any attempts to rationalize society’s attitudes towards eating meat from factory farms or justify one’s indifference to the barbarity of such practices is completely absurd.
Good post.
Killing and eating animals in itself is not “wrong”, it usually is even good and very necesary. That is, if lions or any other natural predator population is whiped out in a specific area, the first thing that happens is that the prey animal population suffers. Sick animals don’t get killed and can carry their disease to other healthy animals. The prey animal population first experience an exploding growth, followed by food shortage, followed by starvation of many prey animals.
In short, the relation of predator and prey is a long one and a healthy one, and even have created eachother through their evolutionary relation.
Humans don’t kill animals to eat. Humans, like the CEO of the slaughterhouse kills animal for profit. The more the merrier. In contrast to the pack of lions who kill one buffalo, and don’t kill more until they get hungry again.
The worse the CEO of the slaughterhouse treats his animals from birth to death, the richer he gets. Now THAT is ethically and morally very wrong, to treat other living beings extremely cruel just for the sake of profits.
Lions and other predators are the doctors of nature, keeping prey populations healthy.
On the other hand, people are just plain sick by putting animals in small cages, cutting of their beaks, penis, tails, and, as a consumer, NOT wanting to know or care about these cruelties, and ridiculing other people (vegans) who care for the social justice of animals.
Well, as i’ve heard it, “that’s just what you see”.
Many non-human animals, especially predators, have to kill to survive. Some species of animals have been known to display traits that we could call cruel
For instance, dogs tend to decapitate frogs and toads. They don’t consume the amphibians, though. Instances of cruel acts by non-human animals are sparse, and if your pet dog does something like this, it is usually due to misdirected manic moods.
I know Dobermans and German Shepherds that decapitate frogs, and my hunch is that they do it because they don’t get the necessary amount of exercise and personal attention. These are active breeds, and every once in a while they have to run around in the open.
Nonetheless, very little is defensible about the way humans consume meat. Ethical standards are being formulated to regulate cruel practices in the meat industry, but lobbying and regulation as we know might well take decades (See: Environmental Science)