[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [APD] Animal Mutiliation

Bill wrote:
> I cannot understand how someone can argue that cutting the part of tail off 
> of dog is somehow more harmful to teh dog than cutting off his testicles. 
> It just boggles my mind.

I'm not sure how to respond. Perhaps you do not believe there is 
anything wrong with executing millions of animals because we're too 
depraved to manage them properly. That's your right, but I have a 
problem with deaths that can be prevented. Chopping off tails does not 
prevent death, nor does it prevent harm. It serves no purpose other than 
to amuse humans.

> The argument about "hundreds of millions of unwanted puppies and kittens 
> starving to death" has a nice ring to it, but it doesn't really have any 
> merit.  An early death is also true of animals in the wild.

I'm not talking about starving to death. I'm talking about wanton 
executions. The difference being that we do not control the destiny of 
animals in the wild. Your argument seems to be that since animals die 
early in the wild, that gives us ethical license to execute domestic 
pets en masse.

> If a kitten can enjoy the care of his mother for even a month or so, that 
> kitten and his mother are better off than they would have been had he not 
> been born, even though he might die young.
> I think we should be careful about thinking that if something is unpleasant 
> to us, that must also be unpleasant to cats and dogs.  It isn't.

And you don't see the irony in lecturing people not to assume "feelings" 
in animals while at the same time speculating that a kitten and its 
mother are better off if the kitten is executed early than if it hadn't 
been born? If it's true that humans cannot reliable detect what is 
unpleasant to animals, it most certainly is true that we cannot detect 
what is unpleasant. In that case, all we have to guide our decisions is 
our experiences. What is wrong with making the assumption that one 
mammal with similar biological systems would experience the world similarly?

> Why do people get so emotional about this?  Emotion shuts off the thought 
> process.

Feeling doesn't necessarily get in the way of thinking. It can guide 
thinking. That's called ethics. Without feeling there is no ethics. 
Besides, it isn't logical to execute animals when their execution can be 
prevented. If nothing else, it's a waste of anesthesia.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com