Re: It wouldn't surprise me


"John Morgan" <shirley.yu@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44300f27$0$6516$7a628cd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"BAC" <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
1143814728.10693.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"John Morgan" <shirley.yu@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:442c4688$0$1149$7a628cd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"BAC" <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
1143706980.33451.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"John Morgan" <shirley.yu@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:442aba7c$0$1155$7a628cd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
<snip>

Not at all. There is an absolute parallel with the treatment of
some
wildlife by the fake conservationists to the policies of Nazi
Germany.
They kill for exactly the same reasons.

The Nazis killed because they wished to "purify" the gene pool of
their
own
species. There is no parallel, absolute or otherwise, with any
conservation
activities, anywhere.


Isn't the idea that the 'genetic purity' of a species warrants the
extermination of individuals of a different species or phenotype
which
might
interbreed successfully and lead to 'extinction via hybridisation'
the
similarity Angus has in mind? For example, extermination of European
naturalised Ruddy Ducks (and RD/WHD hybrids) to maintain the genetic
purity of the WHD population.

There is a similarity, although not moral equivalence.

Similarity there is, of course. But traditional ethics has
long-maintained
that a difference in kind exists between"our" species and all the
others.
As
debateable as that is, it's also accepted by a huge majority of the
world's
7 billion people. Only a few hundred million Buddhists, plus a handful
of
free thinkers, disagree.



You've overlooked the Jains, but that's probably only a few million
more.

You are of course right in implying Western society (or most of it)
believes
it is morally OK to treat humans differently from other animals. But
that
doesn't mean society thinks it is OK to mistreat animals. A person who
gets
a kick out of callously despatching animals he disapproves of might not
warrant direct comparison with Vlad the Impaler, but he isn't exactly in
the
St Francis mould, either.

A person's motive seems to be the crucial item in your analysis. That is
rather difficult to determine in certain cases, specifically where the
animal is being killed for a stated reason such as food, removing a pest,
reducing a population to save the species (eg. elephant).

I am suspicious of the motives of people who work in abattoirs simply
because I couldn't imagine myself doing so. I am not suspicious of pest
control operatives because I have dealt with pest species in my own home.
But in fact either of them could be acting from base motives, or not, and
there seems to be no way of knowing.



I agree, since we only really know what we ourselves are thinking and
feeling, yet our society sets rules, for the benefit of the animals or our
own consciences, even in cases where a need to kill is accepted, as in the
examples you supplied. Thus, it is not acceptable to torture an animal to
death, merely because one intends to eat it once it has died, or because it
is a 'pest', generally, the method of despatch has to comply with
considerations of what is and what is not 'humane'.

Hence, even our society (as opposed to the Buddhist ideal) sets itself
boundaries as to acceptable behaviour towards animals. Thus, the fact
society differentiates between the treatment of humans and animals does not
imply that 'anything goes' as long as it is being done to a non-human
animal. Those boundaries of acceptable treatment are not fixed (witness the
fox hunting furore) and it isn't really surprising that there is fierce
disagreement as to where the lines should be drawn.


.