NoblesseOblige
Banned
It's not saying people can't care about both.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
American hunter illegally killed Cecil the Lion
- Thread starter Jag
- Start date
- Status
It's not saying people can't care about both.
I'm not seeing any indication that we really can be in practice, realistically speaking.
I care more about my cat than most people on this planet.
Yea, the death penalty seems both extreme and not really eye for an eye considering the lion was hit with a bolt and then was chased while wounded for 40+ hours before being shot and butchered. So a quick and relatively painless execution isn't really the same thing anyways. I can wrap my head around hunting the lion (as mental as it is), but still can't comprehend this bow hunting bullshit and causing extended terror and pain.
The scumbag broke the law and should be extradited to face whatever penalties are applicable in Zimbabwe.
ersocaster
Member
This might be a bit controversial, but I have always felt that hunting for sport should be illegal. This sucks.
What is it saying to you? To me it saying the person tweeting thinks more people care about a lion getting killed then a black person, is this correct? If it's having a go at the media then he most probably is correct. But I have seen plenty of people caring about yet another black person getting killed in the USA.
maquiladora
Member
It absolutely should be illegal.
We're not talking about animals killing other animals. We're talking about humans killing animals. My question stands - what makes a person's life more valuable than an animal life? You called me out on it, so I'm just giving it back in kind.
At times, as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather a human die than an animal. Humans can be cruel and unnecessarily evil. At least we know with animals, they have instincts and they have purpose. Humans can stop and think "Maybe I shouldn't kill this lion because he's not doing anything to me and is on protected land." They just don't. They kill because they can. This guy had to literally fly to another continent to kill this lion all so he could feel like a badass. And you're telling me that his life is more valuable than the lions? I call shenanigans.
I'm not speaking for that poster, but considering that my facebook feed has recently exploded with all this Cecil the Lion stuff while basically being a barren wasteland any time anything related to a black person being killed by the police has come up, I don't think it's too far-fetched a conclusion.
That's FB for you tho. Everyone wants to post something that will get the most likes and this lion story is getting big attention by the media. It's why I haven't been on FB in years.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
It's not saying people can't care about both, just there are a significant amount of people who don't. This one lion is killed and there's all this outrage from white people destroying the killer's job. Meanwhile hundreds of black people get killed, and plenty of these same people are giving shrugs while the killers keep their jobs.
I'm pretty sure the amount of likes something gets correlates with how much people give a shit about whatever issue is being mentioned.
Yuu can't see how #CATLIVESMATTER could have some really bad implications regarding the issue it parodying?
I bet a lot of people only see what is happening in the media. I have only seen one report about the shooting yet have seen loads about the lion. Yes some people won't give a damn, but it is the media that is the real problem.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
Lmao, of course animal lives are less important than humans. Eating habits are good way to judge this. We don't eat human meat, and we eat some animals' meat. But not all meat. For example, many cultures don't eat apes, cats, dogs or horses. Like it or not, there is a hierarchy here.
There is also the concept of personhood, which only applies to humans (although there is some debate as to whether some animals, for example great apes, dolphins, etc., should considered 'persons').
See my edit. I stated why it most probably is happening.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I can't comment on that because I get my current events from specific aggregators that align to my personal interests. Mainstream news isn't news as far as I'm concerned, it is 'entertainment'. I'm just saying that tweet isn't saying people can't care about both. In fact it could very well be interpreted to say people should care about both. As in the same people who care about the lion should also care about their fellow human.
entremet
Member
Humans can also be more successful at affecting change at local, national, and international scale, something animals could never do.
Sure poachers are scum and we've created a lot of messes, but only humans are going to fix and can fix it.
That's why I classify humans over animals.
Animals can't set long term goals and realize them.
Animals can't create laws or enforce laws.
Animals can't solve conservation problems.
ersocaster
Member
Animals kill animals out of necessity. They feel in danger, they need to eat, they want to protect their young, etc. Humans sometimes kill things just because we can.
Humans are often the source of many problems requiring solution.
Animals do not need goals. Humans have a different way of characterizing evolution. To us, our species evolves through achievement. Animals do not have that desire. Their only desire is in the longevity of their species.
evilromero
Member
This is certainly true and is just the way of things. Humans tend to care the most for the bigger animals, typically mammals, in most cases. Especially if they're considered more exotic, which is usually related to their geographic location (even if they are easily observed at a local zoo).
So common animals like indigenous birds, small mammals like rabbits and so on are considered expendable or not worth studying. In fact, that's why we know so little about rabbits (both wild and domestic) is because they're so common that there just isn't a lot of interest in the academic fields for studying their behavior. It's rather unfortunate because in my opinion they're the most interesting mammals on the planet but difficult to observe due to their subterranean living and the fact that they're crepuscular (active during twilight).
Holy shit! This guy is absolutely fucked.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
People have free will and can change. When a dog who wasn't properly trained accidentally kills a baby, we euthanize the dog because we have no way to change his behavior to make him not dangerous. That's unlike people who can, potentially at least, change their ways. Of course none of this applies to Cecil who was just minding his own business
Well yeah, but isn't this exactly what sets us aparts? We can and we do. That's why we are where we at, above the animals. In good and bad ways.
entremet
Member
This is an inaccurate.
Many animals kill for the heck of it too. Look it up. Dolphins, elephants, and so on.
Cannabalism is also very common.
Just to be fair, I'm pro Cecil, I just don't equate human and animal life. Human life is much more valuable to me.
evilromero
Member
People have free will and can change. When a dog who wasn't properly trained accidentally kills a baby, we euthanize the dog because we have no way to change his behavior to make him not dangerous. That's unlike people who can, potentially at least, change their ways. Of course none of this applies to Cecil who was just minding his own business
That's not entirely true actually. A dog can be trained but I think we value its life less than that of a human so the decision is an easy. But that's unrelated to the discussion since you'd be getting into the issue of why the human killed the baby. Was is malicious? Was it mistreatment? Neglect? All three of those illustrate the need for different punishment.
Some pictures of demonstrators protesting outside his clinic.
Is that Luffy? Made he feels bad after beating Lucci's ass.
PeskyToaster
Member
I think society/humanity as a whole has pretty unequivocally decided that any human life is worth more than any animal's life. There are several issues with your logic. One being, how do we justify killing and consuming hundreds of animals to support our own life.
Second, I feel there's a contradiction that exists here. You imply that human's are equal to animals and each life is the same but then place upon humans this higher moral duty to preserve animal life that animals do not adhere to. I can't help but feel a disconnect here whern people argue that humans "are just another animal on this planet" but also are held to a higher moral standard imposed by ourselves.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
I think we value its life less than that of a human precisely because it doesn't have free will. But yeah this is part of a much broader debate that doesn't really concern this story.
No that's Cecil
ersocaster
Member
The equality of life is not a discussion that can be had in a vacuum. Humans are the way they are because they evolved that way as a means of preserving their species.
I suggest anyone involved in this debate to read Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan. It involves the evolution of consciousness, the thing that separates humans from animals. I still need to finish it myself actually.
Those animals are generally perceived as more aware and less instinctive. I never intended my comment to be sweeping. Animals are not exempt from being dicks.
What? So what an animal eats is what determines whether or not it's worthy of important status? People don't eat other people because we find it abhorrent, not because it "isn't good". So are you saying that the only reason why humans lives matter more than animals is strictly because we can kill and eat other animals? That's not much of an argument.
As for personhood, several animals exhibit autonomous, independent thought. Why are they not as important as humans?
So basically, humans are going to fix something that humans created in the first place. And if there were no humans, there wouldn't be the mess created in the first place. That's an argument against humans being more important, not for.
See, here's the thing. The only thing that makes us different from animals is our ability to reason. At the end of the day, we're animals just like they are. This whole thing is more of a thought exercise than a real "well animals should be more important than humans". And so far, it's a circle - humans cause issues which only humans can fix. If humans didn't exist, these problems wouldn't exist in the first place.
Most contemporary species' extinctions are due to humans. That should say a lot.
We justify it because as a species, we too have to survive. That's not really even a question in my mind. In reality, we do it because we can. That doesn't make us good, however. We're following our own natural instincts, which is to eat to survive - just like animals. We just happen to be more efficient at it.
Animals don't hunt another species to extinction just because they want their hide. Animals like to hunt and play and kill prey but they don't do it out of malice or a sense of superiority. So are you saying that we, as humans, shouldn't care if we hunt a species to extinction because we shouldn't have a higher moral standard applied to us that animals don't? Your argument, it sounds like, boils down to "we can't say we're just another animal because we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard" - but morals aren't a "natural" thing - morals come from empathy (or sometimes, lack thereof). And animals have been shown to think enough to have morals as well - for instance, they won't kill their own packmates.
First, humans are animals. Second, humans have easy ways to prevent the examples you were just given. Yes, technically it's the cats doing the killing of the birds, but keeping all cats indoors at all times would dramatically reduce the number of birds and rodents killed by cats. Simply letting our cats outdoors and saying "not my problem; I'm not the cat" is a way to absolve cat owners of all responsibility.
And which animals are we talking about? Is it okay that I commit bacterial genocide every time I draw breath? How about pesticides? What about vegetables? Vegetables are also alive.
The answer is that we generally ascribe value to life based on an animal's intellectual capacity; the ability to understand what is happening, to remember, the ability to feel suffering, and so forth. The more intelligent an animal is, the more rights we give that living thing, and the less we are willing to indiscriminately kill it. Nobody gets in trouble for killing bacteria or eating carrots, very few people get mad when someone squishes a termite in their home, a good number of people are upset when a cow is killed (although most still are fine with it, as is evidenced by hamburgers), still more are upset when an elephant is killed, still more when a human fetus is killed, still more when a grown human is killed. It's a scale, not a binary where things which are alive are all equal. It is generally, reasonably agreed that a lion is less important than a human, a mouse less important than a lion, a bacteria less important than a mouse, and a stalk of celery less important than a bacteria.
Human lives are more important?
Remove humans and the world goes on just fine.
Remove bees and humans are in trouble...
Humans only think they're more important because, well, they're human. They want to continue existing. The animals would probably like to keep existing too if you asked them.
Remove humans and the world goes on just fine.
Remove bees and humans are in trouble...
Humans only think they're more important because, well, they're human. They want to continue existing. The animals would probably like to keep existing too if you asked them.
HawksWinStanley
Member
On the whole this is obviously true, we have to place more value on our lives than animals to survive and thrive as a species. But there's obviously exceptions to that rule.
It might be an unpopular opinion but I value the life of my dog over the life of any stranger. My shepherd is more valuable to me than any person who isn't a close friend or family member and if I was forced to choose between its life or a stranger's then I wouldn't even hesitate. It would be an awful choice that would probably result in no sleep and plenty of therapy but the decision itself would be easy to me. I owe that dog a lot and it has actually saved my fiancee's life so I value it much more than most people.
I'm sure there are plenty of pet owners here who feel the same whether they want to admit it or not. And that's why this particular instance with Cecil is getting so much attention. No one likes hearing about poaching but when it's an animal that holds value to individuals (Cecil being a favorite among the locals and tourists) it's more of an outrage. People won't get to enjoy the thing they valued anymore and that's considered a greater loss.
MilkyJoe
Member
Lets stop with the Daily Mail nonsense, shall we
No evidence
Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds.
That comes from the most non-biased source on the entire internet
http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx
Secondly, animal killing animal in the natural food chain is not the same thing as killing a top predator for kicks.
Re: mice and shit, they reproduce like mice, top predators, not so much.
Facetious or not, let's not propagate poppycock.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
No, I'm not saying it determines it. I was just giving a consequence of it. We eat pigs and not dogs because to us (in the Western world) dogs are more important (or rather, valuable) than pigs. Similarly we don't eat humans because the values we give to human life would make this act horrific. I was just giving illustrations, not why's. Entrement and other posters already did a good job explaining the why's.
As for the personhood issue, yes, some animals exhibit higher levels of autonomous thoughts than other animals. That's why we value them more than other animals. But they're still below humans on the intelligence level.
People have free will and can change. When a dog who wasn't properly trained accidentally kills a baby, we euthanize the dog because we have no way to change his behavior to make him not dangerous. That's unlike people who can, potentially at least, change their ways. Of course none of this applies to Cecil who was just minding his own business
Honestly, that's idealistic to think everyone can be changed. And also untrue that an animal can't potentially be changed. You can change some dogs (good dog behavioralist). YOu can change some people. You can't change all dogs or all people. Unless you can get in their mind and actively force their mind to change, you can't say all people can be changed.
Yes, people may be easier because you can speak their language, but they are also more complicated and it will be harder to manipulate them to change them. And in the end, they're going to do what they do regardless of your arguments. So some can change, some never will.
entremet
Member
That's a totally different argument.
As a whole, we value human life over animal life.
It's quite true, actually. Cats are technically classified as an invasive species in the US and Australia, among other places. They have demonstrated the ability to hunt animals to extinction on some contained islands.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodi.../publications/factsheet-feral-cat-felis-catus
Low end estimates for the number of birds and rodents killed by American cats each year is 500 million; more recent estimates suggest 1-4 billion.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cats-kill-more-one-billion-birds-each-year
entremet
Member
Opiate already answered for me.
I'm also not British and would never consider sourcing anything from the Daily Mail. I don't remember where I heard that fact, but it was not a tabloid.
I guess we need to quantify here what we're using as examples. For example, you breathing in and killing bacteria happens involuntarily. In order for you to be here, you have to breathe. And all animals breathe, thereby committing said genocide. There's a difference between involuntary and voluntary. (IE killing a deer because you have to eat it to live vs flying to another country to kill an animal to hang it's head on your wall).
Regarding vegetables, I've actually asked the same question. Vegans don't want to kill animals - OK why is it ok to kill a plant but not an animal? If we are to survive, we have to take in nutrition in some form. But where is that line that vegans draw? Plants have been shown to respond to things like sound, thereby giving them a kind of sense(s) that are similar to ours. So these things are living and humans have cultivated them to live and be "our" source of nutrition.
But your answer so far has been the best. We use intelligence and awareness as a scale of what is and what isn't important. Which is an interesting scale to use because certain animals are intelligent, more intelligent than us at times. Yet we continue to put ourselves above them - almost always. From a purely "interesting" standpoint I find it fascinating that the only thing for us that determines somethings' worth ultimately is it's ability to think.
I said the people I don't like are the dickless losers who kill animals just for the fun of it. It's sadistic. If you're hungry and you need to hunt to survive, then fine, I can understand it. Killing animals for fun is barbaric. There's no way for me to understand injuring and killing living creatures for no reason other than fun. So in that regard, maybe you're right that I don't understand.
entremet
Member
So I'm guessing under your personal code of ethics you'd be against animal testing and using any procedure that was first tested on animals?
Would you rather die than use a medical procedure or drug that was tested on animals?
PeskyToaster
Member
You made the statement that human life is equal to animal life and I was arguing that it can't be or we can't justify killing animals for food. There's an inherent unequal relationship. I don't believe animals operate on a moral basis or can even conceptualize morality. I am saying we should care about hunting animals to extinction and because we care we are fundamentally different from other animals. And because we are different human life does not equal animal life so I can't justify killing this man for killing a lion. And it is gross to me that people would think that way.
Absolutely agreed, all sorts of contextual considerations. Killing endangered animals is worse than killing animals that are overpopulated and actually need to be culled, lest they threaten an ecosystem; killing an animal because it's cool is worse than killing an animal because you need to eat or because you need to breath. There are many such contextual components when we step out of the abstract "is it okay to kill X" talk.
And the case in this thread is near the top of nearly all the categories; it's an endangered animal, killed for sport, essentially tortured rather than killed swiftly (40 hours between bow shot and final kill), one of the top 100 or so most intelligent animals on the planet.
Hari Seldon
Member
There is nothing wrong with hunting when it is done with conservation in mind. If you didn't have sport hunting of deer you would need to artificially cull them anyway. Heck even with deer hunting you still need to cull.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked