Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian B[_2_]
It is in an ordinary sense quite reasonable for ordinary people
to not even know that a law applies, as with my example above of Part P of
the building regulations.
|
Or, in your Part P example, to know that the law *doesn't* apply ;-)
Quote:
Is it really? You state a priori that it is "reasonable", but that is a
matter of personal ethics. I do not think it "reasonable" to expect anybody
to care- at the point of the gun of law- to care for the welfare of
squirrels, or rats, etc. How are we to decide which of these distinct
ethical positions is "reasonable"?
|
I think it's a decision we make as a society. The general concensus appears to be that it part of being a civilised society not to inflict unnecessary cruelty on other sentient beings.
Quote:
Additionally, what counts as "cruel" is purely a matter of opinion. We do
not know what animals suffer, or even whether the term has any meaning
applied to an animal. They live in a cruel environment and experience all
manner of harm and death which is unacceptable for humans; torn apart by
predators, starving or freezing to death, killed or maimed in fights over
mates, and so on. You cannot apply human rules to creatures that do not, by
their nature, live according to human rules. I do not know what a fledgling
experiences when caught, torn apart and eaten by an owl, and I simply cannot
apply human ethical rules to such an act.
So we are in an impossible situation when demanding that humans apply such
rules to animals. It is entirely arbitrary. There is no consistent ethical
manner in whcih we can formulate a judgement; so we end up with the
absurdity of it being "okay" to bash a squrirel's brains in with a shovel,
but not drown it- or, apparently, we must take it to a vet for a dignified
(and expensive) death by drugs which is inherently beyond its natural life.
None of this is actually "reasonable". It is the fetish of a particular
moralist movement who have gained power by cunning politicking.
|
It's clear that some actions will cause more more suffering than others - even if simply more prolonged suffering. So while all you say above is undoubtedly true, it doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to take some care about the method we choose in our killing. After all, we consider ourselves to be on a higher moral plane than animals, do we not? So doesn't that mean we should behave a bit better?