In message , kay
writes

'Ian B[_2_ Wrote:
;894984']
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 ;-)



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.



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?




We do. If we were another animal we would tear the squirrel apart limb
from limb. Drowning is far more considerate.

--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha