Is killing inherently "evil"? And vegetarianism.

[The Hammer]

Let's say that a basket of kittens and a basket of fruit are both suspended over a pool of lava, and you could only save one while the other would plummet into the lava below. Would you have difficulty making that choice?

Why would this stupid hypothetical ever actually occur? I'd be more pissed at the person creating the illusion of choice presented.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why would this stupid hypothetical ever actually occur? I'd be more pissed at the person creating the illusion of choice presented.

Why would the trolley problem ever actually occur?

 

[an anarchist]

Why would this stupid hypothetical ever actually occur? I'd be more pissed at the person creating the illusion of choice presented.

The hypothetical is useful in my opinion.
What would you choose? Kittens or fruit? No illusion of choice, a choice has to be made in the hypothetical.

The purpose of the hypothetical I'm assuming is to help further elaborate on @Quintessence response

 

[The Hammer]

Why would the trolley problem ever actually occur?

Exactly my point

 

[Tamino]

The conditions the hen is kept in is independent of the eating of its eggs. Eating an egg has nothing to do with any killing of male chicks in some unspecified, unnamed "egg industry".

I disagree. Of course these are connected. You should not refuse responsibility for your actions just because the consequences are indirect.

Your post assumes things that may not be and completely ignores that I included the words, "does not require".

Well, that is a different point. Yes, there are ways of keeping chicken that cause less suffering ... But that just shows that the "condition the hen ist kept in" indeed matters when you ask about the ethics of eating her egg.

Eating an egg does not require the hen to suffer.

Weeeeeeellll, depends. Maybe not "require" but again : it might. So you're not absolved of your responsibility of taking a closer look.
A broody hen, who is in a mood to incubate and hatch eggs, ist not happy when humans take them from her. You're still eating her potential offspring. And a modern egg-laying breed of hen exhausts her body with the constant and rapid production of eggs.

I'm not saying it's immoral or evil to eat eggs... I'm just saying that you should be interested in and aware of your choices and their consequences

 

[Secret Chief]

Also, by pro-lifer logic, eating an egg (a "baby" chicken) is more evil than eating a chicken.

So they're serial killers.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

It’s a matter of opinion, fortunately we have laws in place to keep order as some people enjoy killing.

 

[Father Heathen]

Exactly my point

So thought experiments are invalid if they have a low probably of occurring in real life?

 

[Quintessence]

Let's say that a basket of kittens and a basket of fruit are both suspended over a pool of lava, and you could only save one while the other would plummet into the lava below. Would you have difficulty making that choice?

There's several problems with this dumb scenario. I'm only going to point out two of them beyond the obvious "not enough information."

First, I have been discussing this specifically within the context of satisfying vital needs - the killing and harvesting that must be done in order to live and to flourish. This scenario has nothing to do with satisfying vital needs (or even nonvital needs for that matter).

Second, you are not making a comparison amongst beings who are at the same stage of biological development. This introduces a confounding factor that easily outweighs consideration of species if all else is equal. Only fools keep acorns in spite of the oaks.

 

[an anarchist]

There's several problems with this dumb scenario. I'm only going to point out two of them beyond the obvious "not enough information."

What more information do you need? Either a basket of kittens or a basket of fruits/veggies will be melted. You have to decide which basket gets saved. If you need a specific scenario, let's say the Devil appeared in your room with a cauldron of lava and the two baskets. Now you don't gotta worry if there is a cat overpopulation problem and a fruit/veggie famine. How would you react in the specific scenario of the Devil forcing this hypothetical on you?
EDIT: I have more to add but dumb phone posted my post before it was ready

 

[an anarchist]

I don't care

As a Druid and a botanist I have invested a great deal more time in getting to know our plant friends than most. The lack of consideration for our green friends is... it bothers me a lot, honestly. I would not consider failing to honor the death of green friends so I can live. That is just icky to me.

Let's say that a basket of kittens and a basket of fruit are both suspended over a pool of lava, and you could only save one while the other would plummet into the lava below. Would you have difficulty making that choice?

Second, you are not making a comparison amongst beings who are at the same stage of biological development. This introduces a confounding factor that easily outweighs consideration of species if all else is equal. Only fools keep acorns in spite of the oaks.

You are saying "older" is more valuable than "younger" when you say "Only fools keep acorns in spite of oaks."? You say this outweighs consideration of species "if all else is equal". Am I understanding that you are saying that the age of the fruit and the age of the kittens is a deciding factor? The fact that kittens are kittens with a full range of emotions as opposed to fruits who do not feel pain or fear in the same respect is not enough to decide to save the kittens as opposed to the fruit? What do you mean by "equal"?

I like that the hypothetical was posed because i think it relates to the OP. I'm asking if killing animals is wrong. It seems to me that you are saying it isn't, and you brought up lack of consideration for our green friends. Am I right so far?

So, the hypothetical is interesting because it will elaborate on whether you equate vegetation to animal life. If you do or don't, either way it's a useful elaboration for the conversation.

 

[Quintessence]

You are saying "older" is more valuable than "younger" when you say "Only fools keep acorns in spite of oaks."? You say this outweighs consideration of species "if all else is equal."

In broad strokes adult organisms play a more significant role in supporting the flourishing of many beings than the unborn/seeds. I don't really look at it in terms of "more valuable" - all beings have their role within the Weave. The long thread that weaves through and touches many things has a greater impact when severed on the integrity of the whole than the short thread that touches but a few. The acorn might survive to become the oak and the acorn serves to sustain many other beings as foodstuffs, but most acorns will die and perish and without the oak there are no more acorns. Both the acorn and the oak are important, but preserving the oak is necessary to sustain that part of the Weave.

Am I understanding that you are saying that the age of the fruit and the age of the kittens is a deciding factor?

No. For me there is no "deciding factor" (singular). I'm not that simplistic in my assessments. Thinking in terms of the whole web of being necessitates deeper consideration of the whole. No one thing is determinative, certainly not species (I'm not speciesist). That's why I say the scenario doesn't present enough information or context. There are many things to weigh when considering the flourishing of the Weave. That's thinking like an ecologist - you don't keep the lake clean and forget to mind the river that feeds it. It's all interconnected.

I like that the hypothetical was posed because i think it relates to the OP. I'm asking if killing animals is wrong. It seems to me that you are saying it isn't, and you brought up lack of consideration for our green friends. Am I right so far?

Fair enough. No, I don't find killing of animals (or anything) to be wrong in of itself. Death, destruction, and decay are inherent and necessary properties of the reality we live in. There is no creation without destruction - matter is not created or destroyed it only changes form. Death is required for life, always. To declare unequivocally that "killing is wrong" is to declare unequivocally that "the universe and all reality is wrong." Perhaps some lifeways and religious traditions are comfortable with such proclamations. I am not - the dance and cycles of death-life-death-life are a reality I accept and celebrate.

So, the hypothetical is interesting because it will elaborate on whether you equate vegetation to animal life. If you do or don't, either way it's a useful elaboration for the conversation.

It's less an equation than the fact that I view all things as bearing equal intrinsic value. This isn't uncommon for environmental ethicists. The value of a thing is on its own merit, intrinsic, and independent of whatever some human wants to say about it. As such, I don't rank order things. I don't say "oh, those kittens are more valuable than that stand of oak saplings." That's nonsense to me. They are both sacred, holy, and divine. Life is holy, death is holy, wellness is holy, sickness is holy, it all serves its role within the Weave.

That doesn't mean I have the same relationship to different things, though. All humans will prioritize that which they have deeper relationships with. I am far from an exception to that. Because I work deeply with the Green and the Land itself, I consider it more deeply than most other humans are going to. I'm not gonna go into the mystical stuff in this thread, but I have had a lot of profound experiences communing with plants and the land. It's a Druid thing. It suffices to say that when you actually take the time to relate to everything in the world around you as a being it... you understand through experience how "person" applies to more than "human" or "animal."

 

[an anarchist]

In broad strokes adult organisms play a more significant role in supporting the flourishing of many beings than the unborn/seeds. I don't really look at it in terms of "more valuable" - all beings have their role within the Weave. The long thread that weaves through and touches many things has a greater impact when severed on the integrity of the whole than the short thread that touches but a few. The acorn might survive to become the oak and the acorn serves to sustain many other beings as foodstuffs, but most acorns will die and perish and without the oak there are no more acorns. Both the acorn and the oak are important, but preserving the oak is necessary to sustain that part of the Weave.



No. For me there is no "deciding factor" (singular). I'm not that simplistic in my assessments. Thinking in terms of the whole web of being necessitates deeper consideration of the whole. No one thing is determinative, certainly not species (I'm not speciesist). That's why I say the scenario doesn't present enough information or context. There are many things to weigh when considering the flourishing of the Weave. That's thinking like an ecologist - you don't keep the lake clean and forget to mind the river that feeds it. It's all interconnected.



Fair enough. No, I don't find killing of animals (or anything) to be wrong in of itself. Death, destruction, and decay are inherent and necessary properties of the reality we live in. There is no creation without destruction - matter is not created or destroyed it only changes form. Death is required for life, always. To declare unequivocally that "killing is wrong" is to declare unequivocally that "the universe and all reality is wrong." Perhaps some lifeways and religious traditions are comfortable with such proclamations. I am not - the dance and cycles of death-life-death-life are a reality I accept and celebrate.


It's less an equation than the fact that I view all things as bearing equal intrinsic value. This isn't uncommon for environmental ethicists. The value of a thing is on its own merit, intrinsic, and independent of whatever some human wants to say about it. As such, I don't rank order things. I don't say "oh, those kittens are more valuable than that stand of oak saplings." That's nonsense to me. They are both sacred, holy, and divine. Life is holy, death is holy, wellness is holy, sickness is holy, it all serves its role within the Weave.

That doesn't mean I have the same relationship to different things, though. All humans will prioritize that which they have deeper relationships with. I am far from an exception to that. Because I work deeply with the Green and the Land itself, I consider it more deeply than most other humans are going to. I'm not gonna go into the mystical stuff in this thread, but I have had a lot of profound experiences communing with plants and the land. It's a Druid thing. It suffices to say that when you actually take the time to relate to everything in the world around you as a being it... you understand through experience how "person" applies to more than "human" or "animal."

Thanks for the reply. However, I'm still interested in your answer to the hypothetical. Maybe I missed it in translation?
I would save the kittens every time.

 

[an anarchist]

Thanks for the reply. However, I'm still interested in your answer to the hypothetical. Maybe I missed it in translation?
I would save the kittens every time.

@Quintessence I was rereading your reply again. Is it fair to say you would decide on a case by case basis? But in the hypothetical with the Devil forcing the hypothetical on you, you don't have to worry about external factors. Am I understanding you would have difficulty choosing as they have "equal intrinsic value"?

 

[Tamino]

Thanks for the reply. However, I'm still interested in your answer to the hypothetical. Maybe I missed it in translation?
I would save the kittens every time.

Yeah, but then let's add more hypotheticals...
What if the fruit in the basket would represent the last viable seeds of a specific species of plant?

Would you sacrifice the survival of a species to save the kittens?

Or let's add a human motivation... The fruit in the basket contain the last known viable seeds of a species, and there is a chance that this plant species actually holds a cure for colon cancer.

Will you still save the kittens?

... I would probably save the kittens because I feel more connected to them as fellow mammals. But it's not an absolute, each decision and each situation requires its own assessment

 

[Quintessence]

@Quintessence I was rereading your reply again. Is it fair to say you would decide on a case by case basis? But in the hypothetical with the Devil forcing the hypothetical on you, you don't have to worry about external factors. Am I understanding you would have difficulty choosing as they have "equal intrinsic value"?

Pretty much case-by-case, yes. There's always more context to a situation that is important to consider, like the things @Tamino mentioned. There are some good rules of thumb for the harvest, the needing to kill to live as a human. Something practiced by indigenous cultures went something like this: don't take the first that you see, don't take the last that you see, don't take more than half, ask for permission, say thank you, give something back.

American culture is very much a culture of "things" where it depersonalizes the "resources" we use to live our lives. There are a number of indigenous authors and environmental ethicists who go into it and I can't hope to recount that all here but it is a pretty big shift in worldview to suddenly recognize everything out there as something worthy of more consideration that you culture tells you to give it. Honestly, it often becomes very depressing and if I didn't hold such love at the wonders of the world I'd be in a real bad place from thinking in these ways. Some day, that bad place might overtake me. But not today, and probably not soon.

 

[an anarchist]

Pretty much case-by-case, yes. There's always more context to a situation that is important to consider, like the things @Tamino mentioned. There are some good rules of thumb for the harvest, the needing to kill to live as a human. Something practiced by indigenous cultures went something like this: don't take the first that you see, don't take the last that you see, don't take more than half, ask for permission, say thank you, give something back.

American culture is very much a culture of "things" where it depersonalizes the "resources" we use to live our lives. There are a number of indigenous authors and environmental ethicists who go into it and I can't hope to recount that all here but it is a pretty big shift in worldview to suddenly recognize everything out there as something worthy of more consideration that you culture tells you to give it. Honestly, it often becomes very depressing and if I didn't hold such love at the wonders of the world I'd be in a real bad place from thinking in these ways. Some day, that bad place might overtake me. But not today, and probably not soon.

I'm not trying to be silly, so please take this question seriously: basket of rocks vs basket of kittens- which would you save? Is it still a case by case basis i.e. not saving the kittens everytime?

The Devil brings both baskets to your room and dangles them above a cauldron of lava (this is the specific case. Is there more you need to know for this hypothetical that would be needed to inform your opinion?). He tells you to choose which basket doesn't get burnt up.

Rocks or kittens?

I'm trying to see if what you said about the basket of fruits extends to a basket of rocks.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not trying to be silly, so please take this question seriously: basket of rocks vs basket of kittens- which would you save? Is it still a case by case basis i.e. not saving the kittens everytime?

The Devil brings both baskets to your room and dangles them above a cauldron of lava (this is the specific case. Is there more you need to know for this hypothetical that would be needed to inform your opinion?). He tells you to choose which basket doesn't get burnt up.

Rocks or kittens?

I'm trying to see if what you said about the basket of fruits extends to a basket of rocks.

It does, but maybe not in the way you'd expect. It's still about consideration for the greater whole and the flourishing of something. It's still about consideration for my personal sentiments or relationship with something. And other considerations.

In this, I think about what Stone Spirits are. How they are born, how they die. I'm not a geologist by training, but I'm appraised of the discipline well enough to understand some of the fundaments of how the geologic forces of our world operate. Stones being baked and reformed by lava happens all the time - it's part of their natural cycle. The same cannot be said of tossing any biological organism into lava. It doesn't make sense for a biological organism to meet its end that way. It's not part of the normal flow of things. Unless I had some especially strong attachment to that particular stone? Unless it was the only one of its kind? And even then, I don't think I would - I do not hate cats. I think I would need to hate cats and I don't see that ever happening. I mean... CATS.