Dolphin for breakfast anyone ?

I'm talking about for food. You want to kill another human and eat them? Have fun, don't think people will be to happy with you though.

 

no, but an animal in the wild isn't going to have a broken heart about eating a person, now are they?

 

If someone did want to kill and eat a human for food, as long as they followed your suggestion and did it in a respectful and humane way, what's wrong with that?

Is it ok for us to kill humans if we want to as long as it's done humanely?

 

I found the cultural protection claims the most interesting and the most opportunist.

"As it was done years ago we have the right to continue the practice", we should all lambast such cynical nonsense, time spent is never a justification.

No creature should be subjected to a lingering painful death neither, no debate necessary, anyone argue a benefit ?

Once upon a time mankind required the animals as food, this in vast tracts of the world is no longer the case, eating animals is an active choice not a necessity, pays your money takes your choice.

 

No! Another reason i dont kill and eat any animal

 

Exactly

 

Probably not the carnivores and omnivores who NEED meat in order to survive. Now man is a natural omnivore, many claim, and there is scientific backing on both sides of the fence with that one. The difference is we have such a crazy abundance of food, theres no way at all you could say we needed the meat to survive. Our bodies cope without. Im not dead yet

If we were talking about eskimos whose only food source was seal meat then wed have a different argument entirely. Thats about need, and id say its absolutely fine for those people to kill the seals and eat them done humanely. Just as i kill plants to survive, because i NEED to to stay healthy

This is why i think a balanced viewpoint is sensible. Yes, there are different levels of intelligence. No, this shouldnt be an excuse to go on an unnecessary killing spree and disrespect any lifeform. I dont need to kill to eat. No human being does

Still, ill respect anybodys choice to. It just makes interesting debate. My main problem is with TORTURE and i feel theres definitely an element of that with this dolphin thing, and with commercial farming

 

I was asking the question to try to get at the heart of the unconscious prejudice being demonstrated in some of the responses to this question. Unthinkingly people tend to lump humans on one side of the fence and "all other animals" on the other. If you disagree with killing humans for food what exactly is the difference between that and killing a chimpanzee, another African primate almost indistinguishable from humans? And what about a macaque or another less advanced monkey with a commensurately lower degree of self awareness? The point about it being a continuum is a fairly pivotal one to grasp.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to hunt humans for food but have absolutely no compunction about killing spiders or gnats. They are two totally different things, very clearly on two sides of an important distinction. When you get into the middle ground with advanced mammals the boundaries blur but that doesn't mean there is no distinction to be made, just that it's a difficult and ultimately an arbitrary one. But we still need to make the decision, and one informed by an objective scientific understanding.

On that measure, very obviously the line should be drawn to protect dolphins and apes more strenuously than we protect spiders and gnats, and I will certainly protest the killing of apes and dolphins more vehemently than I will the slaughter of cows for food - I also disagree with that, but think it's a less important issue for the very good reasons I've set out here.

 

well, as has been proved in the past multiple times, nature has a way of keeping us from eating our own species. those fun little brain eating diseases that somehow come about from eating your own kind. seems naturally practical to me. better for your species to breed each other than eat each other.

 

Oh i realised that, and youre totally right Sorry, i just couldnt resist jumping in there!

I completely agree, and its most certainly important not to lump all other animals together separate from humans, especially when it comes to creatures like chimpanzees and dolphins

Again, im probably not thinking in stages here, but its just part of me to protect the cows etc in talks like this, not many people do!

And on that note ill scuttle away

 

Absent our evolved taboo systems, there'd be absolutely nothing to stop us from killing and eating our own species; other species do so. It's just a product of our evolved sense of morality and the survival function it serves.

Taboos against murder are an extension of our evolutionary survival need to participate in a social group and co-operate with our peers and are dependent on the psychological trigger we have for seeing people as members of "in groups" or "out groups". There's no taboo against killing members of outgroups; what we are now doing is extending our cultural conception of what constitutes our "in group". Many of us will now regard the killing of any human, anywhere, as wrong: this is a relatively new development in human history (and still very far from ubiquitous). Inevitably this circle will gradually extend, informed by better understanding, to include not just our own species but other animals, but clearly we're a long way from that point

 

but doesn't cannibalism lead to prion diseases? sounds like a natural deterrant to me.

 

When it comes down to the difference between killing a dolphin and a fish there is none, to me all life is equal, from a algae to a elephant. I truely see no difference, life is life. The thought and feeling process should make no difference.

 

This formulation is equally unhelpful whether it comes in the spiritual/utopian form of "all life is sacred, we are all one" or the materialist form of "no life is sacred, we are all food". In the former case it leads to the absurdity of standing up for the rights of nematode worms, and in the latter it leads to the absurdity of suggesting that there's nothing wrong in hunting and killing humans if we so desire. Both ignore vast swathes of hard-won knowledge and both contradict the intuitive awareness we all clearly have of there being a very real distinction between insects and orang-utans. Both are founded in a form of ideological narrative which does not accurately explain the natural world but rather seeks to pigeonhole it for convenience into a predisposed set of attitudes. Both oversimplifications lead us away from a better and more nuanced understanding of the issue.

 

Bloody hell, this is spot on. Well put!

Although i guess what ive ben trying to put into words all along is i DO believe we can hold the belief that all life is sacred (not sure i like the word though ) and still realise that on a practical level differences in lifeforms may come into play. For example the fact that i NEED to eat plants, or a person with no other food source may NEED to eat another animal or a lion needs to eat gazelle or whatever, being a carnivore

I do believe the fish are sacred for example. Theyre magnificent, a miracle, theyre living beings on Earth here just like us. And i respect them greatly, so as i have no need to, i wont kill them. But i also realise, as far as we can tell at least, theyre not going to feel things in the same way as "higher" creatures and they certainly dont experience life in the same way

If i accidently kill a fly or a worm, yeah i admit, i feel a bit sad. But im not going to cut myself up over it, all the dead insects i wash off my food every day, and theyre not pigs, or an ape, which would be vastly different

One view i cant identify with is "nothing is worth protecting", for as you say, this suggests even we are pretty much worthless and without rights, which is silly, and opens things up for mass destruction

 

Dolphins are coldblooded so they don't feel pain. It is like catching a big fish. Of course we condemn this as we know dolphins are graceful and intelligent. But at the end of the day, people might think we are wrong to kill pig in the way we do and indeed chickens.

 

Sorry but that just sounds silly.

All life is life sure, you might argue sacred even, but how can it be equal, that suggests a form of fairness which I'm afraid the universe shows no sign of supporting. If one lifeform can better another then they are not equal.

 

I read in the bible that man is no better than animals. We all have the same fate. Eternal sleep.

 

I think "all life is sacred" (or equal...is that what they meant? Equal in the fact were all sacred?) is meant in terms of respect. All life deserves respect, no matter how much or little we happen to think we know about that life. And were equal in the fact that were lifeforms...were here, now. Together. And linked. Harming one to the extent we do will and does harm us

As i said above however there ARE layers to this thing, and if the lifeform who "can better another" as you say needs food then fine. But i think as human beings, firstly we DONT need to kill the creatures we do, secondly if we really are one of the highest evolved creatures, surely we can recognise the fact that all life is worth protecting from unnecessary torture or killing whilst still realising each lifeform is different and we all have differing intelligence, which in certain situations would mean killing was ok (like the accidental killing of an insect, or the killing of seals by eskimos who have nothing more)

In many ways we are all "sacred", especially when it comes to other mammals. I really dont think this means we need to lose our brains though. Although it is ever so complex

 

Man is an animal
The bible says lots of crazy things
We may all have the same "fate"
I personally dont think its "eternal sleep"