The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Why is acceptable for Humans to Kill Animals but not the other way around?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Dalek1099
Humans are a superior type of animal described by one of the most intelligent lifeforms alive(Stephen Hawking) as self-aware animals, this sentience/conciousness we feel separates us from other animals and makes us superior.Other animals aren't even really properly alive because they aren't self aware and don't even have a reasonable amount of intelligence, making even the thickest of Humans far superior to virtually all animals.


Not all humans are intellectually superior. :rolleyes: Some of us are intellectually inferior to an ordinary chimp. Do plan on eating those intellectually inferior humans? :tongue:
Original post by MrMacho
I can however live perfectly well on vegetables, no animals harmed in the process.


animals are our food to eat though we are top of the food chain.I love the feeling that I'm a predator when eating chicken.animals are worth nothing and just use up resources like vegetables eg.cows eat grass, so by eating them we will have more vegetables to eat?Also, animals emit methane which is a greenhouse gas why should we let non-sentient lifeforms ruin life for us?The logic of animal rights campaigners is very poor as well because these animals owe their lives to meat eaters otherwise they would never have been bred.
Original post by Dalek1099
What has their physical condition got to do with this?Just because they might not be able to walk doesn't mean they are less intelligent.


Nice try... I mean those who are mentally disabled. I'm talking to the point where they literally can't function or survive without help from others.
Original post by Dalek1099
If you kill more and more animals particularly dangerous ones for fun, then eventually it is likely you will have saved an unfortunate human from being eaten/killed, so your logic is very flawed.


Killing that many would probably make a serious, negative impact on the ecosystem in which the animal lives, which could have further detrimental repercussions on human society. In any case, if you value a human life over a non-human, animal life to such an extent that you kill thousands of animals in a species simply because one of them might eventually kill a human, the logical end is to eliminate the species wholesale - to drive it extinct. That would ensure than no humans would be killed by that species ever again. Is that what you would recommend?
Original post by Juichiro
Not all humans are intellectually superior. :rolleyes: Some of us are intellectually inferior to an ordinary chimp. Do plan on eating those intellectually inferior humans? :tongue:


Source?Why have chimps not done anything clever over history then?, if the gap between humans and chimps is not incredibly large.I heard one story of a chimp they were able to get to be able to communicate a bit but that was only after needing to be helped by humans instead of just being raised with their chimp parents.
Original post by Dalek1099
animals are our food to eat though we are top of the food chain.I love the feeling that I'm a predator when eating chicken.animals are worth nothing and just use up resources like vegetables eg.cows eat grass, so by eating them we will have more vegetables to eat?Also, animals emit methane which is a greenhouse gas why should we let non-sentient lifeforms ruin life for us?The logic of animal rights campaigners is very poor as well because these animals owe their lives to meat eaters otherwise they would never have been bred.


I know you're trolling but I'm just worried that people will actually read this and actually believe you. Vegetarian (or even better, vegan) diets are better for the environment, and I can back that up with all sorts of research.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Killing that many would probably make a serious, negative impact on the ecosystem in which the animal lives, which could have further detrimental repercussions on human society. In any case, if you value a human life over a non-human, animal life to such an extent that you kill thousands of animals in a species simply because one of them might eventually kill a human, the logical end is to eliminate the species wholesale - to drive it extinct. That would ensure than no humans would be killed by that species ever again. Is that what you would recommend?


Yes that seems like a good idea, maybe you could keep a very small population in a zoo for some fun but exterminating the entire wild species would seem justified even to save just one human.If the value of an animal=0 and a human>0 then that would mean only an infinite number of animals could equal a human.There is a lot of species I would like to see extinct like Sharks and Crocodiles.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 67
Avatar for MrMacho
MrMacho
Original post by Dalek1099
animals are our food to eat though we are top of the food chain.I love the feeling that I'm a predator when eating chicken.animals are worth nothing and just use up resources like vegetables eg.cows eat grass, so by eating them we will have more vegetables to eat?Also, animals emit methane which is a greenhouse gas why should we let non-sentient lifeforms ruin life for us?The logic of animal rights campaigners is very poor as well because these animals owe their lives to meat eaters otherwise they would never have been bred.


That only works if you hold the dogmatic and superior attitude you seem to possess. If you hold a more rational attitude that living beings are wondrous and whilst it may be necessary from time to time to cultivate the resources animals can provide, we should do everything in our power to sustain wild populations of animals where possible and conserve them due to the important role every animal plays in it's own diverse eco-system.
I don't understand this personification of other animals. They aren't human. As long as they are being used reasonably and sustainably with the best possible measures taken to reduce suffering, I really don't understand why people are so against it. Why should we be the only carnivorous species on the planet that shouldn't be able to morally justify eating meat? Yes, we have alternatives - but so what?
Original post by Dalek1099
animals are our food to eat though we are top of the food chain.I love the feeling that I'm a predator when eating chicken.animals are worth nothing and just use up resources like vegetables eg.cows eat grass, so by eating them we will have more vegetables to eat?Also, animals emit methane which is a greenhouse gas why should we let non-sentient lifeforms ruin life for us?The logic of animal rights campaigners is very poor as well because these animals owe their lives to meat eaters otherwise they would never have been bred.


You make some good points, but sadly, they are all points in favour of vegetarianism. You are dead right - the animals we eat are only in the world, eating vegetables we've grown and emitting methane and using up our resources, because we have bred them and caused them to be born. If more people were vegetarian, there would be a lower livestock population, which would produce less methane and free up more land for more efficient farming of vegetables for human consumption.

To breed animals that use up resources and pollute the air and then eat them in some sort of revenge for those losses is nonsensical. The logical conclusion is simply to never breed the animals in the first place.
Reply 70
Avatar for MrMacho
MrMacho
Original post by Chlorophile
I don't understand this personification of other animals. They aren't human. As long as they are being used reasonably and sustainably with the best possible measures taken to reduce suffering, I really don't understand why people are so against it. Why should we be the only carnivorous species on the planet that shouldn't be able to morally justify eating meat? Yes, we have alternatives - but so what?


I think few people in here are arguing that we shouldn't eat meat, we are however arguing that when an animal kills a human it is more than likely the humans fault not the animals.
Reply 71
Avatar for Exon
Exon
15
Original post by DarkWhite
It's not.

For fun it's sick.
For sport it's lazy.
For fashion it's vein.
For food it's selfish and convenient.


What do you think about using animals for medical purposes?
Original post by MrMacho
That only works if you hold the dogmatic and superior attitude you seem to possess. If you hold a more rational attitude that living beings are wondrous and whilst it may be necessary from time to time to cultivate the resources animals can provide, we should do everything in our power to sustain wild populations of animals where possible and conserve them due to the important role every animal plays in it's own diverse eco-system.


but from everything I have seen that would mean the guaranteed loss of some human lives, which is something I am not willing to accept.
Original post by MrMacho
I think few people in here are arguing that we shouldn't eat meat, we are however arguing that when an animal kills a human it is more than likely the humans fault not the animals.


Has there been a comprehensive survey done on this issue? Is there any evidence whatsoever supporting that claim?
Original post by Dalek1099
Source?Why have chimps not done anything clever over history then?, if the gap between humans and chimps is not incredibly large.I heard one story of a chimp they were able to get to be able to communicate a bit but that was only after needing to be helped by humans instead of just being raised with their chimp parents.


What source do you want? There exist humans with brain conditions such that when given a simple cognitive test they will score lower than a monkey. A lot of research on ape intelligence (Koko, Kanzi, Washoe) was applicable to human children with certain brain conditions because their levels of testable cognitive abilities (i.e. intelligence?) were presumably similar. But my point was that certain brain conditions can render a human at a lower point of the "intelligence" continuum than other animals. And these low-scoring humans would not benefit from your argument.
Original post by Dalek1099
Yes that seems like a good idea, maybe you could keep a very small population in a zoo for some fun but exterminating the entire wild species would seem justified even to save just one human.If the value of an animal=0 and a human>0 then that would mean only an infinite number of animals could equal a human.There is a lot of species I would like to see extinct like Sharks and Crocodiles.


And yet, if sharks didn't exist, the food chain of which they are an apex predator would go out of control, disrupting populations of fish that we currently rely on for food. There are reasons that we don't go around massacring apex predator populations - even if humanity seems to receive no benefit from them, they have consistently proved to be more important to their food chains and to human industries than they appear.
Reply 76
Avatar for Exon
Exon
15
To answer OP, it's because humans tend to value themselves more than other species. It is a survival instinct.
Original post by MrMacho
I think few people in here are arguing that we shouldn't eat meat, we are however arguing that when an animal kills a human it is more than likely the humans fault not the animals.


If we are to treat animals as equals to humans or at least reasonable lifeforms then they must be responsible for their actions.Stop victim blaming these Humans.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
And yet, if sharks didn't exist, the food chain of which they are an apex predator would go out of control, disrupting populations of fish that we currently rely on for food. There are reasons that we don't go around massacring apex predator populations - even if humanity seems to receive no benefit from them, they have consistently proved to be more important to their food chains and to human industries than they appear.


Then we can kill more fish and just throw them in a bin replacing the role of the sharks in the food chain?
Original post by Pomum96
we feel the need to protect members of our own species.


My opinion: only members of our own species (in the case of humans) can assure our survival. I really disagree that a male lion would feel the need to protect a rival lion anymore than it would feel the need to protect a male human. If there is something that evolution shows us is that survival is in the majority of cases, an individual against all the other individuals, there are no groups, only individuals.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you