Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
My standpoint:
1. The state of captivity is a creation of modern mankind and there has never been any kind of captivity in free nature.
2. Holding animals in captivity for their entire live, often in narrow cages just to produce cheap meals, is the spawn of arrogance.
3. There seem to be strong parallels to the Morlocks (H.G.Wells, 1885) when considering today's human society's behaviour toward the weaker creatures.
4. Everybody consuming products of the imprisoned creatures is a keeper and responsible.
1. The state of captivity is a creation of modern mankind and there has never been any kind of captivity in free nature.
...
However, humans need livestock the way chickens need feed (or whatever they would eat in nature LOL!). ...
...
One thing that should at least be amusing to many is the fact that if animals are not consumed, then there must be some sort of substitute which is. Most cases, it is plants. But if animals deserve rights, don't plant's as well? They have no means of defending themselves (in many cases) from the predation of humans, who hold them captive in small gardens only to raise them to a level of maturity and then consume them. I wonder of Singer would agree that this is a form of Plantaeism?
That is simply false. It is quite possible to live without livestock, eating no animal products. Vegans do it all the time, and, in fact, on average, live longer than meat eaters.
There are two things wrong with that. First, whenever animals are raised for food, the animals are fed plants, so that you will be indirectly eating plants anyway, and, in fact, a good deal more plants will die that way (it takes many pounds of plants as food to make one pound of meat). So even if all one cared about was plants, it would be better to directly eat plants than to eat animals. Second, usually, the interest in not harming animals has to do with them being sentient. There is reason to believe that plants are not sentient.
Should we look to ants as a guide for good conduct?
I don't know about this, spiders certainly keep flies captive in their web.
1. The state of captivity is a creation of modern mankind and there has never been any kind of captivity in free nature.
Professor Vincent Jansen of Royal Holloway's School of Biological Sciences, concludes: "Although both parties benefit from the interaction, this research shows is that all is not well in the world of aphids and ants. The aphids are manipulated to their disadvantage: for aphids the ants are a dangerous liaison.
I do think there are some gray areas
But if animals deserve rights, don't plant's as well? They have no means of defending themselves (in many cases) from the predation of humans, who hold them captive in small gardens only to raise them to a level of maturity and then consume them. I wonder of Singer would agree that this is a form of Plantaeism?
I don't know about this, spiders certainly keep flies captive in their web.
VideCorSpoon wrote:
A plant doesn't care if it grows in a small or in a big garden. Something that has not developed itself to move around can not be taken in cruel captivity. Anyway, certainly it would be a matter of arrogance to say that a plant has no rights. To intentionally kill a plant without clear reason would be a natural sin.
I would like to hear some opinions about the issue "captive animals". I think this is a major of all ethical issues. Certainly it is also a very uncomfortable theme for many people, as most are indirect keepers themselves by consuming products from agricultures mass production such as eggs, meat and milk. Still, hopefully there is some will and readiness to even face such very difficult and important topic.
My standpoint:
1. The state of captivity is a creation of modern mankind and there has never been any kind of captivity in free nature.
2. Holding animals in captivity for their entire live, often in narrow cages just to produce cheap meals, is the spawn of arrogance.
3. There seem to be strong parallels to the Morlocks (H.G.Wells, 1885) when considering today's human society's behaviour toward the weaker creatures.
4. Everybody consuming products of the imprisoned creatures is a keeper and responsible.
Please do not widen the theme to the captivity of humans or killing of animals, as these two themes are discussed in other threads and/or the matter would get unmanageable.
I don't want to offend anybody, but I think that intelligent people like those here in this forum will have the courage to handle the issue without closing their eyes. I'm very curious about your opinions.
_______________________________
basicrule.info
I have heard that spiders keep flies captive until they eat them. Spiders are not a part of mankind, and spiders existed before mankind existed. So, maybe captivity is a cruel creation of spiders.
When I asked for opinions for the matter of captivity I did not mean situations where a prey is not instantly killed by the predator. Surely there are different methods of predators to keep the prey alive for hours or even days in seldom cases by paralysing it.
I think that from a selfish standpoint I would be ok with some sort of "humane" captivity as far as farming goes... such as free range or at least not keeping the animals in the chicken or cattle equivalent of a ghetto or concentration camp.
I think I'd agree with the OP's basic sentiment: Captivity, and certainly the way it's done in a mass-production setting, is unethical. Yep I eat meat: I did yesterday, I likely will today and I'll probably again tomorrow. I accept and try, with eyes wide open, to accept the inconsistency this creates (Behavior -vs- Ethics). While I admit this inconsistency and do often consider it, I think it far worse to wallow in hypocrisy.