carnivores

[josephlys]

Hi i would like to ask you guys a question. I see a lot of carnivores like crocodiles and lions eating other animals on Tv it looks horrible. but i dont think this is considered animal cruelty. Because a carnivorous animal needs meat to survive right, so even this is hard to admit, there is nothing wrong with animals killing other animals. What i dont like to see is carnivores killing their prey so slowly and cruely. What do you guys think.

[KRITER]

Nature aint always prity but nature knos best.

[Horsefriend]

I don't like to see that kind of thing either, but I guess that's just the way that nature is. Sometimes carnivores toy with their prey or eat them when they're still alive. I've heard that some species actually hunt for sport, but I'm not sure if that's true.

[Kelly]

I so can not watch those nature programs. I don't understand how anyone can! It's heartbreaking.

[josephlys]

Kelly just because some of us cannot bear to watch it doesnt mean that carnivores are bad, we must remember they are only animals and they are doing what they are born and programed to do. So we must still feel the urge to save carnivores when they are under oppression. And we must love them as much as our pets.

[panthera]

At this point, what I hate most about those programs is that they give anti-vegans the opportunity to say, "Have you ever seen a lion kill his prey? It's cruel and bloody. That's the way of Nature. At least we stun the cow first."

[josephlys]

Yes well said, carnivores are animals and dont have a choise they dont think and reason like humans can, they do what they are pogrammed to do. We are humans and we can choose not to eat animals for our enjoyment.

[Gorachan]

Yep they kill it slow because it entertains them its just the way of the predator...get over it

[Horsefriend]

[Alex Melonas]

I have a different perspective. If it were practically feasible, genetic alteration would be the "right" choice. My reasoning runs like this.

There isn't anything inherently "good" about "nature"; "nature" is merely, and I mean merely, the "is" in the is/ought fallacy. The existence of carnivores and omnivores and herbivores is the arbitrary result of ongoing genetic mutation in response to external stimuli. "Nature", the product of this process, is a capricious, chance phenomenon. In other words, "nature" is devoid of all moral/ethical content, and any attempt to connect an ethical/moral claim to "nature" is bound to be an is/ought or naturalistic fallacy.

The relevant ethical/moral concern, then, for me, is the harm and death that occurs in "nature". Hypothetically, therefore, if genetic tinkering could result in the end of predation then that would be ethically/morally better, in the final analysis, than the alternative (e.g. allowing the lion to continue preying on a gazelle).

Because harm and death concern me, the practical limitations to this kind of evaluative argument, however, are impossible to overcome. The complexity or too many variable problem and human fallibility arise and such genetic tampering would no doubt result in more harm and death. Therefore, a strong policy of non-intervention is appropriate.

But I do hasten to add in response to those who appeal to the "self-evident" value of bio-diversity, or "nature" more generally, that your reasoning is predicated on a basic philosophical confusion. There is no inherent value in "nature" (for the reasons I mentioned above) and therefore altering "nature" (and hypothetically eliminating carnivores and omnivores) is not an unreasoned position.

[Caninophile]

I still don't allow it.I caught one of the resident lizards trying to eat a smaller one.

"stop that behavior at once' I shouted in my best schoolmasters voice and teh bigger one let the smaller one go

cockroaches yes-each other no

[panthera]

Really, Caninophile, what does that have to do with stopping predation? Eating cockroaches but not other lizards is still predation; it just excludes cannibalism.

The image of a lizard staring at you, "red-handed," is priceless.

Alex, your argument is the most convincing one that I've seen for the defense of eliminating carnivory. I never saw much reason to consider the question, because I don't think we're capable of achieving the goal, and there's so much to be done that's well within the sphere of current physiology. But on a theoretical level, I think you may be right. Well done!

Beware the ire of deep ecologists, though.

[Alex Melonas]

@Panthera: Oh, my confrontations with "deep ecologists" over this issue are many. I generally use this kind of reasoning to refute the various defenses of our exploitation of animals offered by the land ethicists, and so on.

[josephlys]

We love animals but all I can say is that predation from carnivores is not only natural but inevitable but we are not ecologist or endangered species protectors like some who would say save the tigers and crocs and screw the cattle and chickens. These ppl are obviously no animal lovers they are conservationist. So what are we, how do we distinguish ourselves apart from the rest of the so called animal lovers.