Was Predator "bad"?

Post Reply New Topic

WHAT!?!

I've been looking everywhere for him! Thanks.

Who would have guessed that he'd be in there... amazing.

My own dog is at the vet, on a drip recovering from having a large tumor hacked out...

Leather and fur are awesome. And they're also morally fine if you're not making the creature extinct and also eating it, wasting nothing.

I think it is ok if the animal is killed quite quickly and a large proportin of it is eaten and it does not destroy the ecosystem of the area. obvioulsy farmed animasls live on land that has a massively reduced ecosystem so i'm not sure what i think about that considering i eat farmed meat.

i can't wait till we can grow the best meat of all sorts in a factory. in my mind it is only a matter of time. obviously for it to be marketable may take a really long time but we are not far off decent meat albiet through ridiculously expensive research projects.

I don't think that killing non-human animals is necessarily wrong, but I don't think that killing humans is necessarily wrong, either.

For me, ability to defend oneself has nothing to do with the rights you deserve. The most important point is sentience and ability to feel pain. Hunting for food is more ethical than the commercial meat industry, since the animals that are victims of hunters live relatively good lives and, as long as the hunter is a good shot, die a quick & painless death. Even if the hunter isn't a good shot, their suffering will be insignificant in comparison to the suffering of most animals that we eat.

I don't think that hunting for sport is ethically justified, but, like hunting for food, it's still more justified than the methods of the commercial meat industry. Most of us don't need to eat animals to survive or remain healthy - we do so because they taste nice. Just as we receive minor pleasure from the taste of certain animals, hunters receive minor pleasure from hunting, and I find it quite hypocritical when people who accept the extreme amount of suffering that we inflict on animals so we can enjoy their taste start to criticize the lesser amount of suffering that hunters inflict on their prey so that they can enjoy the activity of hunting. That said, I welcome any opposition to hunting for sport that involves causing a lot of distress to the animal, whether that opposition is hypocritical or not.

To clarify my position: I don't believe that it is wrong to kill most animals for food, as long as they are treated well during the time they are alive, and are killed using quick, painless methods. However, if we're going to allow that, we would also have to allow killing infant babies for food (as long as the family consents). The same applies to medical experimentation. It's not necessarily wrong to use animals for medical experimentation, but if we do that, we have to accept that infant babies are also allowed to be experimented on (again, with the consent of the family). In fact, in this case, it would probably be more ethical to use the babies: since they are human, they would probably provide more accurate results.

It would provide more accurate results. Sounds like a good idea. Better than using mice anyway.

I for one, am against baby experimentation.

Example of proper textual juxtaposition:

This piece of text,

deserves this piece of text to follow it, and closely at that:

Actually, mice reproduce at such high rates that it does allow us to experiment on them. Better than experimenting on any other mammal, that's for sure. =/ I actually wonder if it isn't one of the fastest spawning species, after the all-size categories champions of bacterias, plants and insects. =/

Well, it depends (among other things) on the mouse's capacity to feel things like pain. The questions about each species specifically will have to be left to the experts on that species; I'm not sure what the current position is on mouse consciousness.

It wouldn't surprise me if mice didn't have the kind of morally relevant capacities that babies do. If indeed they don't, then we would have to consider that, and I suspect that in most cases it would be preferable to use the mice. However, as far as I'm aware, we don't just use mice for medical experiments - we also use, for example, dogs, and even other great apes. An average adult member of the other great ape species is at least as, or probably more, morally relevant than an infant human.

Yes - I've found that my position on using infants for medical experiments does tend to produce that kind of reaction. The fact that it does highlights the nefarious speciesism that's prevalent in our society. If you are shocked by the idea of using human infants in medical experiments, you should be at least as shocked by the idea of using, say, adult dogs in such experiments.

Well, your thread is misleading.

Predator was about an alien that took sport in hunting humans. Maybe humans were just seen as dumb animals, but I doubt any alien could see creatures capable of creating weapons and developing power production as being "dumb." Maybe regarding them as no better than insects but not "dumb."

Hunting "for sport" to me is a waste and wrong. I know most hunters will eat what they kill or (conversely) give it to a food bank. Hunting serves a useful purpose (thinning populations to prevent overpopulation), but to kill just for the trophy (leaving a carcass to rot) is just wrong in my view.

Bad? by whose standards? Probly not bad by his society's

I'll go with Zer0's view.

The kill is not the greatest part of the hunt. There is stalking the object animal. This can be done in a non lethal manner by taking a picture of the animal once he has been stalked successful. A "sporting" hunt ending in taking a picture has most of the fun a lethal hunt has.

ruveyn

Yeah well...You better hope what you're hunting doesn't bear any ill will towards you when doing so. Else if you're unprotected... <.<