Animal Rights

[TheProwler]

Two questions to ponder for all of you who don't see a problem with killing animals and then eating their meat: What's the difference between killing a human and eating their meat, and killing any other animal and eating their meat? Why's one of them ok and the other not?

Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line? Should we treat all living things as we treat humans?

That question could be put to anyone here. Why just put MeDeFe in the spotlight?

Others have said they kill mosquitoes, but not humans. So they must be drawing the line somewhere. Is it at humans? Great apes? Where exactly?

[strike wolf]

For me it would be when it is no longer necessary for food or protection. Now by protection I do not mean "hey bears could potentially kill me. I should go and kill as many as I can to protect myself." but rather, "oh my god, this guy is trying to stab me with a knife I need to do something to protect myself"

[TheProwler]

For me it would be when it is no longer necessary for food or protection. Now by protection I do not mean "hey bears could potentially kill me. I should go and kill as many as I can to protect myself." but rather, "oh my god, this guy is trying to stab me with a knife I need to do something to protect myself"

Heck, this could get complicated...

I'd kill a mosquito just for wanting to suck a drop of blood out of me...but I wouldn't kill a cat for something more serious like scratching me....

So it is some function based on the situation (ie. level of danger to myself and/or others I care about), the value I put on the animal in question, and also the possible consequences of my actions.

[strike wolf]

For me it would be when it is no longer necessary for food or protection. Now by protection I do not mean "hey bears could potentially kill me. I should go and kill as many as I can to protect myself." but rather, "oh my god, this guy is trying to stab me with a knife I need to do something to protect myself"

Heck, this could get complicated...

I'd kill a mosquito just for wanting to suck a drop of blood out of me...but I wouldn't kill a cat for something more serious like scratching me....

So it is some function based on the situation (ie. level of danger to myself and/or others I care about), the value I put on the animal in question, and also the possible consequences of my actions.

Yes the mosquito question is harder to answer true. Though really when I swat a mosquito it's more reaction than it is taking the time to think "Okay is this thing endangering me?"

[MeDeFe]

As for "don't kill members of the pack", various apes have been observed to chase members out of the group in extremely violent manner.

And certain humans have been known to murder each other. Violence, often in the form of competition, has been shown to happen in all packs and prides. but exceptions do not make the rule. I still do not see wolves going around killing other members of their packs as often as they hunt prey. Nor do I see this with a group of lions. Yet you do not see anyone crying out that it's a double standard that a wolf will kill a deer but wouldn't kill another member of its pack. So why is it such a big deal when humans do the same basic thing for the same reason? The don't kill members of the pack rule applies more to a general belief among that pack rather than a set rule that is never broken.

So now it's more a rule of thumb with a shitload of exceptions than an actual rule, I see. And "the deal", as you put it, is that we humans (at least once the brain is sufficiently developed) can think about the morality of our actions and act accordingly. I'll say this again because you seem to have missed it: It does not matter how animals behave, what matters is that we are able to behave morally.
If a wolf and a 2 year-old have the same sense of morality (for the wolf you would say: none), does that mean I can shoot the 2 year-old and use its skin as a carpet? No, having a sense of morality does not seem to be a prerequisite of being treated in a moral way.


I have pointed out a dichotomy, using and killing animals is seen as perfectly fine, treating humans the same way is seen as an atrocity. There have been a few tentative attempts that might, if expanded upon, explain this but none of them did more than scratch the surface.


And laci_mae, who or what have you been reading? "Morals are determined individually"? "We bring our morals to the table and hope to come away with attitudes that represent compromise"?
I know of two approaches to morality, you either look at what is the case and attempt to explain it (done very rarely, more common in political philosophy (social contracts etc.)), or you try to devise a rule that can be used to determine whether a behaviour is moral or not (categorical imperative, utilitarian approach, virtue ethics, etc.). Your idea is new to me. And no, I'm not trying to "guide your morals with mine", I'm pointing out that there's a line somewhere between humans and everything else, and that so far noone has been able to give a good reason for its existence.

[black elk speaks]

I'd kill a mosquito just for wanting to suck a drop of blood out of me...but I wouldn't kill a cat for something more serious like scratching me....

this is a most excellent point. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we have some use for a cat in our "pack" such as eliminating rodents. Though, I would hazard to guess that there are folks that would kill a cat for scratching them. Take into account the kind of cat too. were it a bob cat in your back yard, and you have small children or other animals on your property, you would almost certainly bust out the shotgun and kill that cat.

[b.k. barunt]

It's simply narcicism on our part. A mosquito is so far removed from us as a species, we give no thought to killing one. A cat, however, is more recognizable in our own context of existence. When i first came to Louisiana in 1971, i would hunt a lot in the swamps. One day i shot an otter (for the fur) after stalking it for over an hour, and i felt terrible. Killing deer, pigs, nutria, raccoons, etc., never bothered me, but the otter was so humanlike in its mannerisms while i was stalking it, that i felt like a murderer. After that i had numerous occasions where i could have shot one, and the fur is beautiful, but i could never do it after that.

Like i said, its narcicism plain and simple. We feel no pity for a chicken or cow raised on a mega food farm where they're kept in deplorable conditions, but the thought of something cute and cuddly going into the pot makes us cringe. It's subjective and completely arbitrary, so don't try to moralize it or judge others by it.

[PLAYER57832]

But seriously, is there any good reason for denying animals the basic rights we afford other humans, like the right to life and individual liberty? Or is the only difference between shooting a human and shooting a deer that one is illegal "because the law says so"?

Let us get "human rights" taken care of before we concentrate on animals. It is my opinion that human life is just a tad more valuable than animal life.


(btw some people eat those deer they shoot)

You are missing the point. WE NEED animals. Also, the things that tend to kill wildlife and fish also tend to kill us, sometimes immediately and sometimes just down the road.

Or, to quote the Bible, Jay, "God saw that it was good". I, for one, think God knew a bit more about things than I. If God put it here, then it has a purpose ... whether I can see it right now or not.

We are judged not so much by how we treat those who are greater, but how we treat those who are lesser. Animals are the least of all. Eat them ... fine, that is how life works, but to cause unnecessary suffering has been an anathema to many, many cultures. Ignoring animals or celebrating cruelty to animals it is a foundation of a warring, violent society. More specifically, people or children who abuse animals often go on to abuse other human beings. THAT is one reason for tougher animal cruelty laws in recent times.. prevention of further evils.

To get back to the original question:

My husband hunts, we all fish. I eat beef and pork and lamb and ... etc. BUT, I try to buy it from smaller, local producers not the huge factory farms whenever possible, for MANY reasons. My husband once waited over an hour for a state trooper to come and do in a deer he saw hit by a vehicle (not his). He would have much preferred to just end it himself, but the game warden who knows him was not home and poaching is a serious offense here.... and yes, we did eat the meat (what was salvageable).

You can claim all you like that hunting is "equal to" violance against animals, but that is like saying that if I attack a man who comes into my home and threatens my kids I am the same as someone who just up and punches a random person on the street.

It's simply narcicism on our part. A mosquito is so far removed from us as a species, we give no thought to killing one. A cat, however, is more recognizable in our own context of existence.

The fact that mosquitos carry diseases and are responsible for deaths of millions, while cats have historically been a first defense against another great carrier or diseases (rodents) wouldn't have anything to do with this, I guess?

When i first came to Louisiana in 1971, i would hunt a lot in the swamps. One day i shot an otter (for the fur) after stalking it for over an hour, and i felt terrible. Killing deer, pigs, nutria, raccoons, etc., never bothered me, but the otter was so humanlike in its mannerisms while i was stalking it, that i felt like a murderer. After that i had numerous occasions where i could have shot one, and the fur is beautiful, but i could never do it after that.

Like i said, its narcicism plain and simple. We feel no pity for a chicken or cow raised on a mega food farm where they're kept in deplorable conditions, but the thought of something cute and cuddly going into the pot makes us cringe. It's subjective and completely arbitrary, so don't try to moralize it or judge others by it.

NOt quite.

We humans need food to eat. While in some climates, you can obtain all you wish from farming, historically there are many areas where that is not possible. Eating bovines, chickens, etc allow us to utilize grasses that we cannot digest ourselves.

HOgs are noted as an exception, because they pretty much each what we eat. HOWEVER, they eat the disgards historically.

And, it is a foundation of most sane societies that while killing to eat is necessary, it should be done with the least pain and suffering possible.

Talk to any farmer, any REAL farmer who sees his animals, feeds them and tends them... now talk to some yuppiite city dweller and I don;t care how "eco conscious" they claim to be, they know far less about how the natural world works MOST of the time than the farmer. It is why so many urbanites are moving out to the country ... only to complain because the farm next door actually has an ODOR!

(not that I put you in that category ... from what I have read you have a clue about the world around you b.k....)

[black elk speaks]

It's simply narcicism on our part. A mosquito is so far removed from us as a species, we give no thought to killing one. A cat, however, is more recognizable in our own context of existence. When i first came to Louisiana in 1971, i would hunt a lot in the swamps. One day i shot an otter (for the fur) after stalking it for over an hour, and i felt terrible. Killing deer, pigs, nutria, raccoons, etc., never bothered me, but the otter was so humanlike in its mannerisms while i was stalking it, that i felt like a murderer. After that i had numerous occasions where i could have shot one, and the fur is beautiful, but i could never do it after that.

Like i said, its narcicism plain and simple. We feel no pity for a chicken or cow raised on a mega food farm where they're kept in deplorable conditions, but the thought of something cute and cuddly going into the pot makes us cringe. It's subjective and completely arbitrary, so don't try to moralize it or judge others by it.

I would be willing to bet (take away the fact that I have no idea what otter tastes like) that if you were starving and had your sites on an otter that you wouldn't hesitate too long to kill and eat it.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't even get this discussion. Seems pretty plain-cut to me. But I'll say right off the bat that I'm not going to answwer this question, but I will help you to better understand it.

First, everyone is different. Through genetics and experiences and education, we all percieve the world differently. Which might help explain how people like my friend couldn't stomach working at a slaughter house, wereas people like his boss had no problem using a hammer to kill cattle.
Or how a special forces commando has no trouble grasping somones throat in his hands, snaping it, and walking away. And I can't stomach the thought.

This is a good starting place no?
For some people animals are just possessions, and to others they are sacred, and to others they are just fellow beings that share our planet. We are all going to have a different view on the subject. So why then are we all so united in the ideal that some animals have rights?

Then conditioning must be the better place to start? As a person, with a measurable conscious thought I can/do project an idea of good or bad on anything. Most animals can too, though I doubt most insects can. Anyone live in the city? What types of animals live there, and what type won't? Ever notice how a squirrel in a park doesn't run away from people? Out here in the country they do run from us. Or how a bear in Yellowstone sees people as providing free food, yet a bear in the Alaska sees people as a danger? These animals have, or have not been conditioned.
You are also conditioned from an early age.
Mosquito=Pest, Kitty=Potential Friend
Cow=Purposeful Animal, Burger=Food



Insects are different from animals. Insects have no politics. Ever hear of a spider pardoning a fly? Cats may have a personality, yet I'm willing to bet that insects all have only condition. Not to mention that many are viewed as pests only. So fundementaly there is a huge difference between killing a cat and killing a mosquito. Some people may not see that difference... I do, because of insect politics. That's my conditioning, and I am in the majority.
If you want to talk about purpose, would you feel ok about killing a praying mantis? I wouldn't, even though again, insect politics tells me that if it were 10 feet taller it would have no problem eating me. A mantis serves purpose. Just like your example of cats killing rodants, mantis kill pests.
But you know what? That's not why I couldn't kill one.
I wouldn't kill a rodent either.
Because I have my own conscious thought. And my own conditioning.

But to the bigger question of animal rights, does the animal feel that it has rights? I bet that plays a role in your idea of whether or not it actually does have any rights? But really, you can't just answer the question by overlapping examples the whole time.
Does that mean that an animal, by being defined as an animal, have a want to survive and an insect have only the conditioning to survive? Does a fly caught in a spider web fear for it's life?
A cow certianly would. But does a fly?
No... that's why it is a pest... it has no politics.

I hope that helped.

[MeDeFe]

I agree with Juan in that conditioning certainly plays an important role in how we view animals, but the question of the morality still remains. Also for you Player, despite your good post. It's not just about "unnecessary suffering", but how we can morally justify inflicting any suffering at all.
A general consensus not to mind it does not make an action moral. For thousands of years noone minded slavery (as long as they weren't slaves themselves), but that doesn't mean it was morally right. The same holds true here, a majority does not mind animals being killed and used as tools, but does not make it moral for us to treat other animals that way.

[Juan_Bottom]

but the question of the morality still remains.

This is something that must be defined.
You see, does morality exist no matter what, or is it simply an interpretation of ones own view? Do animals have morals? Or is there some special reason that humans are obligated to behave moraly and animals are not? If this is the case then certianly animals are on a whole other plane than humans.

You have to define it, no?

[MeDeFe]

but the question of the morality still remains.

This is something that must be defined.
You see, does morality exist no matter what, or is it simply an interpretation of ones own view? Do animals have morals? Or is there some special reason that humans are obligated to behave moraly and animals are not? If this is the case then certianly animals are on a whole other plane than humans.

You have to define it, no?

I know of two approaches to morality, you either look at what is the case and attempt to explain it (done very rarely, more common in political philosophy (social contracts etc.)), or you try to devise a rule that can be used to determine whether a behaviour is moral or not (categorical imperative, utilitarian approach, virtue ethics, etc.). Your idea is new to me. And no, I'm not trying to "guide your morals with mine", I'm pointing out that there's a line somewhere between humans and everything else, and that so far noone has been able to give a good reason for its existence.

[Juan_Bottom]

That just doesn't look like a definition to me. It looks more like an attempt to explain how to define it. Or like you're asking the same question of what is it?

[TheProwler]

It's simply narcicism on our part. A mosquito is so far removed from us as a species, we give no thought to killing one. A cat, however, is more recognizable in our own context of existence.

I agree this is true in some cases. But I wouldn't kill mosquitoes if they didn't suck my blood. I kill mosquitoes, black flies, and deer flies by the hundreds in the summer. But regular house flies and spiders, if I see them inside, I will catch them and release them to the outside. I'll kill ants though.

For me, I think it has to do with how much I perceive the animal can suffer or what is their capacity for emotions. Also, how much good can they do...how much evil can they do...are they a threat to me of those that I care about...and how much are they cherished by others...it is a complicated subject though...I think a lot goes into a decision of killing something, or not, for me.

[Juan_Bottom]

It's simply narcicism on our part. A mosquito is so far removed from us as a species, we give no thought to killing one. A cat, however, is more recognizable in our own context of existence.

I agree this is true in some cases. But I wouldn't kill mosquitoes if they didn't suck my blood. I kill mosquitoes, black flies, and deer flies by the hundreds in the summer. But regular house flies and spiders, if I see them inside, I will catch them and release them to the outside. I'll kill ants though.

For me, I think it has to do with how much I perceive the animal can suffer or what is their capacity for emotions. Also, how much good can they do...and how much are they cherished by others...it is a complicated subject though...I think a lot goes into a decision of killing something, or not, for me.

See, this is what I'm saying. It's all your perception. You can't define it for someone else. I can't tell you how to react, and you can't tell me.
Yet this is not an explination or answer as to the original question.

[black elk speaks]

It's simply narcicism on our part. A mosquito is so far removed from us as a species, we give no thought to killing one. A cat, however, is more recognizable in our own context of existence.

I agree this is true in some cases. But I wouldn't kill mosquitoes if they didn't suck my blood. I kill mosquitoes, black flies, and deer flies by the hundreds in the summer. But regular house flies and spiders, if I see them inside, I will catch them and release them to the outside. I'll kill ants though.

For me, I think it has to do with how much I perceive the animal can suffer or what is their capacity for emotions. Also, how much good can they do...and how much are they cherished by others...it is a complicated subject though...I think a lot goes into a decision of killing something, or not, for me.

See, this is what I'm saying. It's all your perception. You can't define it for someone else. I can't tell you how to react, and you can't tell me.
Yet this is not an explination or answer as to the original question.

but I think that it is. I kill and eat animals for sustenance. I don't eat predatory animals but would kill one if I found it to be a threat to either myself or another human being. birds will actually do the same thing. I once observed pairs of blue jays, robins and cardinals band together to fend off a hawk. it was a most interesting display.

Furthermore, I know a vegetarian family and they are pretty messed up in a lot of ways, and I think it is, at least, in part due to their iron deficient diet. their kids have no focus, or center and they are completely frail. In the wild, this family would perish in short order because they have no idea how to hunt.

But that is their life and they are free to live it how they see fit. I personally will kill and eat if need be. I do not approve of the livestock market practices or scientific testing practices. some animals should be considered our friends and some our prey, but all deserve the respect that the circle of life affords them.

In the opening scene of "Last of the Mohicans" Danial Day Lewis and his adoptive family shoot a buck. When the reached the kill, they offered a respectful prayer of thanks to the buck for its sacrifice to sustain them. this is the way of things.

[MeDeFe]

I reread that paragraph of yours, Juan, here point by point.

This is something that must be defined.

Wikipedia is your friend.

You see, does morality exist no matter what, or is it simply an interpretation of ones own view?

I mostly use it in the third sense.

Do animals have morals?

This is irrelevant to the discussion, I already explained why.

Or is there some special reason that humans are obligated to behave moraly and animals are not?

I also already explained why: we are capable of it, therefore we are obligated to do so. But even if a being is not capable of behaving morally, on account of having no understanding of morality, it has no impact on whether this being should be treated morally or not. As I said, I already explained that.

If this is the case then certianly animals are on a whole other plane than humans.

Why?

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm only trying to put the question into context, and define some boundrys here.

Wikipedia is your friend.

For the record, no it isn't. This guy only uses wiki as reference for those who would use it themeselves. But I would prefer something a little more trustworthy.
This discussion should start out as interpretation, and then move into agreement. I was asking for your views, which again, I believe is the only way to answer this.

I mostly use it in the third sense.

That's not exactly what I mean. I mean, is it wrong for a bird to rip the legs off of a live lizard before eating it? Or is it only wrong if a person does it? Is it wrong for some aboriginee to eat an animals still beating heart? Or is it only wrong if you do?

This is irrelevant to the discussion, I already explained why.

I'm only making a point, not an arguement.

I also already explained why: we are capable of it, therefore we are obligated to do so. But even if a being is not capable of behaving morally, on account of having no understanding of morality, it has no impact on whether this being should be treated morally or not. As I said, I already explained that.

Why? You're an atheist, why are you obligated to do anything really?
Also, I think you pretty much answered the question here anyway.... All you need to do now is find some "blanket morals" for all people in your society to live by. Which is the point I've been driving at this whole time.

Why?

Insect politics.

[Snorri1234]

I'm only trying to put the question into context, and define some boundrys here.

Wikipedia is your friend.

For the record, no it isn't. This guy only uses wiki as reference for those who would use it themeselves. But I would prefer something a little more trustworthy.
This discussion should start out as interpretation, and then move into agreement. I was asking for your views, which again, I believe is the only way to answer this.

WIKIPEDIA LOVES YOU! WHY ARE YOU MAKING THIS SO DIFFICULT!! YOU NEVER PAID ATTENTION TO IT!! WHY DO YOU CLOSE YOUR EYES WHEN WE MAKE LOVE?!

I mostly use it in the third sense.

That's not exactly what I mean. I mean, is it wrong for a bird to rip the legs off of a live lizard before eating it? Or is it only wrong if a person does it? Is it wrong for some aboriginee to eat an animals still beating heart? Or is it only wrong if you do?

Wrong is determined by social codes. There is no wrong either way. If you ate an aboriginee's heart, are you wrong? Society says so.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, I already explained why.

I'm only making a point, not an arguement.

Points are arguments.

I also already explained why: we are capable of it, therefore we are obligated to do so. But even if a being is not capable of behaving morally, on account of having no understanding of morality, it has no impact on whether this being should be treated morally or not. As I said, I already explained that.

Why? You're an atheist, why are you obligated to do anything really?
Also, I think you pretty much answered the question here anyway.... All you need to do now is find some "blanket morals" for all people in your society to live by. Which is the point I've been driving at this whole time.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it quickly brings up the question of why you should care about other humans and not just kill them when you feel like it. Are the rules we make only for us, or should we treat animals morally. (Not not eating them, but at least treat them like they deserve a sense of mercy.)

[Juan_Bottom]

Wrong is determined by social codes. There is no wrong either way. If you ate an aboriginee's heart, are you wrong? Society says so.

This is exactly what I'm saying.
These codes are made up of our individual beliefs, and comprimise, at various levels.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it quickly brings up the question of why you should care about other humans and not just kill them when you feel like it. Are the rules we make only for us, or should we treat animals morally. (Not not eating them, but at least treat them like they deserve a sense of mercy.)

I think you missed my point, the theism thing was something for MeDeFe to think about, not for us to take into account about whether or not to beat babies. It was just a smaller part of my over all point.

[TheProwler]

some animals should be considered our friends and some our prey, but all deserve the respect that the circle of life affords them.

Well said.

[PLAYER57832]

It's simply narcicism on our part. A mosquito is so far removed from us as a species, we give no thought to killing one. A cat, however, is more recognizable in our own context of existence.

I agree this is true in some cases. But I wouldn't kill mosquitoes if they didn't suck my blood. I kill mosquitoes, black flies, and deer flies by the hundreds in the summer. But regular house flies and spiders, if I see them inside, I will catch them and release them to the outside. I'll kill ants though.

For me, I think it has to do with how much I perceive the animal can suffer or what is their capacity for emotions. Also, how much good can they do...how much evil can they do...are they a threat to me of those that I care about...and how much are they cherished by others...it is a complicated subject though...I think a lot goes into a decision of killing something, or not, for me.

And most of the animals we kill are herbivores that produce in large numbers. We are essentially another natural predator. It just so happens that we take them in, feed tham and THEN prey on them.

As for the "feelings" ...also coined the "warm and fuzzy effect"... there are whole studies of it. Apparently there are 2 main features people seek. Some kind of "face" and some sort of reaction or perceived reaction. Dolphins & whales, though with little actual "fuzz" are "warm fuzzies"..., wolverines & tazmanien devils generally are not. (but wolves may be ...)

Myself ... I am a farm kid. I grew up seeing and eating.. and caring for animals. City folks may find those incompatible, but if you look over posts by the farmers/hunters out there ... we don't. I would say it not we that are lacking in understanding.

[laci_mae]

And laci_mae, who or what have you been reading? "Morals are determined individually"? "We bring our morals to the table and hope to come away with attitudes that represent compromise"?
I know of two approaches to morality, you either look at what is the case and attempt to explain it (done very rarely, more common in political philosophy (social contracts etc.)), or you try to devise a rule that can be used to determine whether a behaviour is moral or not (categorical imperative, utilitarian approach, virtue ethics, etc.). Your idea is new to me. And no, I'm not trying to "guide your morals with mine", I'm pointing out that there's a line somewhere between humans and everything else, and that so far noone has been able to give a good reason for its existence.

First off, sorry that I wasn't making myself extremely clear. That'll teach me to get online after a few beers.

Anyway, I guess I'm just trying to point out that morality is determined on an individual basis. The society of which I am a part holds a set of morals. While some may overlap, I have quite different standards of what is/is not moral than those set out by society. It's not an either/or dichotomy, but rather a multi-level phenomenon whereby I must consider events in relation to my personal morals as well as in relation to society's.

I definitely don't think you, personally, are trying to guide my morals. I have a general sense that others in this world assume that their own personal morals are the ones that all of society should abide by. When I encounter this it seems oppressive (not to mention depressing ).

As for your point about the line between humans and "everything else", I'm not sure that a strict line exists. I don't know of many instances in which a sharp line can be drawn separating all possibilities. Instead, I see the world as more of a continuum. Humans are able to rule the food chain due to evolutionary advantages, but the contributions of all other living organisms are vital. Think butterfly effect whereby even the simplest, most remote organism contributes to life on earth in irreplaceable ways.

[b.k. barunt]

It's simply narcicism on our part. A mosquito is so far removed from us as a species, we give no thought to killing one. A cat, however, is more recognizable in our own context of existence. When i first came to Louisiana in 1971, i would hunt a lot in the swamps. One day i shot an otter (for the fur) after stalking it for over an hour, and i felt terrible. Killing deer, pigs, nutria, raccoons, etc., never bothered me, but the otter was so humanlike in its mannerisms while i was stalking it, that i felt like a murderer. After that i had numerous occasions where i could have shot one, and the fur is beautiful, but i could never do it after that.

Like i said, its narcicism plain and simple. We feel no pity for a chicken or cow raised on a mega food farm where they're kept in deplorable conditions, but the thought of something cute and cuddly going into the pot makes us cringe. It's subjective and completely arbitrary, so don't try to moralize it or judge others by it.

I would be willing to bet (take away the fact that I have no idea what otter tastes like) that if you were starving and had your sites on an otter that you wouldn't hesitate too long to kill and eat it.

Yep. Also, if i was really starving, you wouldn't want to be roaming in front of my sights either.