Occasionally we spot an insect in the house and need to get rid of it. My usual approach to these situations is to scoop it onto a piece of paper and throw it out of the house. Sometimes though there’s no option but to squish it and I feel horribly guilty. It preys on my mind for quite a while afterwards.
Once we had to lay mice traps and I had to get rid of them once they were caught. I was told to just throw the traps away with the mice still in them, but this struck me as pretty cruel. The animal would die a lingering death from starvation, exposure or something worse. So I gave them a quick death by summary execution outside. This is more painful for me, but I tell myself it’s the least I can do.
My question is – does everyone feel this way?
I try my best to avoid killing anything. While this may strike one as a good thing, the corollary is that I treat all life equally – human or animal. Given a choice to kill a random human and a random dog, I would flip a coin. Given a choice between a dog I know and a random human, I would always choose the dog.
So two things are odd in me. First, I have a problem killing spiders, ants, insects etc…which many may view as a good thing. But second, my value for human life doesn’t seem to be the same as that held for it by others. Many individuals I have seen place human life at a higher value than all other forms of life – even when the life in question is no better than a bunch of cells as in a fetus.
People will happily eat eggs, chickens, and cows and yet raise hell when a woman wants to have an abortion of a fetus that is just a few days old and is clearly nothing more than a bunch of cells! I agree that there is a time limit above which a fetus can qualify as human in the later stages of pregnancy. But before that, even insects like ants and mosquitoes have more consciousness and life. The hypocrisy of those who claim abortion violates the “sanctity of life” and who eat animal products or kill mosquitoes or cockroaches takes my breath away.
A common argument put forward to support the idea that a human life is inherently more valuable than an animal one is that we humans are capable of higher thinking and consciousness. That’s true. We do have this greater ability. But animals have many things we humans do not. Some can fly, some can run fast, others have stunning eyesight, smell, hearing etc. When it comes to raw abilities, humans are actually pretty lacking. Our progress and development is because we’re able to share knowledge and build upon what others have done before us.
Also if mental capability and quality are reasons to place humans on a pedestal, what of those individuals who are mentally retarded, old people with Alzheimer’s, and children? Last I checked, all such people are given the same rights as the rest of us. Shouldn’t we given them fewer rights in line with the animals because of their reduced mental capacity? But that doesn’t happen and it’s hypocritical.
It’s “speciesism” nothing more. The idea that your species is special for no other reason than that you belong to it. You might pull the religious card and say that the bible or whatever puts humans on a higher footing with animals. But if the bible is proof of the existence of god, then superman comics prove the existence of superman :). Let’s not bring god into this.
So what do you think? What would you do if you had to pick between your pet’s life and a random human stranger’s life?
My personal opinion is that in the future the fetus can grow in to a child and be delivered to live a human being,.,. but it is all a what if… What if the parents believe that they cannot give a proper upbringing to the child or the child was unplanned.. So does it make sense to give it birth and then give it misery because you cannot raise the kid in the way he/she deserves? Wouldn’t that be crueler?
Also you have cases where going ahead would pose a risk to the mother and/or the fetus.. This is similar to the case of Savita Halappanavar who died because she was denied abortion
In reply to Hrishi
Anti abortion people never care about the well being of the child after it’s born.
I think we feel more sympathy to ppl like us. Thus we are less cruel to them. This may be because our sub conscious may be telling us that if we are cruel to some one similar, we have the same fate. So it is a self preservation instinct. Previously humans were very cruel to members of the same species but different in color, language, dress etc. Males continue to be cruel to members of same species, but different gender.
All this may be a side effect of our basic instinct of self preservation.
In reply to Arun
We definitely are more sympathetic to those like us. Some people (like me) feel a kinship with most life, and not just the species we’re born into.
My personal opinion on this issue is the sensation of pain in the organism. Biologically insects and arthropods have lesser to none sensation pain as they lack the receptors. Similarly, yet to completely develop fetus.
In reply to rejuvyesh
I think insects have been shown to feel pain: http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/insect-pain.html . At best, it’s debatable: http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/insect-pain.html
It’s also not just about pain because that would mean that killing without pain is always ethical. Part of it is about organisms having the right to their own life – whether they feel pain or not.
IMHO any mobile organism would have evolved pain as a way to escape damage. Plants wouldn’t feel pain cause it’s no use to them – they’re fixed.
Very well thought out and presented.I only hope that i will never have to choose between my pet’s life and the life of a random human being. Both would be equally precious in my sight.
I am always looking for ways avoid any cruelty, we use some boric powder tablets to get rid of pests from our home. Thankfully we have never had rats in our house because there have always been dogs and cats at home. I would find it very difficult to choose any living creature I have not met or known, over a creature known to me, I would be miserable if I ever have to make such a choice.
I try to avoid hurting any life form as well, no matter how small. But if I’m given a choice between saving a human and a non-human, I’d definitely try to save the human. Sure, if I was traveling through a desert a camel would be more helpful than another human, but it’s pointless to only consider such special scenarios. Humans are superior overall because only we have the capacity and a moral responsibility to solve the problems around us. And since we’re meant to continue evolving, but hopefully not at the expense of other life forms, humans should have the highest priority. Those with disabilities should be aided. But those disabled that cause others harm (e.g. Adam Lanza) should be put away (whether confined or executed is not important here).
Incidentally, eating eggs is not the same as eating meat or fish. Almost all commercial eggs are unfertilized and have a zero chance of developing embryo.
In reply to Narayanan
Many other social animals display altruistic behavior. I don’t think humans are the only species with a conscience.
We humans are not above all species because it’s written in Bible or any other religious book…its because we have evolved and undergone mutation…there are several species that are found to have similar IQ to that of humans,but guess mutation worked pretty well on us…
As per Darwin’s theory only the fittest one survives…let’s just accept the fact that some species are born just to be eaten away not because we; species above in ecological heirchy are cruel…but because its meant to happen.
I am not cruel to end the life of some innocent creature…i would never kill a mosquito if its not biting me…but i wont spare any species epithet if it has potential to cause me Malaria or Degue too… i would never kill a rat..but what if its a carrier of rat flea…you will never kill a Gazelle,because it’s so damn innocent…but if they are not preyed upon they will proably over-graze the whole grasslands,and turn them into wasteland.
In reply to Anjali
All creatures in existence today have undergone as many mutations as humans. We ended up in this form – they ended up in theirs. That’s not a basis for superiority in any way.
Sure, I too will probably kill any creature – including a human – if I had to.
In reply to bhagwad
go on kill a human if you want to…whats wrong in it…but sure there is Code of Law above us…something which other creatures dont have…and perhaps what facilitates there eviction more often than that of humans!!
In reply to bhagwad
by the way mutation is a never ending process..it never stops…every genus has to adapt to the changing environment continuously..the one don’t, get extinct or end up in being killed or eaten away..it all depends upon the interaction between the genus.
you would choose your pet’s life instead some random human..because it’s YOUR pet…will you do the same if the animal is not yours..?
In reply to Anjali
Like I said, if I don’t know the animal I”ll toss a coin…
Abortion was not an issue of public interest in India..it was entirely private…but it was increase in difference of sex ratio that led our govt. to take important safeguards to lower the steep rise of abortion rates.
in India, particularly abortion is not done on medical grounds…its just to kill a female foetus…there is nothing new about it..so in some way its a good step by govt to control illegal TOP…and TOP should be allowed on strict medical grounds only…after the success of genome mapping in foetus,one can clearly prove that the foetus is competant enough to survive or not…also TOP should be allowed in cases where the lfe of mother is on stake.
“Accidents/accidental cases” ;)
should be kept aside from getting benefit of termination..one cannot claim for justice for the accidents they are responsible for.
In reply to Anjali
I’m an atheist :). There is no code of law above us.
And strictly speaking, I few a fetus as a parasite sucking nutrition from its host giving nothing in return. So by itself there’s nothing wrong with abortion because we all take medicine to kill worms etc that are inside us.
Female foeticide is a problem specific to India – it’s the abortion only of girl children. This is a general non country specific post.
In reply to bhagwad
“fetus as a parasite sucking nutrition from its host giving nothing in return”…oh please…the fetus mother interaction is not parasitism in any way,parasites take benefit from the host body and harm the host in return,and no host would purposely give consent to a parasite to come and harm itself..and neither did fetus came into existence without the host’s will…the host purposely desired for it.
any species firstly interacts with the one of it’s own kind then with the others…you want to save your pet’s life over someone of your species…but your per may not feel the same…it’s question of survival of whole species..a male dog would love to cohabit with a female dog in order to save it’s species from being extinct..then to make friends with human and get itself marked into Red data book!
In reply to Anjali Singh
In the 1950s people used to deliberately swallow tapeworms to make themselves grow thin. The fact that they did so willingly and accepted the tapeworms into their body has no bearing on the fact that the tapeworm is a parasite. Technically speaking no one can deny that a fetus is very much a parasite.
Also, you wrote this earlier:
one cannot claim for justice for the accidents they are responsible for.
So if I get burnt while cooking, I should not get it treated because I’m responsible for it? A woman who gets pregnant by accident should have an abortion in exactly the same way.
Also, I’m pretty sure my dog would choose to save me over another random dog they have no connection with. Inter species interaction is overrated.
In reply to bhagwad
tapeworms are present in nature…but fetus will definitely come into existence if the parents didn’t intend for…!
however its irrelevant to compare getting burnt with getting pregnant…but still there are plenty of measures to avoid both even if the accident happens there are still primary steps to cure it…if you dont get them in time who else will you held responsible for?
In reply to Anjali Singh
*definitely NOT
In reply to Anjali Singh
There used to be tapeworm farms to grow the tapeworms – so human beings created those as well. Just like a fetus :)
If you agree that parents can bring a fetus into existence by mistake without intending it, then why should they not get rid of that mistake?
Again – functionally, how is a fetus different from an infection or a parasitic organism?
In reply to bhagwad
don’t give me there used to be…..there used to be a time when a baby was not considered living till it has come out of the mother’s womb also…but it’s not the case now..is it?
they should get rid of it on the primary level…not in the advanced stages,it’s a damn living part of the host..!
In reply to Anjali Singh
Even if the fetus is treated as a living creature, it’s the mother’s body. No one has the right to live inside any other person without their consent.
In reply to bhagwad
if any act of the parent’s bring a life inside the female..the result of which is obviously known to the male and female..it’s not a mistake of that little living creature…and it’s not a parasite that’s going to suck nutrition from the host and reproduce and raise creature of it’s own kind…leaving the host to die.
In reply to Anjali Singh
Not all parasites leave the host to die. That is not a criteria for defining a parasite.
According to you if a person knowingly causes a parasite inside them to take root, they must not be treated because it’s not the mistake of the parasite :D
The parasite is also a “little living creature” no?
In reply to Anjali Singh
no I think if you can make mistake once you will do it again…why not get a permanent solution for it…? everyone will be at peace…!
Parasite is also a living creature but you are not going to get attached to it,it doesn’t carries half your chromosomes,…and you are not responsible for a parasites birth…fetus is developed because of your mixed efforts…
In reply to Anjali Singh
If a woman wants an abortion it means she’s not attached to the fetus either.
If a parasite carries half your chromosomes, it’s still a parasite.
Have you seen the movie “Aliens”? The thing that grows inside you has half your DNA. And it is very much a parasite!
Also, worms can grown inside you if you’re careless. Just like how a fetus can grow inside you if you’re careless (or are raped. Or the condom breaks. Or malfunctions. Or the pills don’t work. Or whatever). Just because you’re careless doesn’t mean you lose the right to control your own body. Since a fetus fits the technical definition of a parasite, it should be treated as such.
In reply to bhagwad
oh..you are that type who gets inspired by movies…I don’t need a movie to tell what’s what…if you are so naive that you can compare a human fetus to a parasite or worms…what exactly are you…parasite in it’s mature form….?
you have a right to control over your own body and this is exactly how it should be…control over yourself and don’t put any other life in danger…go get a tubectomy or vasectomy…have a permanent control over your body and forget worrying about mistakes and “parasite” born out of it.
In reply to Anjali Singh
I have every right to put anyone’s life in danger if my own body’s integrity is at stake. If that means a woman has to have 100 abortions in her lifetime, then so be it.
You’re not arguing rationally anymore. Your argument now just seems to be “Oh, how can you!”. But that’s not enough. Technically a fetus is a parasite sucking nutrition out of the person’s body and giving nothing in return.
You also ignored cases of rape, contraceptives failing etc. What of those?
In reply to Anjali Singh
you may have right to do anything in your defence…if the fetus is putting ,mother’s life in danger…or if the fetus itself is carrying a genetic disorder …it must be aborted…
victim of rape has every right to abort the fetus…she can’t live with the scars of the heinous crime…
and siré…no woman can have upto 100 abortion pleading for general defence…if the reproduction rate is the problem..it must be cured permanently….it’s safe afterall…and there are lots of other options always open…there are IUDs…which lowers the chances of accidents to almost zero…why whine about condom broke or contraceptives din’t worked…you cant practice an act recklessly to bring a life into existence and then kill it saying you don’t want it…that’s so lame..
In reply to Anjali Singh
I guess I just don’t consider a fetus to be alive unless it is conscious or feels pain.
And even then, no more important than a mosquito.
In reply to Anjali Singh
Rights of fetus are a little more complicated because we believe in rights for ourselves as long as we are not trespassing the rights of others. A fetus is occupying the body of the mother. A mother has right to her body and hence a right to abortion.
Any one willing to sustain the fetus outside an unwilling mother’s body is welcome to do so.
On top of this, even the most healthy pregnancy carries a risk to the mother. Elevated blood pressure, strain on the kidneys, preeclampsia, severe morning sickness…just to name a few. Delivering the child is whole another ball game. People get treated for lesser risks. Considering this, pregnancy should always be the choice of the mother.
Abortion is not same game that women delight in. It is usually a very difficult decision to arrive at and carries its own set of risks. I wonder why all ‘pro-life’ people fail to consider the life of the mother. Isn’t that being pro-life too?
In reply to Clueless
mother has right to her body…she may exercise her rights too….but only in cases discussed herein before.
Pregnancy indeed should be choice of mother…and both male and female should make sure where to draw a line…you don’t want to get pregnant..fair enough,go use the measures to stop the pregnancy….rather than terminate the pregnancy…and moreover whats the point of telling that fetus occupies mother’s body….it’s not like a tort being done…and how else a fetus is supposed to come into existence…if you name the biological and natural being of fetus inside mother’s body as trespass what’s next …perhaps you will ask for compensation for the tort committed by a fetus when it grows up.
In reply to Anjali
See , that is where the matter of choice comes in. When I invite people over to my house, they are called guests. When they come uninvited, they are called trespassers. And just because I call some people trespassers does not mean that I will never have guests.
It is my body. And yes, prevention is always better. But there are cases when an unintentional pregnancy happens. Even contraceptives are only 99% safe. In that case, the choice lies purely with me.
And as far as compensation is concerned when the fetus grows up, as long as it was my choice to have the fetus in the first place, I have no right to demand compensation. Infact, it becomes my responsibility since I chose to have the fetus in the first place. When this choice is taken away from me, it would only be fair to compensate me for something that I did not want in the first place.
This is the first thought that came to my mind when I was watching a show on Indian TV where a catholic priest spoke (almost abusively) when another guest suggested that a woman should have the final decision whether she wants to have the child or not – not the government, not the doctors, none. The priest, as usual, said God creates life and he is the only one who can take it, blah blah. And I thought this is a man who eats non-veg food without a second thought, he wears leather shoes. What about those lives created by God?
The question you have asked in the end is a very tough one to answer. Like many have said in the comments above, I’d rather not hurt any life. So, if I were to kill a known pet versus an unknown human, I don’t know the answer. But if I had an option to save either, I think I’d choose the known pet, even though I’d have to live with the guilt of not being able to save the human also.
In reply to ACS
their is nothing to worry about the creatures that are included in our diet…it’s a damn FOOD CHAIN,its how things are supposed to be…they are to be consumed anyways,that’s why they have high reproduction rate…!!
In reply to Anjali Singh
I agree that killing for food is ok. BUT (and there is a big “but”) – there should be no suffering and no torture as currently happens in farm factories around the world.
I have no issues if the animal is killed quickly and with a minimal of torture for food. Otherwise I have a huge problem.
In reply to bhagwad
if the animal is killed quickly as in “Jhatka”….the blood gets clotted inside the body,and that animal product is not fit for consumption..
In reply to Anjali Singh
That…is bullshit!
Reliable source please?
Tell the next wolf you meet to kill the sheep slowly :D
In reply to bhagwad
I’ve a Vet sitting by my side..!!
In reply to Anjali Singh
Doesn’t matter. It’s still bullshit unless you can show me a good source :)
Argument from authority doesn’t cut it when the statement is so obviously false.
In reply to bhagwad
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-27/food-reviews/30675282_1_halal-meat-slaughter-animal
In reply to Anjali Singh
Here is the wikipedia article on halal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal
Nowhere does it say that the meat is “unfit for human consumption”.
My comment was about animal farms torturing the animals by keeping them in unhygienic conditions, mutilating them etc before killing them.
In reply to Anjali Singh
I think calling non-vegetarianism as food chain is rather escapist. We are talking about value of life, so if you really value that why wouldn’t you eat the alternatives available? If you didn’t have an option, I’d understand. Whether humans were designed to be vegetarians or non-vegetarians is an on going debate.
And what do you have to say about the usage of leather and silk for personal beautification?
In reply to ACS
will you ask bear to stop eating fishes just because it can survive on vegetarian food too??
and what option are you referring about…grains???
we are still running short of food grains…that’s why we are moving towards the micro organism to balance the scarcity of grain…but that will require lots of research…it will take time!
moreover a silkmoth can lay upto 350 eggs at a time…so don’t worry about,they have a much higher reproduction rate…and probably you don’t know a large percentage of leather comes from dead animals only…the abandoned skin of the slaughtered animals or the one which are dead by any other mean is the primary requirement of the leather industry…skin from such slaughter house is bought and then processed…and if such industries are not present the skin is going to rot anyway…and that’s more problematic!
In reply to Anjali Singh
I believe he means that humans have a choice. Animals do not. We’re above the laws of nature.
In reply to Anjali Singh
In one of your responses above you have said that humans are above all species because they are more evolved than others and the mutation has worked for us. So, why compare yourself with the bear? We are talking about what you and I, as humans, value.
The alternative I was speaking about was vegetation. Not just grains, but fruits, leaves, etc. I mean, if you let a forest grow, there is going to be no dearth for food. We cut down forests to make way for farm lands and now we are using agricultural land for industries and housing and that is what is leading to shortage of grains, in addition to not storing the grains properly.
Also, chicken, goat and cattle are bred so they can serve as human food. They are not reproducing in such large numbers by themselves. So, if we stop breeding them, there is going to be a shortage there too.
Silk moth lays 350 eggs, so that gives you the right to put it in boiling water and create fashion for yourself? There are close to 7 billion humans on this earth, struggling to survive. What do you have to say about that?
For a fact I know, all leather comes from dead animals only :) My point is why slaughter an animal to accessorise yourself. You could do the same with cotton, jute or even rexine.
And nope, rotting of skin is really not an issue. What happens when a dog dies? You don’t eat it or make use of its skin. You simply bury it for four years and the carcass decomposes biologically. The same is true for any animal.
In reply to ACS
Dog’s skin is not used because it serves no purpose in leather industry…and neither do dogs are slaughtered on such a high rate everyday…the chief requirement of leather industry are cattle..and their skin is obtained from the slaughter houses where they are cut down for meat…I hope you are aware what amount of cattle are slaughtered everyday all around the world…now sum up the amount of skin that comes from these dead animals….if it’s left abandoned it will surely invite epidemics…will you still say open decomposition of skin is not a problem?
Vegetation part…we are different from animals..we don’t eat just to live…we eat because we enjoy can enjoy it too…humans can’t adapt to start eating just fruit and leaves again,and if fruits and leaves are enough alone, explain the cause of still ongoing malnutrition and other deficiencies relating to nutrition?
Silk…people will remain wearing silk for personal beautification…and I think sericulture is not a cruel practice…there are many people who are dependent on the silk industry for their livelihood…the coccon that is cut open produces poor quality of thread…it’s necessary to boil coccon with the moth inside it…probably you don’t know the amount of skill required in this industry…people who produce the silk of lower quality in this industry are often not economically good beside of their dedicated work…so yes I care about a human more then a silk moth.
And I am comparing humans to bear because only bear is more complexed than us…if it can be omnivorous so can human…we do have a choice and we make one.
In reply to Anjali Singh
I understand everything you are saying lady and I have a valid counter response for every single point you have made. But then we are getting away from the topic.
My basic question is, if humans are the most evolved and intelligent species, as you say, does that give them the right to intentionally hurt and be cruel to lesser (according to you) species?
You don’t think dropping a live worm in boiling water, for no other reason but personal beautification, is cruel? I don’t know what to say.
In reply to Anjali Singh
i eat only vegetarian food and am not malnourished !
Bhagalpur silk has been manufactured in India in such a way that the silkworms are not killed.
Where there is compassion and a will, there is always a way. But compassion – the awakening has to come from within; it cannot be forced; it has to evolve…
In reply to tp
I don’t know where the hell the question about compassion,awakening is coming from…the basic question asked is do I value the life of a human above that of an animal…and my answer is Yes!
I am also a vegetarian ..,and I also have a virtue of empathy for the suffering of others…but hey I do care more about a human than a silk moth.I can pass by a butcher shop without being sympathetic for the chicken..but I can’t just close my eyes if the same is happening to a human;known or unknown.
The ecosystem we live in can never sustain if their was a supremacy of only one…it definitely works on mutual collaboration…each and every species have their specific role in the ecosystem and they very well know how to keep their species going…I DO CARE ABOUT THE ANIMALS but not above that of a human life.
And please don’t tell me you don’t eat grains…you are not supposed to be malnourished if you have a proper diet…malnutrition part was in response where a fellow reader mentioned leaves and fruits as an alternative for increasing scarcity of food grains…technically we only need glucose for our metabolic activities to keep on going…why eat food even…why not directly sustain our life on glucose?
In reply to tp
Just because I value a human more over an animal why is it to be considered as apathy?
Anjali Singh :Humans are not inherently carnivorous. We do not have overgrown canines to tear food; we have grinders which indicate that we are supposed to eat food that needs to be masticated well in the mouth where the digestive juice amylase breaks down carbohydrate ( not protein ). Nor do we have a short intestine like other carnivorous animals.
Without external tools we would not be able to kill a cow with our bare hands or be able to kill a chicken without getting pecked at.
I dont know where you got this idea that animals are meant to be killed and eaten by humans. Is it only because we are more powerful than them that you have come to this conclusion ? Suppose tomorrow earth was invaded by a physically stronger race and we humans were grabbed and put in cages; genetically modified and bred for food, would you then conclude that humans are meant to be killed for food to satisfy the hunger of this alien race ? Would they have no other purpose to fulfill on earth ?
All creatures want to live and fear death
In reply to tp
I didn’t say that animals are to killed by humans only…the smaller animals are supposed to be killed by every animal that is above them food chain..
And…we humans have have not only mutated..but we have evolved into smartest of all species..humans were always omnivores…and evolution has not happened just like decades ago…initially homo sapiens were adapted to eat raw flesh..so they had sharp canines…but only our species discovered how to cook…so we began eating cooked food..that’s how canines lost their importance in humans…
we surely dont have ability to kill a cow with bare hands…but duh,we have BRAIN..to make the impossible possible!!
In reply to Anjali Singh
I think intelligence is overrated. It’s just one trait that we humans are good at. A tiger has many other traits that put ours to shame. By your logic, humans are meant to be killed by tigers!
Let’s face facts. There is no “meant” to kill. There is no “higher being” or “higher law” that gives us any “right”. We kill because we can. Not because we should. A tiger also kills and eats because it can. If a tiger kills a human, well and good. If a human kills a tiger well and good. There is no preferred direction.
And if we die of a bacterial infection, well and good. So much for the food chain!
In reply to bhagwad
you think intelligence is overrated??
what do you think is necessary for a species to survive…an ability to jump double its own height or to run with a high speed? If you think Tiger has outstanding traits,explain decrease in their population to me…why didn’t we find mammoths today…we don’t happen to see even home sparrow now..what’s the reason??
Intelligence is what keeps the world going…that’s a fact!
In reply to Anjali Singh
I guarantee you that if you place a human alone in the forest they have a very low chance of survival regardless of how intelligent they are.
The true reason for the success of human being is community. A social framework that probably allowed homo sapiens to prevail over the Neanderthals who were equally intelligent.
Intelligence is a tool. Nothing more. There’s nothing special about it.
In reply to bhagwad
bingo!!
if the true reason for the success of human being is a social framework and mutualism why not respect our own species first…?
In reply to Anjali Singh
Because we’ve moved on from a “might is right” model. Just because we can destroy the planet and are stronger doesn’t make us any more superior.
That way of thinking is for children.
In reply to Anjali Singh
if killing is justifiable just because one is smarter than another then why do humans make the killing of another human a culpable offense punishable by life sentence or even death ? this argument would justify the killing of all human beings with a low IQ by humans with a high IQ !!!
In reply to tp
killing is justifiable between species that are interacting negatively and i’ve mentioned food chain everywhere…I didn’t say that hunting is justified…and how could you be so naive enough to keep both human and animals on the same footing….we live in an ecosystem,where we have to interact with every other species,maybe positive or negative…its all about laws of nature.
every species has its own law to justify the interaction among themselves…a male Lion kills and eat away his cubs just because the female lion wouldn’t be ready to cohabit with him till the cubs have grown…so do you think what happens in Lion world is justified in our world too???
In reply to Anjali Singh
Human being don’t have to behave in any way. There are no “laws of nature” governing how we behave with other animals. Human beings have a choice. We are above those laws.
And so when those laws don’t make sense, we ignore then and do what’s right. And claiming superiority over animals is not right or logical.