Cecil, famous Lion from Zimbabwe shot dead by Dentist from Minnesota for $55k

[kabbes]

Same answer applies. (now who's doing the "micro focussing"? )

What was the principle you were trying to discuss again? You didn't say.

I was trying to discuss the principle of whether all life is equally valuable or whether some discrimination is possible.

You have given your answer, which is an absolutist one in line with Jainism. I'm curious how you manage to put that into practice, since it involves avoiding the death of any insects or other invertebrates, but that's your look out. Either way, there is such a gulf of axiom between us that there's no point even trying to discuss the issue further.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

I was trying to discuss the principle of whether all life is equally valuable or whether some discrimination is possible.

...and yet you provided no explaination as to how this "value" was to be measured even though I asked you several times. Equally valuable BY WHICH MEASURE?

You have given your answer, which is an absolutist one in line with Jainism. I'm curious how you manage to put that into practice, since it involves avoiding the death of any insects or other invertebrates, but that's your look out.

Now you're just making shit up...

Either way, there is such a gulf of axiom between us that there's no point even trying to discuss the issue further.

Well it was a rather poor effort, not sure why you bothered tbh, wasted both yours and my time.

 

[Teaboy]

...and yet you provided no explaination as to how this "value" was to be measured even though I asked you several times. Equally valuable BY WHICH MEASURE?

I answered your question.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

I believe currently a lion's life is worth more than a cow's life.

There's a lot of talk about space exploration and the rest at the moment, Elon's Mars colony etc. The fact is as far as I can tell the rest of space is one massive shit hole, a barren wasteland that is incapable of supporting any life. Horrendous conditions and extremes of heat.

We currently live on an absolute paradise, it is quite simply extraordinary. Part of that paradise is the abundance of wildlife that currently exists and its incredible variations. As humans we are temporary guardians of this planet and as such I believe we have an obligation to preserve this paradise as best as we can for the future. If our actions are threatening a species than it is absolutely our obligation to take action to protect that species over and above protecting individual animals from successful species.

There is a secondary point here as well in that if we are unable to save and protect a species as magnificent and iconic as the lion what on earth chance do the myriad of other species currently endangered stand?

This is why I believe that currently a lion is more important than a farmyard cow. In a hypothetical situation where we had to intervene to save the lion by feeding them I'd have no objection to cows being used for this.

Now this is a bit more interesting.
So the lion is more valuable than any old "farmyard cow" because it's "magnificent and iconic" and there's less of them about. How does one measure magnificence? Is it the mane? Those measures do appear to be a bit arbitrary imo.

Well at the time Cecil was killed, lions were not on the endangered list and are not becoming extinct any time soon. Would it be ok to breed them to be hunted. There are people prepared to pay big money for that, bringing in some dollars to those economies. What would be wrong with that?

 

[kabbes]

I also answered your question. I said you should use whichever measure you subscribe to. It's totally up to you. All I want to know is if you personally discriminate between the life of an ant and the life of a cow.

Your response was to say that you couldn't imagine the validity of any such measure, which is the same as saying that you cannot discriminate.

 

[8ball]

All I want to know is if you personally discriminate between the life of an ant and the life of a cow.

If that's a bit too tricky, how about the life of a paramecium vs the life of a chimp?

 

[8ball]

As far as I'm concerned, a lion is not worth any more or any less than a cow. If you believe otherwise it would be interesting to hear what measure you use. Is there some sort of commodity market for animals where their "shares" go up and down in value?

You bang on about how people apparently don't know where their food comes from, yet are unaware of livestock markets?

 

[Teaboy]

Now this is a bit more interesting.
So the lion is more valuable than any old "farmyard cow" because it's "magnificent and iconic" and there's less of them about. How does one measure magnificence? Is it the mane? Those measures do appear to be a bit arbitrary imo.

Its very much arbitrary, my whole post was as the question was posited requested an opinion. Currently though this is how we humans work (in general), we favour certain traits in an animal over others. We are more affected by the plight of some species over others. If we are to save as many species as possible from our own actions then we need to use our big guns. Its as much a comment on our ability to save these species as anything, if animals which are iconic such as the lions and hedgehogs cannot be saved then we are really in the shit and we face a mass species wipe out. I don't want that to happen on my watch.

Well at the time Cecil was killed, lions were not on the endangered list and are not becoming extinct any time soon. Would it be ok to breed them to be hunted. There are people prepared to pay big money for that, bringing in some dollars to those economies. What would be wrong with that?

Asiatic lions are endangered. Lions in Africa are listed as vulnerable and their numbers dramatically dropped in the 20th Century, they're already extinct in North Africa. I think that is hugely concerning and so should everyone. Personally I'm against hunting for sport and I think there are many actions we could take before it became necessary to breed for hunting to raise money.

In general my comment is about the scarcity of lions and other endangered / threatened species. It is our actions that are driving this and it has to be our actions that prevent extinction. I adore Mallards, nothing gives me greater pleasure than a river or a pond covered in mallards but as it stands I am much more concerned about other species. When a species is in danger the few that are left become extremely precious so in that sense they have a greater worth than other successful species.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

I also answered your question. I said you should use whichever measure you subscribe to. It's totally up to you. All I want to know is if you personally discriminate between the life of an ant and the life of a cow.

Your response was to say that you couldn't imagine the validity of any such measure, which is the same as saying that you cannot discriminate.

...and pray, do tell, what is this elusive mysterious rating system that you use to establish that a lion is worth more than a cow? How do you discriminate?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

If there was some bizarre scenario where I could either save the life of a cow or a life of an ant, I would save the cow because, as far as I can tell, and assuming all things equal, a cow would be more harmed by death than an ant would.

If I could either save a cow or a lion I'd probably save the cow because, afaia, death would harm both equally (assuming both have good lives) but lions are obligate carnivores and thus to live they require the suffering and death of other animals.

I don't think about these types of scenarios in terms of 'value of lives' but more in terms of minimisation of harm.

 

[8ball]

If there was some bizarre scenario where I could either save the life of a cow or a life of an ant, I would save the cow because, as far as I can tell, and assuming all things equal, a cow would be more harmed by death than an ant would.

If I could either save a cow or a lion I'd probably save the cow because, afaia, death would harm both equally (assuming both have good lives) but lions are obligate carnivores and thus to live they require the suffering and death of other animals.

I don't think about these types of scenarios in terms of 'value of lives' but more in terms of minimisation of harm.

Hmmm, so as an animal, being lower down in the food chain increases your moral value due to your lower capacity for "harm", and having animal species below you in the food chain reduces moral value.
And it's better, as a prey animal, to never live in the niche you've evolved towards, but to die of progressively crippling diseases out in the wild.

It's an interesting application of values.

 

[8ball]

...and pray, do tell, what is this elusive mysterious rating system that you use to establish that a lion is worth more than a cow? How do you discriminate?

Have you read anything? Even Singer?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Hmmm, so as an animal, being lower down in the food chain increases your moral value due to your lower capacity for "harm", and having animal species below you in the food chain reduces moral value.
And it's better, as a prey animal, to never live in the niche you've evolved towards, but to die of progressively crippling diseases out in the wild.

It's an interesting application of values.

As I said, it's not about different 'moral value' for me, but about the types of things to take into account in discriminating between individuals with equal moral value. Both cows and lions have equal moral value for me, but if I could save - say through a money donation - either the life of a cow living in sanctuary or a lion living in a safari, I'd pick the cow, because keeping the cow alive wouldn't require the killing of other sentient animals (or at least wouldn't to the same extent).

Not sure I understand your second point: both predator and prey animals in the wild will eventually die rather horrible deaths.

 

[8ball]

Not sure I understand your second point: both predator and prey animals in the wild will eventually die rather horrible deaths.

But a good chance of it being quick for many prey animals.
I see where you're going with the donation thing tbf.

Though I'd pick the lion.

 

[kabbes]

...and pray, do tell, what is this elusive mysterious rating system that you use to establish that a lion is worth more than a cow? How do you discriminate?

Good lord, it’s not a trick question. I already know how *I* discriminate between a cow and an ant, I’m asking you if *you* discriminate between a cow and an ant.

And I’m not asking you to choose between a lion and a cow at all.

This isn’t a trap. I just want to know if your equal-value judgement of animal life is localised or universal. Is there a point — any point — at which you personally would judge one life more worthy? Or do you take an absolute stance on all creatures?

It’s a really, really straightforward question and your elusiveness in answering it is just making you look like a twat, frankly.

 

[8ball]

It’s a really, really straightforward question and your elusiveness in answering it is just making you look like a twat, frankly.

It's not on the pamphlet!

 

[andysays]

If there was some bizarre scenario where I could either save the life of a cow or a life of an ant, I would save the cow because, as far as I can tell, and assuming all things equal, a cow would be more harmed by death than an ant would.

If I could either save a cow or a lion I'd probably save the cow because, afaia, death would harm both equally (assuming both have good lives) but lions are obligate carnivores and thus to live they require the suffering and death of other animals.

I don't think about these types of scenarios in terms of 'value of lives' but more in terms of minimisation of harm.

It's interesting that you appear to equate death automatically with suffering, rather than recognising that it's actually an absolutely essential and natural part of life, and that you regard even the eating of prey animals by predators like lions as some kind of negative.

And talking about minimization of harm, are you aware of the destructive effects on a whole eco-system of removing the carnivores? This is one of the real, science based arguments against the hunting of lions, etc.

 

[chilango]

Well if this thread really was just a thread "about a lion", it wouldn't be 17 pages long before it was apparently "hijacked". Poor Cecil, Palmer is a cunt, job done, thread over in about 4 posts, no? I guess you can't expect dumb stunts to understand depth and nuance. Why are deaths like Cecil's significant, yet other far more numerous deaths get little attention or sympathy and have become routine. Is rarity a good enough reason?

It would be interesting to see an explanation of how Dr Palmer paying lots of his own money to hunt and kill a lion at close quarters, is so much worse than a regular punter paying someone else to kill and chop up Bessie the slave cow (and millions like her). What's the difference? What if all of Cecil's bits were eaten (bushmeat burgers anyone?) or put to "good use", would that make it ok?

Lions are charismatic megafauna and top level predators.

Cows aren't.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It's interesting that you appear to equate death automatically with suffering, rather than recognising that it's actually an absolutely essential and natural part of life, and that you regard even the eating of prey animals by predators like lions as some kind of negative.

And talking about minimization of harm, are you aware of the destructive effects on a whole eco-system of removing the carnivores? This is one of the real, science based arguments against the hunting of lions, etc.

I didn’t equate suffering and death, I recognise them as distinct harms (yes death is part of life and it’s not always a harm but often it is).

I’m against the hunting of lions and other carnivores for the reason you give amongst others. What I was talking about in the post you quoted was who I would choose to *save* between a cow and a lion. I’m against killing both.

 

[8ball]

It's interesting that you appear to equate death automatically with suffering, rather than recognising that it's actually an absolutely essential and natural part of life, and that you regard even the eating of prey animals by predators like lions as some kind of negative.

The conflation of human conspecific killing (and our conventions around that) and ecological relationships between organisms is bound to throw up some interesting ideas. I was mostly thinking in terms of the extension of human values in the direction of (mostly) mammals before you brought that up.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Its very much arbitrary, my whole post was as the question was posited requested an opinion. Currently though this is how we humans work (in general), we favour certain traits in an animal over others. We are more affected by the plight of some species over others.

...and it is my opinion that such arbitrary measures and values are not sound bases for making moral judgements as to whether it is right or wrong to kill an animal. I'm not particularly fond of dogs (more of a cat person) however that doesn't mean that I am ok with dogs being mistreated, or killed and eaten just because I think cats are cuter. As far as I'm concerned they all have a right to be left the fuck alone, be they cat, dog, goat, lion, ant or cow.

If we are to save as many species as possible from our own actions then we need to use our big guns. Its as much a comment on our ability to save these species as anything, if animals which are iconic such as the lions and hedgehogs cannot be saved then we are really in the shit and we face a mass species wipe out. I don't want that to happen on my watch.

I didn't really understand what you meant there, tbh. If we leave the animals be and stop interfering and messing with their habitats and spoiling their environments (as far as is practicable) then there should be no reason for a man made "mass species wipe out" to occur. Species have disappeared before with and without human assistance before and will possibly happen again, perhaps even on our watch.

Asiatic lions are endangered. Lions in Africa are listed as vulnerable and their numbers dramatically dropped in the 20th Century, they're already extinct in North Africa. I think that is hugely concerning and so should everyone. Personally I'm against hunting for sport and I think there are many actions we could take before it became necessary to breed for hunting to raise money.

Cecil was not an Asiatic lion or in North Africa, and was not in dangerously low numbers at that time in the location where he was killed.
Don't get me wrong (The Pretenders), I'm also very much against hunting of any sort that's not purely for survival, so I'm not trying to defend the position of the hunters, however I do agree with hunters when they say that what they're doing is no worse than what the majority of folk pay to have done on their behalf, which is kinda cowardly. So if farming animals for eating pleasure is ok, what's wrong with canned hunting...

In general my comment is about the scarcity of lions and other endangered / threatened species. It is our actions that are driving this and it has to be our actions that prevent extinction. I adore Mallards, nothing gives me greater pleasure than a river or a pond covered in mallards but as it stands I am much more concerned about other species. When a species is in danger the few that are left become extremely precious so in that sense they have a greater worth than other successful species.

Well in this regard, "our actions" in terms of our food choices are a far bigger factor affecting the environment than hunting does. So if that is the measure being used to determine which is the "most wrong" hunting or livestock, hunting would win that argument, although as far as I'm concerned, they are both utter shite.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Good lord, it’s not a trick question. I already know how *I* discriminate between a cow and an ant, I’m asking you if *you* discriminate between a cow and an ant.

And I’m not asking you to choose between a lion and a cow at all.

This isn’t a trap. I just want to know if your equal-value judgement of animal life is localised or universal. Is there a point — any point — at which you personally would judge one life more worthy? Or do you take an absolute stance on all creatures?

It’s a really, really straightforward question and your elusiveness in answering it is just making you look like a twat, frankly.

lol, a knobhead calling me a twat. Pot meets kettle.

It's a stupid overly simplistic question. I asked you to qualify what you meant by "value" and you still haven't done that. It's likely what whatever dumb value measure you come up with, I won't subscribe to it anyway so I'm under no obligation to say whether an ant is more or less valuable than a cow.

As I said earlier, you've wasted my time and your own, so feel free to jog on.

 

[kabbes]

Fucking hell

I had no idea a discussion was an “obligation”. You brought up the subject of whether one life was more valuable than another, I was simply trying to engage you on that subject to find out what motivated your beliefs. If that is a “waste of time” then yes, discussion is a waste of time.

I don’t know how you get through the day if you leap to suspicion and bad faith every time somebody asks you to expand on what you just said.

 

[Poi E]

Hmm, perhaps you're unaware that nature has already evolved a perfectly well functioning method of turning plants into meat...

Good point, but mechanically recovered meat burger chompers are not ready for that yet.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

If there was some bizarre scenario where I could either save the life of a cow or a life of an ant, I would save the cow because, as far as I can tell, and assuming all things equal, a cow would be more harmed by death than an ant would.

If I could either save a cow or a lion I'd probably save the cow because, afaia, death would harm both equally (assuming both have good lives) but lions are obligate carnivores and thus to live they require the suffering and death of other animals.

I don't think about these types of scenarios in terms of 'value of lives' but more in terms of minimisation of harm.

By this logic you’d save the life of a goat before that of a human.

 

[butchersapron]

Depends on the human eh magnus. Depends on the human.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

lol, a knobhead calling me a twat. Pot meets kettle.

It's a stupid overly simplistic question. I asked you to qualify what you meant by "value" and you still haven't done that. It's likely what whatever dumb value measure you come up with, I won't subscribe to it anyway so I'm under no obligation to say whether an ant is more or less valuable than a cow.

As I said earlier, you've wasted my time and your own, so feel free to jog on.

You haven’t thought it through hence the evasiveness.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Depends on the human eh magnus. Depends on the human.

Maybe there’s a questionnaire checking their dietary habits and carbon footprint before a decision is made.

 

[andysays]

I didn’t equate suffering and death, I recognise them as distinct harms (yes death is part of life and it’s not always a harm but often it is).

I’m against the hunting of lions and other carnivores for the reason you give amongst others. What I was talking about in the post you quoted was who I would choose to *save* between a cow and a lion. I’m against killing both.

But by explicitly choosing to save a herbivore rather than a carnivore, you seem to be making the assumption that a death through being eaten by a predator involves more suffering than other possible types of death, as well as ignoring that if you allow the lion to die rather than the cow, all the prey it would otherwise have eaten will go uneaten, with all the potential adverse effects on the ecosystem that might follow.

You could at least acknowledge that assumption and attempt to justify it.

 

[8ball]

I don’t know how you get through the day if you leap to suspicion and bad faith every time somebody asks you to expand on what you just said.

166 pages of another thread neatly condensed into one. Good work, boffins!