Animal ethics and glue traps

[CaptainCrunch]

What do you guys think about these traps? Have you ever seen or used them before? If you do, what do you actually do to the live animal caught on it?

Last week they were using these things at work, and I did not find out about it until I came into the office to witness an animal in one of them. It was a mouse, half its leg chewed off and its back legs broken. It was shivering and whimpering faintly, by my estimation it was there overnight. I knew how cruel these things were, but seeing it in person just puts it in my mind that these are quite diabolical. I do not see how it's necessary to superglue a creature onto a sheet of plastic until it slowly expires, that seems unnecessarily cruel. Especially with a creature such as a mammal that's relatively intelligent and quite capable of feeling pain. Thankfully there was a vet next door and they euthanised the animal free of charge.

I do understand the necessity of pest control, but I do not understand people torturing them like that. I have used snap traps to eliminate mice before, as well as electric traps and they provide a humane, quick kill. I have never needed to force an animal to break its limbs or practically mutilate itself trying to survive. Do people think about the consequences before using these things, or do they just don't care/remain blissfully ignorant? I have heard of people just throwing them in the garbage while still alive, in similar condition. Do you think that is an acceptable way to kill an animal?

I would not mind seeing these traps either outlawed or being heavily regulated, but I do realise some people may frequently inspect and humanely dispatch any animal caught. However, the impression I am getting is most people who use them don't bother to do this, which seems very irresponsible. They don't seem very hygienic compared to some other alternatives, either.

I think it's important to realise that while controlling invasive/pest animals is important, recognising the fact they're not objects is also important. I felt pretty bad seeing the mouse struggling like that, so I made sure it didn't have to suffer any more. Do you guys have any stories like that with animals?

 

[twocows]

It doesn't bother me. Most animals operate on pure instinct. Any species that largely operates on pure instinct may as well be a simple computer and is worth about as much.

I wouldn't want to see it suffering, of course, as my instinct is to feel empathy for most things that I see suffering, especially if they're "cute." But luckily, I am not a mouse. I don't operate on pure instinct. I can and do override instinct with intellect when instinct is wrong. That's part of why I value humanity so much; we can rise above pure base impulse and be something greater.

I do agree that a quick kill is better where feasible, but when it comes to mice, nothing kills them immediately 100% of the time. Snapping mouse traps, the most common kind of trap, don't kill them instantly, either. Neither do poison pellets or any number of other solutions. In the end, people just go with whatever does the best job of killing them; mice breed like crazy and become a real problem if you don't deal with them in force.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

I wouldn't want to see it suffering, of course, as my instinct is to feel empathy for most things that I see suffering, especially if they're "cute."

I thought you said it didn't bother you?

But luckily, I am not a mouse. I don't operate on pure instinct.

I think you're selling animals a little short here. It was demonstrated that rodents can show empathy driven behaviour, rats also laugh when they are tickled. This doesn't seem to be behaviour consistent from an animal that is driven by pure instinct alone. On this alone they seem to be a lot more complex than a "simple computer". It is also a contradictory thing to say - you've admitted that they can suffer, but we know that a simple computer cannot suffer. A calculator is a simple computer, something like a brain of a mouse would be far more complex. I am not comfortable with your definition, to me it just sounds like a kind of leeway for people to mistreat animals.

 

[twocows]

I thought you said it didn't bother you?

It doesn't bother me on an intellectual level. I still don't like to see things suffering, that's just hard-wired into me. But I don't believe there's anything wrong with it, provided there's a worthwhile reason for it (and in this case, there is).

I think you're selling animals a little short here. It was demonstrated that rodents can show empathy driven behaviour, rats also laugh when they are tickled. This doesn't seem to be behaviour consistent from an animal that is driven by pure instinct alone. On this alone they seem to be a lot more complex than a "simple computer". It is also a contradictory thing to say - you've admitted that they can suffer, but we know that a simple computer cannot suffer. A calculator is a simple computer, something like a brain of a mouse would be far more complex. I am not comfortable with your definition, to me it just sounds like a kind of leeway for people to mistreat animals.

I'm gonna ramble a bit here since I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from, not convince anyone. Plus, this is cool stuff.

Regarding empathy, such behavior makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective. Do a Google search for empathy and evolution and you'll get a lot of well-explained results, much better of a job than I could do here. I still think that is instinctive behavior. It doesn't have to be completely self-serving, either; a lot of instinctual behaviors that result from natural selection are behaviors that may actually harm the individual but help the community. These behaviors do get passed on because communities with these sorts of individuals are more likely to survive than communities without them.

As for the comparison to computers, maybe a plant or bacterium would be a better comparison. They both feel "pain," in that they react in a predictable way to a potentially harmful stimulus. The point I was trying to make was that they don't really have any control over their own actions. They act purely on a ruleset: provide this stimulus, get this result. That's like a computer. When I said I don't like to see them "suffer," that's a word I'm ascribing to their behavior. In reality, their behavior is completely explainable by pure instinct. Some of it is related to trying to maintain internal homeostasis, some is an attempt to ward off predators, and some is an attempt to get assistance from any other mice in the area. These are normal behaviors, and they're often the same kinds of things we do when we're suffering, and that's probably part of the reason we feel as we do when we see them (some people will experience a different feeling: either we are the "ally" and we feel the need to help, or we are the "predator" and we see the opportunity to take advantage of the situation).

Side note: dogs are an interesting case. Dogs treat some humans as members of their "pack" because of our symbiotic relationship; both humans and dogs benefit from treating each other as allies. A lot of the behaviors dogs have developed are specifically to make them more in tune with human behavior. For example, (some) dogs understand pointing. That's something humans came up with and, despite what it may seem, its meaning isn't patently obvious. There are many other things that gesture could mean, but over time, dogs have picked up that it means "look in that direction." That's pretty cool.

Anyway, the point is that I still don't believe mice are sufficiently aware to be worth considering from an ethical standpoint, at least not to any significant degree. I recall vaguely how (un)aware I was when I was a young child, but from what I understand, even newborns are several orders of magnitude more aware than many adult animals. There are exceptions, and that's why in my original post, I said "most animals." But I don't think rats are one of those exceptions.

 

[Eevee-Kins]

I'm actually a vegetarian because I love animals so much.
I personally like those traps where the animal wanders in and you can release it later. Glue traps can also trap squirrels, birds, and other small animals you don't want to actually kill.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

It doesn't bother me on an intellectual level. I still don't like to see things suffering, that's just hard-wired into me. But I don't believe there's anything wrong with it, provided there's a worthwhile reason for it (and in this case, there is).

That seems quite contradictory to me. There has to be reasons why you're empathetic when you see another animal suffer, that you can explain logically. It isn't as simple as "it just is". You have personal feelings that are invoked when you see an animal suffering, and it's something that you can describe. And what worthwhile reason is there for setting a trap such as this, and not checking it often? Are you saying it is not wrong to cause an animal unnecessary pain and distress when it can be avoided?

I wonder what your stance is on the hunters who don't check leghold traps often for foxes and the like, rather letting them dehydrate/starve/gnaw a leg off than doing the responsible and humane thing.

I still think that is instinctive behavior. It doesn't have to be completely self-serving, either; a lot of instinctual behaviors that result from natural selection are behaviors that may actually harm the individual but help the community. These behaviors do get passed on because communities with these sorts of individuals are more likely to survive than communities without them.

I don't agree with you. It's more than instinctive, even the people who did this research said they were quite surprised by it. The animal chose to actively help one of its kin, when it didn't even have to. It could have simply gone for the food item instead.

The point I was trying to make was that they don't really have any control over their own actions.

Why should that matter when it comes to people being unnecessary cruel to animals?

They act purely on a ruleset: provide this stimulus, get this result. That's like a computer.

It's not as simple as that. There is much we don't know about how the human mind works, let alone an animal's. Please let me know when a computer has a personal preference for Doritos nacho cheese rather than cheese supreme (*gasp* one of my pet rats actually do).

These are normal behaviors, and they're often the same kinds of things we do when we're suffering, and that's probably part of the reason we feel as we do when we see them (some people will experience a different feeling: either we are the "ally" and we feel the need to help, or we are the "predator" and we see the opportunity to take advantage of the situation).

Which is part of the reason why I think your "simple computer" analogy was unnecessary. There are plenty of similarities between mammals that involve the perception of pain. A plant and bacterium for example don't suffer mental trauma when they are put through a stressful experience, they do not have a developed brain to process such information to learn from it.

Anyway, the point is that I still don't believe mice are sufficiently aware to be worth considering from an ethical standpoint, at least not to any significant degree. I recall vaguely how (un)aware I was when I was a young child, but from what I understand, even newborns are several orders of magnitude more aware than many adult animals. There are exceptions, and that's why in my original post, I said "most animals." But I don't think rats are one of those exceptions.

More aware than a rodent? A dog? What animal? If it's those two I mentioned, I find that incredibly hard to believe, considering a newborn without its mother would perish quickly - unlike an adult rat or dog that has a chance to survive without its owner.

Do they have to be sufficiently aware for them to be ethically considered? Why? Why do you think we have animal welfare laws, and regulations with regards to animal testing? What does "significant degree" mean? If someone took a random mouse and started torturing it with nailclippers, is its welfare and the mental state of the person doing it not worth considering because it's not aware as a human being? I know this is an extreme example, but I am using it to ask where one draws a line here.

This is the kind of reasoning that is open to abuse; it's the sort of reason people use to justify anything under the sun. I knew a student who would openly brag about setting feral cats on fire, animals he caught with a cage. From an ethical standpoint, it was shocking but he brushed off such concerns, saying it was only a "pest" and since it was not human, its treatment did not matter. My personal view? He's a scumbag. You can often tell the quality of one's character with the way they treat "lesser" animals just as long as it isn't over extended. Someone with empathy to animals, I see as someone with a healthy amount of respect to them and can recognise that they aren't inanimate objects, to do whatever they wished with them. I am not really sure about you - you seem to paint them as objects, but supposedly are empathetic to them. Seems like a contradiction of stances, but that just might be me... correct me if I am wrong.

As for rats not being an exception, perhaps if you get a couple as pets and observe their behaviour you may think about it in a different light. They are relatively intelligent animals, quite affectionate too. They are not automations, or at least the kind you'd liken them to. Oh, apparently they are capable of reflecting on mental processes. There is much we don't know about how their minds tick, to dismiss them so casually and attribute them to something like an inanimate object is IMO, heartless and a little ignorant.

 

[twocows]

That seems quite contradictory to me. There has to be reasons why you're empathetic when you see another animal suffer, that you can explain logically. It isn't as simple as "it just is". You have personal feelings that are invoked when you see an animal suffering, and it's something that you can describe.

I think I already established that it's a matter of instinct, something that arose because it was useful from the process of natural selection.

And what worthwhile reason is there for setting a trap such as this, and not checking it often? Are you saying it is not wrong to cause an animal unnecessary pain and distress when it can be avoided?

No, and in fact, if you'll actually read what I said, you'll notice that I said the exact opposite: that we should avoid it unless it doesn't make sense to.

I wonder what your stance is on the hunters who don't check leghold traps often for foxes and the like, rather letting them dehydrate/starve/gnaw a leg off than doing the responsible and humane thing.

That we should avoid it unless it doesn't make sense to.

I don't agree with you. It's more than instinctive, even the people who did this research said they were quite surprised by it. The animal chose to actively help one of its kin, when it didn't even have to. It could have simply gone for the food item instead.

Which I explained.

Why should that matter when it comes to people being unnecessary cruel to animals?

Because I'm making the case that they're not sufficiently cognizant to be worthy of significant moral consideration. They're somewhere between "property" and "infants" as far as moral consideration goes, and I think they're closer to the "property" side.

Which is part of the reason why I think your "simple computer" analogy was unnecessary. There are plenty of similarities between mammals that involve the perception of pain. A plant and bacterium for example don't suffer mental trauma when they are put through a stressful experience, they do not have a developed brain to process such information to learn from it.

Learning from past experience is just useful, it doesn't indicate the heightened sense of awareness I associate with higher cognition.

Do they have to be sufficiently aware for them to be ethically considered? Why?

Yes, because ethics are a set of rules that we apply to maintain the well-being of society and the individuals within it. In the end, whatever the ethical theory, the goal is to make the world better for us. Now, there are many, many theories on ethics. I could come up with a rational argument from almost any perspective as to why I believe what I do about animals and moral theory. In the end, though, everyone draws the line somewhere. You seem to be drawing it at "show visible reaction to stimulus and adapts to stimulus." To be honest, even bacteria do that, you just can't see it or control it, so it's out of sight, out of mind. I'm just drawing the line where I personally think it makes sense to draw it.

I get that that's going to upset a few people who feel a close association with animals or draw the line somewhere else. I don't really care, I'm not asking them (or you) to believe what I believe. You might call me unethical. That's your judgment to make for yourself. I sleep soundly at night because I know that the things I push for are things that will help people. I have no compunctions about my beliefs whatsoever.

Why do you think we have animal welfare laws, and regulations with regards to animal testing?

Because we live in a democracy (more or less) and in a democracy, the squeaky wheel gets the grease unless another wheel starts squeaking louder. The set of animal rights laws we have now are probably unnecessary, but they don't really cause any problems and they mollify a lot of loud and pissed off voters. As for regulations regarding testing, they're reasonable because they have to be: if they were unreasonably strict, businesses would get pissed off, and if they were too lenient, PETA would once again show how ironic and utterly stupid they are by firebombing medical research facilities.

Not that any of that matters to what I'm saying. The point is that I don't really influence the laws to any significant degree and they have nothing to do with my personal ethical beliefs.

What does "significant degree" mean?

They're not really capable of higher cognition, but as much as I make the comparison, they aren't, in fact, bacteria. I consider them a few steps above property in that they're worthy of a bit of moral consideration (especially if there's some human element involved), but not really even close to the level of humans. In other words, I treat them with some trivial level of ethical consideration; I don't go out of my way to harm them, but if, in the course of getting something done, I end up harming them, I don't really get too shaken up about it.

If someone took a random mouse and started torturing it with nailclippers, is its welfare and the mental state of the person doing it not worth considering because it's not aware as a human being? I know this is an extreme example, but I am using it to ask where one draws a line here.

Going out of your way to harm anything can be indicative of some serious mental problems, but that's neither here nor there. I think going out of your way to hurt an animal is wrong because there's no reason to do so. They may just be a few steps above a calculator or a mushroom in my book, but they are, in fact, above them, and hurting them for no reason isn't right.

This is the kind of reasoning that is open to abuse; it's the sort of reason people use to justify anything under the sun. I knew a student who would openly brag about setting feral cats on fire, animals he caught with a cage. From an ethical standpoint, it was shocking but he brushed off such concerns, saying it was only a "pest" and since it was not human, its treatment did not matter.

That's causing undue harm without a sufficient reason. If the cats were truly a problem, there are better ways to deal with them.

As for rats not being an exception, perhaps if you get a couple as pets and observe their behaviour you may think about it in a different light. They are relatively intelligent animals, quite affectionate too. They are not automations, or at least the kind you'd liken them to.

We had a mouse as a pet when I was in grade school. I've had several pets other than that. That doesn't change my position on anything. They're still all impulse, no higher awareness. I know how they are, and I also realize that a lot of what you're attributing to them is just your interpretation. I'm still going to trap them if they try to get in my house.

Oh, apparently they are capable of reflecting on mental processes.

Understanding what you know and what you don't know is useful and pretty complex, but not as complex as some other cognitive processes that most animals already possess. It also doesn't really demonstrate that they're really aware to any significant degree.

There is much we don't know about how their minds tick,

That's true, and it's possible that I'm wrong and they're more aware than I believe. However, as of yet, I'm not sufficiently convinced that they're a "heightened intellect" animal, like a chimpanzee or a dolphin. They've got some neat tricks, but so do a lot of animals.

to dismiss them so casually and attribute them to something like an inanimate object is IMO, heartless and a little ignorant.

I find your suggestion that plants are inanimate objects to be heartless and a little ignorant.

 

[Tek]

It doesn't bother me. Most animals operate on pure instinct. Any species that largely operates on pure instinct may as well be a simple computer and is worth about as much.

...

But luckily, I am not a mouse. I don't operate on pure instinct. I can and do override instinct with intellect when instinct is wrong. That's part of why I value humanity so much; we can rise above pure base impulse and be something greater.

I think I get what you mean by this, but I'd like to point out that even conscious and self-reflective action (what you're referred to as intellect) can be seen as instinctual when the full complexity of a situation is considered. There are an infinite number of contexts and relations to other events/objects when even the simplest choice is made of what time to get up or which grocery store to go to.

It's basically the free will vs fate argument, which I don't think we need to get into here. The point I'm making is rather than draw an arbitrary line between free will and fate, perhaps we should use something a bit more tangible: complexity.

In general, the pattern that we see throughout history is that as more complex external structures of matter arise, more complex internal structures of consciousness arise. Sensation arises in neuronal organisms, but not in simple prokaryotes or eukaryotes. Perception appears to arise with organisms that have a neural cord, and not in simpler neuronal organisms like flatworms. Impulse arises with the reptilian brain stem. Emotion arises with the limbic system present in all mammals. Symbols arise with the neocortex and triune brain. Concepts arise with a sufficiently wrinkly complex neocortex.

Note that these distinctions are not absolutely rigid and clearly defined. The neocortex is present in mammals other than humans, though its structure is different. Structures similar to the limbic system are present in birds and some ancient reptiles. Which makes it possible that some reptiles and birds experience some sort of emotion, and some mammals may have very very rudimentary conceptual knowledge. But the overall trend is clear, and can be illustrated thusly: A cat makes a better pet than a rock, because cats experience sadness and happiness, while the only thing you have in common with a rock is that you both fall at the same rate.

To state my position on this topic, I'll relate this to another topic: vegetarianism. When asked why he was a vegetarian, Alan Watts said "Because cows scream louder than carrots." Which we can restate as: mammals have more interior depth than plants. We don't think twice about cutting grass, because grass doesn't experience pain or sorrow. Animals do.

 

[twocows]

I think I get what you mean by this, but I'd like to point out that even conscious and self-reflective action (what you're referred to as intellect) can be seen as instinctual when the full complexity of a situation is considered. There are an infinite number of contexts and relations to other events/objects when even the simplest choice is made of what time to get up or which grocery store to go to.

It's basically the free will vs fate argument, which I don't think we need to get into here. The point I'm making is rather than draw an arbitrary line between free will and fate, perhaps we should use something a bit more tangible: complexity.

In general, the pattern that we see throughout history is that as more complex external structures of matter arise, more complex internal structures of consciousness arise. Sensation arises in neuronal organisms, but not in simple prokaryotes or eukaryotes. Perception appears to arise with organisms that have a neural cord, and not in simpler neuronal organisms like flatworms. Impulse arises with the reptilian brain stem. Emotion arises with the limbic system present in all mammals. Symbols arise with the neocortex and triune brain. Concepts arise with a sufficiently wrinkly complex neocortex.

Note that these distinctions are not absolutely rigid and clearly defined. The neocortex is present in mammals other than humans, though its structure is different. Structures similar to the limbic system are present in birds and some ancient reptiles. Which makes it possible that some reptiles and birds experience some sort of emotion, and some mammals may have very very rudimentary conceptual knowledge. But the overall trend is clear, and can be illustrated thusly: A cat makes a better pet than a rock, because cats experience sadness and happiness, while the only thing you have in common with a rock is that you both fall at the same rate.

To state my position on this topic, I'll relate this to another topic: vegetarianism. When asked why he was a vegetarian, Alan Watts said "Because cows scream louder than carrots." Which we can restate as: mammals have more interior depth than plants. We don't think twice about cutting grass, because grass doesn't experience pain or sorrow. Animals do.

That's a fair point, and well made. It's true that, in the end, all of our thought processes and such still come from nerves sending impulses through various substances. In the end, everything is "impulse" in a certain sense.

I still see a pretty thick line between the level of awareness we have and the level of awareness a mouse has, but what you say definitely has merit and might be part of what I'm missing. I understand my ethical position very well, but I have a bit of trouble defining exactly what it is I'm getting at that humans (and possibly some animals) have that other "lesser" animals lack. It might be more than one thing; there are a lot of things that make me feel humanity is worth going out of your way for that I haven't found in most (or in some cases, any) animals.

Anyway, I do believe I have the right viewpoint here; I sincerely believe humanity is much more important and worth protecting than lesser creatures and I'll stand by that.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

I think I already established that it's a matter of instinct, something that arose because it was useful from the process of natural selection.

I don't particularly care how useful it is from an evolutionary standpoint - saying that you aren't bothered by it and then saying you're empathetic to the creature's suffering is a clear contradiction.

Don't hide behind scientific literature, I want your personal thoughts. Why do you feel sorry for the animal. I didn't ask for a reason why empathy might be advantageous.

No, and in fact, if you'll actually read what I said, you'll notice that I said the exact opposite: that we should avoid it unless it doesn't make sense to.

You wrote "and in this case, there is", hence the question.

Which I explained.

You explained how empathy is evolutionarily advantageous, that doesn't necessarily mean it is purely instinctive. Empathy (at least towards animals) is a choice, and even if that means for self betterment, it's still a choice. It isn't just an automatic impulse, there is still a thought process required. People can choose not to feel empathy for an animal for a host of reasons, and it's usually the case why they do (or not) feel empathy to them.

Because I'm making the case that they're not sufficiently cognizant to be worthy of significant moral consideration. They're somewhere between "property" and "infants" as far as moral consideration goes, and I think they're closer to the "property" side.

Being concerned about unnecessary cruelty to an animal isn't what I'd call a significant moral consideration, at least not the definition you are using. You are still attributing them at least some form of moral consideration for the very fact that you seem to be opposed to unnecessary cruelty and/or mistreatment.

Learning from past experience is just useful, it doesn't indicate the heightened sense of awareness I associate with higher cognition.

Heightened sense of awareness is what is required for learning specific things. A rat may not be able to do calculus, but it can learn through processes that was once thought only unique to humans. They might not be on the same level as humans beings, but there is still something there. What you call "tricks", I call proof of limited higher cognition. It also explains why you can train mammals and birds to do specific things, but for lizards it is significantly harder.

Yes, because ethics are a set of rules that we apply to maintain the well-being of society and the individuals within it. In the end, whatever the ethical theory, the goal is to make the world better for us. Now, there are many, many theories on ethics. I could come up with a rational argument from almost any perspective as to why I believe what I do about animals and moral theory. In the end, though, everyone draws the line somewhere. You seem to be drawing it at "show visible reaction to stimulus and adapts to stimulus." To be honest, even bacteria do that, you just can't see it or control it, so it's out of sight, out of mind. I'm just drawing the line where I personally think it makes sense to draw it.

What about the world around us? Only caring about ourselves and "damn the rest" isn't really what I'd consider ethical. Considering we are the dominant species, we have certain responsibilities, and I think having concern for other life is one of them. Having ethical consideration needn't be selfish.

As for where I draw the line, I consider pain and suffering that the creature is capable of feeling. I would have to balance that with what is practical of course. This is why I'd be more upset if a human was tortured, for example. It's not as simple as what that quote of yours state, in fact it's a rather clinical and cold-hearted way to look at things. Yes, bacterium will move away from stimuli but it is incapable of feeling pain or suffering, it is not a good comparison to make when it comes to the treatment of animals.

You might call me unethical. That's your judgment to make for yourself. I sleep soundly at night because I know that the things I push for are things that will help people. I have no compunctions about my beliefs whatsoever.

Unethical? No. Selfish? Maybe.

The set of animal rights laws we have now are probably unnecessary, but they don't really cause any problems and they mollify a lot of loud and pissed off voters. As for regulations regarding testing, they're reasonable because they have to be: if they were unreasonably strict, businesses would get pissed off, and if they were too lenient, PETA would once again show how ironic and utterly stupid they are by firebombing medical research facilities.

We don't need laws to tell us it's wrong to torture or abuse animals, but I still think there should be a deterrent. If not for that then something to show that such a thing is unacceptable in a civilised society.

So these regulations have nothing to do with compassion and the ability to recognise the fact that animals can also feel pain and suffer? PETA is an extreme example (ALF are more worrysome anyway, I am not sure if PETA has even bombed a lab before) - what about the level headed people who will protest because they actually have a valid point about the treatment of animals? What about the animals themselves that have no control or power over it? Like for example, do you think it's reasonable to vivisect an animal without anaesthetic? Should we go back to the William Harvey era of animal experimentation where we pretend animals are insensible to pain and cannot suffer? It's not all about us.

They're not really capable of higher cognition, but as much as I make the comparison, they aren't, in fact, bacteria. I consider them a few steps above property in that they're worthy of a bit of moral consideration (especially if there's some human element involved), but not really even close to the level of humans. In other words, I treat them with some trivial level of ethical consideration; I don't go out of my way to harm them, but if, in the course of getting something done, I end up harming them, I don't really get too shaken up about it.

Fair enough. Then we are on a similar page here; I just think that you're not giving them enough credit, and I find it sorta disturbing you would liken the processes of an animal (that's quite capable of feeling pain and mental distress) to that of a simple computer. We could just as easily expand on this notion and say everything we do is based on instinct, we are nothing but a super advanced computer. A quantum computer. In fact our entire reality might be a simulation in a quantum computer!

I think going out of your way to hurt an animal is wrong because there's no reason to do so. They may just be a few steps above a calculator or a mushroom in my book, but they are, in fact, above them, and hurting them for no reason isn't right.

What about the level of pain and suffering inflicted? Is it only the reason that is important to you? What if the reason was for sadistic entertainment?

That's causing undue harm without a sufficient reason. If the cats were truly a problem, there are better ways to deal with them.

Oh, he had a "reason". It was a pest, and it wasn't a human and hence its pain didn't matter one bit. So "sufficient reason" doesn't necessarily justify the act.

We had a mouse as a pet when I was in grade school. I've had several pets other than that. That doesn't change my position on anything. They're still all impulse, no higher awareness. I know how they are, and I also realize that a lot of what you're attributing to them is just your interpretation. I'm still going to trap them if they try to get in my house.

Then you should be well aware that they aren't objects and that it's unethical to do whatever you wished to them. And depending on how often you interacted with them, you would have noticed (especially the higher mammals) that they have little personality quirks. Something you will brush off as "instinct", I suspect.

Understanding what you know and what you don't know is useful and pretty complex, but not as complex as some other cognitive processes that most animals already possess. It also doesn't really demonstrate that they're really aware to any significant degree.

Such as?

Then what does? I would have thought thinking about your own thinking process is a pretty darn good guide to how much awareness one has. If that isn't at least a decent yardstick then I don't know what is.

That's true, and it's possible that I'm wrong and they're more aware than I believe. However, as of yet, I'm not sufficiently convinced that they're a "heightened intellect" animal, like a chimpanzee or a dolphin. They've got some neat tricks, but so do a lot of animals.

I think the literature I linked in this thread shows that it is extremely likely. A lot of these "tricks" are due to the animal's intelligence. Not having a reasonable level of awareness would make such an intelligence significantly harder to not only show, but to use.

I find your suggestion that plants are inanimate objects to be heartless and a little ignorant.

I didn't say that they were - but "simple computers" certainly are. The mind of an animal such as a rat isn't that simple.

Anyway, I do believe I have the right viewpoint here; I sincerely believe humanity is much more important and worth protecting than lesser creatures and I'll stand by that.

That isn't the viewpoint that's in debate here, though. I don't think you will find much people will disagree with you on that, however I will say that having concerns for humans and animals are not mutually exclusive. Just because humans are of higher priority does not mean we should ignore animal welfare.

The point I'm making is rather than draw an arbitrary line between free will and fate, perhaps we should use something a bit more tangible: complexity.

Awesome post. Ties in well with my example on how people can train mammals and birds easier than reptiles. There are a lot of striking similarities between human beings and the rest of the mammals on Earth, which is why I believe that some of these animals are only running on pure instinct seems far-fetched. And convenient, really, because it gives people a reason not to give animals any ethical consideration.

 

[Tek]

I still see a pretty thick line between the level of awareness we have and the level of awareness a mouse has, but what you say definitely has merit and might be part of what I'm missing. I understand my ethical position very well, but I have a bit of trouble defining exactly what it is I'm getting at that humans (and possibly some animals) have that other "lesser" animals lack. It might be more than one thing; there are a lot of things that make me feel humanity is worth going out of your way for that I haven't found in most (or in some cases, any) animals.

Since we're talking about value here, I'm gonna copy and paste something I wrote in the abortion thread.

"I understand there to be three types of value: ground value, extrinsic value, and intrinsic value.

All animals, in fact all objects including air and poop, are equal expressions of the great Mystery that is the universe (or equal expressions of matter/energy, if you're spooked by spirituality). This is ground value.

Some objects are more fundamental than others: you must first have atoms and molecules before you can have organs and organisms. Therefore some objects have more extrinsic value than others. They are foundational parts of a larger number of more complex wholes.

Finally, some whole objects have a greater number of less complex parts within themselves. This is intrinsic value. And because humans contain the greatest number of less complex parts, humans have the most intrinsic value."

So I would propose that we can restate your position as: Since humans enfold the greatest number of less complex structures within their being, humans have the most intrinsic value.

Anyway, I do believe I have the right viewpoint here; I sincerely believe humanity is much more important and worth protecting than lesser creatures and I'll stand by that.

In light of this value framework, I would say that humans and animals are both worth protecting, both important, both valuable - but valuable in different ways. Looking at the overall system, we depend on the 'lesser' creatures for our survival.

But that's getting away from the original question a bit. I agree with you that we don't need to extend all of the same considerations to animals that we extend to humans, and the reason is essentially that animals are less complex than humans. Since animals experience pain and suffering, we should consider that when handling them. But since they don't have an awareness of the problems they cause when they invade our homes and workspaces, we don't need to feel too bad about eliminating or relocating them.

And because of this value framework, I can also agree with CaptainCrunch that concern for humans and concern for animals are not mutually exclusive. Again, it's not that one is valuable and the other is not, it's that they're valuable in different ways.

 

[Oryx]

That isn't the viewpoint that's in debate here, though. I don't think you will find much people will disagree with you on that, however I will say that having concerns for humans and animals are not mutually exclusive. Just because humans are of higher priority does not mean we should ignore animal welfare.

I feel like you may be misinterpreting twocows' point, at least in the way I understand it - he doesn't seem to be claiming that we should all torture animals because no one should care about them. He's saying more along the lines of "if it doesn't inconvenience us majorly we should give them consideration, but when it comes down to choosing between a bad outcome for a human and a bad outcome for an animal, the human should come first."

Snap traps, like glue traps, can often cause severe injury that leads to a slow, painful death. To me, it seems hypocritical to support one and not the other. Take for example my boyfriend's family, who recently caught a rat in a snap trap; the trap close on the rat's jaw, instantly crushing it and pinning it to the trap. It didn't die though, instead banging the trap around their backyard trying to escape painfully. My boyfriend ended up having to kill it himself (with a spear because 1. it was closest and 2. he's a badass).

If you wish for the pests you're trying to get rid of not to suffer, the only way to ensure that is to use live traps and then either release them somewhere else or personally kill them so you can guarantee that the pest you're trying to kill isn't suffering. Your electric traps are also good, as long as your pest is a small mouse. Anything bigger and they become useless; the rat in the paragraph above was far too big for one of those traps.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I'd be the first to admit that it makes me a bit squeamish, but it's kind of like a thing that needs to be done, since they can spread diseases and all. I've seen them in action and they usually kill the animal very quickly. If they don't, then yeah, that's kind of unnerving, but yeah.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

I feel like you may be misinterpreting twocows' point, at least in the way I understand it - he doesn't seem to be claiming that we should all torture animals because no one should care about them.

That's not what I said.

Snap traps, like glue traps, can often cause severe injury that leads to a slow, painful death. To me, it seems hypocritical to support one and not the other. Take for example my boyfriend's family, who recently caught a rat in a snap trap; the trap close on the rat's jaw, instantly crushing it and pinning it to the trap. It didn't die though, instead banging the trap around their backyard trying to escape painfully. My boyfriend ended up having to kill it himself (with a spear because 1. it was closest and 2. he's a badass).

A snap trap usually kills the animal quickly. That's what it's designed to do. I have used them before and all of them were clean breaks of the neck, I did not have an issue. A glue trap is guaranteed misery 100% of the time, it doesn't kill the animal quickly by design, it just lets it linger and panic. Finding a kinder, more humane solution is not hypocritical in the slightest. Yes, I have concern that an animal may suffer, but I am not naive to believe that we can eliminate the cruelty aspect entirely. The act of killing itself may be considered cruel, but sometimes it is necessary. My point is that it can be minimised, by using a glue trap you are not doing that. My workplace certainly wasn't, leaving them overnight with no one to inspect them at regular intervals.

If you wish for the pests you're trying to get rid of not to suffer, the only way to ensure that is to use live traps and then either release them somewhere else or personally kill them so you can guarantee that the pest you're trying to kill isn't suffering. Your electric traps are also good, as long as your pest is a small mouse. Anything bigger and they become useless; the rat in the paragraph above was far too big for one of those traps.

Releasing them in a densely populated urban area isn't exactly the greatest idea, it is just asking for trouble. They are not useless, there are electric traps specifically designed for animals as big as rats. It's not like I am using a mouse-sized trap for something that is rat sized. Besides, my post mentioned a mouse problem, what rat are you talking about?

 

[Oryx]

A snap trap usually kills the animal quickly. That's what it's designed to do. I have used them before and all of them were clean breaks of the neck, I did not have an issue. A glue trap is guaranteed misery 100% of the time, it doesn't kill the animal quickly by design, it just lets it linger and panic. Finding a kinder, more humane solution is not hypocritical in the slightest. Yes, I have concern that an animal may suffer, but I am not naive to believe that we can eliminate the cruelty aspect entirely. The act of killing itself may be considered cruel, but sometimes it is necessary. My point is that it can be minimised, by using a glue trap you are not doing that. My workplace certainly wasn't, leaving them overnight with no one to inspect them at regular intervals.

Are you opening a discussion about your particular situation, or the use of traps in general? What your particular workplace did is only relevant if it speaks to a larger point; it doesn't in this case, because that doesn't criticize glue traps, only those that don't check them often enough. That's not the fault of the traps.

When you talk about snap traps, you didn't quite get what I'm trying to say - if you believe that humans should do all they can to reduce the elongated suffering of animals in traps, then you should always use a humane trap and then kill it quickly afterwards. You should never use a snap trap, because you can't guarantee it will prevent that. Your stance seems to be very firm; am I misunderstanding it, and are you actually saying that a certain amount of animals can suffer at the hands of humans as long as it doesn't go above a certain percentage? I was under the impression that you believed that humans should do all they can to reduce the suffering of the pests they're trying to eliminate.

Releasing them in a densely populated urban area isn't exactly the greatest idea, it is just asking for trouble. They are not useless, there are electric traps specifically designed for animals as big as rats. It's not like I am using a mouse-sized trap for something that is rat sized. Besides, my post mentioned a mouse problem, what rat are you talking about?

You got me on the rat one. What about snakes? I tried to Google it, as my research talked about snake glue traps, but found no comparable electric snake traps. As for what I'm talking about, I thought I was quite clear - I had told a story of a rat in the paragraph above, the rat that was caught in the trap and would have slowly died had my boyfriend not put it out of its misery. It's a little disconcerting to think that you may have only read half my post before responding.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

Are you opening a discussion about your particular situation, or the use of traps in general? What your particular workplace did is only relevant if it speaks to a larger point; it doesn't in this case, because that doesn't criticize glue traps, only those that don't check them often enough. That's not the fault of the traps.

Both, really. There is a larger point: the things are barbaric.

Especially when the traps come with instructions telling people just to simply throw the animal away on them.

Some countries have them regulated:

As part of the review of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations in 2008, consideration was given to a total ban on the sale and use of glue traps in Victoria. The review took into account the views of the community and various organisations, and the scientific literature.


A scientific review of rodent control methods concluded that glue traps are one of the most inhumane methods of rodent control "because of the enormous distress these traps cause, even if the trapped animals are found after just a few hours and then humanely dispatched ... rodents are likely to experience pain and distress through being trapped, the physical effects of the adhesive on functioning (e.g. suffocation), and trauma resulting from panic and attempts to escape, such as forceful hair removal, torn skin and broken limbs. After three-five hours, animals have been reported as covered in their own faeces and urine. When boards are collected, animals are also often squealing; one pest control operative even described them as "screaming their heads off". Some rodents also bit through their own limbs to escape."

Additionally, a quick Google search also reveals that wildlife rehab places warn people against using such things.

When you talk about snap traps, you didn't quite get what I'm trying to say - if you believe that humans should do all they can to reduce the elongated suffering of animals in traps, then you should always use a humane trap and then kill it quickly afterwards. You should never use a snap trap, because you can't guarantee it will prevent that.

Any trap should be frequently monitored anyway. At the very least a snap trap is designed to break the neck, then you have a trap that practically superglues the animal's skin onto a piece of plastic, essentially meshing it into place. The chances for a quick kill are better with a snap trap.

Your stance seems to be very firm; am I misunderstanding it, and are you actually saying that a certain amount of animals can suffer at the hands of humans as long as it doesn't go above a certain percentage? I was under the impression that you believed that humans should do all they can to reduce the suffering of the pests they're trying to eliminate.

Nope, I am saying that a snap trap is much more kinder than a glue trap, even if it's not going to be 100% perfect. I don't really trust the general public to be responsible with something like a glue trap, it is something that I feel needs regulation. Just like a leg jaw trap for foxes really. Do you think that most people who use them check them often, and dispatch them appropriately? People in general are either squeamish or indifferent, and a small mammal trapped on glue is going to make quite a mess. Even worse that it will be still alive on it. The point I'm making is that the trap is inherently a lot more crueller than a traditional, neck breaking trap.

Are you a user of glue traps?

You got me on the rat one. What about snakes? I tried to Google it, as my research talked about snake glue traps, but found no comparable electric snake traps. As for what I'm talking about, I thought I was quite clear - I had told a story of a rat in the paragraph above, the rat that was caught in the trap and would have slowly died had my boyfriend not put it out of its misery. It's a little disconcerting to think that you may have only read half my post before responding.

Not sure on snakes with that one.

It's late here, forgive me for being half asleep at the time and misinterpreting that.

 

[twocows]

I don't particularly care how useful it is from an evolutionary standpoint - saying that you aren't bothered by it and then saying you're empathetic to the creature's suffering is a clear contradiction.

I've already addressed this several times. I am bothered by seeing it by way of instinct. I am not bothered by it on an intellectual level. I think I've clearly established that I value human capacity to rise above our instincts several times, so it should be clear that the point that matters is that I'm not bothered by it. The fact that I don't like to see it just means that I'm wired like any other normal person. The whole point is that it's not a contradiction because I'm talking about two different thought processes.

Don't hide behind scientific literature, I want your personal thoughts. Why do you feel sorry for the animal. I didn't ask for a reason why empathy might be advantageous.

I already said it's because, likely as a product of natural selection, I'm hard-wired to feel empathy for suffering things. My reasons are always couched in science and rationalism; saying "don't hide behind scientific literature" is like telling a musician to explain why Tchaikovsky is great without referencing emotion. Science is an integral part of how I come to my conclusions and how I decide I'm going to behave; if I went by raw emotion and instinct, I would be no better than an animal.

You wrote "and in this case, there is", hence the question.

The reason in this case is to get rid of rats. The employer in this thread seemed to have a rat problem. I also explained that there's really no way to trap and kill rats that isn't either unreasonably expensive and hard to set up or causes some degree of suffering. Cage traps don't work very well, sticky traps have the problems described in the first post, snap traps aren't an instant kill either and have the same problems, and poison pellets don't kill instantly, either. In the end, people use an effective but slow method because there is no effective but fast method that's reasonably priced and available.

You explained how empathy is evolutionarily advantageous, that doesn't necessarily mean it is purely instinctive. Empathy (at least towards animals) is a choice, and even if that means for self betterment, it's still a choice. It isn't just an automatic impulse, there is still a thought process required. People can choose not to feel empathy for an animal for a host of reasons, and it's usually the case why they do (or not) feel empathy to them.

One of the things that sets humans apart is the ability to control our emotions. Not just that, but we have the will to control our emotions, we have the reason to. I think empathy is a raw instinctive response, but we can manipulate how we feel based on other knowledge, as well.

Being concerned about unnecessary cruelty to an animal isn't what I'd call a significant moral consideration, at least not the definition you are using. You are still attributing them at least some form of moral consideration for the very fact that you seem to be opposed to unnecessary cruelty and/or mistreatment.

I don't think I disagreed with that at any point. Rather, I think I said that I think most animals are somewhere between "property" and "low-awareness human" in how I think of them, though probably closer to the "property" side of that equation. It's possible I'm mistaken on that, there's an awful lot we don't know; I'm merely going off what I do know. That said, even knowing everything, there's only so much you can reasonably ask people to do if you're expecting results.

Heightened sense of awareness is what is required for learning specific things.

Almost all animals, and some things outside of kingdom Animalia, are capable of learning to some degree. Some animals are capable of more complex learning, but that itself isn't sufficient to consider them conscious.

A rat may not be able to do calculus, but it can learn through processes that was once thought only unique to humans. They might not be on the same level as humans beings, but there is still something there. What you call "tricks", I call proof of limited higher cognition. It also explains why you can train mammals and birds to do specific things, but for lizards it is significantly harder.

I like Tak's suggestion that it's more complexity, as it jives well with this. It's not as black and white as I might be making it out to be, it's more a continuum. I don't know specifically where rats might be on the continuum because I don't know enough about rats. They're clever, but I'm still not convinced they're anywhere near our level. Heck, seagulls are pretty clever, too. You've gotta be pretty clever to survive in the wild.

What about the world around us? Only caring about ourselves and "damn the rest" isn't really what I'd consider ethical.

If there are other species on the same or a somewhat close level to use, they deserve different ethical considerations, but keep in mind that as awareness increases, so does their ethical responsibility. If they want to be treated with the same considerations as we treat each other, they have to act ethically, as well. As far as I know, the only species that might understand ethics right now is dolphins, and it seems like a fair share of them don't really care from what I understand of dolphin attacks.

Considering we are the dominant species, we have certain responsibilities, and I think having concern for other life is one of them. Having ethical consideration needn't be selfish.

I think our responsibility ends at not causing undue harm to lesser species. I don't see any reason why we owe them anything more than that. That's certainly more consideration than they give us.

As for where I draw the line, I consider pain and suffering that the creature is capable of feeling. I would have to balance that with what is practical of course. This is why I'd be more upset if a human was tortured, for example. It's not as simple as what that quote of yours state, in fact it's a rather clinical and cold-hearted way to look at things. Yes, bacterium will move away from stimuli but it is incapable of feeling pain or suffering, it is not a good comparison to make when it comes to the treatment of animals.

That's fine if that's where you draw the line, I'm just saying I draw it elsewhere. As for bacteria feeling pain, I guess that depends on how you define pain.

Unethical? No. Selfish? Maybe.

Selfish means to hold one's self-interest as the standard for making decisions. I don't see anywhere where I said that I only valued myself. Quite the opposite, I value other people quite highly and often go out of my way to help them. Heck, I have a link to a charity org in my signature. I don't see how that really benefits me in any way at all. Maybe "human-centric" or "sentient-centric," but certainly not selfish.

We don't need laws to tell us it's wrong to torture or abuse animals, but I still think there should be a deterrent. If not for that then something to show that such a thing is unacceptable in a civilised society.

The point I was making (including with the examples I brought up) was that my personal ethics don't really have anything to do with what the laws are. My posts here are trying to explain why I feel the way I do. What the law says doesn't really enter into that, but since you brought it up, I explained why I think the laws are the way they are. As for their necessity, I don't know. I don't see any problems with having them, at least, provided they don't go too far.

Fair enough. Then we are on a similar page here; I just think that you're not giving them enough credit, and I find it sorta disturbing you would liken the processes of an animal (that's quite capable of feeling pain and mental distress) to that of a simple computer. We could just as easily expand on this notion and say everything we do is based on instinct, we are nothing but a super advanced computer. A quantum computer. In fact our entire reality might be a simulation in a quantum computer!

Yeah, I touched on that in a different post. It's a difficult line to draw, of course, but I do feel there are significant and important differences that separate us and that these differences are more than enough to warrant different treatment. As for the computer comparison, I mentioned earlier that it wasn't the greatest. It's hard to come up with a good analogy for this, really. Like I said, they're somewhere on the continuum.

What about the level of pain and suffering inflicted? Is it only the reason that is important to you? What if the reason was for sadistic entertainment?

We're smart people. I could go on for several pages about what constitutes a good reason and what doesn't, but I've already blabbered enough. Suffice it to say I don't think "entertainment" is a sufficient reason to cause harm to an animal.

Oh, he had a "reason". It was a pest, and it wasn't a human and hence its pain didn't matter one bit. So "sufficient reason" doesn't necessarily justify the act.

I mentioned two things here. First, there needs to be a reason. All right, so the cats are pests. How do you deal with them? Second: not causing unnecessary harm. As I said, there were better ways to deal with the situation. If it was me, I'd trap the thing and bring it to the humane society and let them deal with it. If that's not an option, there are other solutions which don't require that degree of harm, which I don't think there's any excuse for.

Then you should be well aware that they aren't objects and that it's unethical to do whatever you wished to them.

I don't believe I ever stated it was tolerable to do "whatever you wish" to them. What I have said is that I wouldn't feel too bad about causing them harm in the course of some reasonable action.

And depending on how often you interacted with them, you would have noticed (especially the higher mammals) that they have little personality quirks. Something you will brush off as "instinct", I suspect.

Yeah, pretty much. Variation in behavior is nothing particularly unexpected but not really indicative of anything other than slightly different wiring.

Such as?

Then what does? I would have thought thinking about your own thinking process is a pretty darn good guide to how much awareness one has. If that isn't at least a decent yardstick then I don't know what is.

I'm not a neuroscientist or even a biologist, so any opinion I could offer wouldn't be worth its weight in mouse hair. That was just my initial reaction based on how much I know of mice, which admittedly, is rather little. That said, if it is the case that they're more intelligent than I give them credit for, it would explain why they're so darn successful at getting into things and breeding like crazy.

I think the literature I linked in this thread shows that it is extremely likely. A lot of these "tricks" are due to the animal's intelligence. Not having a reasonable level of awareness would make such an intelligence significantly harder to not only show, but to use.

I don't know about that. I'm still not convinced they're sufficiently aware, but I think maybe I'll change my answer to "INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER." That said, my position hasn't changed, though perhaps my prioritization will have a bit. I still think there's only so much you can ask people to do, and like I said, the available options for dealing with rodent infestation are limited. Perhaps someone should build a better mouse trap?

Man, I need to stop with the references.

That isn't the viewpoint that's in debate here, though. I don't think you will find much people will disagree with you on that, however I will say that having concerns for humans and animals are not mutually exclusive. Just because humans are of higher priority does not mean we should ignore animal welfare.

That's fair. I think the question, though, is what is reasonable to ask and what is not. And that's a tough question. I still think my "don't cause harm for no good reason" schtick is about right.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

I've already addressed this several times. I am bothered by seeing it by way of instinct. I am not bothered by it on an intellectual level. I think I've clearly established that I value human capacity to rise above our instincts several times, so it should be clear that the point that matters is that I'm not bothered by it. The fact that I don't like to see it just means that I'm wired like any other normal person. The whole point is that it's not a contradiction because I'm talking about two different thought processes.

I already said it's because, likely as a product of natural selection, I'm hard-wired to feel empathy for suffering things. My reasons are always couched in science and rationalism; saying "don't hide behind scientific literature" is like telling a musician to explain why Tchaikovsky is great without referencing emotion. Science is an integral part of how I come to my conclusions and how I decide I'm going to behave; if I went by raw emotion and instinct, I would be no better than an animal.

Science doesn't really give us a total understanding of the minds of animals though, so this is where personal opinion comes in. You say you're hard wired to feel empathy, but that just sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. Different thought processes? Come on now! You have something that is bothering you, nagging at your mind (observing the suffering of another animal), but on the flip side, it doesn't bother you? How can it not be intellectually bothering if you can actually sympathise with the animal, recognise its pain? There are people who don't understand animals feel pain (uneducated on the matter), and there is so such instinctual empathy from them.

Your position on empathy being completely instinctual doesn't make a lick of sense, I'm sorry to say.

Either it bothers you on some level or it doesn't, you're using two different positions that are in contradiction of one another. I mean, gee, I am hard wired to eat yet I clearly have reasons what my favourite food is, and why I hate particular types. I can say the same for different types of fashion and music. Why should it be any different for feeling sorry for an animal?

In the end, people use an effective but slow method because there is no effective but fast method that's reasonably priced and available.

Or they just don't care!

I think empathy is a raw instinctive response, but we can manipulate how we feel based on other knowledge, as well.

It's raw? Like the flinch you get when someone tries to hit you? That kind of raw?

Empathy isn't a reflexive action, it is moulded by our environment and life experience.

Some animals are capable of more complex learning, but that itself isn't sufficient to consider them conscious.

Is that the scientific consensus or yours?

If there are other species on the same or a somewhat close level to use, they deserve different ethical considerations, but keep in mind that as awareness increases, so does their ethical responsibility. If they want to be treated with the same considerations as we treat each other, they have to act ethically, as well. As far as I know, the only species that might understand ethics right now is dolphins, and it seems like a fair share of them don't really care from what I understand of dolphin attacks.

While that is true, ethical responsibility shouldn't really be expected from a species that has the mind of a two year old child.

Selfish means to hold one's self-interest as the standard for making decisions. I don't see anywhere where I said that I only valued myself. Quite the opposite, I value other people quite highly and often go out of my way to help them. Heck, I have a link to a charity org in my signature. I don't see how that really benefits me in any way at all. Maybe "human-centric" or "sentient-centric," but certainly not selfish.

The kind of selfish I was referring to was more to do on a specious level, not an individual one.

We're smart people. I could go on for several pages about what constitutes a good reason and what doesn't, but I've already blabbered enough. Suffice it to say I don't think "entertainment" is a sufficient reason to cause harm to an animal.

I agree, people can find ways to entertain themselves in more productive and less harmful ways.

That was just my initial reaction based on how much I know of mice, which admittedly, is rather little.

Then how can you know for sure what their cognitive abilities are, and thus state what ethical consideration they should be given?

I don't know about that. I'm still not convinced they're sufficiently aware, but I think maybe I'll change my answer to "INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER." That said, my position hasn't changed, though perhaps my prioritization will have a bit. I still think there's only so much you can ask people to do, and like I said, the available options for dealing with rodent infestation are limited. Perhaps someone should build a better mouse trap?

Man, I need to stop with the references.

That's fair enough. My philosophy is this: "kill if you must, but don't be an a-hole about it".

It was nice discussing this with you, a pleasure. Just the only nitpick I have now is the "empathy is purely instinctual" thing, which I highly disagree with. But I'll continue this later, I need sleep. :)

 

[Belldandy]

I'm actually a vegetarian because I love animals so much.
I personally like those traps where the animal wanders in and you can release it later. Glue traps can also trap squirrels, birds, and other small animals you don't want to actually kill.

My dad uses traps that the animal wanders into and it traps 'em in a confined spot, disallowing escape but keeping them alive and well. He puts them in aquariums and releases a bunch of 'em, particularly mice, into fields later.

Glue traps just seem cruel and unethical. My dad doesn't even use mousetraps, and I wouldn't either.

 

[twocows]

It was nice discussing this with you, a pleasure. Just the only nitpick I have now is the "empathy is purely instinctual" thing, which I highly disagree with. But I'll continue this later, I need sleep. :)

I could be wrong. Again, this is just my understanding of the situation. Empathy's a good thing to have so long as you realize that there are some things you need to go against your feelings on. That's what I'm trying to get at.