Most people oppose cruelty to animals. But, I have often heard people say things like 'killing is a part of life', or that our methods of killing are generally less cruel than in nature. Some have even asked whether we are obliged to mitigate such naturally occurring cruelty, if we are obliged to reduce our own. I don't think these 'arguments' are well-reasoned. My sense is that our capacity to understand the suffering that our actions cause, and consider alternatives, confers greater responsibility, making our indifference to cruelty and suffering more troublesome. Is there a more elegant and thorough way of addressing all this?

Comments

There is always a more elegant and thorough way to address any philosophical question--that's why we're all still at it here in the world's second-oldest profession!

But granting this, it seems to me that your own assessment is precisely right--our epistemic advantages over (at least most) other animals also bring with them greater ethical responsibilities. The cat can't consider whether playing with the live mouse until it dies (and then some more afterwards) is something he or she should be doing, but for us to be cruel or cause needless and excessive suffering is blameworthy.

A further point, however: Some of what constitutes our greater epistemic advantages can also yield a degree of epistemic disadvantage, which is why the exercise of epistemic modesty and an open-mindedness to relevant evidence is essential to good reasoning on questions like yours. Human beings, at their best, can indeed comprehend suffering and recognize it as having negative value. Part of the way in which we are able to do this is via our capacity to imagine ourselves undergoing such suffering. But this empathy, which can yield great advantages in our ethical reasoning, can also mislead us: Many of the animals (and, in extreme cases, even plants) that some count as worthy of such empathy are actually very poor targets for it. One who worries about the suffering he causes to the tomato plant in picking its fruit should probably find some other target for concern! What we need always, to make the best decisions, is the best information thoughfully assessed.

Sometimes the argument you allude to is put like this: animals kill animals, so why can't we? I've heard many people say this to justify eating chickens, pigs, lambs and the like, and that's just strange, if you think about it. Somehow because a chicken and a tiger are both "animals"--that is, non-human--the chicken is supposed to be accountable for the tiger. If people would just restrict themselves to making this sort of argument in advance of going tiger hunting, it wouldn't be so bad. But then, I think in that case your answer is a good one. Because of our big brains and our capacity for morality, we should hold ourself to a higher standard. Unless under attack or just trying to survive, I can't think of any good reason to kill a tiger.

Read another response by Nicholas D. Smith, Jean Kazez

Read another response about Animals, Ethics