Why do some atheists choose not to kill creatures?

[Evo]

1] That is not a corollary of my argument.

What you are saying is much like this:
A] I have no license so I will not drive my car.
B] Therefore, if I do have a license, I will drive my car.
(NOT A does not automatically result in B.)


2] It is a completely different argument that has no bearing on mine.

Dave, this is from your OP.

Do all atheists kill creatures as it is convenient? If not, why not?

A person (atheist) that doesn't believe in an afterlife or some type of redemption after death would be more compassionate and care more about the living.

P.S. I really am an atheist, and I really am asking myself why I choose not to kill needlessly.

Help.

There you go.

 

[DaveC426913]

A person (atheist) that doesn't believe in an afterlife or some type of redemption after death would be more compassionate and care more about the living.

It's not about whether someone else would have a reason to be less compassionate, it's about why would this person have any reason to be compassionate in the first place? If I have half the apples you have, and you have zero apples, I don't have any fewer apples.

P.S. I really am an atheist, and I really am asking myself why I choose not to kill needlessly.

There you go.

You can't use the question being asked as the answer.

Perhaps my question could be more pedantic: Demonstrate that an acclaimed atheist can have a non-theistic reason for being compassionate. Is that better?

 

[Evo]

Perhaps my question could be more pedantic: Demonstrate that an acclaimed atheist can have a non-theistic reason for being compassionate. Is that better?

I don't believe in any "supreme being", they don't exist. I love little animals. I would do anything to take care of them. I could never hurt one.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't believe in any "supreme being", they don't exist. I love little animals. I would do anything to take care of them. I could never hurt one.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. But why?

Hm. I see where this is going wrong. I am not saying that no atheist has a reason to have compassion. At least, that's not what I meant to say.

I'm simply trying to figure out - if I have a perfectly good reason in a given sitch to kill an animal - why I would feel "wrong" about it.

What is the meaning of compassion and mercy in a world where there is no objective connection with a critter or any external (i.e. other than in my head) value placed on its life?

 

[robertm]

There isn't any real reason to be compassionate, it is simply the case that there is no reason not to be.

Usually it's just easier; one has to go out of the way to be mean, or anything other than indifferent.

And when people do go out of the way to be lovey-dovey, there is normally a clear social stability (or in the case of animals, anthropomorphizing social stability) type reason.

Monkey's see monkey's where there are no monkey's, and treat things that aren't monkey's as if they were monkey's.

 

[DaveC426913]

There isn't any real reason to be compassionate, it is simply the case that there is no reason not to be.

This is what I would expect to be the case.

But it should mean that, when there is a reason to kill (a mouse in my house), I would have no compunctions doing so.


...

I wonder if it just ego. I wonder if I'm deeply convinced that compassion and mercy are traits that make me a better person.


I'm making myself sound like a monster. :tongue2:

 

[JoeDawg]

Rationally...
Emotionally...

Feelings of compassion is not rational.

One can, of course, decide to 'act with compassion', based on a rational cost/benefit model.

This can either be out of fear of punishment, or to obtain standing or trust in a group, or simply for one's own psychological health, being nice feels good.

 

[robertm]

This is what I would expect to be the case.

But it should mean that, when there is a reason to kill (a mouse in my house), I would have no compunctions doing so.

Not really though, because of course you don't really see just a small scurrying mammal with at most a much limited form of conciousness compared to your own, whose only worth to you is the bacterial diversity it may introduce to you and your loved ones; you project on to it the feelings/emotional importance of a primate, just like the rest of us do constantly.

As you well know, this is no issue until one starts projecting monkey's everywhere and anywhere, i.e. supernatural beliefs.

I wonder if it just ego. I wonder if I'm deeply convinced that compassion and mercy are traits that make me a better person.I'm making myself sound like a monster. :tongue2:

You are making yourself sound human. Certainly a monster if there ever was one!

 

[DaveC426913]

Feelings of compassion is not rational.

One can, of course, decide to 'act with compassion', based on a rational cost/benefit model.

This can either be out of fear of punishment, or to obtain standing or trust in a group, or simply for one's own psychological health, being nice feels good.

Thank you. This is what I'm trying to get at.

These would be values to be considered if there were people-consequences to my actions.

But I have been carrying the logic further.
If I were on a deserted island, (and had no wants for food), there would be no consequences to killing a mouse. Why would I let it live?



You know, that's got to be it. Several people have hit on it. It must be hard-wired empathy (literally, feeling what another critter is feeling). I do not wish to have to think or emote about violence and death and blood. As a human (even an atheist human) I am incapable of not empathizing. To kill is to imagine being killed.

 

[robertm]

As a human (even an atheist human) I am incapable of not empathizing. To kill is to imagine being killed.

I would go even further; Not withstanding an impairment of the mental faculties, to do X is to imagine X. And as a special case; to inflict X is to imagine X being inflicted.

And yes, even a baby eating atheist human can experience this without reference upwards.

 

[Huckleberry]

You know, that's got to be it. Several people have hit on it. It must be hard-wired empathy (literally, feeling what another critter is feeling). I do not wish to have to think or emote about violence and death and blood. As a human (even an atheist human) I am incapable of not empathizing. To kill is to imagine being killed.

We are hard-wired for empathy. Check out the function of mirror neurons.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/01.html

 

[JoeDawg]

But I have been carrying the logic further.
If I were on a deserted island, (and had no wants for food), there would be no consequences to killing a mouse. Why would I let it live?

Why not?
Are you saying you have an impulse to kill it?
Why do anything at all?

If you have an impulse to kill, then you are likely getting benefit, some sort of satisfaction from killing. Aggression is an instinct as well. There is no rational reason, in this situation to kill the mouse, no rational reason not to. So why take the action. One must weigh the satisfaction of killing, exerting one's power, with the guilt, if any.

To kill is to imagine being killed.

For most people, but not for a sociopath, who strangely lack conscience, but not desire.

Also, the action of killing may not equal: lacking in compassion. Not just in the case of mercy killing, but if one lives in a warrior/hunting society, then killing and dieing with honor or respect, become an issue.

In this case, not killing, could be the less compassionate thing.

 

[ideasrule]

There may be another reason for our empathy to other animals. If our ancestors went around killing every animal that's even slightly inconvenient, they would be killing potential sources of food. They'd also be in danger of the animal protecting itself, for example by injecting venom, and hurting the killer. I'm guessing that the latter is also why many people are afraid of bugs: because many are poisonous, some even deadly.

 

[OB 50]

There's something that bothers me about the original question.

First, it seems to presume that theism is the default state of someone that values the sanctity of life. Atheism then is presented as the exception that requires explanation.

Religion and (morality, respect for life, honesty, ad infinitum) have almost nothing to do with one another - positive or negative. That's all marketing hype. There may be some correlation between religiosity and respect for life one way or the other, but no causation. There are simply too many varieties of religion present in stable societies for anyone ideology to be responsible for innate human respect for life.

Secondly, why should you have to rationalize the omission of an act? The default state should be NOT killing random small animals or pests. You should have to rationalize the overt action of killing, not the other way around.

You felt hesitation or potential remorse because you didn't internally justify the need to kill. Whatever those internal criteria happen to be, once fulfilled, would not present you with the dilemma in the first place.

Everybody has a threshold for what they consider "alive". For some, it reaches all the way down to bugs and mice. Hardly anyone is squeamish about killing billions of bacteria, who are animals after all. Then there are people who have a threshold which is frighteningly higher, like dogs, cats, or even humans. I have personally encountered lots of otherwise normal people who don't value the life of a cat or dog more than they would an electric toothbrush. Anecdotally, this has always seemed to line up with socioeconomic status more than religiosity. I'm from the south, and there are plenty of people there who will shoot their own dog without a second thought if it crosses some line with them. Now that I live in a decently-sized city, I only hear this kind of thinking from people who are from relatively poorer, inner-city backgrounds. It's only people that have the luxury of humanely releasing a mouse that are faced with this choice. If you're competing with that mouse for your own food (ie you like in a rat-infested slum), there is no moral dilemma at all. If you constantly had to fend off rats to secure your own food source, this entire conversation would sound like complete insanity.

The basic question is a good one though, and bears discussion: Why do I hesitate to kill?

The basic answer is that your lifestyle affords you the luxury of contemplation. If you do not feel that you are in direct competition with that animal for some resource, you don't feel the need to kill it. Animals that are not in a predator/prey relationship or in some form of competition simply don't tend to kill one another. It's a waste of energy, and natural selection doesn't like wasted energy.

 

[DaveC426913]

There's something that bothers me about the original question.

First, it seems to presume that theism is the default state of someone that values the sanctity of life. Atheism then is presented as the exception that requires explanation.

The thought process that led me to this point is much longer, wherein I started with a premise and then followed it to its extreme. I did this several times and have given you only the boiled-dfown version. I am loathe to make long, rhetorical posts.

It would have made more sense if I'd led you down that path.

Religion and (morality, respect for life, honesty, ad infinitum) have almost nothing to do with one another

You are misunderstanding my point. It has nothing to do with religion or morality or any such thing.

I'm talking about a non-corporeal connection between two living creatures. To believe there is a such thing requires a belief in some form of supernatural force, presence or entity. Here is a prime example: my wife does not believe in God, but she does believe in a Jungian form of collective consciousness that exists between all persons (and, to a lesser extent, creatures).

To me, this still falls under the same heading as a type of "larger than onesself" phenomenon, and thus, I am lumping it with all other beliefs of the "larger than onesself" type.

You felt hesitation or potential remorse because you didn't internally justify the need to kill. Whatever those internal criteria happen to be, once fulfilled, would not present you with the dilemma in the first place.

To carry a fly outside to let it go is clearly an irrational act...

It's a waste of energy, and natural selection doesn't like wasted energy.

... and the reason it's an irrational act is that letting it live is a waste of energy (it is far more efficient use of resources to kill it on the spot).

 

[robertm]

To carry a fly outside to let it go is clearly an irrational act..

Could you elaborate?

... and the reason it's an irrational act is that letting it live is a waste of energy (it is far more efficient use of resources to kill it on the spot).

The most efficient action would be no action, of course. However, this is a complex situation that is being described, there is more involved than efficiency. It is known to all humans that flies are directly correlated with sickness/disease/death, and insanitary conditions weather one knows anything of microbes or not, so knowing this doing nothing would be irrational. Most would kill the fly, as most do if they can (for flies live on a much shorter time scale than we). Some probably feel it is easier to open a window or door and shoo' the thing out than to clean up an exploded insect.

Those that feel compassion for a fly (or anything else for that matter, including fellow bipeds) are merely projecting, empathizing, or otherwise behaving in a seemingly irrational, though ultimately natural and usually beneficial biological manner.

The principals of evolution allow one to assume that the overall behavioural patters of a given species (including us) is either beneficial for survival or trivial/useless/non-harmful; because, of course, we would all of us be dead or never born if it were otherwise.




I tend to think of emotions, emotional reactions, feelings and the like as a kind of lever arm through which certain sets of genetic code can 'lever' a biological system in a manner that improves the chances of reproduction and the continuity of the genes. This isn't to say that qualia isn't any less 'real' (or 'strange' as I like to say), or that the suggestion is much more than conjecture; though I think it a novel and useful way to see the role of emotions in a larger game.

 

[DaveC426913]

To carry a fly outside to let it go is clearly an irrational act..

Could you elaborate?

The fly is buzzing around in my living room. It's got to go. This is the given.
My choice of actions are to:
1] swat it and kill it.
2] capture it alive (not easy to do, takes practice), carry it to the front door, open and release.

There is no logical reason - only an emotional one - for gonig to all that effort.

 

[robertm]

The fly is buzzing around in my living room. It's got to go. This is the given.
My choice of actions are to:
1] swat it and kill it.
2] capture it alive (not easy to do, takes practice), carry it to the front door, open and release.

There is no logical reason - only an emotional one - for gonig to all that effort.

I made this suggestion;

Some probably feel it is easier to open a window or door and shoo' the thing out than to clean up an exploded insect.

Or even would rather go through the trouble of catching the thing and then letting it out just to avoid the gore.

Technically, whatever the precise causal event that an emotion may be, it is just as 'rational' as any other event. So, I suppose it depends on the colloquial boundaries one invokes in this particular usage of 'rational'.

By the way, has this thread helped you resolve your original question?

 

[Integral]

Dave,
I understand where you are coming from. I am similar in my behavior. I also am atheist with some Buddhist leaning. The Buddhists teach that every living creature is a sentient being and therefore deserves respect. As an atheist I will freely admit that I do not understand the not explain the existence of life. I only know that it does exist. Our inability explain or even understand its existence makes it unique as we are able to understand and explain so much of this universe. This uniqueness is sufficient for me to give it respect and treat it as a special thing not to be taken lightly.

Just call it respect for life and be done with it. You do not have to justify it beyond that.

 

[turbo]

Just call it respect for life and be done with it. You do not have to justify it beyond that.

It can be pretty complex for some folks, but respect for life covers it pretty well. I was brought up in a Native American/French tradition that emphasized foraging, collecting wild food, hunting and fishing. It's hard to shoot a deer, but that's how you get venison, and it's a whole lot better than confining beef-cattle in feed-lots. I hunt with a single-shot rifle, and never take a shot unless I am certain of a clean kill. Salmonids like brook trout, rainbows, and land-locked salmon have always been a good source of food, and when I was a little kid, I did my best to supplement our family's meals with fresh-caught fish. Again, you have to respect the fish and the resource. It's counter-productive to remove large breeding-age females from streams and ponds if you want the population to thrive.

Although I kill animals for food, when I find spiders, wasps, etc in my house, I capture them and release them outside. Can't say why, but I feel that as an omnivore, I should take personal responsibility for the meat that I eat, but there is no reason not to refrain from killing other critters when I could let them go.

 

[WhoWee]

If I am an atheist, why do I grimace when drowning a caught mouse? If I am an atheist, why do I capture a fly or spider and let it go outside?

More generally, if I believe that there is no connection between myself and other creatures, whether that be an "eye in the sky" entity, or some form of collective unconsciousness, or any other "larger than myself" phenomenon, why is there any harm whatever in killing a creature?

Answers I've already dismissed:
- There is some selfish rationale to maintaining an eco-balance. If we all killed creatures willy-nilly, there'd be no creatures left. Answer: nonsense. This is one mouse; one fly.

- I am a product of society / of my physiological emotions. It is conditioned into me to shrink from needless death. Answer: That is simply passing the buck, pretending I'm a victim. I should be able to throw off that pressure and believe in - and practice - my own philosophy.


Do all atheists kill creatures as it is convenient? If not, why not?



P.S. I really am an atheist, and I really am asking myself why I choose not to kill needlessly.

Help.

A scientist requires proof.

However, unless you want to become a murderer, you can never actually test your belief (or disbelief?).

Therefore, you contemplate alternative experiments - but the results are meaningless - killing a spider or a mouse is not the same as killing a person.

As for killing creatures - it's a lot easier to kill a snake or a bug, than a little puppy. That's because (most of us) like puppies and detest the others. In nature, very few predators kill more than they can eat.

 

[JoeDawg]

A scientist requires proof.

A scientist requires evidence, a mathematician requires proof.

killing a spider or a mouse is not the same as killing a person.

Arguably, its usually more messy, but not much different in principle.

In nature, very few predators kill more than they can eat.

Thats largely because hunting is a dangerous activity. Not because predators are ethical creatures. Cats practice their hunting skills on mice all the time. And the need for food is not the only reason to kill.

 

[JoeDawg]

The fly is buzzing around in my living room. It's got to go. This is the given.
My choice of actions are to:
1] swat it and kill it.
2] capture it alive (not easy to do, takes practice), carry it to the front door, open and release.

There is no logical reason - only an emotional one - for gonig to all that effort.

There are plenty of 'logical' reasons, but they depend on premises that you don't seem to value. I agree its an emotional reason at its most basic level. But if one decides to value life, that is doing no harm to you, then there is logic in not killing a fly for the crime of flying.

Same logic as 'self defense' for murder. Killing is reasonable in that context, but killing someone simply because they got in your way, is less reasonable.

Killing a fly may not impact your life directly, like the random killing of a person, but if one subscribes to a certain ethical code, even killing a fly would violate that. That devalues the code. And maintaining that sort of ethical code can be of benefit to the society you live in.

 

[DaveC426913]

There are plenty of 'logical' reasons, but they depend on premises that you don't seem to value. I agree its an emotional reason at its most basic level. But if one decides to value life, that is doing no harm to you, then there is logic in not killing a fly for the crime of flying.

Same logic as 'self defense' for murder. Killing is reasonable in that context, but killing someone simply because they got in your way, is less reasonable.

Killing a fly may not impact your life directly, like the random killing of a person, but if one subscribes to a certain ethical code, even killing a fly would violate that. That devalues the code. And maintaining that sort of ethical code can be of benefit to the society you live in.

Yes. I am trying to figure out this ethical code.

 

[Pythagorean]

This is interesting, actually. Have you considered that your feelings towards insects may stem considerably from your imagination? Not that this trivializes your feelings whatsoever.

Our lifestyles are somewhat of an artform. We want to be consistent with ourselves, but we also want some freedom. So we create whole "worlds" behind our observations to link concepts with observations (and to link concepts to concepts...).

I believe this is an artifact of our learning and storage process. Mathematics (a highly technical skill) is originally (at the least) learned through emotion. It's an abstract world itself that we make use of for understanding observations (or in the case of a mathematician, because we like the abstract world itself).

The spiritual "world" that we create for ourselves (and we all do it in some form or another... for some it's a world of skepticism and stubbornness) is tied to less repeatable observations than mathematics encapsulates. We weigh our "spiritual knowledge" heavily with suffering and sensation, personal experience. Two series of experiences (from two different people) are very rarely in the same order, so each case is different, but we still tend to group ourselves into our fundamental emotional interpretations:

I don't mind killing bugs in my house. They are invaders that I am at war with. It's interesting how I still pick an emotional kind of relationship with them as you do: for me it's war. I wonder how people who have no emotional attachment to insects feel about it.

There's lots of mosquitoes here too. Damned if I'll let some little prick penetrate me with his proboscis even outside my house.

HOWEVER...

I hunt. And I can't stand to be responsible for causing the suffering of animals that I'm hunting, so I like to put them down quickly when I can. I'm not so bothered by the "torturing" of insects, I suppose. I tend to justify it that they're pretty much a little automated machine of natures.. just a bundle of nerves. But I really don't know whether they share the experience of suffering or not.

I've also had a subconscious karmic fear of making bugs suffer for my own scientific curiosity. I imagine sometimes, that I'm being violently studied by aliens in the same way. "What if they can feel?" I don't think it matters much though, in the end. After all, they're just insects... ;)

 

[JoeDawg]

Yes. I am trying to figure out this ethical code.

I don't think there is one, in the absolute or objective sense. First one must decide, rather irrationally, what it is that one values, then proceed logically from there. The unfortunate part is, that since the original premise is irrational, any use of logic, thereafter, is likely to lead to unsatisfying contradictions.

Its at this point that an ethical person makes exceptions. The world is chaos, trying to enforce an ethical framework on it, any ethical framework, is like trying to saddle a moving horse.

The ancient greeks dealt with this by talking about virtue, its not the details that count, but rather that one deals bravely and honestly with the world. They also believed in fate though, which means no matter what you do, the result is the same. Lots of absurdities in life.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, I definitely have no trouble squishing ants. They are invasive.

And centipedes. Even though they're beneficial in that they eat other critters, they are just too totally yiggy.

 

[Vectus]

I'm not sure if it'll help any, but this is a brief insight into my philosophy:

I find projecting human feelings and emotions onto creatures a bit silly, but at the same time I cannot bear to see any organism suffer that is capable of suffering. I will go out of my way to avoid causing said suffering or to put a swift end to any I see.

I know that most creatures in some way can experience--probably in a very different way than I do, but the ability is there nonetheless. I feel that if I am entitled to enjoy what experiences I can while I am here, then so should they. Even if they lack the capability to enjoy or even have those experiences in some way, most certainly can feel pain and fear, and that alone is cause enough for me to do my best not to inflict either upon them. The universe is harsh and unforgiving enough. I see no reason to make it more so.

I guess my reasons can be boiled down on some level to hardwired empathy and aversion to inequality.