Why do some atheists choose not to kill creatures?

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[Pengwuino]

Maybe it has to do with wanting to live if the situation were in reverse; some giant creature was going to kill you and you didnt want to die. Interesting subject though...

 

[turbo]

I was a reluctant, indoctrinated Catholic as a child, and by the time I was in my early teens, I had decided that we cannot know the answers to the big questions, and so became an agnostic even before I knew there was a word for it. Growing up in the woods in a strong French-Canadian/Indian culture (mother's side of the family) I hunted and fished for all my life, practically. Like most cultures with a close connection to nature, we didn't squander resources, nor did we kill needlessly. When I came home with a stringer of trout, that would be our supper, or perhaps the next morning's breakfast along with some eggs and toast. Shooting a deer was a wonderful thing for the family - lots of healthy low-fat meat for cheap - but it was also the low point of the hunt emotionally. I was brought up to kill fish, deer, grouse, etc, for food and to do it respectfully. I can't tell you how many deer I have let walk past me unmolested in the woods because I wasn't confident of a clean kill. I hunt with a single-shot rifle (Ruger Model 1 in .45-70), and have never had a deer take more than a step or two after being hit (momentum, mostly). I kill Japanese beetles because they eat my little fruit trees and berry-plants, but if I catch a spider, wasp, beetle, etc, inside the house, I'll take it outside to release it. I don't have any faith to guide my actions - just a sense of ethics that I extend to most other creatures.

For instance, I feel better about eating venison that I got in a clean kill than I do eating steaks and burgers from a store. The deer may have seen hard winters and lean times, but at least it was free - not getting fattened up in a dusty feed-lot for slaughter. When possible, I buy beef from a farm about 10 miles from here. Black Angus raised in very large grassy pastures with shade trees and a couple of nice stream-fed ponds for fresh water. That farm-family is very responsible and they treat their stock well.

 

[Math Is Hard]

- 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.

I'm not sure what it has to do with atheism. Most humans find violence repulsive and I don't think it has anything to do with reason or beliefs. When I have to kill something (like a spider) I don't reason about it, I have a reflex reaction of revulsion - it's more physiological than anything. Emotions like fear and disgust are very powerful and do a pretty good job overriding rationalization ( as anyone with a phobia can attest).

I suppose you could "throw it off" or even become desensitized if you were in a situation where you had to kill spiders and mice every day. It happens. But I think people vary a great deal. Some people would never get used to it, they would always be horrified.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Help.

Mih hit it: It is tough to fathom why you would equate having feelings (whether you or the mouse) with religion (or lack thereof). In particular:

-You are an athiest.
-You have feelings.
-Therefore, having feelings does not require being religious.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't have any faith to guide my actions - just a sense of ethics that I extend to most other creatures.

For instance, I feel better about eating venison that I got in a clean kill than I do eating steaks and burgers from a store. The deer may have seen hard winters and lean times, but at least it was free - not getting fattened up in a dusty feed-lot for slaughter. When possible, I buy beef from a farm about 10 miles from here. Black Angus raised in very large grassy pastures with shade trees and a couple of nice stream-fed ponds for fresh water. That farm-family is very responsible and they treat their stock well.

Yes, I can see the logic in your circumstance. Minimizing one's destructive footprint is a philosophy that is practical if you spend a lot of time in nature.

I'm not sure what it has to do with atheism. Most humans find violence repulsive and I don't think it has anything to do with reason or beliefs. When I have to kill something (like a spider) I don't reason about it, I have a reflex reaction of revulsion - it's more physiological than anything. Emotions like fear and disgust are very powerful and do a pretty good job overriding rationalization ( as anyone with a phobia can attest).

I suppose you could "throw it off" or even become desensitized if you were in a situation where you had to kill spiders and mice every day. It happens. But I think people vary a great deal. Some people would never get used to it, they would always be horrified.

What violence? A spider can be squished in a kleenex. A mouse can be drowned in the sink.

The revulsion must be to something less concrete than violence.

Mih hit it: It is tough to fathom why you would equate having feelings (whether you or the mouse) with religion (or lack thereof). In particular:

-You are an athiest.
-You have feelings.
-Therefore, having feelings does not require being religious.

But why would the death of a spider cause feelings? As an atheist, I know it has no soul or anythning else of any real value. I lose nothing by stopping its chemical processes.

 

[Focus]

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

I hope I don't get flamed for this but I am an atheist and a vegetarian.

I think compassion for animals is a by product of our evolutionary ancestry. As homosapiens it is integral to the way we survive that we feel compassion for anyone else in our society. We are not physically capable animals, but we are good at making tools. Unfortunately this makes us vulnerable in small quantities. Thus the reason why compassion and empathy is so important is because without these, a society cannot survive.

I postulate that as we grew more intelligent, we realized that it is not just us, but the whole of nature that is crucial in our survival. We trained animals to help us, and by that we made them a part of society. So any compassion and empathy we felt for fellow men was also shared among these animals. As we grew more aware of the world, we realized that it is everything in nature that is essential to our surviving, and not just the animals we train and use. I think evidence for such can be traced back a while, when humans hunted and gathered at specific times to keep the resources levels up.

If humans were hardwired to kill needlessly, then we would have been extinct a long time ago.

 

[DaveC426913]

I postulate that as we grew more intelligent, we realized that it is not just us, but the whole of nature that is crucial in our survival. We trained animals to help us, and by that we made them a part of society. So any compassion and empathy we felt for fellow men was also shared among these animals. As we grew more aware of the world, we realized that it is everything in nature that is essential to our surviving, and not just the animals we train and use. I think evidence for such can be traced back a while, when humans hunted and gathered at specific times to keep the resources levels up.

Hm. So your suggestion is that we are driven by an extremely primitive notion that was useful in our distant past but is of dubious utility now.

Compared to that, "religion", being several orders of magnitude more modern in human development, sounds like the acme of rationality...

This does not make me feel any better...

 

[rootX]

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?
..

If one is religious, why do he grimace when drowning a caught mouse? If he is religious, why do he capture a fly or spider and let it go outside?

Is it because his religion tell him to do so? If yes, then did the religion invented that or just borrowed it from the existing set of morals/ethics that were already defined before the religion existence.

Religions did not invent morals or ethics so we don't need to be religious to adhere to those morals or ethics.

Edit: Oops, wrong forum. I thought this is GD. I prefer not to post in the Philosophy forum.

 

[Focus]

Compared to that, "religion", being several orders of magnitude more modern in human development, sounds like the acme of rationality...

Yes but religion is not what makes people good, this is clear as atheists don't go around killing people. Humans were compassionate before religion came along.

This does not make me feel any better...

Unfortunately there are many things that I would rather believe in that will make me feel better, but it's a shame. What I worry about is the last second before death, loosing my thoughts, feelings and ideas forever.

 

[DaveC426913]

If one is religious, why do he grimace when drowning a caught mouse? If he is religious, why do he capture a fly or spider and let it go outside?

Sorry, I short-cutted the thought-process that inspired the thread. I'll spell it out a little.

The following that should form the premise of the whole thread:

Anyone who believes there is a super-natural power / force / entity / energy greater than themselves has an automatic answer to the question "why do we show mercy to creatures?" If we are all connected - in whatever fashion you care to believe, it can simply follow that there is some form of connection between themslves and that creature. It doesn't matter how they think the connection is formed or what form they think it takes, it simply means that they can posit that harm to a creature can affect them (judgment, life-force, loss of collective consciousness, whatever).

It doesn't mean this has to be the case, it just means the "rationale for mercy/compassion" is a no-brainer for any of those believers.


My point was the corollary. For anyone who does not believe there is a connection, the rationale for mercy/compassion does not come so easy.

 

[Math Is Hard]

What violence? A spider can be squished in a kleenex. A mouse can be drowned in the sink.

The revulsion must be to something less concrete than violence.
But why would the death of a spider cause feelings? As an atheist, I know it has no soul or anythning else of any real value. I lose nothing by stopping its chemical processes.

So as soon as you put the spider in the Kleenex, do you lose awareness of what's going on when you crush it? Do you pretend it's a Cheeto you're crunching, maybe? You must on some level there are guts in there, oozing and squishing out. It's a gory act. It's repulsive, whether the creature suffers or not. I don't think it's a huge stretch of the imagination to suppose that humans recoiling from gore (or even the not-so-concrete thought of it) is part of our evolutionary heritage.

And good heavens, there are much less violent ways to kill a mouse than drowning it in a sink. I don't know how you do the deed, but even if you put the thing in a sock so you can't see it, you probably are cognizant the thing is suffering. Though not as complicated as a human, it does have a mammalian nervous system. "Stopping its chemical processes" is one thing. Causing pain and fear is another. I would be more troubled by the latter with the mouse.

It could be adaptive for us to feel revulsion at harming something smaller and/or weaker than ourselves especially if it has a cute little face. (I used to draw terrified faces on my vegetarian friend's eggs just for fun.) It might be related to the innate revulsion we feel at the thought of harming our cute little neotonized offspring. Even the dum dums at PETA know that we are much more eager to protect cute little critters than big, ugly ones.

Overall, I think we are talking about morality. I don't believe that religion and culture create morality in people, they only shape what is already there.

 

[lisab]

Dave, I think you're equating empathy (mercy is the more religious word for the concept) with faith. Or at least requiring faith in order to feel empathy.

I believe empathy is totally separate from faith. I can't even look at a picture of a person or an animal in distress. I actually feel that person's or animal's fear and pain...it hurts me, emotionally. Such images can haunt me for days, even months, or longer...I do everything I can to avoid them. Yet I'm completely atheist.

I don't think a person needs faith in order to feel empathy.

Or maybe I'm not understanding your thought here...?

 

[JoeDawg]

Both compassion and aggression are survival mechanisms.

Aggression is used to deal with rivals/prey
Compassion is used to deal with allies/children

We are social animals, we benefit and survive in groups, so our compassion instincts are very strong within those groups. But how we end up applying those instincts, how relatively strong they are, and how strong our other competing instincts are, are often a function of circumstance.

Equating faith/religion with compassion is a huge mistake.

First, whether a religion focuses on compassion, and many do not, largely has to do with the circumstances under which the religion first developed, not as a function of faith or religion itself.

Second, both compassion and aggression exist in other species, so this is not something that is uniquely human, let alone, uniquely religious.

As to your compassion for living creatures outside your species, this is simply a function of the vagueness with which our instincts work.

You must also remember that our instincts evolved in small low-technology tribal based groups, so they are not well suited to our modern living. Mice are an annoyance to us, but if a mouse is eating the grain you need for the winter months to feed your family, then I bet you'd kill it without much thought. You might even learn to hate mice, if it meant one of your own children died.

In our modern society, where real survival-competition from animals is almost non-existent, the need to maintain an aggressive stance towards them is removed. Given our strength as a techno-species, they appear weak, and our evolved instincts are to protect the weaker members of our tribe... ie those who live among us, who are NOT competitors.

Instincts are not precision tools.

Why should a atheist choose compassion?
If you're not in competition, or training for competition, there is no real reason not to.

 

[GeorginaS]

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

I have to go with what other people have said and questioned, here. How do the ideas of theism/atheism attach themselves automatically to human emotion? To "feel" love and compassion for other living creatures is a chemical reaction within human beings. How does one's lack of belief in a supernatural being attach to that?

 

[cristo]

A mouse can be drowned in the sink.

Do you make a habit of drowning mice in sinks? It has nothing to do with theism, but I would think most people would feel bad if they went around drowning mice. After all, you are inflicting pain on a living creature for no real reason!

 

[WaveJumper]

I have to go with what other people have said and questioned, here. How do the ideas of theism/atheism attach themselves automatically to human emotion?

Good question. My dog is neither an atheist nor a theist and it shows more emotion and compassion than 10% of the human population. For me a related question is why have dogs stopped eating sheep but guard them against their brothers - the wolves? It seems the environment and the societal group is influencing behavior more than anything else.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you make a habit of drowning mice in sinks? ... After all, you are inflicting pain on a living creature for no real reason!

In ridding my kitchen of mice (a practical reason for killing them), one was caught but not dead. I had to drown it.

It has nothing to do with theism, but I would think most people would feel bad if they went around drowning mice.

Why? There's the rub.

 

[DaveC426913]

Good question. My dog is neither an atheist nor a theist and it shows more emotion and compassion than 10% of the human population. For me a related question is why have dogs stopped eating sheep but guard them against their brothers - the wolves? It seems the environment and the societal group is influencing behavior more than anything else.

Definitely food for thought. Why does a creature that has no theism or atheism show compassion?

 

[JoeDawg]

My dog is neither an atheist nor a theist

If he lacks belief in gods, he's an atheist. Slaves tend to view their masters are somewhat likes gods, or devils, so its possible your dog is a theist.

 

[Huckleberry]

Definitely food for thought. Why does a creature that has no theism or atheism show compassion?

Theism or atheism aren't really answers to this question. They are conclusions for questions with no answers.

Why does any creature show compassion? The object of compassion has some value to the experiencing subject. You may not value the biological functions of a single mouse, but perhaps you are asking this question because you value a single life despite its undesirable function.

 

[kote]

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

Evolution. You're wired this way to protect the herd. Societies that don't kill each other off have higher population growth rates. Families that randomly go around killing people... well, they get killed off in retaliation. It's the same reason you don't stab yourself randomly... you've evolved a feeling of pain to keep you from doing stupid things.

Other animals are somewhat human-like so the feelings get mixed up in our heads, and some of it rubs off on lower life-forms. The "it's kinda like a human" reasoning also explains why we feel worse about killing a dog than we do about killing a spider - dogs are more like humans than spiders are. It is also useful to not kill off your work animals and food supply unnecessarily.

 

[JoeDawg]

Other animals are somewhat human-like so the feelings get mixed up in our heads, and some of it rubs off on lower life-forms.

I agree with what you said, except for the 'lower' part. We certainly think of our intelligence as putting us higher on the importance scale, and we are of course more important to us. Butt there are lots of species more successful than us. Cockroaches and Ants have been around longer and will probably outlast us. 'Lower' is subjective.

 

[kote]

I agree with what you said, except for the 'lower' part. We certainly think of our intelligence as putting us higher on the importance scale, and we are of course more important to us. Butt there are lots of species more successful than us. Cockroaches and Ants have been around longer and will probably outlast us. 'Lower' is subjective.

Yeah I thought about that as I wrote it :). I didn't mean anything by lower.

 

[ideasrule]

Hm. So your suggestion is that we are driven by an extremely primitive notion that was useful in our distant past but is of dubious utility now.

Compared to that, "religion", being several orders of magnitude more modern in human development, sounds like the acme of rationality...

Primitive does not equate to "of dubious utility". Notions like sex, love, honor, and respect far outdate the entire human species, but they're as useful in a technological society as they were when they first came into being.

I'd say that empathy with animals is much more important now, when humans are basically controlling the destiny of life on Earth, than it was in the hunterer-gatherer days when humans were just another insignificant species. Now that we're in the process of causing one of the largest mass extinctions in Earth's history, conservation of resources is more important than ever before, and any instinct that encourages conservation is of enormous utility.

 

[disregardthat]

We subconsciously apply the emotion of empathy towards animals, it´s not a matter of rationality or religion. This is a process we don´t control. Obviously, it is crucial that we take care of our fellow human beings, and it is this drive that might make us reluctant to kill things which share many of the properties of humans.

 

[ThomasT]

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?

Why didn't you let the mouse go?

More generally, if I believe that there is no connection between myself and other creatures ...

Why would you believe that?

...why is ther any harm whatever in killing a creature?

There isn't, but apparently you feel guilty about drowning the mouse -- which you should. Or was it severely injured and so you figured you would put it out of its misery?

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

I don't have any problem with killing mice, or anything else for that matter. But I don't want to kill mice, or anything else for that matter. And, I'm an atheist. Go figure.

Dave, you killed a mouse. Whooooo! Get over it. But, DO NOT let it happen again.

 

[raknath]

As an atheist, I know it has no soul or anythning else of any real value. I lose nothing by stopping its chemical processes.

Not to drone on about what others have already said, If you really question the concept of ethics in an atheist, i could give you many examples of atheistic ethics

Take an indian philosopher KaPilA for instance,he has a compiled a philosophy called sANkhya which is a combination of atheism and nature worship, his quotes are replete with ethical codes.

Besides believing the creature does not have a soul, really does not entail that u don't know that it has feelings right? I am personally sure we are all hard-wired to reduce pain to other creatures. so whatever maybe your orientation in the current epoch(if i could call it that) ethics entail not causing pain.

 

[cosmo123]

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?

You wouldn't hurt yourself, even without leaving any damage, simply because it hurts you. Its a bad feeling. You see a mouse express suffering in a similar way to how you would, so you sympathise with the mouse, because you know what that bad feeling is like, and it is obvious that the mouse experiences it also. Whether the feeling of 'self-awareness' or whatever is supernatural or not is irrelevant for this, you just don't want to cause suffering because you fear the mouse experiences the same thing you do. However, if you can't get around this without resorting to the supernatural, they perhaps you really do have supernatural beliefs.

Im only speculating though, i don't really know what you think :)

 

[Evo]

As an atheist, I know it has no soul or anythning else of any real value. I lose nothing by stopping its chemical processes.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being an atheist.

An atheist simply does not believe in a supernatural diety. It has nothing to do with feelings or compassion.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yeah, along with what Evo (and others) said, I don't think compassion was born of religion. Religious people just have a convenient way to justify compassion... but they're likely wrong about their justification.

It's much more reasonable that compassion (and religion) both serve evolutionary purposes. Perhaps sapiens that lacked compassion in our evolutionary history weren't fit to build a strong society like our more immediate ancestors were.

 

[JoeDawg]

This has absolutely nothing to do with being an atheist.

An atheist simply does not believe in a supernatural diety. It has nothing to do with feelings or compassion.

And in fact, if you are a follower of gods, you're generally bound by commandments or directives that really have nothing to do with human compassion. You are essentially, just following orders, from the divine. Your own feelings in the matter are by definition imperfect and not to be trusted.

 

[DaveC426913]

This has absolutely nothing to do with being an atheist.

An atheist simply does not believe in a supernatural diety. It has nothing to do with feelings or compassion.

I am ruling out any 'we are all connected' and/or any 'all God's critters' rationales for compassion. My assumption going into this discussion is that many arguments for mercy and compassion to a fellow animal will be based on some form of spiritual connection between me and the victim or on some form of overseeing judgement on my actions.

Rationally, what's left is that I lose nothing from killing a critter.

Emotionally I know I don't want to kill it. I'm just trying to figure out why my brain and my heart are saying two different things.

 

[Evo]

I am ruling out any 'we are all connected' and/or any 'all God's critters' rationales for compassion. My assumption going into this discussion is that many arguments for mercy and compassion to a fellow animal will be based on some form of spiritual connection between me and the victim or on some form of overseeing judgement on my actions.

Rationally, what's left is that I lose nothing from killing a critter.

Emotionally I know I don't want to kill it. I'm just trying to figure out why my brain and my heart are saying two different things.

Then you could just as easily say that someone that's very religious will kill without remorse thinking they are releasing the animal from earthly suffering and freeing it to a happier "existence".

A person that believes that life's rewards come after death would be more likely to be an uncompassionate killer than a person that believes that this life is all that there is and there is nothing to look forward to after death. It would seem to me that a person that didn't believe in an afterlife or some type of redemption after death would be more compassionate and care more about the living.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then you could just as easily say that someone that's very religious will kill without remorse thinking they are releasing the animal from earthly suffering and freeing it to a happier "existence".

A person that believes that life's rewards come after death would be more likely to be an uncompassionate killer than a person that believes that this life is all that there is and there is nothing to look forward to after death. It would seem to me that a person that didn't believe in an afterlife or some type of redemption after death would be more compassionate and care more about the living.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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).