Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Sy Borg »

Dukedroklar wrote:How do you know they don't have "feelings"? They obviously feel and experience pain as that is easy to prove. Imo, If they feel pain then there must be some form of mind to receive and react to it. Our brains didn't evolve in a vacuum so I do not believe our sense of consciousness evolved in a vacuum either. I believe they do have a sense of consciousness although it's very unlikely it is anywhere near as complex as ours.
I agree. They are a stepping stone to the mammalian consciousness we relate to. When I try to catch an invading ant, the second it sees The Finger of Doom it runs like the clappers, along with some neat sidestepping. It is very easy to relate to. We don't know what they feel but we can certainly see lots of analogous behaviours, and behaviour is the only the clue we have as to others' consciousness.
Dukedroklar wrote:One could say "you have no way to know this" but it really is simple logic based on evolution. Nature doesn't change much in the way it functions. Pain is a good tool to keep a creature away from something harmful. Pleasure is a good tool to reinforce desired or advantageous results. Emotions are a good tool to assist a pack or social creature. As long as something has a nervous system and a brain it is a pretty sure bet they experience a lot of the same things to various degrees.
Agree. Emotions emerged from chemical reactions - chemicals reflexively respond to stimulus (chemical, mechanical or electromagnetic) as according to their atomic configuration. Stable bonds persist and the unstable ones don't. With complexity of reactions comes life, and from complexity of life comes consciousness.

Emotions are a more flexible and evolutionarily advantageous means of response than chemical reactions; the latter could lead a creature into the jaws of a predator because confusing chemical cues were present. However, if you fear a predator then almost no amount of alluring chemicals will lead you into danger. Fear and contentment (opposites) would appear to be fundamental emotional characteristics of any life that flees from danger.

However, things are obviously not the same. Take the example of "exploding toads", where hundreds of toads were found dead, apparently exploded. Eventually they worked out that while the toads were copulating crows would fly down and remove the toads' livers while the toads were (rather admirably) committed to the act. The toad would finish the copulation and then its lungs would expand because of the extra spaces left by the missing livers until the poor animal blew apart.

It would be easy to say that the animals were so insensitive that they doesn't even care if their livers were removed. However, toads normally care plenty about having their liver removed, but the sexual experience is clearly so encompassing, or the chemicals involved are so compelling, that it trumps personal (toadal?) survival.

It's easy to see the evolutionary advantage - the fertilisation is completed whereas if a toad interrupted the act to protect itself it may well have still been killed - but without passing on their genetic material. Natural selection will favour the stoics who finish the job, come hell or high weather.

So that's the dynamics, but what does it tell you about what a toad would feel? It would be easy to say that the toads are insensitive and just wander off oblivious to their injuries like robots until kaboom time. It's just as easy to assume that the toad walked away feeling like absolute ****, although there's no report of them writhing around once the afterglow wore off ... but natural selection will also reward a stoical response to injuries. Writhing creatures are vulnerable and birds and ever-present threat. You'd have to imagine they suffered before the end.

Still, you also have to assume that the toads' pain is much less profound than ours. Danger or not, even Chuck Norris is going to writhe around if he's just had his liver pecked out.
Dukedroklar wrote:So for me, insects are an easy thing to empathize with. What I would consider too great a leap would be to empathize with plant life as it doesn't posses a brain and therefore I have nothing to relate to them on any level.
Interesting line of thought. Being mostly passive, plants have little need for sensory input so they do seem foreign to us in a way. But there are commonalities.

Plants' limited active behaviour is based on growth and absorption, which are our areas of common ground since we also grow and absorb (eat, drink). In growth you see the push and shove that plants engage in to occupy space. If something is in the way of the growth then the roots or trunk either go through it or wind around it. This is the basis (I almost said root :)) of problem solving.

When the sun is down a plant closes its flowers, which is analogous to sleep. Like animals, plants can be symbiotic or antagonistic. They can be parasitic and predatory. We start as an egg, which is analogous to a seed.

Simpler organisms make more clear the roots of our behaviour. We just do it with more panache :)
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Spiral Out »

Dukedroklar wrote:They obviously feel and experience pain as that is easy to prove.
It's not obvious and if it's easy to prove then go right ahead and give it a shot.
Dukedroklar wrote:I believe they do have a sense of consciousness although it's very unlikely it is anywhere near as complex as ours.
Well then if the Yellow Jacket stung me having been conscious of the intent of doing so then it deserved its fate and by extension I should expect the same behavior by all of the other YJs and they also deserved their fates as well.
Dukedroklar wrote:As long as something has a nervous system and a brain it is a pretty sure bet they experience a lot of the same things to various degrees.
You'll have to show proof of that as well.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
User avatar
Dukedroklar
Posts: 125
Joined: June 16th, 2013, 4:52 pm

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Dukedroklar »

Yes I stand by what I said but...
Valentine-turjery wrote: To clarify, you're stating that experience is largely identical between, say, humans and grasshoppers? That there is little to tell between the psychology of these two creatures?
That is not what I said.
As long as something has a nervous system and a brain it is a pretty sure bet they experience a lot of the same things to various degrees
To clarify: Primitive nervous systems and brains evolved to allow for more complex organisms to be possible. These kept evolving until they reached the higher levels of complexity we enjoy. Our experiencing of pain for example is a tool that evolved to help us survive by avoiding things that damage us. We don't simply have an urge to move away from heat but experience an unpleasant feeling of varying degrees that drives us to action. Generally the stronger the danger the more pain we "experience" in this way.

This did not just pop into existence with us. It is apparent with all lower life forms as well. Why would anyone think that pain acts functionally different with them than it does with us? We all evolved the same basic brains and nervous systems "of various degrees of complexity".

Can we use human psychology on insects? No but there are psychologists for animals although i'm not a proponent of it. Human psychology is in it's infancy and mostly theory at this point. The complexity of our minds is far above most creatures and has been tested in some clever ways on chimps for example. We have a sense of self which allows us to imagine that others like us do as well. Chimps do not seem to posses the ability to understand there is another "self" in other creatures. This however does not imply that they do not experience pain in the same way we do. In fact, it's easy to see that they do. Cut a monkey and they will grimace in pain for example. Grimacing is an indication that it is a feeling throughout the whole being that is being expressed in ways that would not directly alleviate the pain. It is one way of how we "express" the sensation of pain.

Anyway, simply because a creature does not have the higher cognitive abilities of humans does not mean they don't experience pain in a similar manner. Whether they consciously remember the event is irrelevant imo as it is very real at the time it is occurring. Would you feel comfortable harming an extremely mentally handicapped person? Some chimps, parrots etc have performed as well on some tests as 2+ yr old children. Would it be ok to harm 1 yr olds then?
You're taught to obey... Learn to disobey. You're taught to believe they have the answers... learn to doubt. You're taught meek is good... learn meek is evil. You're taught to be passive... learn to FIGHT!
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Sy Borg »

Dukedroklar wrote:Would you feel comfortable harming an extremely mentally handicapped person? Some chimps, parrots etc have performed as well on some tests as 2+ yr old children. Would it be ok to harm 1 yr olds then?
Actually, we have happily cut foreskins off infants' penises without anaesthetic for many years. The unconscious reasoning seems to be that if a trauma will be forgotten, then it's no biggie. We also do all sorts of interesting surgeries on infants with ambiguous genitalia.

This page has some interesting anecdotes http://www.circumstitions.com/Pain.html, such as:
Dr S lays Sarah's baby on the bench. "You're not going to faint, are you?" he asks me. "That's the main injury risk round here." He straps Bobby to a rack, known as a Circumstraint. Bobby rails a little as Dr S swabs his pubis with Betadine. "This will hurt a bit," says the doctor, injecting anaesthetic into the base of the penis. Bobby spits his dummy and starts wailing while Dr S loosely ties a silk thread around the tiny penile shaft. The foreskin is attached to the glans and has to be forcibly freed before it is clamped, stretched and slit. This widens the aperture to accommodate the "Plastibell", basically a notched thimble which fits over the head of the penis.

Bobby's wails are getting louder, and Dr S looks slightly uncomfortable. "They don't all cry like this," he says. He manoeuvres the thread over the Plastibell notch and gives a sharp, hard tug. The crying stops. Bobby's limbs go rigid, his eyes bulge, his mouth gapes and his fingers snap straight. Then his body goes limp and all is quiet.

Dr S looks mildly dismayed. "About one in two jump like that." He waits a few minutes before slicing off the strangled foreskin and breaking off the Plastibell handle. "The ring will fall off in about five days. Really, it's no more risky or difficult than doing sheep's tails." With that, he buttons Bobby into his babysuit. The entire operation has taken eight minutes.

"How was he?" Sarah asks the doctor when we return to the waiting room. "Fine," he says. "Give him a feed and he'll be right."
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
Dukedroklar
Posts: 125
Joined: June 16th, 2013, 4:52 pm

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Dukedroklar »

@ Greta: Very interesting read. I especially enjoyed the story of the toads and I agree that in many life forms other more instinctual (or chemical responses) take precedence over what we would think should be their reaction. I like how you tied natures priorities of reproduction over the survival instinct and I would go further that we as humans are subject to similar drives as well without our conscious knowledge of it.

For example, I have a theory about Madness / Mental Illness being a natural phenomenon and not an aberration that benefits the whole of mankind at the expense of the individuals. Basically that madness allows for abstract thinking and discoveries that might be overlooked by the average "normal" person. When nature "lucks out" and madness is moderate and combined with high IQ and possibly OCD you have the potential for genius. Mankind as a whole benefits from these individuals as many have made enormous leaps forward in our collective knowledge.

Another thing I have pondered. The root of imagination and possibly consciousness. I believe it is vision. We take signals from our eyes and transform it into the panorama within our minds. How could that be done without with the basics of imagination? Imagination imo evolved due to the need to interpret the impulses in a beneficial way. I will have to study further on the timeline of the evolution of the eye and the brain. Of course the overall complexity of an organism would be a major factor in increasing brain size and capacity. If my hunch is correct, the imagination evolved to allow for the eye to be more beneficial with ever increasing detail about our surroundings. We view the panorama presented within the brain by what is called the minds eye. It's as though we are looking around at the picture within our mind and able to focus the minds eye on any part of it. This sensation of 3rd party viewing of a purely mental construct within our minds is what I think gave rise to what we call consciousness and the sense that we are more than the sum of our parts.

Anyway, just the ramblings of a madman ;)

-- Updated January 19th, 2014, 11:18 pm to add the following --

@ Spiral Out
Spiral Out wrote:
Dukedroklar wrote:They obviously feel and experience pain as that is easy to prove.
1- It's not obvious and if it's easy to prove then go right ahead and give it a shot.
Dukedroklar wrote:I believe they do have a sense of consciousness although it's very unlikely it is anywhere near as complex as ours.
2- Well then if the Yellow Jacket stung me having been conscious of the intent of doing so then it deserved its fate and by extension I should expect the same behavior by all of the other YJs and they also deserved their fates as well.
Dukedroklar wrote:As long as something has a nervous system and a brain it is a pretty sure bet they experience a lot of the same things to various degrees.
3- You'll have to show proof of that as well.
1- see my other response about the facial grimace. Also, apply a flame to any creature and they will move away. They are life forms and not robots running a program. Do you think nature did not evolve pain through lower creatures before we inherited it? Or do you think it magically appeared with humans? If the latter, then please tell me at what stage between what we would call animal and what we call human did the magical pain sensation spring into existence?

Like most things in science we cannot directly see, we must use logic to deduce a theory. The theory of evolution is widely accepted even by many theists like myself. I believe I have put forth a very logical reason for saying that lower life forms experience pain in a similar manner based on evolutionary theory. Where's the error in my logic and what is your reasoning for believing they don't?

2- if I threaten you I fully expect you to take action, fight or flight. If I present a threat (intentionally or not) to an animal or insect, don't be surprised if they react with flight or fight. (Ah yes, fight or flight. Another similar behavior to humans) Hence why my accidental squeezing of a wasp causing it to sting me was completely understandable and not meriting retaliation.

We have a right to protect our homes from insects or animals that might pose a threat of one kind or another whether it be attacks or germs etc. When I find a hopper or some other form of minimal threat insect in my home, I catch and release. Black widows I kill as quickly and as humanely as possible. I also destroy any egg sack. The difference is in the level of unnecessary killing and the level of cruelty if I deem they must die .

3- Based on the evolutionary theory and how our consciousness evolved. Like I said "a pretty sure bet", not 100% positive but enough of a logical conclusion to live my life by it.

-- Updated January 19th, 2014, 11:45 pm to add the following --

@ Greta
Greta wrote:
Dukedroklar wrote:Would you feel comfortable harming an extremely mentally handicapped person? Some chimps, parrots etc have performed as well on some tests as 2+ yr old children. Would it be ok to harm 1 yr olds then?
Actually, we have happily cut foreskins off infants' penises without anaesthetic for many years. The unconscious reasoning seems to be that if a trauma will be forgotten, then it's no biggie. We also do all sorts of interesting surgeries on infants with ambiguous genitalia.
Yes they do but I do not. I didn't mutilate my son and if I deemed it desirable (which I do not) I would have insisted on a local. I was given the choice in this regard and I appreciate that I was. I'll let my son make that decision as an adult as well.

I'm curious. There are unfortunate people who have brain damage to an area of the brain responsible for short term memory that doesn't allow them to remember anything a few moments after it occurred. Would it be ok to hurt them quickly, wait a minute, hurt them again and keep doing that simply because they don't remember it occurred? If so, please tell me they aren't the care givers in the nursing homes.

Also, people shouldn't take what I say as to mean I wouldn't kill something to survive or defend myself. I am actually fairly aggressive when it comes to other males. This is part of our nature and the environment we live in. There are many times a compassionate response will not only be unsuccessful but may actually encourage a negative response. For me, it depends on a quick assessment of the situation and the person(s) i'm dealing with along with the level of danger posed if my judgement is in err.

We males are always playing games of dominance and submission between ourselves. As any other social pack animal, this has evolved to avoid the necessity of always fighting one another to establish rank in the group and mating privileges. An example is that when we arm wrestle or some other form of physical challenge we are displaying our physical superiority to another male and therefore prove ourselves more worthy of being a mate. As more evolved creatures we take this farther to acts like long distance running etc where we may be the only one to see our ability but the sense of self satisfaction is merely a result of the previously mentioned basic instinct. Basically a desire to excel (be superior) is natural although many do not associate why we desire it. Ummm, think I need to catch a taxi back to the topic... my bad :P
Last edited by Dukedroklar on January 19th, 2014, 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're taught to obey... Learn to disobey. You're taught to believe they have the answers... learn to doubt. You're taught meek is good... learn meek is evil. You're taught to be passive... learn to FIGHT!
Stormcloud
Posts: 661
Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Stormcloud »

Am interested in this topic. Do insects feel pain as we understand pain, or not?

Ignore! Somehow I missed the posts above.
Last edited by Stormcloud on January 20th, 2014, 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Sy Borg »

Dukedroklar wrote:...I like how you tied natures priorities of reproduction over the survival instinct and I would go further that we as humans are subject to similar drives as well without our conscious knowledge of it.

For example, I have a theory about Madness / Mental Illness being a natural phenomenon and not an aberration that benefits the whole of mankind at the expense of the individuals. Basically that madness allows for abstract thinking and discoveries that might be overlooked by the average "normal" person. When nature "lucks out" and madness is moderate and combined with high IQ and possibly OCD you have the potential for genius. Mankind as a whole benefits from these individuals as many have made enormous leaps forward in our collective knowledge.
You would expect many mental aberrations to be either random (eg. gene damage, accidents) or caused by the environment (eg. stress, toxicity) or a mix of each. The genetic success of these variations would be difficult to assess in a society that has slowed its genetic evolution through medicine and sheer numbers (there's theoretically someone for almost everyone).

The effect of the memes, however, would be much greater and would lend weight to your idea. The crazies, the eccentric geniuses, the renegades etc who lit the spark from which more grounded types would do the development.
Dukedroklar wrote:Another thing I have pondered. The root of imagination and possibly consciousness. I believe it is vision. We take signals from our eyes and transform it into the panorama within our minds. How could that be done without with the basics of imagination? Imagination imo evolved due to the need to interpret the impulses in a beneficial way. I will have to study further on the timeline of the evolution of the eye and the brain. Of course the overall complexity of an organism would be a major factor in increasing brain size and capacity. If my hunch is correct, the imagination evolved to allow for the eye to be more beneficial with ever increasing detail about our surroundings. We view the panorama presented within the brain by what is called the minds eye. It's as though we are looking around at the picture within our mind and able to focus the minds eye on any part of it. This sensation of 3rd party viewing of a purely mental construct within our minds is what I think gave rise to what we call consciousness and the sense that we are more than the sum of our parts.

Anyway, just the ramblings of a madman ;)
I don't know much about imagination and really should do some reading up because creative imagination can achieve remarkable things.

A fascinating presentation on the evolution of the eye: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E.

And how about this for insects being capable of feeling fear? Dragonflies dying of fright in the face of predators. sams.scientificamerican.com/podcast/epi ... -11-11-11/

Fear is a very basic emotion - it seems that most creatures feel it in some way or another. How the dragonflies' response could turn out to be an evolutionary advantage beats me - maybe it weeds out all the wimps and princesses? They can fly over 30kph so they need to be super alert - but interestingly there appears to be a threshold of optimal alertness, and levels beyond that are a disadvantage.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
Valentine-turjery
Posts: 57
Joined: January 13th, 2014, 11:18 am

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Valentine-turjery »

To clarify, you're stating that experience is largely identical between, say, humans and grasshoppers? That there is little to tell between the psychology of these two creatures?
As long as something has a nervous system and a brain it is a pretty sure bet they experience a lot of the same things to various degrees
Okay, there are two points that need separating.

Saying that insects feel pain is very different to saying they experience a lot of the same things as humans, that we share an experience. But even then, that something feels pain doesn't oblige us not to hurt it. I don't doubt the evolutionary trail you describe, but its relevance I struggle to see. Animals destroy each other all the time, often painfully. Evolutionary sense is in this way formed. If we allowed insects and rodents to invade our home without reprisal, there'd quickly not be any of us. Have you ever tried invading the domicile of a colony of ants? They tend not to make one feel welcome.

You are trying to leverage evolution to support your claim that we should not harm other creatures, when really, evolution gives us our warrant. Humankind is still competing for survival, albeit under favourable odds, and must still contribute its effort to the selective process. To condition other creatures to not bother us demands their death, leaving only the individuals of the species that were too timid to try it, or to drive them to extinction.

But I think, in fairness, your main point was regarding unnecessary death. Not always easy to judge. And not easy to logically disapprove of. I don't think evolution helps here. Why is it wrong for a man to walk into the forest and shoot a deer for sport? Or wrong for the picnicker to tread on a horde of ants? If we accidentally stepped on the ants, it would be okay, surely? And if we shot the deer for food, for survival, that would be okay too. That is, within our remit as a part of nature. So is it in some way down to our motive?

I think I agree about the unnecessary death, and I'd like to hear the case put strongly. But I don't think evolution helps.
User avatar
Dukedroklar
Posts: 125
Joined: June 16th, 2013, 4:52 pm

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Dukedroklar »

@Greta
About the madness the theory: I'm not saying it is or is not driven by successful reproduction or survivability. Simply that it is an advantageous aberration that is dormant in our genes as a specie and may actually be one of the reasons we have risen to such heights of intellectual capability. It would generally not be advantageous to the individual with the exception of the ones that get it and IQ in balanced proportions. A person crazy enough to try the impossible and smart enough to make it work could be an attractive mate. For the unfortunate ones that madness is overwhelming it would be mostly a disadvantage and they would fail to pass on their genes as frequently.

One of my favorite quotes from Einstein is supposedly when he was looking across the alley at an asylum and said "they are madmen who know nothing of physics.... and I am merely a madman who does".

The evolution of the eye video:
Excellent video. I already knew much of the explanation for the progression of eye through evolution but this was very well done. It also contained some info I did not know about the various types of eyes throughout nature. I always assumed they were roughly similar in structure and remember long ago reading that this was due to most of what we see today coming from common ancestors. The theory evolves over time as new info comes to light. Read an old encyclopedia and you'll be amazed at how many things have changed in our knowledge in just 25 years or so.

I had to respond to a few fellow theists in that video. I really can't understand such a negative and closed mindedness to what I see as common sense and in no way conflicting with my belief in a higher being. To me, it seems like creationism (as most pump it) is the lesser of probabilities of how a superior intelligence would go about creating life. Similar to how a young child thinks the tv contains small people or that meat comes from the store. Until one day they come to the understanding of how it really works and laugh at what they used to believe in their youth.

I can envision them sitting with god and having him say "seriously? You thought I just poofed all this into existence? What happens when the environment changes? Do you think I would want to have to come down and waste my time micro managing every detail in every creature so it could continue living? Do you have any idea how many times the environment has went through changes? Of course I made life adaptable and since that was a major convenience of course I made it that way from the beginning".

Dragonflies:
Similar to fish placed in an aquarium with predators or another high stress environment. Immune systems drop and they are more susceptible to illness. I would be curious to see a study done on the ones that didn't die off. Were future generations more likely to flourish under the new conditions? I would assume that the ones that survived and their future generations would be able to overcome their fear and hunt for food more covertly to avoid malnutrition. Also, possibly less susceptible to the stress or more "courageous". I wonder if it would increase intelligence levels due to a possible need for more stealthy tactics to survive. Would be hard to measure. This seems like it would be a fascinating field to work in.

Crap, I think we're getting a bit off topic here. DAMN you cold hearted bug squashers! There, that's better :lol:

-- Updated January 20th, 2014, 4:55 am to add the following --

@ valentine-turjery
Well thought out post and I agree with most of what you said. I agree we have every right to protect our homes or ourselves etc from any threat including deadly force (if needed) against other humans.

I went through the evolutionary explanation only as evidence that it is highly likely that they feel and experience pain. I agree that if they do that it does not obligate us to spare them pain. That's a matter of compassion and empathy which I believe is the next evolutionary step of mankind. But you cannot have those feelings without the belief that they do in fact feel. I have no qualms with smashing machines till our hearts content because they do not possess feelings and hence I cannot possibly have empathy or compassion for them. Advanced AI would be different to me but i'll limit it to the biological topic at hand.

This theory just fleshed out tonight as I was reading and responding to this discussion. Much of it was in fragmented pieces for many years though. Basically all the pain and suffering or what some call evil, was actually a necessity of evolution to create an alpha predator and undisputed winner of the evolutionary refining process. Most if not all of what we perceive as bad in mankind is in one way or another a major element in why we beat everything else. This allowed us to evolve the brains capable of fathoming the universe and as a natural result... the capability to bring about our own extinction.

In this theory, this extinction potential would be an inevitability for any creature achieving this level of development and that's where the slow evolutionary process becomes incapable making changes to the creature to assist its survival. However, since the highly developed brain and intellect is the very reason it is now threatened with extinction, it is this same brain that must now overcome the relic genes and instincts of it's evolutionary animal past to save itself. If it can then evolution succeeded and the creature goes on to a bright future with limitless potential. If it does not then extinction brings about another chance for the next contender to arise and try to overcome the inevitable challenge.

To this end I say empathy and compassion is that next step and the only thing that will save us from extinction by our own hand.

Unnecessary death and suffering:
I agree that in nature there is much pain and death. However I do not agree that it is done merely for sport. I can't think of many examples where creatures kill something or make it suffer for no good reason. A cat toys with a mouse to hone its hunting skills. A big cat suffocates its prey since it is the most efficient and least risky way to kill. Sadism seems mostly a human trait. Can you think of any good examples in nature that doesn't provide some benefit to the killer or supposed tormentor? What benefit is it to us to intentionally destroy an ant colony that is not threatening us or our home?

Obligation:
A bit more on this point. While I cannot rationalize why, I do believe that if we can extend empathy to and understand that another creature feels and experiences, then we are in fact obligated to avoid causing it at all reasonable costs. Don't think obligated is the right word, more like, our duty. I am not obligated to help homeless strangers, but I do, many times throughout any given week. I would have a lot more money in my pocket if I did not, especially since I am in a lower income bracket with a family. I have deemed their need to be less than those I help and my children can do without more luxuries. I have debated internally as to whether it is a subconscious way of confirming ones "goodness" and many other psychological possibilities.

I have weighed the argument of "enabling" and find it weak and lacking in understanding or enlightenment as to our nature of being. I did not choose to like green while others may find it unattractive. I did not choose to be any of the things I am driven to be. Neither did they. Some say "they chose to become an addict" and I say really? Did they choose their environment in their childhood? Did they choose whatever genes that formed whatever it is that didn't allow them the ability to overcome when others in similar environments were able to. Regardless of the trauma in my life I am grateful to have been born in a developed country. I am grateful to have been gifted with the genetic makeup that allowed me to overcome my problems and not end up like so many others. I could be them and they could be me if not for some lucky genetics.

Anyway, that's how I see life and try to live my life.
You're taught to obey... Learn to disobey. You're taught to believe they have the answers... learn to doubt. You're taught meek is good... learn meek is evil. You're taught to be passive... learn to FIGHT!
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Spiral Out »

Dukedroklar wrote:When I find a hopper or some other form of minimal threat insect in my home, I catch and release. Black widows I kill as quickly and as humanely as possible. I also destroy any egg sack.
I think this sums up the nature of Human determinations of supposed 'rights & wrongs'. It is always just an exercise in subjective line-drawing. It is always relative to the individual's desires and fears, whether they are "justifiable" or not.

You think it's perfectly fine to catch & release a creature you perceive to be of minimal threat (the Grasshopper) but then find it perfectly fine to kill another creature you perceive to be of great threat (the Black Widow). Actually, it hinges on your perception of potential threat.

You would kill a creature who has not harmed you in any way, and by all accounts of animal/insect behavior by the experts, is more afraid of you than you are of it? Why?

Based on the premise of potential threat, you might find it perfectly find to kill as quickly and humanely as possible any Human in your home, since Humans are the greatest threat of all creatures. Is it because you cannot know what's in a Black Widow's mind and what its intents are? Can you not read their body language and facial expressions?

Your position on this seems to be a bit confused and contradicting. You had seemed to promote the idea of opposing unnecessary harm and suffering. Is it then acceptable if done as quickly and humanely as possible even though there is no imminent threat? Are all creatures included in this criteria of acceptable killing, or only the ones who possess frightening characteristics?

You have merely used the Black Widow's fundamental defensive characteristic nature against it as an excuse for your fear-killing of it. It has no control over its design. Why punish it for something it has no choice in? Haven't you doomed this creature simply for being what it is and not because it has threatened you?

I think you would agree that potential threat is no excuse for indiscriminate killing. Yes? Desires and fears. That's all we contain. We just rationalize our desires and fears in an endless circle of blind justification.

These determinations are specific to your own subjective level of fear. This is relative morality. Every Human is a moral relativist by nature.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
User avatar
Discards
Posts: 1002
Joined: December 6th, 2011, 3:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hanuman
Location: Canada

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Discards »

Theophane wrote:
Same goes for you! Don't you see that was a message from your ancestors!!!? You killed your ancestors who were merely attempting to bring you honey as an offering!!!? Callous! So callous, it makes me sick. Taking what you had no right to. One da maybe you will be in the throngs of a great disease that will take your life, and when your faculties are too weak to resist the universal connectivity of all things, your mind may hark back this day of wasp slaughter. And you might think about their suffering, and wonder if ever you could turn back time just to undo that event so that on the precipice of death you would not have to endure the complexity of having brought more suffering into the world and, as a necessity of universal causality, your very own self!!!
Discards, have you ever tried to negotiate with wasps?
Regularly. "Ultimatum" would be the better word. "Leave my attic or I will literally smoke your hive twenty four hours a day, seven days a week." Wasps have as much a right to live as we do. If the violent tendencies of an animal were providence for putting that animal to death (in some humane fashion) - we'd all be dead.
To be is to do. To do is to be. Do-be, do-be, do-be, do. - the philosophical importance of Scoobie-do is to Scoobie-be!
Rickoshay76
Posts: 56
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 4:27 pm

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Rickoshay76 »

Do you think stepping on bugs is wrong - why or why not?>>

Hindus believe that all life is sacred, if you're not of that religion, go ahead and stomp bugs and spiders.

BTW, ants seem to have a sense of life threatening danger people don't have. I raise my shoe to smash one and it runs around in panic, but when I threaten and don't do it, the ant just goes on doing what they do. Try it yourself.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Sy Borg »

Rickoshay76 wrote:Do you think stepping on bugs is wrong - why or why not?>>

Hindus believe that all life is sacred, if you're not of that religion, go ahead and stomp bugs and spiders.

BTW, ants seem to have a sense of life threatening danger people don't have. I raise my shoe to smash one and it runs around in panic, but when I threaten and don't do it, the ant just goes on doing what they do. Try it yourself.
I don't think sacredness should determine whether we should wantonly kill or destroy anything or anyone. A simple live and let live credo based on a little empathy is enough.

Animals are experts at interpreting movement. I'm sure there are signs that would be fairly subtle to other people but blindingly obvious on ant scale that a boot is either hovering or moving with intent in their direction.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
Dukedroklar
Posts: 125
Joined: June 16th, 2013, 4:52 pm

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Dukedroklar »

@ Spiral Out
Spiral Out wrote: You think it's perfectly fine to catch & release a creature you perceive to be of minimal threat (the Grasshopper) but then find it perfectly fine to kill another creature you perceive to be of great threat (the Black Widow). Actually, it hinges on your perception of potential threat.

You would kill a creature who has not harmed you in any way, and by all accounts of animal/insect behavior by the experts, is more afraid of you than you are of it? Why?

Is it because you cannot know what's in a Black Widow's mind and what its intents are? Can you not read their body language and facial expressions?
Because I know the behavior of black widows and the brown recluse. They are common in this area. I also know the level of threat they pose. Black widows and brown recluses seek dark warm places. The warmth of our homes draw them in and then they will in time seek a dark area like a shoe, glove, sofa's etc. They will reproduce and the threat will indisputably become severe from widows. The brown relcuse is even more dangerous. While a bite from a widow will cause pain, fever and nausea in a normal non allergic person, a single bite from a recluse will cause necrosis in a good sized area surrounding the sting. If not promptly treated amputation can be required.

This is not a phobia, it's experience and "informed" knowlege. The reason I don't catch n release them is their nature to return to the warmth of homes. Also, I have stated that every creature including us has a right to protect itself.
Spiral Out wrote: Based on the premise of potential threat, you might find it perfectly find to kill as quickly and humanely as possible any Human in your home, since Humans are the greatest threat of all creatures.
This is hyperbole. We all make assessments of peoples threat levels constantly. Anyone I perceive as a threat in any fashion is not permitted within my home. If my judgement was in err and I found my new assessment to be a serious threat to my family I would have no qualms about killing them if the threat they posed was a "cannot risk losing a fight" level.
Spiral Out wrote: Your position on this seems to be a bit confused and contradicting. You had seemed to promote the idea of opposing unnecessary harm and suffering. Is it then acceptable if done as quickly and humanely as possible even though there is no imminent threat? Are all creatures included in this criteria of acceptable killing, or only the ones who possess frightening characteristics?
Incorrect. My position is that IF it is deemed necessary to kill something to do it in as quick and humane a way as possible and safe to do. Imminent threat is an assessment we all must make and can only be based on your perception of it. Your abilities to perceive threats accurately will be based on many things from life experience to education, intuition, etc. We can only do as good a job as we are capable of doing.

Lets take your statement above about black widows. Your assessment of their threat level was either intentionally downplayed in an attempt to bolster you argument OR you woefully underestimated their threat level in a home. If you failed to kill that creature, you would find out through experience that you can't let it remain. In the future, if you caught and released only to find it back again the next day, you would've learned that catch n release is not effective with them. Through experience you would then understand that it is necessary to kill them when found in or near your home. Does that mean you then promote driving them to extinction? No, that would be unnecessary and may very well be detrimental. Does that mean it's ok to burn them alive or some other equally cruel method... no. A quick smash is humane and effective.
Spiral Out wrote: You have merely used the Black Widow's fundamental defensive characteristic nature against it as an excuse for your fear-killing of it. It has no control over its design. Why punish it for something it has no choice in? Haven't you doomed this creature simply for being what it is and not because it has threatened you?


1- It's not fear-killing, it's appropriate action.

2- It's not punishment, it's defense of self and family.

3-It's presence is the threat due to its unquestionable nature as I explained above.
Spiral Out wrote: I think you would agree that potential threat is no excuse for indiscriminate killing. Yes?
Never promoted "indiscriminate" killing since I obviously stated this. If someone verbally threatened me with a fight and obviously had no weapons, we would fight as I am confident in my abilites. To shoot someone in this situation would be indiscriminate. If they threatened me, had a weapon and I assessed them capable of overcoming me, I would have no qualms with shooting them. In hindsight I would feel sorrow at being forced to take such an action but would feel no remorse. If I was older and frail so that a physical confrontation could easily result in serious injury or my possible death, then I would feel justified in using lethal force in defense against a physical fight by a younger and dangerous opponent.
Spiral Out wrote: Desires and fears. That's all we contain. We just rationalize our desires and fears in an endless circle of blind justification.
By the very definition of the words "desire" and "fear", it's easy to overly simplify what makes us who and what we are. But it is just that, an over simplification designed to diminish the complexity of our being.

We all have desires and we all have fears. What's relevant is what desires drive you. Are they materialistic selfish desires or are they of a higher nature? What are you willing to do to achieve those desires? Are you willing to sacrifice integrity to get more possessions and live a more luxurious lifestyle? If your desires are of a higher nature, are you willing to sacrifice luxuries to help others?

Does your fear of being ridiculed paralyze or silence you rather than standing up for what you believe in even when the majority says "but it's ok to let them starve... it's ok to spend outrageous sums of money on things we do not need and that we will not even want a year from now... let them eat cake" (or whatever your heart tells you)?

These are the things that define us and not the fact that we all have desires and fears.
Spiral Out wrote:These determinations are specific to your own subjective level of fear. This is relative morality. Every Human is a moral relativist by nature.
Now that sounds like a justification to me.

I am an extremely unorthodox theist. This is not however the reason I believe the things I do and live my life in the manner that I do. I do not seek reward of a heaven and I do not shy away from a fear of hell. Surprisingly, in my old age (if 50's can be called old) I've found that I live in heaven within myself and hell is the darkness of where I came from. While I believe in a god and have what I call a personal relationship, I accept the possibility I am completely wrong in some way. I accept the possibility that I may wink out of existence. Hence why I was forced to come to the conclusion after decades of soul searching... that it is irrelevant to how I live my life and the choices I make. Don't get me wrong, I quickly admit i'm a monster as we all are to one degree or another. I simply try to be the least evil that I can be. Sometimes more successfully than others ;)

I strive to be my higher self because that's what I truly "desire"... with or without the existence of a god. Is that relative morality? I don't think so but you can label it however you "desire".
You're taught to obey... Learn to disobey. You're taught to believe they have the answers... learn to doubt. You're taught meek is good... learn meek is evil. You're taught to be passive... learn to FIGHT!
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Do you think stepping on bugs is right or wrong- why?

Post by Spiral Out »

So then you have no problem with my act of burning down the entire nest of Yellow Jackets after one of them had stung me.

Our positions on this are in agreement then.

By the way, I shown over and over again that Humans are merely entities acting on their collection of desires and fears. We are that simple. If you pay extremely close attention to what people say and do, you'll realize this too.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021