Why Has The Killing Of A Lion Spawned Widespread Outrage?

[BashfulAnthony]

If you've managed to evolve a theory of mind (a form of which is a sense of empathy - of distress-which-isn't-my-distress-but-I-can-imagine-what-it-would-be-like-if-it-were) and a moral sense, however, it patently is wrong given that the cruelty involved is unnecessary, therefore if indulged in it's done so gratuitously.

This is a moral value that you have imposed on the World.  I can think of several ways of looking at this which at least cast doubt on your assertion and should give you cause to at least be less forthright about it.

For example, a lot of animals can exhibit the signs of distress.  I used fly spray on a fly the other day.  It got pretty distressed before it kicked the bucket.  On the other hand, I saw some beef cattle in a field and they didn't look distressed at all.   What about a 20 week human foetus at the moment it gets aborted?  Do you think it might be distressed.  Where are you going to draw the line as to what distress counts?

Then we can look at what is necessary.  It's only necessary to cultivate crops if you think it is necessary that humans shouldn't all die.  From the point of view of the biosphere it might be necessary that humans do go extinct.

So, no I don't think eating meat is patently wrong.  I mean, it might be wrong, but if it is, the reasons are not quite as obvious as you are painting them.

I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.

[Shaker]

This is a moral value that you have imposed on the World.  I can think of several ways of looking at this which at least cast doubt on your assertion and should give you cause to at least be less forthright about it.

For example, a lot of animals can exhibit the signs of distress. I used fly spray on a fly the other day. It got pretty distressed before it kicked the bucket. On the other hand, I saw some beef cattle in a field and they didn't look distressed at all.

The fly was distressed as far as the distress capacities of a fly go because you used a noxious substance on it designed to kill it - that's why you used it in the first place I assume. Beef cattle standing in a field had no such reason for distress at that juncture - cropping grass in an open space is presumably what a wild cow would be doing in a state of nature with no human input or influence whatsoever; start herding them into trucks, driving them distances to a slaughterhouse and you would observe a different reaction.

What about a 20 week human foetus at the moment it gets aborted? Do you think it might be distressed.

 
No. All current medical evidence points toward a foetus not possessing any capacity for sentience before around 23 weeks, so no.

Then we can look at what is necessary. It's only necessary to cultivate crops if you think it is necessary that humans shouldn't all die.  From the point of view of the biosphere it might be necessary that humans do go extinct.

Or we could strike the happy medium and limit the human (and by extension animal, in this context especially cattle) population at a reasonable point which doesn't cause the current level of environmental degradation.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

Current medical evidence means, we just don't know, so we take decisions on the fact that, we just don't know, nice!

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

Dear Shaker,

Current medical evidence means, we just don't know, so we take decisions on the fact that, we just don't know, nice!

Goodness only knows how you managed to extract that mess from what I wrote: current medical evidence means precisely and exactly that - evidence.

[L.A.]

Again not true. Eggs contain all the B vitamins including B12, as do dairy products. Iron is the only mineral that vegetarians need to watch but it is easy to get enough - I've only been deficient in pregnancy, as are many women. The only other nutrient we can struggle with is Omega 3 and there are studies to show too much of that isn't good for us anyway.

If you think you will get the rest of your vitamins and minerals from meat then your diet is deficient. You will also have poor bowel health.

You might be right Rhiannon, but personally I wouldn't want to raise kids on a totally meat-free diet.

[Sassy]

Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.

I really don't get it...

What a very SAD person you are!

He is honest enough to admit he doesn't get it... but you are not when it comes to admitting you do not understand the bible....

Does that make you SAD too by your own evaluation of his situation?

An endangered species ... maybe Keith did not know Lions are an endangered species so that is the reality...

But he will never remain ignorant because he asked. Whilst you just constantly claim to have read the bible but show absolutely no evidence in your post of having done so....

[Leonard James]

Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.

I really don't get it...

What a very SAD person you are!

He is honest enough to admit he doesn't get it... but you are not when it comes to admitting you do not understand the bible....

Does that make you SAD too by your own evaluation of his situation?

An endangered species ... maybe Keith did not know Lions are an endangered species so that is the reality...

But he will never remain ignorant because he asked. Whilst you just constantly claim to have read the bible but show absolutely no evidence in your post of having done so....

Anybody who claims to "understand" the Bible is deluded.

Thousands of people all over the world have believed the same thing, all claim to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, and all with different interpretations.

Your "understanding", Sass, is no more valid than there's is.

[Hope]

May I take this discussion onto a different 'plane'?  (Mods, if you feel that I have hijacked the thread, feel free to shift this and any related posts to a new thread)

Whether or not we believe that Cecil's death was unjustified, would it also be true to say that the outcry - predominantly on social media - has been equally unjustified?  I understand that in excess of 130K people have signed a petition demanding the dentist's extradition to Zimbabwe, fed - in large part - by social media.  His practice has been destroyed, despite that fact that he was only one of a number of practitioners in the practice, resulting in several folk loosing employment.  Is Twitter, especially, in danger of becoming a host for 'virtual lynch mobs' (after all, this isn't the first time Twitter has been used to attack individuals and groups, and not always justifiably).

[Leonard James]

May I take this discussion onto a different 'plane'?  (Mods, if you feel that I have hijacked the thread, feel free to shift this and any related posts to a new thread)

Whether or not we believe that Cecil's death was unjustified, would it also be true to say that the outcry - predominantly on social media - has been equally unjustified?  I understand that in excess of 130K people have signed a petition demanding the dentist's extradition to Zimbabwe, fed - in large part - by social media.  His practice has been destroyed, despite that fact that he was only one of a number of practitioners in the practice, resulting in several folk loosing employment.  Is Twitter, especially, in danger of becoming a host for 'virtual lynch mobs' (after all, this isn't the first time Twitter has been used to attack individuals and groups, and not always justifiably).

Very true, Hope! How the hell it can be controlled I can't imagine.

[Hope]

Anybody who claims to "understand" the Bible is deluded.

Thousands of people all over the world have believed the same thing, all claim to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, and all with different interpretations.

Your "understanding", Sass, is no more valid than there's is.

Does every scientist interpret science in an identical way, Len?  Does every cosmologist interpret information gleaned from Apollo 11, the Hubble, New Horizons or Rosetta in exactly the same way?

One has to remember that Christianity is both a communal and individual issue.  No two individuals are the same (just look at the issues being raised by yourself and others on the 'Child Prostitution' thread), and therefore the truths that Christianity deals with will impact on different people in subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) different ways.

Under your argument, science can be ignored because different scientists interpret the same information in different ways, something that even the staunchest theist is unlikely to argue.

[Rhiannon]

Again not true. Eggs contain all the B vitamins including B12, as do dairy products. Iron is the only mineral that vegetarians need to watch but it is easy to get enough - I've only been deficient in pregnancy, as are many women. The only other nutrient we can struggle with is Omega 3 and there are studies to show too much of that isn't good for us anyway.

If you think you will get the rest of your vitamins and minerals from meat then your diet is deficient. You will also have poor bowel health.

You might be right Rhiannon, but personally I wouldn't want to raise kids on a totally meat-free diet.

It's not harmful though. I have three children; one chose to go completely veggie aged 11, one doesn't like meat because of its taste and texture and one is an omnivore. They are all fit and well.

[Leonard James]

A vegetarian has to make sure that he gets enough protein. An omnivore doesn't have to worry about that.

[Harrowby Hall]

May I take this discussion onto a different 'plane'?  (Mods, if you feel that I have hijacked the thread, feel free to shift this and any related posts to a new thread)

Whether or not we believe that Cecil's death was unjustified, would it also be true to say that the outcry - predominantly on social media - has been equally unjustified?  I understand that in excess of 130K people have signed a petition demanding the dentist's extradition to Zimbabwe, fed - in large part - by social media.  His practice has been destroyed, despite that fact that he was only one of a number of practitioners in the practice, resulting in several folk loosing employment.  Is Twitter, especially, in danger of becoming a host for 'virtual lynch mobs' (after all, this isn't the first time Twitter has been used to attack individuals and groups, and not always justifiably).

I do not consider that you have hijacked this thread but you have brought it back to the subject that was at the heart of Keith Maitland's original post: the outcry.

I also think that you are drawing attention to the nature of "outcry" in the early 21st century: that social media are both its transport and its lubrication. They also provide a cloak of invisibility which enables individuals to behave in a manner which would be unthinkable in other circumstances.

The elements of social media are largely housed in the USA which location enables such individuals to think that they have protection afforded by Amendment 3 of that country's geriatric Constitution.

To get back to Keith's question, one answer, therefore, is because the technological and cultural framework now exists to let all such outrage to flourish.

This does not mean that I do not condemn the death of Cecil. I do, emphatically, and I condemn the attitude which considers the exchange of sufficient cash permits the payer to do anything he wants.

I wonder, when the miscreant dental surgeon emerges from whatever undergrowth he is now using for cover, whether he will be allowed to talk about his motives and the effects this incident has had on them?

[Udayana]

Free speech, the internet and social media all exist to allow people to communicate what they want to communicate. 

From a higher level it may look like a "mob" or "storm" etc but it seems unlikely that there is actually a conspiracy to attack or bully the targets of criticism. It is only  individual people expressing their strongly felt opinions -  indeed, opinions that may not be worth much or may be directed at unimportant targets, or may be due to poor comprehension or education.

In reply the "offenders" have recourse to the traditional authorities, courts and free press, as well as being able to respond in person online.

How else could we arrange things?

[jeremyp]

I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.

I expect, if I knew the ins and outs of how fly spray kills flies, it would be quite stomach churning.  My point was not to claim distress doesn't happen in other animals but to raise the question of whether it matters and for which species if it does.

[BashfulAnthony]

I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.

I expect, if I knew the ins and outs of how fly spray kills flies, it would be quite stomach churning.  My point was not to claim distress doesn't happen in other animals but to raise the question of whether it matters and for which species if it does.

I'm not clear why you need to make the point," but to raise the question of whether it matters."
Of course it matters to see any creature in distress, and in fear of it's life.  Only those lacking in any human sensitivity could feel otherwise.

[L.A.]

I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.

At least they don't take 40 hours to die:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/28/walter-palmer-dentist-accused-killing-cecil-lion-upset-hunter-zimbabwe

If a hunter can't make a 'clean kill' it's time for him to take up a less destructive hobby.

[BashfulAnthony]

I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.

At least they don't take 40 hours to die:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/28/walter-palmer-dentist-accused-killing-cecil-lion-upset-hunter-zimbabwe

If a hunter can't make a 'clean kill' it's time for him to take up a less destructive hobby.

Well, that makes a big difference to the morality of it all!!

[jeremyp]

Dear Shaker,

Current medical evidence means, we just don't know, so we take decisions on the fact that, we just don't know, nice!

Gonnagle.

It's not really that important.  If I had known about the 23 week thing, I would have used an example of a 23 and a bit week foetus (which it is legal to abort in the UK). 

I am not arguing "we abort foetuses in distress therefore it is OK to eat bacon sandwiches" at all here.   In fact, I'm not necessarily arguing against Shaker, I am just trying to point out that things are not as black and white as he has been saying. 

Cards on the table, I think Shaker is probably right.  On the principle of least harm, I don't need to eat bacon sandwiches, but they're so nice.  Fortunately, I'm an evil atheist, so morals aren't a problem.

[BashfulAnthony]

Dear Shaker,

Current medical evidence means, we just don't know, so we take decisions on the fact that, we just don't know, nice!

Gonnagle.

It's not really that important.  If I had known about the 23 week thing, I would have used an example of a 23 and a bit week foetus (which it is legal to abort in the UK). 

I am not arguing "we abort foetuses in distress therefore it is OK to eat bacon sandwiches" at all here.   In fact, I'm not necessarily arguing against Shaker, I am just trying to point out that things are not as black and white as he has been saying. 

Cards on the table, I think Shaker is probably right.  On the principle of least harm, I don't need to eat bacon sandwiches, but they're so nice.  Fortunately, I'm an evil atheist, so morals aren't a problem.

At last, you admit it!!   

[L.A.]

I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.

At least they don't take 40 hours to die:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/28/walter-palmer-dentist-accused-killing-cecil-lion-upset-hunter-zimbabwe

If a hunter can't make a 'clean kill' it's time for him to take up a less destructive hobby.

Well, that makes a big difference to the morality of it all!!

Of course it does - we are all mortal, we are all going to die. A quick death is perhaps the best think that any of us can hope for. Wild animals live a particularly precarious life with death always close at hand. We can't change that but we can at least refrain from causing additional suffering.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

No argument, Shaker and Bashers have a good point, I was merely agreeing, like you that it is not a black and white issue/debate.

Gonnagle.

[Harrowby Hall]

 

Wild animals live a particularly precarious life with death always close at hand.

And that death can be agonising, brutal, painful and slow. A recent BBC nature programme fronted by David Attenborough showed a baby elephant being killed by a pride of lions. Its death throes lasted a long time.

Male lions themselves, ejected from their prides by younger males, slowly starve to death becoming weaker and weaker. They lives may end by being torn to death by packs of hyenas.

[Leonard James]

Nature and evolution know nothing of morality. Humans and a few other social species have invented a code to live by for their own good. That's all it is.

[Harrowby Hall]

Nature and evolution know nothing of morality. Humans and a few other social species have invented a code to live by for their own good. That's all it is.

Indeed. I don't know how true this was, but the film "Creation", about Charles Darwin's personal journey to the publication of "On the Origin of Species", suggests that it was seeing the inherent cruelty of nature that caused Darwin to reject the idea of an all-knowing, loving God.