Morality and animals labeled as "pests"

[Flight Recorder]

I had an argument with a friend about the use of glue traps. He said he used them to catch some mice... okay, that's fine, sometimes that is necessary. This is despite my moral qualms with glue traps, I am of the belief that they are instruments of torture and there are more humane/kinder ways to kill/get rid of mice. But I rode with it despite this objection... however, he also told me that he just simply threw them into the bin. While they were still alive.

I made mention the severe cruelty of this, that leaving them to starve to death in his bin was not really necessary and that he was better off putting them out of their misery (not only for ethical reasons but the fact that they might escape). I have personally seen mice pull their skin off these things and break/gnaw their limbs in an attempt to get away, so it comes as no surprise why I'm against them - particularly the way my friend used them. Of course, in reply to what I said, he only shrugged his shoulders and told me I was overreacting, it was just a pest and that I need to save my compassion for something else.

Where does one draw the line here? Is it really justifiable to throw away what we morally believe (showing respect, limiting suffering where possible, etc) based on an arbitrary title? Some are inclined to say that it doesn't really matter what he did as the ends justify the means, because the animal was a potential health hazard. However, I must make note that said decision happened after the fact - the animal was already caught, and was not really going to cause any more trouble. So did it really deserve to suffer like that?

I once knew a person many, many years ago whose task was to eliminate a population of feral cats. He bragged to his friends about how he put two of them into a bag and swung them, stopped, and swung them again - until he whacked them into a brick wall and just left them to die slowly. His excuse for doing this was that they were pests, and that "they were going to be killed anyway". Seemed to wear it like a badge of honour too.

Am I the only one who can see the distinction between killing a nuisance animal and wanton cruelty towards it? Is it OK for people to do what they do because the animal is simply a pest? I never really understood how the title "pest" is relevant to showing common decency/compassion/respect. Guess that some are lacking of it. I suppose it stems from my belief that if an animal has to be killed, it should be done quickly and as painlessly as possible. I don't really see the benefit and/or desire to torture them to death, even if they are pests. If anything, it may say a lot about the mindset/intent of the person doing it - which is the important part here, not the actual type of animal.

What do you think?

[Purple]

I am going to have to confirm your friend here when I say that they are just a pest and you need to save your compassion for something else.

There are really just two types of animals in this world. Some animals we take into our homes and adopt as pets. To them, we develop special bonds of friendship and kinship and for them we wish only the best. And than there are the rest (wild animals, farm animals, pest, insects and stuff like that). To them we owe nothing and quite honestly any compassion is wasted on them.

For example, I personally have a cat as a pet and would newer hurt him. However, at the same time I find nothing even remotely bad about that guy that swung a bunch of cats into a wall. They are just stray cats. They are wild animals, pest, and nothing more.


If I had to put my personal opinion into a formula I would say that the rights of an animal are directly proportionate to the number of and intensity of the bonds it creates with people.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I had an argument with a friend about the use of glue traps. He said he used them to catch some mice... okay, that's fine, sometimes that is necessary. This is despite my moral qualms with glue traps, I am of the belief that they are instruments of torture and there are more humane/kinder ways to kill/get rid of mice. But I rode with it despite this objection... however, he also told me that he just simply threw them into the bin. While they were still alive.

That is really really fucked up. Bastard could at least pick up the glue trap and break the rodent's neck first.

Of course, in reply to what I said, he only shrugged his shoulders and told me I was overreacting, it was just a pest and that I need to save my compassion for something else.

What? Like an animal that has equivalent ability to suffer and yet is not arbitrarily labeled by humans as being worthless? Maybe a gerbil? How would your friend react if another animal was killed in this way?

Is it really justifiable to throw away what we morally believe (showing respect, limiting suffering where possible, etc) based on an arbitrary title?

No.


There are really just two types of animals in this world. Some animals we take into our homes and adopt as pets. To them, we develop special bonds of friendship and kinship and for them we wish only the best. And than there are the rest (wild animals, farm animals, pest, insects and stuff like that). To them we owe nothing and quite honestly any compassion is wasted on them.

He bragged to his friends about how he put two of them into a bag and swung them, stopped, and swung them again - until he whacked them into a brick wall and just left them to die slowly.

That was actually being merciful. Being slammed into a brick wall will break most of their bones and kill them pretty quickly. Still, your friend is a sociopath who rationalizes his cruelty to others through a faux hatred of pests. One should not get their rocks off, and brag about, how much suffering they can cause to an animal that cannot defend themselves.

I do animal research and will joke around about laughing like Jabba when I feed my lab snakes, but really I dont take any pleasure in it. The mice are all pre-killed and the fish i use die pretty fast. I may bring about the death of hundreds of rodents a year, but at least it is necessary.

However, I must make note that said decision happened after the fact - the animal was already caught, and was not really going to cause any more trouble. So did it really deserve to suffer like that?

It does not "deserve" to die in the first place. It is necessary that they be trapped and killed, but they do not "deserve" to die. Existence is not some horrible sin for pest species. What he did was not under any ethical system justifiable.

Am I the only one who can see the distinction between killing a nuisance animal and wanton cruelty towards it?

Not at all.

If anything, it may say a lot about the mindset/intent of the person doing it - which is the important part here, not the actual type of animal.

If he starts crucifying them, inform the police. Wanton torture of animals is one of those warning signs that you may find dead bodies in the basement.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There are really just two types of animals in this world. Some animals we take into our homes and adopt as pets. To them, we develop special bonds of friendship and kinship and for them we wish only the best. And than there are the rest (wild animals, farm animals, pest, insects and stuff like that). To them we owe nothing and quite honestly any compassion is wasted on them.

Upon what basis? What separates us from the rest of animal kind you miserable anthropocentrist fuck stick? Intelligence is a matter of degree, you dont have a soul, what the fuck is it? Or are you just trying to rationalize the horrible shit you are wont to do?

If I had to put my personal opinion into a formula I would say that the rights of an animal are directly proportionate to the number of and intensity of the bonds it creates with people.

Justify that position.

[Sarevok]

Someday I have to make a thread on ethics of asking endless series of questions about ethics. Is there a lack of serious problems in the world or something sdn ? That said.....

I had an argument with a friend about the use of glue traps. He said he used them to catch some mice... okay, that's fine, sometimes that is necessary. This is despite my moral qualms with glue traps, I am of the belief that they are instruments of torture and there are more humane/kinder ways to kill/get rid of mice. But I rode with it despite this objection... however, he also told me that he just simply threw them into the bin. While they were still alive.

Glue traps are extremely cruel because the animal is not instantly killed but left to suffer from a long time. I find old fashioned mouse traps much more human because generally death is quick and (hopefully) painless.

Where does one draw the line here? Is it really justifiable to throw away what we morally believe (showing respect, limiting suffering where possible, etc) based on an arbitrary title? Some are inclined to say that it doesn't really matter what he did as the ends justify the means, because the animal was a potential health hazard. However, I must make note that said decision happened after the fact - the animal was already caught, and was not really going to cause any more trouble. So did it really deserve to suffer like that?

You have to and must kill mice because they eat our food, destroy furniture and carry deadly diseases. There is no argument about whether men and mice can coexist in an urban setting. The answer is a firm no. That said there is no need to use methods that needlessly inflict pain to kill these pest animals. The first step is of course denying the animals a place to live. We rarely ever get any mouse or rat problems where I live because there is very little place in large apartment blocks where mice could hide. Unlike old fashioned buildings in the city there are no crevices or unused junk lying around that mouse could live in. Hell even our air conditioners are better. A favorite spot for mouse to live in seemed to be older window type air conditioners. Now everyone uses the split type which has a type of fan housing very difficult for a mouse to penetrate.

I don't think you could ever control mice by just killing them. The most humane and effective thing to do would be to deny them a place to live. After that if you have to mop up stragglers or random intruders sharp and lethal traps that instantly kill the animals are the way to go,

[Shroom Man 777]

We have a cage trap. When the rat is caged, we either let it die in the heat of the sun or pour boiling water on it. Once there was a rat on a glue trap, I doused it in alcohol and set it on fire. My dad, as I've mentioned elsewhere, likes shooting them with his .22 Walther PPK.

[Flight Recorder]

That was actually being merciful. Being slammed into a brick wall will break most of their bones and kill them pretty quickly. Still, your friend is a sociopath who rationalizes his cruelty to others through a faux hatred of pests. One should not get their rocks off, and brag about, how much suffering they can cause to an animal that cannot defend themselves.

Just to elaborate on this point, the guy who bragged on about this said that the cats weren't dead - probably just injured. He just left 'em to die slowly in a bag. Definitely not a friend either, would never befriend someone like that.

[Flight Recorder]

How would your friend react if another animal was killed in this way?

He'd probably react like every other normal person does when they see/hear an act of cruelty - some outrage, empathy, etc. Problem with him is that he's just being morally selective based on his convenience/attitude to the species of animal in general. It's a shame really, I don't get it myself.

As for this nutbag:

We have a cage trap. When the rat is caged, we either let it die in the heat of the sun or pour boiling water on it. Once there was a rat on a glue trap, I doused it in alcohol and set it on fire. My dad, as I've mentioned elsewhere, likes shooting them with his .22 Walther PPK.

You're either trolling, or you're a miserable excuse for human excrement who deserves to have a karmic accident befall you. Which one is it?

[Stuart]

Am I the only one who can see the distinction between killing a nuisance animal and wanton cruelty towards it? Is it OK for people to do what they do because the animal is simply a pest? I never really understood how the title "pest" is relevant to showing common decency/compassion/respect. Guess that some are lacking of it. I suppose it stems from my belief that if an animal has to be killed, it should be done quickly and as painlessly as possible. I don't really see the benefit and/or desire to torture them to death, even if they are pests. If anything, it may say a lot about the mindset/intent of the person doing it - which is the important part here, not the actual type of animal.

I'm with you on this. Sometimes killing is necessary for any number of reasons. Insects, animals, humans, countries, whatever. When it has to be done, it's a matter of common decency to do the killing as quickly, painlessly and dispassionately as possible. As Alyrium points out, stringing the business out and taking delight in it is the mark of a very sick mind and a good indicator of future (or present) bodies buried in basements.

[Purple]

Justify that position.

Empirical observation during my life.
When an unknown beast dies of starvation somewhere in the forest or a sick cow is killed and burned on a farm no one cares. When a bellowed family pet dies its a tragedy.

Millions of rats, mice, insects and the like are killed each day and no one really cares. When a bellowed family pet dies its a tragedy not only for said family but also their friends.

You pet your cat and play with your dog all while eating the flesh of murdered cows, sheep chicken, and their ilk.


No mater what we like others to think in the end we humans are just hypocritical bastards.

And besides, being anthropocentric is completely natural. Just like a cat is going to be cat-centric and a mouse is going to be mouse-centric and a virus is going to be virus-centric.

You all talk about it like we are not just animals. Sure we have language and culture and stuff but in the end we are just biological machines like they are.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just to elaborate on this point, the guy who bragged on about this said that the cats weren't dead - probably just injured. He just left 'em to die slowly in a bag. Definitely not a friend either, would never befriend someone like that.

Oh shit, I thought you were talking about mice. Yeah, that was one of the more fucked up things imaginable.

When an unknown beast dies of starvation somewhere in the forest or a sick cow is killed and burned on a farm no one cares. When a bellowed family pet dies its a tragedy.

When 37 thousand children die every day of starvation in the third world no one cares. When a white woman is kidnapped and raped there is a big ruckus. Am I to conclude that we ought have no compassion for brown children?

You pet your cat and play with your dog all while eating the flesh of murdered cows, sheep chicken, and their ilk.

I do. And I also do not buy from companies that treat their animals like shit pre-mortem. Cage free eggs, free range chicken, I dont really eat beef or pork much anymore at all.

And besides, being anthropocentric is completely natural. Just like a cat is going to be cat-centric and a mouse is going to be mouse-centric and a virus is going to be virus-centric.

Naturalistic fallacy jackass. A cat cannot use logic to figure out that another organism (indeed, another cat) is not qualitatively different from it and thus deserves some level of moral consideration. We (well, apparently not you) can.

You all talk about it like we are not just animals. Sure we have language and culture and stuff but in the end we are just biological machines like they are.

Yes. Biological machines with a social intelligence. Theory of mind, empathy etc. The pain you feel when you get stabbed in the gut is no different than the pain a chimp feels, or a lizard feels. Why, if it is undesirable for you and morally wrong for another person to stab you, is it not wrong for you to stab a chimp?

[Wing Commander MAD]

We have a cage trap. When the rat is caged, we either let it die in the heat of the sun or pour boiling water on it. Once there was a rat on a glue trap, I doused it in alcohol and set it on fire. My dad, as I've mentioned elsewhere, likes shooting them with his .22 Walther PPK.

I think you lose most if not all rights to complain about anything ethically/morally, at least in my book.


Why exactly are glue traps used, instead of more conventional mechanical traps that kill or capture? I am not really seeing any benefit to a chemical adhesive, which I presume costs more to transport/store (think temperature and humidity messing with the adhesive) and possibly more to make. I can't see any benefit over mechanical kill taps, other than potentially being less messy (IIRC they break the neck or decapitate which means bodily fluids). Nonkill mechanical traps allow for the rodent to be released with minimal to no potential human contact out of the home. I can't see glue traps being intended for catch and release, given the OP statements regarding what mice go through to escape, and even if they were, your contact with the rodent is increased greatly over a sensible mechanical trap. The only real benefit I can see is that glue traps are disposable, not needing to be emptied by handm, but are far more inhumane.

That said, I beleive that if your going to kill something you should do it as humanely as is possible. That applies whether its something that is food, a direct threat (large predator), or indirect threat (pests). The status of the creature should really only determine how aggressively you pursue it, not how you shuld treat it. Then again, I've always been atypical as far as humans go it seems.

[Simon_Jester]

I am going to have to confirm your friend here when I say that they are just a pest and you need to save your compassion for something else.

Why? Compassion is not a conserved quantity, such that using a little of it in one place reduces the supply you have for other places. You can't run out. Why save it?

There are really just two types of animals in this world. Some animals we take into our homes and adopt as pets. To them, we develop special bonds of friendship and kinship and for them we wish only the best. And than there are the rest (wild animals, farm animals, pest, insects and stuff like that). To them we owe nothing and quite honestly any compassion is wasted on them.

Why do you believe this to be true?

Empirical observation during my life.
When an unknown beast dies of starvation somewhere in the forest or a sick cow is killed and burned on a farm no one cares. When a bellowed family pet dies its a tragedy.

And yet you are making statement about what should be true, about ethics. Not about what is empirically true, about physical facts on the ground. Do you understand the difference? Lots of things happen in real life that are morally indefensible. This does not mean we should revise our moral standards to accept everything that happens in the world as "OK" because somewhere you can find a really sick bastard who does it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think you lose most if not all rights to complain about anything ethically/morally, at least in my book.

Yes. he did.

Why exactly are glue traps used, instead of more conventional mechanical traps that kill or capture? I am not really seeing any benefit to a chemical adhesive, which I presume costs more to transport/store (think temperature and humidity messing with the adhesive) and possibly more to make.

They are completely passive. You can set them up in a place you know they travel and you dont have to rely on bait.

[Flight Recorder]

I can't see any benefit over mechanical kill taps, other than potentially being less messy (IIRC they break the neck or decapitate which means bodily fluids).

They're actually messier, given that the animal literally tears itself apart. Not to mention the animal must be extremely frightened - so it'll poop and pee more. Left on long enough, it would just accumulate. That's an increased risk of disease transmission in itself.

[Kanastrous]

I think you lose most if not all rights to complain about anything ethically/morally, at least in my book.

Yes. he did.

You know, killing a rat by dousing him with boiling water sounds hideously cruel, for sure. But I found myself wondering, is it really as bad as it sounds? For all I know, an animal the size of a rat might be killed instantly by immersion in boiling water. For sure it's not a technique I'd care to employ if I had to kill a rat, but I don't know that this is as cruel as it sounds.

As for shooting them - proper shot placement pretty well guarantees an instant and more-or-less painless death, but I don't suppose that's the part people found so objectionable.

I'll admit that for my part I usually prefer to shoo or carry critters out of the house and drop them outside, but my folks set out lethal mouse and rat traps, and if I noted any kind of rodent problem (or possibly if our cat wasn't handling the problem for me) I'd do the same.

I used to keep pythons (a royal and a reticulated) whom I fed live mice, rats, and birds. Aside from fascination with their technique, I didn't derive any pleasure from seeing the process; weridly enough there was a small, faint part of me that wanted to rescue the rodents while the snakes were asphixiating them.

*edit* I interned for a summer at the NIH in Bethesda, division NIADDK for Dr. John Foulds who was doing a gene-sequencing project. His lab-mate was working with guinea pigs, using them as living incubators for a strain of pneumococcus he was researching. I *did* sometimes find myslef looking at the pigs, thinking sorry, guys, you could have been a pampered pet, or you could have wound up on a spit...but instead you've joined us, here...

Still dislike guinea pigs, all these years later..

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know, killing a rat by dousing him with boiling water sounds hideously cruel, for sure. But I found myself wondering, is it really as bad as it sounds? For all I know, an animal the size of a rat might be killed instantly by immersion in boiling water. For sure it's not a technique I'd care to employ if I had to kill a rat, but I don't know that this is as cruel as it sounds.

Rats are not small. The result in terms of pain will be pretty much the same. Massive second and third degree burns, intrusion into the nose, mouth, ears eye cavities. The tissue damage is horrendous but not enough to kill outright.

I used to keep pythons (a royal and a reticulated) whom I fed live mice, rats, and birds. Aside from fascination with their technique, I didn't derive any pleasure from seeing the process; weridly enough there was a small, faint part of me that wanted to rescue the rodents while the snakes were asphixiating them.

I am clinically detached when it comes to feeding. THough there is the academic fascination, I do afterall study predation.

[Liberty]

Am I the only one who can see the distinction between killing a nuisance animal and wanton cruelty towards it? Is it OK for people to do what they do because the animal is simply a pest? I never really understood how the title "pest" is relevant to showing common decency/compassion/respect. Guess that some are lacking of it. I suppose it stems from my belief that if an animal has to be killed, it should be done quickly and as painlessly as possible. I don't really see the benefit and/or desire to torture them to death, even if they are pests. If anything, it may say a lot about the mindset/intent of the person doing it - which is the important part here, not the actual type of animal.

What do you think?

My take: it's okay to kill animals, insects, etc, if a) there is a reason for doing so and b) it is done in the most humane way feasible (i.e., the less pain the better).

I also think that creatures that are closer to humans evolutionarily should be given more respect than those that are further. For instance, go ahead and swat that mosquito and put out ant traps, but monkeys, chimps, etc, shouldn't be killed without a very very good reason. Cats are kind of in between. Et cetera. I'm not sure if that is just me, though...

[Serafina]

I also think that creatures that are closer to humans evolutionarily should be given more respect than those that are further.

That should not be the criteria.
Rather, intelligence and complexity of emotions should be the criteria. The results would often be pretty close to your criteria, but they would also include higher developed animals that are more distantly related to humans (dolphins, various birds etc.).

[Liberty]

I also think that creatures that are closer to humans evolutionarily should be given more respect than those that are further.

That should not be the criteria.
Rather, intelligence and complexity of emotions should be the criteria. The results would often be pretty close to your criteria, but they would also include higher developed animals that are more distantly related to humans (dolphins, various birds etc.).

Excellent point. Yes, that's what I was trying to get at.

[Kanastrous]

This is probably so basic a question as to have a very short answer, but...

...given that for the most part our fellow creatures do not seem to share our refined sensibilities when it comes to killing, what is the moral argument underpinning the belief that we should? Is the capacity to frame the question all that imposes the moral burden upon us, rather than upon wolves, or sharks, or monitors?

[Serafina]

...given that for the most part our fellow creatures do not seem to share our refined sensibilities when it comes to killing, what is the moral argument underpinning the belief that we should? Is the capacity to frame the question all that imposes the moral burden upon us, rather than upon wolves, or sharks, or monitors?

Because we can.

Or rather, we shouldn't be unnecessarily cruel to animals/kill them without reason because we don't have to.
We can afford not do do so.

Furthermore, empathy towards animals (and the above moral considerations) also increase similar empathic considerations towards humans. Therefore, even if you ethic system is antroprocentric, you can profit from such considerations.

[Kanastrous]

That seems reasonable. For my part I prefer to show animals in general as much consideration as is practical and convenient (and I realize that doesn't paint me in a glowing moral light, but hey...) but that doesn't emanate from any well-formed ethical conviction. It's just how I instinctively prefer to deal with them. I figure most any mammal's capacity for pain and fear is comparable to my own. Why make them suffer pointlessly?

[Formless]

This is probably so basic a question as to have a very short answer, but...

...given that for the most part our fellow creatures do not seem to share our refined sensibilities when it comes to killing, what is the moral argument underpinning the belief that we should? Is the capacity to frame the question all that imposes the moral burden upon us, rather than upon wolves, or sharks, or monitors?

Why wouldn't it? Predators only have at most an in-group morality (and only then if they are social predators like wolves and lions), but the idea of in-group morality is deeply flawed in terms of logic. We can understand certain facts that predators don't or else don't care about, like the theory of mind and that we aren't the only animals that suffer (even if we do presume that we can suffer on a more abstract level than most due to our intellect), and these are traits that have helped us create such advanced societies that no predator can create. In light of all that, why should we base our moral values on the behavior of other animals rather than on reason and ethics?

[Kanastrous]

I think my question would have been better-framed had I asked why we extend our in-group morality to members of other species. But I think you covered that.