On Death and the Worst Thing That Can Happen
Yesterday, Parke commented: "One difficulty I have with the moral hard-line is that it generally assumes that death is the worst thing that can happen to something (or someone) and inadequately acknowledges the natural cycle of life-and-death: that death enables life, and life entails death."
I'd like to deconstruct, as this comment brings up (initially) three things for me that I'd like to share:
- I don't believe that death can happen to something, as a thing does not have life to begin with. But maybe I'm missing something here.
- I think of death as neutral. But we're not talking about death here. What's objectionable is not death. Taking the life of another when you do not need to is what is objectionable. Slaughter, murder, killing, whatever word you use, that's where my issue lies.
- I'm not sure anyone is saying that death is the worst thing that can happen to anyone. I think that someone taking over:
- my life
- my reproduction (i.e., raping me and then taking my children from me and either killing them immediately, such as in the case of baby male chicks, or torturing and killing them in a couple of weeks or months such as in the case of male and female dairy calves)
- my physical freedom
- my sense of security
- what I eat for dinner (and feeding me what they need to feed me to maximize my use)
- and maybe even cutting off my tail, my ears, my teeth, my claws, or another part of me that's making it difficult to effectively and efficiently get what they want from me . . .
Finally, I don't think any of that qualifies as the "natural cycle of life-and-death."
What about you? Do you think death is the worst thing that can happen to someone?
Well said; you summed up my thoughts on the topic perfectly. One thing I would add is that while my death is neutral to me subjectively, if someone kills me, it is a harm of deprivation of life (which, as you indicated, Mary, is not necessarily worse than the other harms inflicted). The only other distinction to clarify, despite how obvious it is even without clarification, might be between the non-subjective "life" of an insentient plant (something) versus the subjective life of an obviously-sentient nonhuman being (somebody).
"What's objectionable is not death. Taking the life of another when you do not need to is what is objectionable. "
Exactly.
Quote:
"…that death enables life, and life entails death."
I wonder if Parke would consistently reason this way if the individuals of our concern were human animals.
"Taking the life of another when you do not need to is what is objectionable". Absolutely.
But here is where the word "need" gets confused and deliberately distorted with the word: "want". Need is something absolutely essential. Circuses, leather coats and burgers are not "essential". In fact, nothing from an animal really is "needed" at all… (go vegan right?)
And the "cycle of life" mantra involving killing is feel-good rhetoric. Humans killing each other, humans killing non-humans – none of it is within the necessary "cycle" of life. Or is "war" a cycle of life too? All living beings die well enough without the contributions of man. In fact the more we "help" nature along the sorrier our world becomes.