NationStates Jolt Archive

Some Indian coo...*ahem*...farmer illegally put up an electrical fence to protect his precious crops and it killed five lions. The best they can do to him is lock him up for 7 years. He should be put away for 50, 10 for each count of lionslaughter (which unfortunately is not yet a crime in any jurisdiction). Laws need to change to give non-human animals the justice they deserve.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_sc/india_rare_lions)

AHMADABAD, India - Five rare Asiatic lions were found electrocuted Friday on the edge of western India's Gir National Park, authorities reported.

Pradeep Khanna, Gujarat state's chief wildlife warden, said the lions were killed by an electrified fence that he alleged was put up illegally by a farmer to protect crops near the sanctuary.

"The carcasses bore the marks of electrocution," Khanna said.

He said police had arrested the farmer, who faces seven years in prison if convicted of building an unauthorized fence that killed animals.

Such lions once roamed much of Asia, but only about 350 are known to remain — all in Gujarat.

The lions often wander outside park boundaries to seek food and water, sometimes falling prey to poachers. The Wildlife Protection Society of India says their bones are highly prized in traditional Chinese medicine as are their claws, which are sometimes used for amulets in India.

The society said the latest deaths raised to 32 the number of the park's Asiatic lions lost this year. Eight died at the hands of poachers, six were killed by electrified fences, five died from falling into wells, one was hit by a vehicle and 12 died of unknown causes, it said.

"The Asiatic lion is one of the most critically endangered species on this planet, and this added twist of so many lions being killed by electrocution from crop protection fencing is a catastrophe," said Belinda Wright, executive director of the wildlife society.

In April, the state government announced plans to improve security at the sanctuary. It allocated $9 million to protect the lions with more guards and advanced security equipment, including closed-circuit video cameras.

The sanctuary is 115 miles south of Ahmadabad, the main city in western Gujarat state.

I cry a single tear.

We could kill his children in retribution.

I guess no more meat then.

I guess no more meat then.

There's still tigers and bears and plenty of ohmy around.

There's still tigers and bears and plenty of ohmy around.

Well, as long as we have a plentful supply of ohmy, I shall be satisfied.

That farmer was stupid to put up a fence that powerful. Not only did he cause a huge amount of damage to an endangered species but people could've ended up dead too.

That farmer was stupid to put up a fence that powerful. Not only did he cause a huge amount of damage to an endangered species but people could've ended up dead too.

Natural Selection.

What, so the lions just wandered, one after another, into an electric fence? Has the possibility been considered that the lions were trying to commit suicide?
It sounds like they might have been pretty depressed about being the last ones left.

:confused::confused::confused::confused:

What, so the lions just wandered, one after another, into an electric fence? Has the possibility been considered that the lions were trying to commit suicide?
It sounds like they might have been pretty depressed about being the last ones left.

I think they were masochists. Why else would they be in India AND almost extinct?

He said police had arrested the farmer, who faces seven years in prison if convicted of building an unauthorized fence that killed animals.
Does anyone else feel sick after reading that?

If these lions are THAT stupid then maybe we need to think about whether or not they SHOULD be extinct.

If these lions are THAT stupid then maybe we need to think about whether or not they SHOULD be extinct.

The lions may be stupid, but they're smarter than 70% of the NSGtards.

The lions may be stupid, but they're smarter than 70% of the NSGtards.

That includes you too, Ducky.

The lions may be stupid, but they're smarter than 70% of the NSGtards.
Interesting. So, we need to get a bunch of NSgers together and put them near an electric fence with a high enough charge to kill anybody who touches it. We then shove one of them into the fence and observe their reactions.
That should be a fairly simple way of determining the intelligence of your average NSGer.

That includes you too, Ducky.

Own'd

Natural Selection.

If these lions are THAT stupid then maybe we need to think about whether or not they SHOULD be extinct.

How the bloody hell are lions supposed to know what a fence is let alone tell the difference between electric and regular? It's not like they can read (if a sign was posted) or have stuff that can test for electrical fences. I'm sure any human who couldn't read or tell the difference between fences would just as easily walk into the fence or climb over it and get electrocuted.

How the bloody hell are lions supposed to know what a fence is let alone tell the difference between electric and regular? It's not like they can read (if a sign was posted) or have stuff that can test for electrical fences. I'm sure any human who couldn't read or tell the difference between fences would just as easily walk into the fence or climb over it and get electrocuted.

Maybe the pile of dead lions?

Maybe the pile of dead protein?

Fixed for accuracy.

How the bloody hell are lions supposed to know what a fence is let alone tell the difference between electric and regular? It's not like they can read (if a sign was posted) or have stuff that can test for electrical fences. I'm sure any human who couldn't read or tell the difference between fences would just as easily walk into the fence or climb over it and get electrocuted.

Why don't you go over there and protect those poor poor animals? You can tear down the fences of farmers, board up wells so the lions don't fall in them, and protect those lions from poachers!

Fixed for accuracy.
I don't think lions are cannibalistic.
Or maybe Asiatic ones are, that might explain why they'll be wiped out in a few generations.

Does anyone else feel sick after reading that?

why would i feel sick at that?

it seems an appropriate punishment for causing the deaths of an endangered species.

Some Indian coo...*ahem*...farmer illegally put up an electrical fence to protect his precious crops and it killed five lions. The best they can do to him is lock him up for 7 years. He should be put away for 50, 10 for each count of lionslaughter (which unfortunately is not yet a crime in any jurisdiction). Laws need to change to give non-human animals the justice they deserve.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_sc/india_rare_lions)
Shame on that man for trying to make a living...


Since when is human life less precious than animal life? The farmer ought to be praised in his efforts not to be a burden on the rest of the citizens of India. Further, since this was not a premeditated effort to poach, he should be awarded the carcasses of the lions for such disposition as he desires.

I guess the sight of one dead lion leaning on a sparkly gate wasn't enough to turn the other four away. O_o

Why does everyone assume that the lions all saw the other lions dead on the fence before approaching it? It could have been a large fenced area and the lions didn't know that other lions had touched the fence and died.

The only time killing an animal should be illegal is if the animal is the property of someone else, and in that case it would already fall under existing vandalism statutes.

There is no valid reason to ban doing ANYTHING to animals in the wild. Endangered or not, it makes no difference.

Since when is human life less precious than animal life?

the overly powerful electric fence was necessary for his very survival?

There is no valid reason to ban doing ANYTHING to animals in the wild. Endangered or not, it makes no difference.

argument?

the overly powerful electric fence was necessary for his very survival?
It wouldn't have killed the lions if they weren't trying to wander on to his property.

It wouldn't have killed the lions if they weren't trying to wander on to his property.

that is neither here nor there as regards my question

Lets see.

5 cases of negligable homocide means that he got off pretty easy by human standards. Lions have feeling too you know.

the overly powerful electric fence was necessary for his very survival?
Not enough information. We can what if, though... He must have felt that some animal was a threat to his livelihood.

But why should survival be the criteria? Why not normal existence?

Not enough information. We can what if, though... He must have felt that some animal was a threat to his livelihood.

But why should survival be the criteria? Why not normal existence?

well, you made it the criteria in the prior post...

and lots of things threaten livelihoods. like scientific and technological progress. what sorts of threats justify what sorts of response?

Some Indian coo...*ahem*...farmer illegally put up an electrical fence to protect his precious crops and it killed five lions. The best they can do to him is lock him up for 7 years. He should be put away for 50, 10 for each count of lionslaughter (which unfortunately is not yet a crime in any jurisdiction). Laws need to change to give non-human animals the justice they deserve.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_sc/india_rare_lions)
"Deserve"? Oh please, nature is all about survival of the fittest. Justice is a HUMAN thing, it's not like lions created law. If your idea is to give animals "justice" and yet "protect" lions, that's at least a self-refuting idea to begin with. What about buffalo or impalas or zebras, should killing them put lions in prison for animal slaughter? I could understand protecting an endangered species because of potential environmental implications (though I'm not sure what they are for lions, and I'm not sure I agree with 7 years even then) but the whole damn idea of animal rights is contradictory at best if not flat-out retarded.

I think Penn Jillette puts it best; "with rights come responsibilities. Even if we gave the animals rights, they'd end up in animal prisons, right away, for attacking and assaulting each other... and for f***ing and s***ing all over the f***in s***ty place. Life isn't Disney Bulls***"

"Deserve"? Oh please, nature is all about survival of the fittest. Justice is a HUMAN thing, it's not like lions created law. If your idea is to give animals "justice" and yet "protect" lions, that's at least a self-refuting idea to begin with. What about buffalo or impalas or zebras, should killing them put lions in prison for animal slaughter? I could understand protecting an endangered species because of potential environmental implications (though I'm not sure what they are for lions, and I'm not sure I agree with 7 years even then) but the whole damn idea of animal rights is contradictory at best if not flat-out retarded.

moral patients vs moral agents

moral patients vs moral agents
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Out of curiosity, when was the last time a lion electrocuted a zebra with an electrified fence?

If you want to abide by the "law of nature", at least be consistent. Lions can kill zebras, and humans can kill lions... with stone spears.

Natural Selection.

I hardly think some kids playing and not paying attention or something like that warrants it being called "natural selection"

Not every death is because of a deficiency in the genome for survival, accidents just happen sometimes.

Out of curiosity, when was the last time a lion electrocuted a zebra with an electrified fence?

If you want to abide by the "law of nature", at least be consistent. Lions can kill zebras, and humans can kill lions... with stone spears.

Why stone spears? I mean if you are going to restrict tool use restrict it all the way...

But either way in the light of the laws of "nature" the fact that it is natural for us to invent/use tools does not seem to be out of bounds ... it was just an evolutionary step that was markedly successful

I say we just kill all the lions and be done with it. Then we can start making robo-lions.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

that your 'self-refuting' does no such thing at all, as it misses a key distinction we already make in the course of standard moral judgment.

Why stone spears? I mean if you are going to restrict tool use restrict it all the way...

hazarding a plausible sounding guess, because you can't make an electric fence without presupposing a whole system of human domestication that is distinctly unlike our wild-type.

Some Indian coo...*ahem*...farmer illegally put up an electrical fence to protect his precious crops and it killed five lions. The best they can do to him is lock him up for 7 years. He should be put away for 50, 10 for each count of lionslaughter (which unfortunately is not yet a crime in any jurisdiction). Laws need to change to give non-human animals the justice they deserve.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_sc/india_rare_lions)?? What voltage did the fence have?? How does an electric fence kill a lion??


Anyways, just feed him to the lions.

Natural Selection.

Yes. One day this species of lion will be immune to electricity.

He didn't kill them.

The only time killing an animal should be illegal is if the animal is the property of someone else, and in that case it would already fall under existing vandalism statutes.

There is no valid reason to ban doing ANYTHING to animals in the wild. Endangered or not, it makes no difference.

The fact that there is such a thing as land that people own is itself enough to establish that that which does not belong to anyone in particular belongs to everyone.

That's why governments have laws about polluting water. It can't be your toilet and someone else's drinking fountain, so the people who own that lake (everyone) have to decide among themselves (their government) what that lake is going to be. A swimming pool, a drinking fountain, or a toilet. If they decide that it's a swimming pool, you can't shit in it.

If the government has decided that lions are supposed to be scenery, you can't make them fertilizer.

Own'd

No..

Just no.


Since when has "I know you are but what am I?" been considered a good comeback?

hazarding a plausible sounding guess, because you can't make an electric fence without presupposing a whole system of human domestication that is distinctly unlike our wild-type.

Yeah.

Those who oppose animal rights on "nature" grounds have to be able to defend some sort of meaningful distinction between "artificial" and "natural" in terms of relations between species, and that seems to be the only reasonable one to me.

Yeah.

Those who oppose animal rights on "nature" grounds have to be able to defend some sort of meaningful distinction between "artificial" and "natural" in terms of relations between species, and that seems to be the only reasonable one to me.

though interestingly, our wild-type actually does seem to exhibit a general propensity to regulate how we are allowed to treat (some) other animals as well. which throws a whole different layer of complexity into the argument.

hazarding a plausible sounding guess, because you can't make an electric fence without presupposing a whole system of human domestication that is distinctly unlike our wild-type.

What about things like blow guns ... traps, snares, bow and arrow and all those other basic means for hunting of this type that do not require a whole system of human domestication but are above and beyond a spear in certain situations

I don't think lions are cannibalistic.
Or maybe Asiatic ones are, that might explain why they'll be wiped out in a few generations.
They are. Lions will kill and eat members of a rival pride.

That farmer was stupid to put up a fence that powerful. Not only did he cause a huge amount of damage to an endangered species but people could've ended up dead too.

errr..that IS why he put up electricity in that fence....to deter thieves.

People can be that callous to potential loss of human life...what to say of animals.

I say we just kill all the lions and be done with it. Then we can start making robo-lions.

Did someone say robo-lions?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5361975274356813829&q=voltron+lions&total=131&start=0&num=30&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Anyways, just feed him to the lions.

And how do you propose the lions chew? THEY'RE DEAD!






:p

What about things like blow guns ... traps, snares, bow and arrow and all those other basic means for hunting of this type that do not require a whole system of human domestication but are above and beyond a spear in certain situations

the point S was making is that anyone who thinks we shouldn't protect animals on the grounds that it isn't in keeping with nature must be making a distinction between natural and artificial, with ideas of animal rights falling on the artificial (and therefore bad???) side. but these people seem to be all in favor of all sorts of other things that are even more artificial than the idea that animals should be valued in our moral considerations. the spear was just to illustrate the point.

but these people seem to be all in favor of all sorts of other things that are even more artificial than the idea that animals should be valued in our moral considerations.

And not just generally speaking, but even in specific regard to the ways we treat other animals--that's why I mentioned stone spears, and not, say, automobiles.

They point to the pattern of predator and prey, and insist that "that's how the world works"... but they disregard the fact that for virtually every other species on the planet, both means (highly limited and "primitive") and ends (generally survival) differ sharply from those of humans. Electrocution by electrified fences, industrialized mass imprisonment and killing, shooting animals from helicopters, eviscerating natural habitats at unprecedented rates... these are not "natural" means for interacting with other animals, and a lion capable of rationality would be able to give us far better reasons for killing the zebra than we could for all of that (at least in most cases.)

Of course, all of this is a hypothetical, because the whole thing is either a confusion of "is" and "ought" or a muddled conception of reciprocity. What is natural does not determine what is moral, and the fact that non-human animals lack any concept of "morality" as we understand it if anything just proves that we are not entitled to treat them as we do--because unlike a human being who willfully mistreats others, beings incapable of moral reasoning can hardly be held accountable for their actions.

Out of curiosity, when was the last time a lion electrocuted a zebra with an electrified fence?

If you want to abide by the "law of nature", at least be consistent. Lions can kill zebras, and humans can kill lions... with stone spears.

Oh please.

Only the most basic tools are natural for humans? Prehistoric does not mean natural.

hazarding a plausible sounding guess, because you can't make an electric fence without presupposing a whole system of human domestication that is distinctly unlike our wild-type.

Would it be unnatural for "our wild-type" to chase off or kill other predators who may have attempted to compete for resources needed by humans?

Would it be unnatural for "our wild-type" to chase off or kill other predators who may have attempted to compete for resources needed by humans?

no. but it would be done with things that can be made by small-scale societies, rather than mass industrial society.

the point S was making is that anyone who thinks we shouldn't protect animals on the grounds that it isn't in keeping with nature must be making a distinction between natural and artificial, with ideas of animal rights falling on the artificial (and therefore bad???) side. but these people seem to be all in favor of all sorts of other things that are even more artificial than the idea that animals should be valued in our moral considerations. the spear was just to illustrate the point.

Toolmaking and competition for food with other predators were endeavors of even our "wild-type". The sophistication of the tool development (of course the relating and storage of ideas that provides technology is natural as well) is irrelevant.

Out of curiosity, when was the last time a lion electrocuted a zebra with an electrified fence?

If you want to abide by the "law of nature", at least be consistent. Lions can kill zebras, and humans can kill lions... with stone spears.


Oh please.

Only the most basic tools are natural for humans? Prehistoric does not mean natural.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13113598&postcount=34

If you want to abide by the "law of nature"
Now you're just putting words in my mouth, I didn't say it was to abide by nature. I was talking about "nature" as in animals, I said nothing condoning it but was pointing out how the animals have survival of the fittest, and as such the whole idea of giving them rights is contradictory; animals are cruel to other animals and yet it is considered worse when humans are. See the Penn Jillette quotation again; it seems you haven't refuted it.

And Free Soviets, I noticed how you didn't answer with what the phrase "moral agents vs moral patients" means, but instead responded by claiming that "[my] 'self-refuting' does no such thing at all"... does no such what at all?

And Free Soviets, I noticed how you didn't answer with what the phrase "moral agents vs moral patients" means, but instead responded by claiming that "[my] 'self-refuting' does no such thing at all"... does no such what at all?

Moral agents are those we consider to be morally responsible, can be judged as wrong or right.

Moral patients are those who enter our ethical deliberations when we consider how we should act towards them.

A baby is not a moral agent in that we cannot say that it is wrong for waking its mother in the night, but the baby is a moral patient in that we say it is wrong for the mother to suffocate it.

And Free Soviets, I noticed how you didn't answer with what the phrase "moral agents vs moral patients" means

a moral agent is an entity with the capacity to engage in moral behaviors like ethical reasoning and judgment. a moral patient is something which is worthy of moral consideration. one need not be a moral agent in order to be a moral patient - see 'children' and 'people in comas', for example.

was pointing out how the animals have survival of the fittest

Yeah... but the means of modern humans and the means of non-human animals differ rather substantially.

animals are cruel to other animals and yet it is considered worse when humans are.

Of course it is.

Unless you want to suggest that non-human animals are not only sapient but also capable of genuinely moral reasoning, their "cruelty" has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. As well declare a hurricane evil.

Human beings, on the other hand, are both. And if we cruelly mistreat other animals, that is within the sphere of moral judgment.

See the Penn Jillette quotation again

Except any desert of punishment is meaningless for creatures without morality and any deterrence from punishment is reserved for creatures who have the capacity to recognize that sort of long-term consequence, so punishment is pretty useless for non-human animals.

The sophistication of the tool development... is irrelevant.

But the sophistication of the moral reasoning apparently isn't... because the advocates of that argument seem to want us to dismiss all arguments for animal rights on the basis that they're "unnatural."

But the sophistication of the moral reasoning apparently isn't... because the advocates of that argument seem to want us to dismiss all arguments for animal rights on the basis that they're "unnatural."

Can moral reasoning ever become unnatural? Or natural for that matter?

Can moral reasoning ever become unnatural? Or natural for that matter?

I think moral reasoning is fundamentally "unnatural" in the sense that it involves moving beyond instinct and inclination... but fundamentally "natural" in the sense that human beings are naturally rational.

I do not maintain that the question of what "natural" relations are between the species is at all relevant to understanding our duties towards non-human animals.

"Deserve"? Oh please, nature is all about survival of the fittest. Justice is a HUMAN thing, it's not like lions created law. If your idea is to give animals "justice" and yet "protect" lions, that's at least a self-refuting idea to begin with. What about buffalo or impalas or zebras, should killing them put lions in prison for animal slaughter? I could understand protecting an endangered species because of potential environmental implications (though I'm not sure what they are for lions, and I'm not sure I agree with 7 years even then) but the whole damn idea of animal rights is contradictory at best if not flat-out retarded.

That's only the case if you think that rights are something that belongs to the protected individual rather than a condition of the universe. It is right that rain falls out of the sky, not because it nourishes the plants, but because it happens, and therefore it is incorrect (wrong) to claim otherwise.

If it is wrong to allow a species to face extinction when we have the power to do otherwise then it right to prevent such an event. Making it an animal right to exist.

As for the environmental impact, lions are what's called a keystone predator. Our nearest equivalent in the US is the wolf. The presence of a wolf causes bison and deer to remain on the move, keeping them from damaging trees. The excess trees means that beavers have something to build dams with, which causes an increase in the fish population, which means that bears have more food during spawning season...

The environmental impact of species like lions wolves and other big predators is almost incalculable.

I do not maintain that the question of what "natural" relations are between the species is at all relevant to understanding our duties towards non-human animals.

Neither do I, but this moral argument from nature is very prominent in criticizing the market or capitalism or property. I do believe that it is an incorrect interpretation of what is natural (although I do think there is some merit to the analysis of modern political capitalism), and I feel the need to argue against it whenever I see it.

Why don't you go over there and protect those poor poor animals? You can tear down the fences of farmers, board up wells so the lions don't fall in them, and protect those lions from poachers!

Because that's the job of the Indian government. When I rule the world...or half of it, I'll be able to complete your request.

why would i feel sick at that?

it seems an appropriate punishment for causing the deaths of an endangered species.

It's insufficient is what he an I are saying.

Shame on that man for trying to make a living...


Since when is human life less precious than animal life? The farmer ought to be praised in his efforts not to be a burden on the rest of the citizens of India. Further, since this was not a premeditated effort to poach, he should be awarded the carcasses of the lions for such disposition as he desires.

Human life is no more precious than most animals, notably mammals.

Why does everyone assume that the lions all saw the other lions dead on the fence before approaching it? It could have been a large fenced area and the lions didn't know that other lions had touched the fence and died.

Exactly. QFT

The only time killing an animal should be illegal is if the animal is the property of someone else, and in that case it would already fall under existing vandalism statutes.

There is no valid reason to ban doing ANYTHING to animals in the wild. Endangered or not, it makes no difference.

I now officially hate you more than Fass. I'm not even going to waste my time arguing against a solid or hollow-headed individual such as yourself. The world does not revolve around you.

It wouldn't have killed the lions if they weren't trying to wander on to his property.

They weren't trying to wander onto his property. He encroached on theirs. Virtually all of human-nonhuman animal conflicts are because of human encroachments on their habitat. Habitat loss is the main cause of endangered species getting to be so.

Click Stand;13151014']Lets see.

5 cases of negligable homocide means that he got off pretty easy by human standards. Lions have feeling too you know.

Indeed. But because they don't talk to us, many humans assume they don't feel anything.

"Deserve"? Oh please, nature is all about survival of the fittest. Justice is a HUMAN thing, it's not like lions created law. If your idea is to give animals "justice" and yet "protect" lions, that's at least a self-refuting idea to begin with. What about buffalo or impalas or zebras, should killing them put lions in prison for animal slaughter? I could understand protecting an endangered species because of potential environmental implications (though I'm not sure what they are for lions, and I'm not sure I agree with 7 years even then) but the whole damn idea of animal rights is contradictory at best if not flat-out retarded.

I think Penn Jillette puts it best; "with rights come responsibilities. Even if we gave the animals rights, they'd end up in animal prisons, right away, for attacking and assaulting each other... and for f***ing and s***ing all over the f***in s***ty place. Life isn't Disney Bulls***"

This is not a case of natural selection. All animals must receive due protection and rights under our law system since it is the only law system that basically runs the entire planet. Putting up an electrical fence that kills animals and killing for food are TWO VERY DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT things.

Out of curiosity, when was the last time a lion electrocuted a zebra with an electrified fence?

If you want to abide by the "law of nature", at least be consistent. Lions can kill zebras, and humans can kill lions... with stone spears.

QFT

Why stone spears? I mean if you are going to restrict tool use restrict it all the way...

But either way in the light of the laws of "nature" the fact that it is natural for us to invent/use tools does not seem to be out of bounds ... it was just an evolutionary step that was markedly successful

Humans have gone beyond nature in a most interesting way that really should not be in some areas. Unfortunately, we have to work with it and fix what we can.

Yes. One day this species of lion will be immune to electricity.

lololol Q to the F to the T

He didn't kill them.

For humans, it'd be called Criminally Negligent Homicide. Just change Homicide to Leocide or something.

Click Stand;13151014']Lions have feeling too you know.

Five pages of posts and this is the only argument supporting this ruling.

You would think that with so many supporting a decision to take nearly a decade away from this man for unintentionally killing five animals that cogent arguments would come aplenty.

Five pages of posts and this is the only argument supporting this ruling.

You would think that with so many supporting a decision to take nearly a decade away from this man for unintentionally killing five animals that cogent arguments would come aplenty.

i think the argument has just been sorta assumed. he wrongly put up a fence, its wrongness being related to both its position near animals that are and ought be specially protected and its inherent dangerousness to everybody, people and animals. essentially, he should have known better, and his actions brought about the deaths of a number of morally and ecologically valuable entities - 1.5% of the total population of the species this year alone, in fact.

But the sophistication of the moral reasoning apparently isn't... because the advocates of that argument seem to want us to dismiss all arguments for animal rights on the basis that they're "unnatural."

No; I dismiss those arguments because they are irrational.

Five pages of posts and this is the only argument supporting this ruling.

You would think that with so many supporting a decision to take nearly a decade away from this man for unintentionally killing five animals that cogent arguments would come aplenty.

If it was some other animal I wouldn't mind. I just love lions.

On a more serious note, the farmer had intention to kill something. Maybe it wasn't endangered lions, but that fence was strong enough to end a life. Thats like giving people the right to shoot anything that comes on their property, even trick or treaters!!!

i think the argument has just been sorta assumed. he wrongly put up a fence, its wrongness being related to both its position near animals that are and ought be specially protected and its inherent dangerousness to everybody, people and animals. essentially, he should have known better, and his actions brought about the deaths of a number of morally and ecologically valuable entities - 1.5% of the total population of the species this year alone, in fact.

I see you have assumed the argument as well.

Click Stand;13153056']On a more serious note, the farmer had intention to kill something. Maybe it wasn't endangered lions, but that fence was strong enough to end a life. Thats like giving people the right to shoot anything that comes on their property, even trick or treaters!!!

There are so many factors that separate the two scenarios that I find it hard to find the second one analogous.

There are so many factors that separate the two scenarios that I find it hard to find the second one analogous.

Ok I'll change it to be slightly more rediculous. It's like setting up an automated turret that shoots anything that comes onto the property. So to get inside you have to electro-bolt the turret then hack it or hit it with a wrench.:)

I see you have assumed the argument as well.

what, that endangered species are deserving of special moral consideration and legal protection, above and beyond what we ought offer all life and ecosystems? or that we shouldn't let people get away with electrifying fences using electricity straight from overhead power lines?

So you prefer him to lose his harvest and income for some weird creatures? meeeeeeeh!

what, that endangered species are deserving of special moral consideration and legal protection, above and beyond what we ought offer all life and ecosystems? or that we shouldn't let people get away with electrifying fences using electricity straight from overhead power lines?

Yes, and that any of those different factors add up to a man losing seven years of his life.

To be fair to the man, hundreds of people are killed annually by lions. While maneating isn't something every lion does, a single lion can kill dozens. It is believed that the Tsovo maneaters killed 140 men.

Well over 100 people are killed annually in Kruger alone. These are estimates and not official numbers though as most killed are people sneaking over the border at night.

Moral agents are those we consider to be morally responsible, can be judged as wrong or right.

Moral patients are those who enter our ethical deliberations when we consider how we should act towards them.

A baby is not a moral agent in that we cannot say that it is wrong for waking its mother in the night, but the baby is a moral patient in that we say it is wrong for the mother to suffocate it.
That analogy might work for pets, but not for wild animals. See, thing is, a child is a human whom is being raised by other humans. (their parents) They are given time to learn to become a moral agent before being held responsible to law, as they are going to reach that point eventually, and by that time if they aren't a moral agent they can't be a moral patient. (Eg. They lose their right to freedom, and in many people's views their right to life, if they take away others' rights.) Animals aren't going to reach that point, and aren't raised by humans (except pets, but I'm not arguing against pets' rights) and they get away with things that humans are publicly hated for, (just compare the public reaction to paedophiles to that to monkeys and ask yourself what are other primates' standards on the ages of those involved in sexual conduct) imprisoned for decades for, and often killed for; (though then again the US constitution claims that the right to liberty is just as important as that to life and I don't see it getting rebutalled, but still...) and now the OP wants a human who killed lions, who would have in turn already killed other animals anyway, to be imprisoned for decades (which would probably be for the rest of his/her life) as if it's somehow infinitely worse than swatting flies, stepping on ants, or breaking spider webs.

The man destroyed property of the Indian government with an illegally constructed fence. That is why he is going to prison.

So you prefer him to lose his harvest and income for some weird creatures? meeeeeeeh!

He encroached on their land with his farm. Or someone else did and they were looking for hard to find food because humans destroyed it all.

To be fair to the man, hundreds of people are killed annually by lions. While maneating isn't something every lion does, a single lion can kill dozens. It is believed that the Tsovo maneaters killed 140 men.

Well over 100 people are killed annually in Kruger alone. These are estimates and not official numbers though as most killed are people sneaking over the border at night.

Because humans encroached on their habitat. If we left the poor SOBs alone, they wouldn't bother us. Do you honestly think a lion goes out of its way to kill people? They try to avoid us, but when a stomach grumbles and humans have destroyed all sources of food, what's left for them?

That analogy might work for pets, but not for wild animals. See, thing is, a child is a human whom is being raised by other humans. (their parents) They are given time to learn to become a moral agent before being held responsible to law, as they are going to reach that point eventually, and by that time if they aren't a moral agent they can't be a moral patient. (Eg. They lose their right to freedom, and in many people's views their right to life, if they take away others' rights.) Animals aren't going to reach that point, and aren't raised by humans (except pets, but I'm not arguing against pets' rights) and they get away with things that humans are publicly hated for, (just compare the public reaction to paedophiles to that to monkeys and ask yourself what are other primates' standards on the ages of those involved in sexual conduct) imprisoned for decades for, and often killed for; (though then again the US constitution claims that the right to liberty is just as important as that to life and I don't see it getting rebutalled, but still...) and now the OP wants a human who killed lions, who would have in turn already killed other animals anyway, to be imprisoned for decades (which would probably be for the rest of his/her life) as if it's somehow infinitely worse than swatting flies, stepping on ants, or breaking spider webs.

The only reason humans like you think other animals are incapable of moral thought is because they haven't spoken to a different animal on moral issues. It has been seen that several animals actually DO have a good deal of morality.

Since when is human life less precious than animal life?

Since we began to vastly outnumber other species, as well as destroy their(and our) habitats, degrade the natural systems of the world that they(and we) rely on, and reduce biodiversity indiscriminately. I think you will find we have done more harm to ourselves and every other species in the world than those asiatic lions. If there were "Earth Laws" we would have broken dozens of them now.

That analogy might work for pets, but not for wild animals. See, thing is, a child is a human whom is being raised by other humans. (their parents) They are given time to learn to become a moral agent before being held responsible to law, as they are going to reach that point eventually, and by that time if they aren't a moral agent they can't be a moral patient. (Eg. They lose their right to freedom, and in many people's views their right to life, if they take away others' rights.) Animals aren't going to reach that point, and aren't raised by humans (except pets, but I'm not arguing against pets' rights) and they get away with things that humans are publicly hated for, (just compare the public reaction to paedophiles to that to monkeys and ask yourself what are other primates' standards on the ages of those involved in sexual conduct) imprisoned for decades for, and often killed for; (though then again the US constitution claims that the right to liberty is just as important as that to life and I don't see it getting rebutalled, but still...) and now the OP wants a human who killed lions, who would have in turn already killed other animals anyway, to be imprisoned for decades (which would probably be for the rest of his/her life) as if it's somehow infinitely worse than swatting flies, stepping on ants, or breaking spider webs.

I don't think you understand the distinction yet, as there is a lot of irrelevant nonsense thrown in there.

Did someone say robo-lions?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5361975274356813829&q=voltron+lions&total=131&start=0&num=30&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Yay! :)

Since we began to vastly outnumber other species, as well as destroy their(and our) habitats, degrade the natural systems of the world that they(and we) rely on, and reduce biodiversity indiscriminately. I think you will find we have done more harm to ourselves and every other species in the world than those asiatic lions. If there were "Earth Laws" we would have broken dozens of them now.
From what you say, I assume that you would be willing to see the farmer in question suffer crop losses that would lead to his and his family's starvation? All for the sake of a few tigers that he had no interest in?

Sorry, but that's just silly.

Yes, and that any of those different factors add up to a man losing seven years of his life.

well, it gets sticky for me there, as i'm not actually a proponent of the prison system generally. but it's trivial that his actions were recklessly negligent at best and that alone sanctions punishment of some sort - i mean, honestly, an electric fence powerful enough to kill lions is just generally deadly to anyone and anything, and we ought not allow anyone to get away with having one.

as for special consideration for endangered animals, well, i ground that on several things. first, there is their status as intrinsically valuable entities - this has been argued for long enough in society that i just take it as a starting point which needs to be argued against by those wishing to reject it. because as things stand, the question of what deserves moral consideration hasn't been coherently answered by "humans first, last, and only" due to the slew of counterexamples available to such principles. i'm sure you know the arguments on this point - they all seem to lead to the moral acceptability of raping the retarded and allowing the last human to literally destroy all life in the universe.


second, their various instrumental values, such as their particular roles in maintaining those healthy ecosystems and as bearers of evolutionary information that cannot be recovered if they go extinct, etc., are also morally important. it is usually wrong to undermine the life-support system of yourself and others, it is usually wrong to destroy knowledge, it is usually wrong to destroy beauty, etc. the general principle is to refrain from destroying such instrumentally valuable things unless a compelling reason can be offered.

and, of course the fact that we hold moral responsibility for causing them to become endangered means that we are obligated to take special steps to attempt to right our wrong. as part of these special steps, we must act to make sure that people are not continuing the wronging. which means punishing greedy or stupid fuckers that needlessly worsen the situation, especially when they ought to know better.

From what you say, I assume that you would be willing to see the farmer in question suffer crop losses that would lead to his and his family's starvation? All for the sake of a few tigers that he had no interest in?

Sorry, but that's just silly.

yah, because there aren't other places to farm and other methods of farming besides pushing your way into critically endangered habitat and then behaving in an utterly reckless and negligent manner while doing so... and there certainly aren't any other jobs that people can be helped into, either. nope, no siree.

i think you need to check your silliness gage - it seems to be broken. we have never allowed people to do just anything they happen to want in pursuit of a livelihood, and for damn good reason.

There are so many factors that separate the two scenarios that I find it hard to find the second one analogous.

yeah, a better analogy would be like a person building an electric fence powerful enough to kill a lion around her home in the suburbs.

From what you say, I assume that you would be willing to see the farmer in question suffer crop losses that would lead to his and his family's starvation? All for the sake of a few tigers that he had no interest in?

Sorry, but that's just silly.

Hrm? There is more than one way to keep a bunch of tigers from eating your chickens..


At the exponential rate the human population is growing, we are going to reach a point which may be sooner rather than later, when massive starvation effects a large number of the human population because we have degraded the Earth's natural systems so much. Granted, asiatic lions are not exactly a pivotal resource, but it is the principle of the whole matter.

As to the punishment the man faces, I think it is a bit disproportionate. I can understand a fine or somesuch thing, but not seven years in jail. His family is going to have a tough time and it isn't like he meant for some stupid cats to fry on his fence. It was more ignorance than intent.

Because humans encroached on their habitat. If we left the poor SOBs alone, they wouldn't bother us. Do you honestly think a lion goes out of its way to kill people? They try to avoid us, but when a stomach grumbles and humans have destroyed all sources of food, what's left for them?




That isn't true at all. When hunters track down known maneaters and examine them, they find some things in common.

1: They are male lions
2: They are not members of a pride
3: They are older and tend to lack manes
4: They usually have jaw/tooth issues limiting the animals they can eat

Healthy lions usually won't eat humans. My guess is that our meat doesn't taste good to them.

The lions that eat humans are old lions who were probably kicked out of their pride by a younger lion or a group of lions. The problem isn't that they don't have prey to hunt, but rather they are too weak due to age or jaw issues to hunt their normal prey. Humans are easy prey so these lions actually seek humans and follow them.

From what you say, I assume that you would be willing to see the farmer in question suffer crop losses that would lead to his and his family's starvation? All for the sake of a few tigers that he had no interest in?

Sorry, but that's just silly.

I'd rather one man starve to death than one endangered animal be killed. Would I be that man? Possibly. But, I don't think he would starve. He shouldn't be on their land anyway, which caused them to try to get on his farm. Also, it's lions, NOT tigers which should complete debase your argument for lack of even knowing what you are referring to.

Hrm? There is more than one way to keep a bunch of tigers from eating your chickens..


At the exponential rate the human population is growing, we are going to reach a point which may be sooner rather than later, when massive starvation effects a large number of the human population because we have degraded the Earth's natural systems so much. Granted, asiatic lions are not exactly a pivotal resource, but it is the principle of the whole matter.

As to the punishment the man faces, I think it is a bit disproportionate. I can understand a fine or somesuch thing, but not seven years in jail. His family is going to have a tough time and it isn't like he meant for some stupid cats to fry on his fence. It was more ignorance than intent.

It's called criminal negligence. It's a crime for killing humans by accident. A bit less than manslaughter.

That isn't true at all. When hunters track down known maneaters and examine them, they find some things in common.

1: They are male lions
2: They are not members of a pride
3: They are older and tend to lack manes
4: They usually have jaw/tooth issues limiting the animals they can eat

Healthy lions usually won't eat humans. My guess is that our meat doesn't taste good to them.

The lions that eat humans are old lions who were probably kicked out of their pride by a younger lion or a group of lions. The problem isn't that they don't have prey to hunt, but rather they are too weak due to age or jaw issues to hunt their normal prey. Humans are easy prey so these lions actually seek humans and follow them.

Does nothing to change my point that lions don't eat humans by nature. If we weren't there for them to attack, they'd find something else.

It's called criminal negligence. It's a crime for killing humans by accident. A bit less than manslaughter.

Does nothing to change my point that lions don't eat humans by nature. If we weren't there for them to attack, they'd find something else.

Ah. Hopefully it deters the killing of endangered species then.

Heh? If they weren't there to get in our way, we wouldn't fry them on electric fences.

Since we began to vastly outnumber other species, as well as destroy their(and our) habitats, degrade the natural systems of the world that they(and we) rely on, and reduce biodiversity indiscriminately. I think you will find we have done more harm to ourselves and every other species in the world than those asiatic lions. If there were "Earth Laws" we would have broken dozens of them now.

Amen.

That's not negligence. That's recklessness.

At least, that's the most likely definition in English law, and that's all I'm familiar with.

That isn't true at all. When hunters track down known maneaters and examine them, they find some things in common.

1: They are male lions
2: They are not members of a pride
3: They are older and tend to lack manes
4: They usually have jaw/tooth issues limiting the animals they can eat

Healthy lions usually won't eat humans. My guess is that our meat doesn't taste good to them.

The lions that eat humans are old lions who were probably kicked out of their pride by a younger lion or a group of lions. The problem isn't that they don't have prey to hunt, but rather they are too weak due to age or jaw issues to hunt their normal prey. Humans are easy prey so these lions actually seek humans and follow them.

And it doesn't happen often. Like you admitted, it is weak, old, and injured lions who sometimes hunt people. Normal lions don't hunt people because once a lion kills a person, lots of lions usually end up dead. Same for any other predator on earth.

That's not negligence. That's recklessness.

At least, that's the most likely definition in English law, and that's all I'm familiar with.

Probably a definition difference like barrister vs. attorney/lawyer. Theres another example I can't put my hand on right now.

Probably a definition difference like barrister vs. attorney/lawyer. Theres another example I can't put my hand on right now.

Erm...no.

We have both negligence and recklessness; they're similar(ish), but different.

Essentially with negligence you have failed to uphold your duty towards aan individual you have a duty to, and in doing so you have put them at risk. With recklessness, it is that your actions have, as a by product, harmed, or put at risk, another to whom you did not have a duty.

Basically, if you have a duty towards someone and you fail in your duty with the result that they are at risk, you are negligent.

If you take an action whereby another, who you do not have a duty to, is put at risk, and with reasonable knowledge that such a risk may occur, you are reckless.

It's all about your legal duty towards another. In a massively simplified way. And this is recklessness, under English law at least.

Also we have barristers and we have solicitors. They're different things.

And it doesn't happen often. Like you admitted, it is weak, old, and injured lions who sometimes hunt people. Normal lions don't hunt people because once a lion kills a person, lots of lions usually end up dead. Same for any other predator on earth.

Yes, but when you do get that one lion, it is really bad.

The Tzavo maneaters (2 lions who's hides I've seen at the Field Museum) killed an estimated 140 people. They didn't just randomly find people, they stalked an entire tent city and snuck through palisade fences.

In 2004 one maneater killed almost 40 people. Villagers escaped across a river (which lions rarely cross due to crocs) and the lion followed them.

Yes, but when you do get that one lion, it is really bad.

The Tzavo maneaters (2 lions who's hides I've seen at the Field Museum) killed an estimated 140 people. They didn't just randomly find people, they stalked an entire tent city and snuck through palisade fences.

In 2004 one maneater killed almost 40 people. Villagers escaped across a river (which lions rarely cross due to crocs) and the lion followed them.

Humans do the same thing...often to their own kind. It's nonetheless an isolated incident.

Hrm? There is more than one way to keep a bunch of tigers from eating your chickens..


At the exponential rate the human population is growing, we are going to reach a point which may be sooner rather than later, when massive starvation effects a large number of the human population because we have degraded the Earth's natural systems so much. Granted, asiatic lions are not exactly a pivotal resource, but it is the principle of the whole matter.

As to the punishment the man faces, I think it is a bit disproportionate. I can understand a fine or somesuch thing, but not seven years in jail. His family is going to have a tough time and it isn't like he meant for some stupid cats to fry on his fence. It was more ignorance than intent.

I don't know. Wasn't this predicted in the 1840s? It doesn't seem to have come true yet, because most populations tend to trail off after a while.

I don't know. Wasn't this predicted in the 1840s? It doesn't seem to have come true yet, because most populations tend to trail off after a while.

Maybe? I should check my book of predictions.
True, but at the rate, and moreso with the better technology/medicine/vodka that we have today, anything short of eliminating poverty or a massive plague isn't going to reduce the pop. growth/population of the world.

most populations tend to trail off after a while.

because of...?

because of...?

The phases of the moon are an inversely related cause of the number of reproductive urges humans experience near coastal waters. Most of the human population lives on or near the coasts. We should be seeing a sudden increase in stimulant use during the next lunar eclipse.

That isn't true at all. When hunters track down known maneaters and examine them, they find some things in common.

1: They are male lions
2: They are not members of a pride
3: They are older and tend to lack manes
4: They usually have jaw/tooth issues limiting the animals they can eat

Healthy lions usually won't eat humans. My guess is that our meat doesn't taste good to them.

The lions that eat humans are old lions who were probably kicked out of their pride by a younger lion or a group of lions. The problem isn't that they don't have prey to hunt, but rather they are too weak due to age or jaw issues to hunt their normal prey. Humans are easy prey so these lions actually seek humans and follow them.

Eh, there are other problems, as well. Male lions are never really known to be the hunters(Generally speaking), anyway. They either intimidate the other lions in the pride who made the kill. As well, a single lion is a very poor hunter, due to how lions hunt. Meaning that even though prey may be in abundance, it may not easily be caught by a single lion. This in turn will weaken said lion, due to lack of protein, and in turn further limits it's ability to hunt, which in turn means it must hunt prey it normally wouldn't.

Eh, there are other problems, as well. Male lions are never really known to be the hunters(Generally speaking), anyway. They either intimidate the other lions in the pride who made the kill. As well, a single lion is a very poor hunter, due to how lions hunt. Meaning that even though prey may be in abundance, it may not easily be caught by a single lion. This in turn will weaken said lion, due to lack of protein, and in turn further limits it's ability to hunt, which in turn means it must hunt prey it normally wouldn't.

The Ghost and the Darkness were perfectly healthy. They ate people because they realized that we were easy prey. The whole idea of man-eating cats being old and sick is a myth. They're almost always healthy and in the prime of their lives.

The Ghost and the Darkness were perfectly healthy. They ate people because they realized that we were easy prey. The whole idea of man-eating cats being old and sick is a myth. They're almost always healthy and in the prime of their lives.

That movie was a poor portrayal of the Tsavo Maneaters. Go to the Field Museum, they have a whole exhibit of them. They even have the 2 lions on display. Scientists found out the 2 rogue male lions were old, lacked manes, and had poor teeth which weren't capable of killing many of the prey lions normally hunt.

That movie was a poor portrayal of the Tsavo Maneaters. Go to the Field Museum, they have a whole exhibit of them. They even have the 2 lions on display. Scientists found out the 2 rogue male lions were old, lacked manes, and had poor teeth which weren't capable of killing many of the prey lions normally hunt.

They looked more like ligers than lions.

They looked more like ligers than lions.

I believe the Tsavo maneaters were a subspecies of lions called Cape Lions, or something similar. Cape Lions are supposed to be extinct, but I think some were sighted in a zoo or circus somewhere a while ago (saw a small article online somewhere months ago....).

Yeah... but the means of modern humans and the means of non-human animals differ rather substantially.
They differ rather substantially among animals as well. (such as between prey and predator)

As for your other comments, it's not like punishment is about how "useful" it is, forcing criminals to do hard labour would be more useful than imprisoning them but you don't see that being done; it's about justice. It's about what is deserved in such cases, which granted may be subjective but nonetheless seems to be considered more of an issue in punishment than "usefulness"; upon depriving another human of their rights, one is no longer considered worthy of one's rights; after all it is considered justified to imprison a criminal for decades...

homicide (plural homicides)

(uncountable) The killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional.

How in the hell is he getting charged with Homicide? I could understand a fine for the death of endangered animal, but homicide.

bah the farmer is an idiot .... why the heck is he putting up a fence to protect crops?? what the heck is a lion going to hunt in a field of crops ?? ... oh noes run away cob of corn!!! (beats using a rifle to hunt the buggers though ... 5 in one go is pretty impressive)
*very badly written artical imo


Joking aside it is a real shame especially with them being so rare (but im betting there wouldnt be the fuss if the 5 lions had eaten the man) .... and why the heck is there no mention of a breeding plan ... its more of a crime if there is no breeding program than some stupid farmer trying to protect him self imo

How in the hell is he getting charged with Homicide? I could understand a fine for the death of endangered animal, but homicide.

It's not homicide, nor is it murder. It's lionslaughter. Or criminally negligent besticide/leocide...

How in the hell is he getting charged with Homicide? I could understand a fine for the death of endangered animal, but homicide.
Exactly, homicide is supposed to be as it applies to humans. If it was an animal rights thing, why would the lives of lions be protected and not those of spiders or ants?