Is using violence to keep someone from killing an endangered animal ethical?

[ZombieHorde]

For example, using violence against whalers. This violence would injure the person or put them in immediate danger of being hurt or killed.

[roody]

1. Violence as in property destruction, yes.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Did you not read the text above my poll?

[IGotAName]

3. I suppose if you believe you can use violence to defend property,

you can't really argue against this.

[Towlie]

4. Sorry, no. It's too much like shooting abortion doctors.

[girl gone mad]

27. Humans aren't endangered.

And an embryo is legally defined as a part of a woman's body, not an individual. Technically, the woman is choosing to have part of her body removed.

There really isn't any comparison between abortion and killing protected endangered species.

[Marrah_G]

35. Sorry but that doesn't work. The Anti-Choice crowd will tell you it is a precious life.

And something they feel very strongly about. And since you are saying it is okay to commit murder if you feel very strongly about something, then it is the same.

You are looking at things through your own narrow scope.

Who gets to decide if the person deserves the death penalty?

Do polluters get gunned down outside their houses?

How far do you let it go?

[girl gone mad]

49. You're actually making a pro-choice argument.

Murder in the act of self-defense is considered justifiable homicide. In many states, murder in the defense of personal property is also legal. Abortion is legal. Society determines how far you let it go. In some African preserves, poachers are shot. The slippery slope argument is intellectually lazy. Protecting endangered elephants or whales is not going to lead to the legalization of killing abortion doctors, no matter how hard you try to spin things.

[flvegan]

5. Is using violence to keep someone from interfering with the killing of an endangered animal ethical?

Better question, considering.

[EFerrari]

6. Yes and I would probably do it if I had to. The greater good

for the greatest number means that animal is more valuable than the schmuck I'd have to punch out.

That's what "ethics" means, right?

[hyphenate]

7. It completely depends on the circumstances

Normally, violence should never be negated by violence, but if the one killing has no morals or conscience in such an example, gaining a more peaceable result can be justified.

I've supported animal rights issues for so long that it is not unthinkable for me to believe that saving an animal with no voice of its own from harm is not necessarily a bad thing, no matter how it is gained. If people can be such badasses that they kill without remorse of any kind, they deserve to be treated lower than the animals they kill. A good example of this is those bastards like Michael Vick or unscrupulous greyhound owners, or anyone who uses and abuses animals. Legally, I would worry about it, but if I ever saw someone hurting an animal just "because they can" I would be more than happy to show them the error of their ways.

I am not in any position to argue the point, however, and that's the only reason some of these bastards are still around that I can't get to them.


(This is not about hunting, fishing, or anything else along this line--this is my answer solely on assholes who torture, maim or kill with no remorse.)

[ZombieHorde]

8. What if they were killing the endangered animal for food or

scientific research? (Such as whaling)

[ogneopasno]

9. No.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. I'm no pacifist so I dont see why it couldnt be on the table in certain instances...

Its already legal to use force up to and including deadly force to protect yourself, third parties, and property from destruction.

[Marrah_G]

15. Same justification the anti-choice nuts use for blowing up clinics.

[Jack_DeLeon]

44. Yes I can can understand that...

Under a certain age I dont consider an unborn fetus to be a human being. However I do understand how some people might disagree, and as such might consider using deadly force to stop those they consider "murderers."

Ultimately we humans are going to do what we believe to be "right." People disagree about many things, and sometimes people die, life goes on.

[conturnedpro09]

11. Potentially killing someone who is about to kill an endangered animal?

Absolutely UNethical. A human's life deserves more value than that of an animal.

[wuushew]

19. Why? Many higher animals can use language and advanced cognition

A chimpanzee is at least equal to a toddler or preschooler.

Given that we are in the midst of a man made mass extinction it would appear that more diplomatic means of genocide prevention are not proving robust enough.

[conturnedpro09]

80. No, a human is not "just another animal."

"A chimpanzee is at least equal to a toddler or preschooler." ?!?!?!

I'm sorry, but as the father of a bright, beautiful three year old, that statement and that logic is just pure bullshit. And you don't need to be religious to believe that humans are a special species, either.

I seriously do not understand how so many fellow liberals/progressives here can feel so guilty about acknowledging that a raccoon is less significant and valuable than a human being.

Sorry folks, a skunk is not our equal. Get over it.

[Jack_DeLeon]

45. Why?

I certainly value the lives of the people I care about more than the lives of any random animal, other humans included as we are all animals.

However we are all individuals and what we each value is up to each of us to decide. I certainly wouldnt value the life of a stranger over say my pets, I wouldnt butcher my dogs so that starving man might eat. There are also cruel and evil people in this world that I would say would be put to better use as animal feed.

[conturnedpro09]

82. In our culture, our society, & our world, humans take precedent over other animals.

Yes, in the ridiculous scenario of choosing between the life of my family's yellow lab or that of, say, someone like saddam Hussein, obviously the dog wins out.

But there is a reason that our laws don't extend to rabbits, our courts aren't open to zebras, and our police don't protect and serve monkeys. We as a species are generally superior to them. It's okay to say that, guys.

And yes, an environmentalist shooting a group of hunters ain't much better or worse than a psychotic Christian nut shooting a Planned Parenthood staffer.

That's why I voted no. Call me old fashioned..I just ain't a big lover of unneeded violence.

[Occam Bandage]

12. No on both of your polls.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

13. Killing people is wrong, but that's not what the Sea Shepherd is doing and you know it

[Marrah_G]

14. That is the same justification people use for shooting doctors who are tied to abortion

[GoddessOfGuinness]

32. But people aren't endangered

In fact, it could be reasonably argued that humans infest the earth with our abundance.

Plus, GirlGoneMad makes excellent points against this comparison in post 27.

[Marrah_G]

34. So murder is okay because we aren't endangered?

That is what you are saying.

There are better ways to control population.

Education and opportunity are the best weapons against over population.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

42. You're saying it's ok to watch a species be annihilated rather than eliminate the scum

(which is not endangered) that would extinguish it.

If a murderer threatened one of your children, would it be ok to murder the criminal?

[Cid_B]

16. To those who would use violence to keep Frank the hunter...

... from taking out a warblebeaked thrush....

Just rememember that the failed ESA makes no provision for vigilante justice. If you were an ethical person at the very least after you bashed Frank's skull in you should turn yourself in for murder charges.

Also if you think I've taken the extreme example (murder) then are you saying its ok to beat him but only a little?

[Zhade]

17. Hmmm, great question. Are the animals delicious?

Sorry, bad joke.

[anonymous171]

18. Japan thinks it's above international law, as usual. Such arrogance should be punished.

[ZombieHorde]

36. Don't confuse Australian law with international law.

Only about six or so countries recognize Australia's Arctic claims. Japan is not one of them, the U.S. is not one of them.

[underseasurveyor]

20. Is it ethical to use what ever means at ones disposal

to interfere with and prevent trespassing and unethical, illegal and cruel behaviour levied against protected animals?

Yup!

[Cid_B]

21. See post 16...

Are you willing to bash Frank the Hunter's skull in for taking out a blueballed woodpecker?

Also are you willing to submit yourself to the authorities once youve committed your act or are you "ethically" above the law on this one?

edit: forgot the 2nd part

[underseasurveyor]

22. Am I willing to interfere with and try and prevent Frank from killing said bird(s)

You bet I am. Now if Frank further escalates the situation which leaves me in the position to have defend myself? Yup, you bet I will. AND if Franks escalation of his own unlawful behaviour causes injury or death to himself? Well I guess that's ol Franks problem now isn't it.

[Cid_B]

23. I'll ask again...

Are you willing to bash Frank's skull if he poses no threat to you but is in the act of preparing to take out the woodpecker? Also would you submit yourself to the authorities after?

[underseasurveyor]

24. Why do you automatically assume that the first thing to do is bash in a skull?

And you imagine me to be the extremist:rofl:

[Cid_B]

28. Ok then...

"Is it ethical to use what ever means at ones disposal to interfere with and prevent trespassing and unethical, illegal and cruel behaviour levied against protected animals?

Yup!"
_______________________________


You have stated that you are willing to do "something". What level of violence or in your words "what ever means at your disposal" are you prepared to use if he poses no threat to you and only the woodpecker?

And for the third time will you submit yourself to the authorities?

[underseasurveyor]

30. If 'Frank' poses no threat to me

I'd turn him into the authorities myself. At least there's a greater chance of charging, convicting and imposing fines on ol Frankie. Perhaps even taking away his right to hunt and/or possess firearms, temporarily or permanently.

The difference here is that no-fucking-body in the international community is doing shit to stop the Japanese whalers and their felonious murder of protected marine mammals. (on edit to add) Except the awesome and amazing people of Sea Shepherd Society.

[girl gone mad]

25. They shoot poachers in Africa.

Sometimes it's the only way to stop people from breaking the law.

[underseasurveyor]

26. Good one. That's right they do.

:toast:

[ZombieHorde]

38. Do you support the Death Penalty?

[underseasurveyor]

43. Only for those that needlessly and illegally slaughter marine mammals

especially whales:P

[Jack_DeLeon]

46. I do.

viva Tejas.

[ZombieHorde]

37. Do you support the Death Penalty?

[girl gone mad]

47. This is an act of self-defense.

Not the same thing.

[ZombieHorde]

57. What if the person was defending an endangered insect, instead of a whale?

How much force would you use against a person to defend an endangered insect?

[-..__...]

53. They'll shoot ANYONE in Africa...

poacher or not.

Besides... poachers have the ability to shoot first (or return fire).

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Some of them are probably poaching out of desperation though

[readmoreoften]

29. Endangered species? Like the Employed American Working Class?

All for it.

Wait. You're talking about whales.

[marimour]

31. no. unless you're law enforcement.

[G_j]

33. no "other" ?

sorry

:shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

40. I would normally use an "other" option, but I wanted to contrast this poll

with another http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4991534">poll.

[LSdemocrat]

39. I would oppose the use of lethal force in such a situation

[ZombieHorde]

41. Funny name.

[1]

48. animals = cool. people? not so much...

i always vote for animals.

people suck.

[tkmorris]

50. Gotta love DU...

Oversimplifying complex issues since 2001.

[ZombieHorde]

58. This issue is simple, you either act violently, or you don't.

You either intentionally hurt someone, or you don't.

[tkmorris]

77. No it isn't

You see someone about to shoot a manatee. You give them a shove, throwing off their aim, then read them the riot act, thus allowing the manatee to escape. You DID act violently, but with a measured violence.

You see someone about to shoot a manatee. You blow up their boat with a handy grenade you are carrying because it moves the plot forward, killing the manatee assassin and his whole family. You have acted violently, but without any restraint.

Both of these accomplish the purpose, but one is far overboard while the other is within reason. Both employ violence of a sort, but one employs no more than necessary. Even if in the first instance you have to go further, say twisting the gun from their hands, injuring their wrist in the process, you have done what was necessary but no more.

Your posts are inane, all of them.

[ZombieHorde]

85. My OP defined violence for the porpose of this poll.

According to the text in OP, your first scenario would not be considered violence.

Your posts are inane, all of them.

Why make it personal?

[LeftishBrit]

51. No; they should be subject to strict legal penalties, but not violence

[timtom]

52. No more or less than using violence

to prevent abortion clinics from functioning is ethical.

[TexasObserver]

54. No.

[closeupready]

55. Not sure. Can see arguments either way.

n/t

[Maestro]

56. No

But I certainly support obstructing the killing of endangered animals, but not with the specific intent to kill he who is trying to kill the endangered species.

[NaturalHigh]

59. I can't work up much sympathy for whalers.

There is plenty of evidence that whales are extremely intelligent animals.

[ZombieHorde]

61. Pigs are supposed to be smarter than dogs, I was thinking

about that when I was eating a ceasar salad wrap with bacon last night.

eta: Does higher intelligence increase the importance of life?

[NaturalHigh]

64. "Does higher intelligence increase the importance of life?"

I don't have a good answer to that one, to be honest, at least not one that I could fit into a concise response. I do think that higher intelligence implies sentience of sme sort.

[JonLP24]

60. No. Call the appropriate authorities and let them handle the situation

Don't get involved in something that you can potentially get in serious trouble for.

[ZombieHorde]

62. What if there is no real law against it, such as arctic whaling?

A few countries have set laws for the arctic, but most other countries do not recognize them.

[JonLP24]

72. You're right. Same goes for Great White Sharks (I believe)

Some species of shark I know for sure are endagered but it is hard to regulate at sea because really it doesn't cover any jurisdiction. I was thinking of what I would do on american soil when I was writing my post. That certainly affects things. It certainly is complex, for example I don't want to kill the guy because for some reason he may be raised to believe such a thing is ok in his mind. I know dealing with someone like a simple "No, you can't do that." will work. I'm going to have to take some time. I may even chicken out and not do anything in the possibility I might get killed being honest here. If it is ethical to kill someone to protect the animal? Who knows. My personal opinion I think killing endagered species or animals for body parts they can make money off of and leaving the rest of the animal finless, tuskless, etc. It certainly is complex.

[Sandrine for you]

63. In some african country, they use violence to stop the killing of

elephant. They dont have choice.

[ZombieHorde]

65. Of course they have a choice.

[Sandrine for you]

66. the choice to let elephant simply disappear. Here, elephant are

common property. Some try to steal that common property, so we have to use state violence to make them complied to law. In that same way a police man have to used control violence to stop a criminal.

[ZombieHorde]

67. I don't consider the U.S. to be ethical in the area of law enforcement.

Couldn't people use tranquilizers against the poachers?

[Sandrine for you]

69. Yeah they shoot you with machine-gun , and you repost with dart...

It's a war...not a game.

You don't think it's ethical to use control violence to enforce law when necessary ?

[ZombieHorde]

70. "You don't think it's ethical to use control violence to enforce law when necessary ?"

Depends on the law. Use violence to stop rapers or murders, do not use violence to stop litter bugs or stoners. Of course, killing elephants is not rape or marijuana, its somewhere in between.

What if we replaced endangered elephant with endangered beetle, would you support killing the poachers?

[Sandrine for you]

71. What if we replaced endangered elephant with endangered beetle, would you support killing the poache

Yep depend on the law in question. Here, about beetle, maybe not killing, but physical restraint, and then if he oppose the arrestation, use of violence....

[Hippo_Tron]

83. At some point it becomes a danger to the law enfrocement as well

I think that law enforcement has a right to protect endangered species with guns. If somebody else brings guns into the vicinity of the protected area they are a threat to the law enforcement. Does that mean they should be shot on sight? No, probably not. But if they resist law enforcement and use a weapon to do so then law enforcement has no choice but to respond using their weapons.

BTW, the national guard were authorized to shoot looters on sight in New Orleans after Katrina. Do you disagree with that?

[vanderBeth]

68. Well, I suppose if it is, it is because that person is deemed less valuable than the animals life

it is killing. I might have a problem with saying that, so maybe if they are killing a bunch of animals, or like you said, an endangered animal. I guess endangered animals are deemed as valuable to a person, but what about a dog? What if they are going to kill 5 dogs? (5 dogs=1 person?) Or maybe because they are the type of persons who like killing animals for fun, or endangered, or a bunch, they are not a valued part of our species. So it isn't a species that has so much value, it is an individual?

What if that person is really "ignorant"? If someone is a small time whaler who is poor and this is all they know and they see nothing wrong in it. I guess that is somewhat like the pro-choicer that see it fine to attack/kill abortion doctors.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. I do not support vigilante justice

[CLG_News]

75. Yes. And K&R.

Sincerely, an endangered polar bear

[ZombieHorde]

76. Thanks for the rec., but how can a bear type with such large paws?

[crimsonblue]

78. no. It's hypocritical.

[CreekDog]

79. I need more information before I can justify any killing of a human being

so I voted no in your poll.

[BlooInBloo]

81. Most DUers don't - just say the word "animal" and they're happy to kill people.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

I'd kill someone hurting one of my dogs.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. I'd kill someone hurting one of my dogs.

[Vektor]

86. I'd happily use violence to keep someone from killing any animal, endangered or not.

If the person is hunting legally, mind you, then no, although I don't wish to watch or participate. If they are poaching, abusing, torturing, or harming an animal out of cruelty, etc. it's ON.

Innocents need defending, and whether the perp is kicking a dog or a child, I'd step in an lay the smack down, post haste.

[quaker bill]

87. Violence is not ethical

regardless of purpose. It may on very rare occasion be required, but it is never ethical, and always regrettable.