Culling 'side product' hatchlings

[SnakeAround]

In my case, I'm involved in life and death decisions at work, where it may be seen as more compassionate to let someone die than to actively prolong their life or put them through CPR if their heart stops. So effectively it is deciding to kill them if treatment or life support is withdrawn.
The only justification is that to do otherwise would be unacceptably cruel. A whole convoluted legal process means that each case is dealt with individually. It's never taken lightly, and is one of the hardest parts of my job

And that is exactly why i think that make someone cross the border can be right or wrong, dependign on intentions and reasons...

 

[tyflier]

I've tried to stay out of it, but...

I've never been good at keeping my mouth shut, even when I know I should so......

Jodu wrote:

Ethically speaking it is not the intent which is important but the outcome. In many of the posts above you are discussing culling healthy hatchlings. It makes no difference why they were culled or were they "put to use". They end up dead.

I love this statement, but I don't know if that is for the same reasons as you wrote it.

I agree 100% with the above statement, and here is why...

A goodly portion of this discussion has revolved around the culling of healthy animals and the reasons behind the culling. People have said it is OK to cull healthy animals when their sole purpose for existence is to be fed to another creature, and I agree with this. However, these same people have said that culling healthy critters for any other reason, regardless of their post-mortem use, is wrong. Obviously, I don't agree with this.

I don't agree because of the above quote. The act of culling healthy animals is merely an action...a physical motion or activity that is carried out. All along, this debate has focused on two things: the intention of the breeding and the reason for the culling. IMO, those two things are not important to the action, they are merely justification FOR it. Culling healthy animals is the exact same procedure, regardless of the reasons for these animals to exist.

With that said, a good many people have said "culling healthy animals is OK, but only if....", and I am forced to wonder why that is. I am forced to wonder why each person(myself included), has been judging an activity based on an emotion. The reason for the animals to exist is only a justification. Culling baby mice because "they were bred to be food" is no different, IMO, than culling healthy animals because "there were more born than I expected", or "they do not look like hybrids", or "they were bred to see what would happen, and the outcomes were completely unexpected".

What I mean is this...I don't have to agree with ANY of the reasons stated for culling healthy animals in order to defend that action as ethical. Any person that owns animals that by there very existence causes the necessary destruction of other animals on a regular basis *should* feel the same way.

Why? Because if we went over to a rodent-friendly board, every justification that we could possibly provide for the purposeful breeding as food of mice and rats, would have been as systematically "dismantled"(used very loosely), and vehemently touted as being inhumane, cruel, and completely unethical. The rodent-lovers would rather we breed and kill cornsnakes to feed to our kings and pythons, than rats and mice...purely because of perspective.

So, for anyone to sit here and say it is OK to kill healthy offspring for this reason, but not that reason, yet every week causes the death of numerous healthy animals for a different reason, is being hypocritical, at best.

The reason is because anytime one group says "My reasons are OK, but yours are not.", it opens up the doorway for a different group to say the same thing to them.

What I mean is...Blutengel telling me or Vinman that our reasons for culling healthy animals are wrong and invalid, and shouldn't be done because there are other ways to accomplish our goals, opens the door for rodent-lovers to come in here and say Blutengel's reasons for culling healthy animals is wrong and invalid, and shouldn't be done because there are other ways to accomplish her goals...which there are.

The bottom line is this....anytime you are dealing with an action that is ONLY justifiable by opinion and perspective, you either agree with the action, or you do NOT. Debating the justifications and reasoning is fine, so long as it is done with the understanding that those justifications are PURELY opinion and perspective, and should NOT be done in such a way as to make one opinion right and the other wrong. In other words...you are welcome to your opinion, and you are welcome to STATE your opinion, and provide reasons FOR that opinion. But it is still only an opinion, and should NOT be used as a reasonable method of judging the same action by reason of a different opinion.

Or as diamondlil so eloquently put it:

...I still don't think it's right to try to make other keepers feel bad about their decisions...

 

[JoannaD]

Tyflier - I think you got the gist of it!

Blutengel - I think you misunderstood. In the case of the humans they are not being killed. They are already very sick - it is just how they die that is in question. Morals are what you think is right or wrong. Ethics is "The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerning duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics." And according to medical ethics when someone dies because a ventilator (breathing machine) is not started or when is stopped is the exact same thing! Ethically if the outcome is death then the reason should not matter. In the case of the snakes if you are talking about healthy hatchlings then if culling is ok because of a lack of resources it should be ok because of the way they look or because they will be fed to another animal.

 

[SnakeAround]

I never ever tried to make people feel guilty... I think it was Chris mentioning the word guilt first, or one of the people with the same opinion. I do wonder why... As I do wonder why hardly anybody from the people voting for 1 (only kill deformed/weak hatchlings), which is the vast majority, joined the discussion... might they feel less need to defend themself somehow? If so, how come?

By killing only snake swith no chance of a good life or to feed others, I do exactly the same as nature... is nature capable of being hypocritical? I do not think so...

I do think the very fact that we ARE able to feel emotions, gives us the obligation to involve it in decisions. At the other hand, I do not even agree that people choosing to only kill deformed/weak animals solely listen to their emotions... they feel sad about these killings, but reasons tells them to do it. Others let their reason over rule the emotions completely and put down hatchlings for all other reasons mentioned.

 

[SnakeAround]

Tyflier - I think you got the gist of it!

Blutengel - I think you misunderstood. In the case of the humans they are not being killed. They are already very sick - it is just how they die that is in question. Morals are what you think is right or wrong. Ethics is "The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerning duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics." And according to medical ethics when someone dies because a ventilator (breathing machine) is not started or when is stopped is the exact same thing! Ethically if the outcome is death then the reason should not matter. In the case of the snakes if you are talking about healthy hatchlings then if culling is ok because of a lack of resources it should be ok because of the way they look or because they will be fed to another animal.

Ok, so ot is a language issue too... thanks for explaining! I will talk about morals -read 'morals' where ethics was said in previous posts-

 

[tyflier]

I mentioned the word "guilt" some time ago, merely as a reaction to the posts that were being made.

Quite simply, as I said in that same post, the topic quickly devolved from a discussion about opinions to a challenge of ideals...namely MY ideals, and the few people that were willing to post an agreement WITH those ideals. Anytime you challenge someone's ideals, there is an attempt to make those ideals somehow "wrong". The simple act of saying "How can you feel that way?" is a challenge to the ideology behind the decision and is, in effect, a different way of saying "You are wrong because...", and I believe that those sorts of statements have NO place in a conversation of this nature.

Further, I will not debate a moral issue in an open forum. This is not the time nor the place. To turn the conversation away from a discussion about an action to a discussion about one's morals at THIS point in the conversation is not something I am interested in doing. In fact, as far as I can see, the only reason to do so NOW, is to make your opinions on the subject "fit" in a more appropriate manner...to avoid any perception of hypocrisy on the matter, whether whetehr that perception is assumed, implied, or flat out wrong. There is a reason why I avoid topics about politics, religion, and morals. These topics never fail to evoke the most powerful emotions, and more often than not resort to one side refusing to listen to the other, which invariably causes the conversation to devolve into an argument...which is both impractical and laughably unnecessary.[edited to clarify--the use of the word "you", "yours", and variations of such used above is not a direct implication nor accusation to anyone in the conversation. The word(s) are used only for simplicity]

For whatever it might be worth to anyone...I chose option 1 in the poll, because those are the only situations that I feel comfortable in euthanizing animals at this point in my life as a snake keeper. As my experiences change, and therefore my perceptions, my choice in the poll may or may not change...whose to know the future? My only "dog in this fight" was originally to point out that there really is no difference in culling healthy animals based upon reasoning alone. If it is OK to kill a healthy animal for reason (A), it is, by reason of ethics, OK to kill healthy animals for reason (B). However, that does NOT mean that I have to agree with someone's decision nor reasoning behind their actions...

 

[SnakeAround]

I did not mean to switch to talking about morals, that is what I was doing all the time but with the wrong word.... And I do think one cannot ignore morals (whihc I wrongly called ethics) when talking about this subject IMO, since this decision needs to be based on morals. I do see that in your opinion morals don't have to do with this subject, and that is causing the mere difference between our opinions.

 

[tyflier]

I did not mean to switch to talking about morals, that is what I was doing all the time but with the wrong word.... And I do think one cannot ignore morals (whihc I wrongly called ethics) when talking about this subject IMO, since this decision needs to be based on morals. I do see that in your opinion morals don't have to do with this subject, and that is causing the mere difference between our opinions.

I understand...and I agree that it is the source of our disagreement.

However, in a debate of ethics, it is NECESSARY to ignore morals, lest the point be confused. And therein lies the problem...

 

[SnakeAround]

So ethics are only about what your reasoning is behind your actions? And if one has a reasoning to explain their actions, the action itself is ethic?

 

[jaxom1957]

I suppose we all have to chime in at some point.

is a responsible thing to do when they are deformed/weak and have no chance of a decent life

The important part of this statement, to me, it "have no chance of a decent life". "Decent life" is a matter of personal choice; what one person considers an acceptable quality of life may be intolerable to another. We each must decide for ourselves where that line is drawn. If an animal can have a relatively pain-free life, taking in and eliminating enough food to thrive, even if its appearance is marred, I feel it should have the opportunity to do so. I also realize that not everyone will share that opinion, and see no reason to try to make others agree with me. Life isn't a democracy: the only vote that matters is one's own.

1 + when they are 'side products' and end up in pet shops, overflowing the market

I find this reason unacceptable. If the animals produced can be found caring homes, that is what should be done. Killing animals soley to create an artificial shortage, thus increasing the value of those allowed to live, is contemptible.

1 + when hybrid hatchlings can be mistaken for pure, threatening the mass market with their genes

Whether you are polluting the gene pool in the second generation or the third, you are still polluting the gene pool. Anyone breeding hybrids or intergrades for anything other than personal possession is risking introducing alien genes into the population. Whether the offspring look like one species or another, once they leave the possession of the person who created them, they pose the same risk. Killing the offspring that too closely resemble pure stock while selling those that don't is simply a rationalization for continuing a behavior one knows is ethically suspect. I don't find any hypocrisy in owning hybrids/intergrades; while I own them, I control their breeding.

is never a good thing to do, even a deformed/week hatchling should only die by its defect

What possible moral justification can there be for allowing any animal to suffer when it's imminent death is inescapable? Kill it efficiently and with as little pain or ceremony as possible. I'd do the same for a pet or a person.

 

[SnakeAround]

I'm happy to see new blood keeps coming Especially someone sharing my opinion :grin01:

Jaxom, thanks for your clear one-by-one post!

 

[tyflier]

So ethics are only about what your reasoning is behind your actions? And if one has a reasoning to explain their actions, the action itself is ethic?

No...ethics regards the action itself, without regard to the reasoning. It is a way of dictating what a human being *should* do in a situation.

For example--Breeder (A) breeds corns specifically to feed his crop of coral snakes. Breeder (b) breeds corns specifically for a particular line trait such as Okeetee. The act of culling the offspring is either ethical or not regardless of the reason. This is because the end product, the death of healthy offspring, is the same regardless of the reasoning. The reasoning is the moral debate, the culling is the action. If it is OK for breeder (A) to cull healthy offspirng, it is OK for breeder (B) to cull healthy offspring, in an ethical sense. This is because an "ethical debate" would center around culling healthy offspring or not, NOT the reasons for culling healthy offspring.

This is why I believe that anyone who feeds their snake mice, should not take issue with the culling of healthy animals, because, in essence, when breeding for food, you are purposefully culling the healthiest of animals as a source of nutrients.

Now, ethically, a seperation of species could be debated. But within the same species, the reasoning becomes "morally biased" where the action is precisely the same.

The problem with discussions of this nature is that there are no definite answers. There is no such thing as black and white, ethical or not, and there never will be...in fact, I don't believe there SHOULD be. If it were that easy to draw a line and say "it" (whatever "it" might be) is either ethical or not, than an individual would not have to think for themselves.

Anytime you are dealing with ethics, there are several things that should be considered, and several more which should NOT be iompactive. Some things to consider would be legality, humanity, suffering, repercussion of the action, etc. Some things that should NOT be impactive as regards ethics are morality, reasoning, intentions, etc.

In a business example, it would be unethical for a Boxing Promoter to also be a manager for a fighter. This does not even consider the grey areas...is the manager a friend or relative? Is the manager fully involved with the best interest of the boxer in mind? The reason it si unethical is because there is a conflict of interest. Working with oneself in the best interest of another is an ethical conundrum. I cannot reasonably "sell" a fighter to myself as both manager and promoter without creating a conflict of interest. So all reasons for the situation aside...it is unethical(also, illegal, but a different matter in this conversation).

So in other words...an action can be ethical or not...the reasoning FOR the action is a moral debate.

Clear as mud??

 

[SnakeAround]

So, if it is ok to euthanizea human being because it is only kept alive by a machine, it is also ok to kill someone because you think he is a dirty bastard? Ok, it is illegal... so only law makes the latter action not ethical? If in both cases the 'victims' do not suffer.....

I do think that humanity is solely based on ones moral standards, so is not something to consider when debating ethics in your opinion....

 

[tyflier]

So, if it is ok to euthanizea human being because it is only kept alive by a machine, it is also ok to kill someone because you think he is a dirty bastard? Ok, it is illegal... so only law makes the latter action not ethical? If in both cases the 'victims' do not suffer.....

I do think that humanity is solely based on ones moral standards, so is not something to consider when debating ethics in your opinion....

No...you're talking about 2 completely different actions. You're example above is more like the difference between culling sickly or deformed cornsnakes and culling perfectly healthy cornsnakes.

Unplugging a machine that is keeping a human being alive, and killing a perfectly healthy human being are two completely different actions, and, therefore, completely different in terms of ethics...regardless of legality.

Culling healthy offspring is the same regardless of why they are culled in the same way that culling sick offspring is the same regardless of the sickness they are suffering from.

In other words...it doesn't matter what disease, illness, or injuries a person is suffering from when the cord is unplugged...the action of unplugging the cord is ethical or not in all situations, and that decision is one which can only be made by the person(s) involved. That is NOT the same as killing a perfectly healthy human being, regardless of your reason for killing that person.

It is ethically no different to pull the plug on someone in a vegetative coma from a horrible accident than it is to pull the plug on a newborn infant suffering from a genetic defect that prevents it's lungs, heart, and brain from working properly. Likewise, it is ethically no different to cull a snake that suffers from stargazing than it is to cull one which suffers from a developmental disorder that prevents it from properly digesting food. Similarly, it is ethically no different to cull a healthy snake that was bred to be food than it is to kill a healthy snake that was bred to look like a hybrid and doesn't. Ethically, each above pair of situations are exactly the same in terms of the action being performed. Morally they may differ to some because of the intentions and reasoning...but ethically, they are the same.

 

[SnakeAround]

You are right, I realised this later.... wrong analogy.

Though I see a difference in ethics between killing because of looks and because of feeding purposes... one is a human 'random' decision, the other is just nature.

"Unplugging a machine that is keeping a human being alive, and killing a perfectly healthy human being are two completely different actions, and, therefore, completely different in terms of ethics...regardless of legality."

These 2 actions are divided by... what? Intentions I think....; stop suffering versus 'vengeance'. But intentions are a moral thing, not ethics... :shrugs:

 

[Ssthisto]

I don't see the intentions you're talking about.

"Kill a perfectly healthy human being" does not equal "vengeance" as an intent and does not make "kill a perfectly healthy human being" necessarily intrinsically unethical or immoral.

For example, you could be talking about a starvation situation - one person dies for the good of several others, so that there is more food left for the remaining ones (and if it's a bad enough situation, so that the dead one becomes food.)

Is it ethically wrong to hit a perfectly healthy person standing in the middle of the road if, by avoiding hitting that person, you will kill the perfectly healthy busload of children you're driving because you're going to go over a bridge?

I can think of a number of cases where it might well be morally reasonable to kill ONE healthy human being. I can think of a number of cases where it would not be morally reasonable to do so. But the ethics of the situation are the same... killing a healthy human being is killing a healthy human being no matter why you did it.

 

[SnakeAround]

I don't see the intentions you're talking about.

"Kill a perfectly healthy human being" does not equal "vengeance" as an intent and does not make "kill a perfectly healthy human being" necessarily intrinsically unethical or immoral.

For example, you could be talking about a starvation situation - one person dies for the good of several others, so that there is more food left for the remaining ones (and if it's a bad enough situation, so that the dead one becomes food.)

Is it ethically wrong to hit a perfectly healthy person standing in the middle of the road if, by avoiding hitting that person, you will kill the perfectly healthy busload of children you're driving because you're going to go over a bridge?

I can think of a number of cases where it might well be morally reasonable to kill ONE healthy human being. I can think of a number of cases where it would not be morally reasonable to do so. But the ethics of the situation are the same... killing a healthy human being is killing a healthy human being no matter why you did it.

I referred to my example of euthanizing a comateus human being versus killing someone you think is a bastard (as vengeance or because of hate).

But what is the use of debating ethics without considering morals? Stating that killing someone is ethically the same in any situation does not seem of any use since morals have lead to laws labeling some actions wrong and some right... without considering moral, debating ethics would only consist of telling each other what you do and then see if what other people do is in the same 'category' of actions (category as in 'euthanizing a sick person' or ' kiling a very bad person'). Do i get that right?

 

[tyflier]

I referred to my example of euthanizing a comateus human being versus killing someone you think is a bastard (as vengeance or because of hate).

But what is the use of debating ethics without considering morals? Stating that killing someone is ethically the same in any situation does not seem of any use since morals have lead to laws labeling some actions wrong and some right... without considering moral, debating ethics would only consist of telling each other what you do and then see if what other people do is in the same 'category' of actions (category as in 'euthanizing a sick person' or ' kiling a very bad person'). Do i get that right?

Blutengel--

There is an INCREDIBLE difference between allowing a person to die(by unplugging their life-support), and killing a healthy human. If you see no difference between those two instances other than "intentions" than this conversation is going to go absolutely nowhere.

Debating ethics is about debating an action. You would not kill healthy offspring, ever. Those are the ethics you stand on. I would. Those are the ethics I stand on. The intentions, reasons and justifications are all of the opinions that have been discussed throughout the topic. THOSE are the morals.

...without considering moral, debating ethics would only consist of telling each other what you do and then see if what other people do is in the same 'category' of actions (category as in 'euthanizing a sick person' or ' kiling a very bad person'). Do i get that right...

Basically, yes. You have the exchange of opinion, certainly, which is the point. But do you see how it minimizes the chances of blaming, guilt trips, and being either "right" or "wrong"? Without the morals, it is much easier to discuss a difference of opinion without all of the emotional baggage associated with a moral dilemma.

 

[jaxom1957]

"Unplugging a machine that is keeping a human being alive, and killing a perfectly healthy human being are two completely different actions, and, therefore, completely different in terms of ethics...regardless of legality."

These 2 actions are divided by... what? Intentions I think....; stop suffering versus 'vengeance'. But intentions are a moral thing, not ethics...

They are divided by what you are removing. When removing life support from a patient, what you are taking away is merely the last vestiges of a life that, for all intents and purposes, has already ended. The fleshly shell of the person no longer serves its purpose.

Taking the life of a healthy person removes something of far greater value to that person, if not to society. Whatever your intentions, the body of the person still serves its purpose. It's the difference between throwing away an empty cereal box or a full cereal box. Whether you like the cereal or not, throwing away the full box wastes food, throwing away the empty box does not. If you choose to feed that cereal to the homeless or to the hogs, at least the food serviced a need, just as feeding unwanted hatchlings to other snakes serves the purpose of providing nourishment to those snakes. While you or I might feel a greater purpose would be served by the animals going to homes, that's a judgement call, not a simple question of right or wrong. It may be ethically questionable if the person does so with the intent of propping up the market, it is not immoral in a society that raises animals specifically for food.

Arguing the ethics may convince others that you or I are right, but arguing the morality is a lost cause.

 

[Eremita]

Barbara,

I'm sorry that your well-intentioned thread has come to this. Sophistical attempts to redefine your terms in order to produce a counterintuitive conclusion is certainly not what you sought.

There seems to be a cadre of people here who do not understand ethics at all and yet believe they can tell you all about it. They claim boldly, they quote, but do not cite, a pat definition. To think that there are those who bemoan that someone can leave high school without understanding the reference "intelligent gas from Pluto," but are not at all concerned that something as important as ethics was completely ignored throughout their schooling.

All right people: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about Kant's ethics:

Kant is the primary proponent in history of what is called deontological ethics. Deontology is the study of duty. On Kant's view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action.​

Also, feel free to check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and look up "ethics" to get a more thorough background on the field.

Lacking references, it is difficult to compare the sources of others' claims to Kant, but I imagine they would be found to be far less thorough (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes in the same section, "It is rare for a philosopher in any era to make a significant impact on any single topic in philosophy. For a philosopher to impact as many different areas as Kant did is extraordinary. His ethical theory has been as, if not more, influential than his work in epistemology and metaphysics."). Thus, to claim that "all <x> is the same from an ethical standpoint" is not only misleading; it is invalid, and it reflects a poor understanding of the topic at hand.

This is all rather frustrating to someone who actually takes these issues seriously.

-Sean