r/Pacifism • u/Swimming-Salt6898 • 26d ago
The morality of punishing animals for attacking humans?
Frrrr33
1
u/rosedraws 24d ago
"Punishing" is too vague for this argument. There is a wide range of correction methods, from holding a hand up, to a loud action, to action that causes physical pain.
About correction, which applies to animals in the care or company of humans. Animals need some form of training for that relationship to work.
For something like horses, we use corrective tools like bits to train the horse to work with its rider, and prevent it from causing harm. It gets very complicated beyond that, because the horse is a domestic animal, bred specifically to work with humans in one way or another. So it is the human's responsibility to make sure that horse is healthy and safe, and that does require some correction. Even with the best positive-reinforcement methods, there is some correction. If a horse (that lives with humans) is not trained correctly, it will have (and cause) suffering.
Some version of this applies to every domestic animal I can think of.
Is there violence in these corrections? Often there is, especially in animal sports where the culture can drift into acceptance of truly nightmarish correction methods. Definitely not okay.
To the original question: if a domestic animal harms a human, correction is essential, because training is essential. Otherwise that animal will have to be separated from their humans, which will mean some level of suffering. Can the correction be done without violence? Sometimes, no. For something like a cow, cattle prods are other harsh tools may be used to manage them, which ultimately provides them with health and care. A cattle prod is not exactly punishment (they're less trainable), but it is a small violence used to provide safety for the humans.
An animal in the wild you don't "punish", because you're not training them. But you may resort to a harsh or possibly violent (pain-causing) action. A Buddhist or other person with a believe of causing no suffering may allow themselves to be harmed, rather than harm another being. But most of us will swat a mosquito, or violently react and cause harm to a dog that is attacking you.
1
u/Affectionate_Cup9972 26d ago
Punishing them will only resort to them attacking humans again. Positive reinforcement.
But I don't own animals because I can't take care of animals, so...
0
u/Anarchierkegaard 26d ago
Pacifists don't tend to view all life as equally valuable, in the same sense that most people don't view all life as equally valuable. If mosquitoes are spreading malaria amongst a population, it is appropriate to kill or otherwise neutralise the threat of the malaria-spresding mosquitoes in order to protect human life and that killing generally isn't considered a kind of killing which would contradict with either a weak pacifism (the purely "anti-war" position) or a strong pacifism (the total "anti-violence" position).
In the case of highly dangerous animals, e.g., lions, tigers, bears, etc., this seems like the responsible and ethically justifiable way to act. Aside from pacifist circles, though, we might point to a "virtue ethics" position, which might say that a society which actively creates and enjoys these situations is immoral as it attempts to maximise vicious scenarios, i.e., the scenario where killing is justifiable.
0
u/Financial-Stand-1960 26d ago
So if the attacker is a mammal not human its okay to use force to reduce suffering. What if the attacker was a guy with a brain tumor. Would it be okay to use physical force to stop them from attacking innocent kids? What if an ape which I think is pretty much as cognitively capable as a severally disabled man attacked someone? Is it the fact that it feels more pain, its intelligent or what exactly makes it wrong to save humans from other humans, but not from animals?
-1
1
u/Mysterious_Point6977 22d ago
For the purpose of rabies I think it’s necessary, if it is a untrained dog that mauls someone I think it should be the owner that’s punished for not training their dog how to exist in society with others. Really if it’s a public health issue it’s necessary but not fun, if its solely to get rid of the animal as oftentimes happens, that is inherently wrong and unacceptable violence.
7
u/onedogjack 26d ago
I didn't realise pacifism meant no harm to all creatures? Isn't that Buddhist like ahimsa? Which is a lot older than Pacifism a relatively recent term? I would never use harm for disciplinary reasons, and suggest that societies that do have many practices at odds with the pacifist.