Do you dislike it when people purposely step on bugs?

Quoting IanBlain

So why is one tolerated but not the other? :brow:

Custom and convention - the real answer to almost anything.

Lots of people don't fish for sport for precisely this reason.

@IanBlain

I hate killing anything...until it stings me. Then I swat it until I knock its head off its thorax...as I did this morning with a yellow-jacket.

Depends on the sort of animal: if it’s just annoying, rescue it. If it tries to bite you, kill it!...unless it’s human.

Reply to Tom Storm I think you are right... but the personal logic that people use to condone one activity while condemning the other is pretty terrible.

"Fishing is different; it's relaxing." Maybe for the fisherperson...

Quoting IanBlain

So why is one tolerated but not the other?

I don't know anyone who condemns others for killing bugs. I'm sure there are some. I don't kill them unless they're causing me trouble. I had a friend who said he was willing to spray for cockroaches in his apartment, but he didn't step on them. He said it didn't serve any useful purpose and it didn't make him feel better about having bugs.

I'm not a vegetarian. I eat meat. I recognize that my life, and those of most people I know, are based on killing animals, including fish. I hunted ducks, geese, and dove with my family when I was a kid, although I haven't in a long time. We ate what we shot. I never had the patience for fishing. When you hunt or fish, you take direct responsibility for the meat you eat. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't have much respect for people who kill large animals for trophies. I don't have any particular desire to see animals die. Whatever your thoughts on catch and release, it seems a relatively benign sport. Whether or not it's reasonable, I have more empathy for other mammals than I do for fish. Even if a lot of the fish die, a lot don't. They will go on to repopulate the fishery.

Condemn was probably too strong a word. But I have experienced people who will scold or frown on bug squashing. For example, I have a good friend who comes over to my house on a lot of afternoons. If we're on my back patio and I start stepping on a line of hungry ants making their way from the grass, he'll tell me to "just leave them alone." Sometimes I horse around and start stamping them even faster and he will say "Come on, man" or "I'm just going to leave then." I'm pretty sure he sees it as immoral but we're good enough friends that he overlooks it.

Quoting IanBlain

Condemn was probably too strong a word. But I have experienced people who will scold or frown on bug squashing. For example, I have a good friend who comes over to my house on a lot of afternoons. If we're on my back patio and I start stepping on a line of hungry ants making their way from the grass, he'll tell me to "just leave them alone." Sometimes I horse around and start stamping them even faster and he will say "Come on, man" or "I'm just going to leave then." I'm pretty sure he sees it as immoral but we're good enough friends that he overlooks it.

The pleasure you seem to take in killing bugs and your willingness to unnecessarily anger your friends does not reflect well on you.

Reply to IanBlain The difference is in the intention behind the act. At least, the intention that is assumed to be the cause of each act.

As one alternative example, it's the difference between killing a snail by covering it in salt for the kicks of it and putting salt on escargot because it tastes better that way. The snail gets killed either way, but the intentions are different.

Personally, I can't stomach even so much as watching another put salt on snails for the mirth of it (and, in all honesty, feel like becoming aggressive toward that human; why, because I disdain their sadistic pleasures), but I have no significant qualms in personally eradicating an excess of snails from my backyard by poisoning them, which is second best to using carnivorous snail species for the same purpose.

Same can be said to feeding seagulls alkaseltzer tablets so as to see them blow up ... its a long list.

Edit: don't mean to be harsh on you. (yet, at least :wink: ) Stepping on a bug kills them quickly, unlike burning them alive with a magnifying glass.

Reply to IanBlain

Short answer: Ignorance

Long answer: Ignorance elaborated. We don't or for some, like myself, can't [s]comprehend[/s] realize the full import of our actions.

There are multiple strands of thought in re the tale of nochalant bug-squashing and, at the same time, frowning upon fly-fishing - morality, cognitive dissonance, religion, to name a few. It takes a simple question like yours to realize how complex our world is.


Have you heard of the meat paradox? People who oppose animal cruelty eat meat. That's something that'll keep us busy for a long time to come.


Speaking for myself, someone who's an nonvegetarian guilty of premeditated bug-squashing so many times that I've lost count, I'd say it's a question of how serious one is about the one's beliefs and at other times, how pragmatic one's beliefs are.

In addition, I quite like that (some) people are offended by wanton bug-squashing. It implies, at least for such people, the light of morality still burns in them even if only dimly.

Will people in the distant future think of us as moral primitives who inflicted, without thinking twice, pain and suffering to both ourselves and other denizens of the earth? They might but I'm fairly certain they would absolve us of our crimes for we didn't know any better (ignorance defense). Intriguingly, very few people have been willing to apply the ignorance defense to the white man (slavery, genocide, etc.) In my humble opinion, we should. It's the only reasonable explanation for so much misery and bloodshed.

Socrates:No one knowingly does evil.

Ignorance is the eipicenter of all evil. :chin:

As an aside,

Voltaire:Le meglio è l'inimico del bene (The perfect is the enemy of the good).

Reply to javra No worries. Recreational fishing has its critics, for sure, but as someone earlier stated, it's often given a pass purely because of social convention. That seems really problematic though.

When I raise my sneaker above an army of hungry ants, or step on a spider, or smash a pesky bee, the goal is often to repel or destroy unwanted invaders either because they are annoying, may sting or bite, or in the case of spiders, are just creepy. Recreational fishermen aren't trying to repel invaders, though. Rather, they are traveling often long distances to seek out the animals' habitat without any intention of using them for meat.

You state "the difference is the intention behind the act." There is a jarring difference in the degree of planning and intent.. but I don't think it favors fishing in a positive way. Swatting down a bee is an unthinking, split second decision. Similarly, not much thought or planning goes into stepping on a spider for some overly dramatic girl; if they want me to see me demonstrate my machismo, why not? Even walking over to stamp my feet on invading ants is relatively unthinking.

By contrast, people who sport fish literally plan ahead, prepare for, and travel long distances to go and do something that they are fully aware will injure and can potentially kill. It's quite literally going out of your way to harm something. There is long term planning and time investment that goes into recreational fishing, there are gears turning in the person head, they actually look forward to it. Think about that... even if the people aren't cruel-minded, their commitment to an activity that hurts significantly more complex animals than bugs seems to be. What is the intent? I'm not saying bug squashers and sport fishermen don't sometimes overlap. But I'm critical of how one activity is embraced while the other one is written off as immature or cruel.

And that's to say nothing of the people who travel overseas to trophy hunt elephants or other intelligent animals. That elevates "going out of your way to kill something" to a whole new level.

Reply to IanBlain

I get you. And there's something of what Reply to TheMadFool was saying regarding ignorance to all this. And I'd rather step on a bug than release fishes into the ocean which hooks or hook holes in their mouths. For one thing, to me fishes are higher up in the, I'll say, sentience (rather than ecological) pyramid of life.

But in terms of why one is frowned upon by some and the other generally isn't, I again think its because stepping on bugs that do no harm to you tends to express the intention of cruelty whereas sport fishing is, after all, a sport, and sports tend to express intentions such as comradely. Now, of course, there's cruelty toward fish in sport fishing, but those that do engage in sport fishing don't do so with willfully cruel intentions toward the fish (as is often ascribed to those who step on bugs for the fun of it, rather than for reasons such as you've ascribed). Reminds me of Cobain lyric taken out of context, "It's OK to eat fish, because fish don't have any feelings."

Iff that is granted, then an interesting hypothetical: sport bug-squashing. It's obviously not an official sport we're indoctrinated into. Whether this would be frowned upon or not I still think would be dependent on what we take the participants' intentions to be in partaking in the sport. If we find they do it for the pleasure of cruelty, then frowned upon (by those who don't value cruelty). If we appraise that they don't, then we may think them ignorant and so on, but we don't hold the same type of aversion to the participants.

No?

Quoting IanBlain

Meanwhile: catching fish and releasing them is arguably more brutal but rarely condemned.

Possibly because it is more rarely witnessed.

Bugs are still in many places, but to witness the catching and releasing of fish, one has to go to a suitable body of water, which is, statistically, a rarer occasion.

Reply to IanBlain Reply to baker

Quoting baker

Possibly because it is more rarely witnessed.

Bugs are still in many places, but to witness the catching and releasing of fish, one has to go to a suitable body of water, which is, statistically, a rarer occasion.

I've witnessed fish being caught at the sea-side with crowds of dozens of people forming. I do think some of the people would have said something if they saw @IanBlain stamping on bees instead.

Reply to IanBlain

I'm not an expert on fishing, but I was wondering if fish really bleed to death from a hook in their mouth? If anything, I would have thought they might experience some difficulty with feeding until the wound has healed. If they die after being released, it would be more likely from other injuries sustained when dragged out of the water or when handled before being released. It would probably also depend on the type of fish and hook, etc. I also think that industrial fishing is much more damaging to fish populations than individual fishermen catching a few fish. It's just that it is happening out of the public's sight.

Other than that, I think you are making a good point. It is interesting to look into how people react to these matters and why. In the vast majority of cases, people tend to take things for granted and either don't bother to think or can't think due to lack of adequate information on the impact their actions can have on other creatures.

Our relationship with living creatures is inconsistent all over the place. We kill rats with a passion if infesting our house, but bury our dead gerbils. I had chicken for dinner, but feel bad for my chicken that got taken from the coop by a predator. A bug flies in my house, and I can't sleep but I can sleep outside with bugs flying all around. Pragmatics outweigh principles I guess.

That people kill or maim creatures for sport or entertainment is indisputable, but not something I'd consider admirable or appropriate. Sitting in a stand waiting for some poor deer to pass by and using a weapon it could not possibly protect itself against to kill it isn't my idea of a good time, nor is using a barbed hook to tear apart the mouth of a fish, no matter how artfully that may be done (fish being, as far as I know, at something of a disadvantage when matched against humans). So I can't say that I embrace fishing or hunting.

People who value animal life probably don't know that people catch fish and release them, and if they did they would be against it.

I think this has to do with one's personal surroundings. People die everyday all across the world, but if you don't know them personally, you probably won't care, let alone even know that they died.

When you kill bugs in front of people, that screeches their heart strings significantly more than some random fisherman that they don't see or know about. They probably don't even know that catching fish and releasing them is harmful and probably don't see fisherman that often.

Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby.

Quoting Kasperanza

Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby.

I agree.

Quoting IanBlain

Fish which are caught then released die all the time, bleeding to death, intended or not. Releasing doesn't mean "not lethal." And everyone who does catch and release fishing is aware of that outcome. That means its done for entertainment, doesn't it?

I used to go fishing and the fish rarely looked like it was knocking on death's doors (An overall average, throughout my time of using barbed and barbless hooks).
Even in fishing competitions you keep them in keep nets, the ones you catch, in the water for possibly hours, they rarely died. It was on artificial lakes, and is artificially stocked, the owners would not want a big 10-20 year old carp easily dying from being caught. Most fisheries enforced barbless hook rules though as well. But even barbed hooks didn't always kill the fish, blood yes. I used barbless in the end to prevent bleeding and suffering or even possible death for the fish.
The artificially stocked fisheries for people to fish on, would be out of business rapid if that was the case of fish dying all the time when caught.
I can only think with the big barbed hooks used in sea sport fishing where they wrestle with the fish for ages, would amount to severe blood loss and death most of the time. You don't see death commonly in non-sea fishing, unless it was a horrific tug of war with a barbed hook, with the barbed hook stuck deep in the fishes throat, and then getting it out becoming a sad bloody mess, in which I recount most fish caught with barbed hooks succumbing to death in those scenarios. These scenarios with barbed hooks were hit and miss, so even with barbed hooks, 'die all the time' does not fit.

That's the thing with fishing, it doesn't aim to kill the fish. The human judicial system ranks death penalty as the highest punishment. With life sentences behind it (imposed limited living). That should say something with the comparing of sport fishing and squashing insects (after me explaining that fish don't die all the time). At least the fish can live again, more than likely. With wild fish, they even have a chance to live and never be caught again.

I thought it was wrong to even use barbless hooks in the end and stopped fishing altogether. Piercing a fish's mouth even with bloodless results and letting it go, for sport, is not respectful of the fish.

Quoting IanBlain

Sometimes I horse around and start stamping them even faster

Sport fishing doesn't go out to horse around, to kill fish even quicker. Those elements are far apart.

Quoting IanBlain

When I raise my sneaker above an army of hungry ants, or step on a spider, or smash a pesky bee, the goal is often to repel or destroy unwanted invaders either because they are annoying, may sting or bite, or in the case of spiders, are just creepy.

The spider doesn't know it is entering a building that doesn't want it. It just sees a gap it can fit under, under the door and goes through it. The bees that get stuck in a house actually wants to leave the house as in all cases of bees in my house. Of course they do, there's nothing in the house for them. They get stuck confused by the windows. Even common wasps in spring and summer want to make a quick exit but get confused by the windows. Only in late summer/autumn do common wasps increasingly hone in on artificial human sweet food/drinks as they face natural food scarcity at that time of the year. Indeed they'll go crazy to get that then rare fix.

You're basically dishing out the highest human judicial punishment to insects that more than likely are going about its harmless activities. If a spider had to die for looking creepy then that's very sad and wrong.
Given the time spiders aren't creepy and can even be cute.
Due to their rapid and inconspicuous nature, humans rarely get to make a good acquaintance with their features and behaviour. There's no hope of any acquittance if it meets a shoe every time though.
Have a look at tarantulas, start with them. I know a friend who is scared of spiders but can handle tarantulas.

So in short, we have sport fishermen who don't go out to kill fish. Fish that definitely don't die every time they're caught. Compared with insects being instantly killed upon mere presence and proximity to the person, all the time? With zero hope of the targeted insects living to see another day, unlike the targeted fish which has a higher chance to see another day.

Reply to IanBlain There may be people who condemn or disapprove of killing bugs, like many Buddhists, say, but some of these or many would disapprove of killing fish. Or at least of killing fish for no reason. So, I don't really know who you are talking about. I have seen thousands of mosquitoes swatted without negative judgment from witnesses. I see flypaper sold, bug sprays, industrial pestacides. Seriously, what are you talking about?

And there are people who condemn fishing: certainly many vegans and some activists.

I think the OP needs to focus on whatever (tiny, I think) group approves of one and disapproves of the other. In general there is more condemnation of the killing of organisms like us than those less like use. Fish being bigger and more intelligent tend to get more sympathy than insects. Though many have no problem with people killing either. I think many people would disapprove of killing either for pur enjoyment. Running over to an anthill and stomping on it or throwing dynamite into a stream and killing all fish in one area would like get a lot of disapproval both.

Reply to Kasperanza

Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby.
Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby.

I agree with your comment that the two are generally perceived quite differently; I just question if it's rational. Fishing is certainly constructive when the goal is to obtain a meat source, but from a moral standpoint I struggle to distinguish recreational fishing from stepping on ants. And there are definitely people who appear to see it in moral terms.

Reply to javra

Now, of course, there's cruelty toward fish in sport fishing, but those that do engage in sport fishing don't do so with willfully cruel intentions toward the fish (as is often ascribed to those who step on bugs for the fun of it, rather than for reasons such as you've ascribed). Reminds me of Cobain lyric taken out of context, "It's OK to eat fish, because fish don't have any feelings."

Whether this would be frowned upon or not I still think would be dependent on what we take the participants' intentions to be in partaking in the sport. If we find they do it for the pleasure of cruelty, then frowned upon (by those who don't value cruelty). If we appraise that they don't, then we may think them ignorant and so on, but we don't hold the same type of aversion to the participants.

No?

That is a good question.

As you said, cruel intentions tend to be ascribed those who step on bugs for the fun of it. But sometimes I just like experimenting with their reactions. At the same time though, I'm rational enough to know that the ants that I purposely step on aren't capable of experiencing suffering, a result which I have to believe is necessary in order to satisfy any potential/alleged reward someone gets from purposeful cruelty.

I agree with you about fishing. Whether or not the act itself is cruel in its degree of brutality or degree of suffering caused, I don't believe that people who fish for recreation intend to be cruel. I suspect most people share that view of those who fish even for sport. Meanwhile, I have a notion that people who openly disapprove of stepping on bugs suspect (and in some cases even assume) cruelty is intended.

I have wonder what explains it - the visual difference in size? Why to a bystander does me standing over and toying with an army of ants, calmly planting my shoe on their home so they can't go in or out, conjure up a more sinister mental image than that someone hooking, injuring, and potentially killing a fish that is large enough in size that they can hold with two hands?

Reply to Wetsocks68 Quoting Wetsocks68

The spider doesn't know it is entering a building that doesn't want it. It just sees a gap it can fit under, under the door and goes through it. The bees that get stuck in a house actually wants to leave the house as in all cases of bees in my house. Of course they do, there's nothing in the house for them. They get stuck confused by the windows. Even common wasps in spring and summer want to make a quick exit but get confused by the windows. Only in late summer/autumn do common wasps increasingly hone in on artificial human sweet food/drinks as they face natural food scarcity at that time of the year. Indeed they'll go crazy to get that then rare fix.

Bugs that manage to grab my attention get a new home at the tip of the green arrow. Tenants come and go often. :grin:

More serious reply: Taken together, bugs have a tendency to make every square foot of dry land on the planet their home though. It's true that they don't seek to invade a house. Like you suggest; they don't comprehend what a house is.

I recognize that bugs don't ask to be stepped on or have their lives unceremoniously cut short. But as mindless as they are, bugs still capable of sensing and reacting to danger. That being said, I have to assume that they can perceive the pair of ominous, white, alien objects pictured above as dangerous when they make the mistake of crawling anywhere near my feet. Right?

For bugs, being in constant danger is a package deal. Look how quickly a fly will move if you go to swat it with your hand. They have ways of escaping and avoiding danger.

Reply to Wetsocks68

You're basically dishing out the highest human judicial punishment to insects that more than likely are going about its harmless activities. If a spider had to die for looking creepy then that's very sad and wrong.
Given the time spiders aren't creepy and can even be cute.
Due to their rapid and inconspicuous nature, humans rarely get to make a good acquaintance with their features and behaviour. There's no hope of any acquittance if it meets a shoe every time though.
Have a look at tarantulas, start with them. I know a friend who is scared of spiders but can handle tarantulas.

So in short, we have sport fishermen who don't go out to kill fish. Fish that definitely don't die every time they're caught. Compared with insects being instantly killed upon mere presence and proximity to the person, all the time? With zero hope of the targeted insects living to see another day, unlike the targeted fish which has a higher chance to see another day.

I get the sense you see it as a moral issue. Even though I respect that position, should the spider's wishes even matter? You are correct in stating there is no hope of any acquaintance between me and a spider because it will, as you say, "meet a shoe every time." I have a hard time seeing them as cute. There are some bugs I don't kill however: butterflies, pray mantises, etc.

You do bring up good points about fishing. There is a difference in intent, no question. When I fulfill the role of a menacing giant to the ants out on my back patio, I am almost definitely setting out to cause death and destruction. That is different than recreational fishing, I admit, so my comparison is flawed. I would still suggest fishing may be more callous and even cruel though, Even if it weren't lethal it requires one to have what to me seems like an unhealthy stomach for witnessing and causing suffering. Whatever their intelligence, the fish are clearly pretty distressed or in pain. It's pretty different than when I go to step on ants. For them darkness looms momentarily and becomes total, before dying under a giant's foot.

Quoting IanBlain

I agree with your comment that the two are generally perceived quite differently; I just question if it's rational. Fishing is certainly constructive when the goal is to obtain a meat source, but from a moral standpoint I struggle to distinguish recreational fishing from stepping on ants. And there are definitely people who appear to see it in moral terms.

From my personal moral perspective, I don't see the problem in recreational fish killing or childish bug smashing.

If it makes you happy to do these things, then it's moral for you to do it. Just don't harm humans or animals owned by humans.

Quoting Wetsocks68

They [bugs] get stuck confused by the windows.

Thanks for the info! I'll need that someday, I'm positive. The visible obstacle is a cakewalk compared to the invisible one, you feel you're free but truth is you're in a transparent cage. :fear: :grimace:



I wonder if I'm in one as I sit here writing this. I guess the only way to find out is with a severe concussion and a bloody nose. The usual way, the hard way.

Quoting Kasperanza

From my personal moral perspective, I don't see the problem in recreational fish killing or childish bug smashing.

If it makes you happy to do these things, then it's moral for you to do it. Just don't harm humans or animals owned by humans.

There's always a "but" isn't there? There's always a no-go area -> harming humans is where we draw the line. It's, I suspect, too close for comfort. Reminds me of this thread :point: Nietzsche's Antichrist.

Evolution's conflict-harmony paradox: each living organism is competing against other members of its species and the species as a whole is too doing the same with other species; however, if allowed to do so, this constant conflict gives rise to an overall harmony of the whole.

We only kill each other so that we may live in peace!

We're friends who must be foes! We're foes that must be friends!

Shake hands! Now fight! Sportmanship is at a premium (if possible only).

Reply to IanBlain

We judge people based not upon the objective act, but upon what we think lies in their heart when doing the act. Bugs, fish, whatever: Evil, sadistic asshole, mean, inconsiderate, absent minded, afraid, whatever. Sometimes the objective act can give us clues as to what we think lies in the heart.

"Sport" is, in my opinion, inconsiderate. Someone who is inconsiderate is not as culpable as someone who is mean, sadistic or evil. But they are more culpable than someone who is absent minded, afraid or spontaneously reacting without thought.

I try to think before I act. I take spiders outside because I'm considerate of their life, and because they perform life in their sphere. But I will kill an elk when I hunt. I do not hunt to kill, but I kill to have hunted (y Gasset). I do distinguish between hunting and sport. I am not a sportsman. Hunting is a spiritual lifeway for me and an honoring of genetic heritage. At worst, I could be judged as stupid or inconsiderate for killing elk. But I've considered it extensively, so I might, at worst, simply be stupid. But I don't do it for mean, sadistic or evil reasons.

Anyway, if I were you (which I am not, of course), I would ask myself why I am about to kick that ant pile? I would not worry about why some people don't like me kicking ant piles while turning a blind eye to fishermen. People are going to judge you regardless. I would concern myself with what lies in my heart, and if I am good with that.

Quoting James Riley

Sport" is, in my opinion, inconsiderate. Someone who is inconsiderate is not as culpable as someone who is mean, sadistic or evil. But they are more culpable than someone who is absent minded, afraid or spontaneously reacting without thought.

I try to think before I act. I take spiders outside because I'm considerate of their life, and because they perform life in their sphere. But I will kill an elk when I hunt.

Do you eat the elk that you hunt? If so, I doubt that many would take issue with your killing of them. Although premeditated, the hunting of the elk would have some utility. By contrast, I would be pretty wary of someone who killed elk just for the sake of killing elk. I don't hunt or fish; they just aren't my kind of thing. If I did though, I'm pretty sure I'd never be able to stomach the idea of killing an elk and just leaving it to rot. I figure it would be illegal too.

Live pigeon-shooting is another "hobby" that I think is pretty messed up. Pigeons are considered to be highly intelligent animals; the idea of gathering up a bunch of them just to release them and using them as target practice seems pretty cowardly. That people hold competitions over it boggles my mind. And then of course we have trophy hunters to me are the most disturbing. Super rich men, such as the adult children of Donald Trump, who literally fly overseas and pay tens of thousands of dollars to corrupt foreign government bureaucrats so they can obtain permits to kill sometimes endangered animals.



As I suggested above in the post, it takes the expression "going out of your way to kill something" to a whole new level. Even still, there are likely people who disapprove of me stepping on ants for no reason, but would condone (or perhaps even celebrate) the above. Makes you think. :razz:

Quoting IanBlain

I would still suggest fishing may be more callous and even cruel though, Even if it weren't lethal it requires one to have what to me seems like an unhealthy stomach for witnessing and causing suffering. Whatever their intelligence, the fish are clearly pretty distressed or in pain. It's pretty different than when I go to step on ants. For them darkness looms momentarily and becomes total, before dying under a giant's foot.

I get what you mean. The sport causes suffering and I myself don't like it, I used to find it fun or enjoyable but I began to look at the hook and fish relationship differently, especially after times when the hook got lodged deep, and the poor fish looked like it was in pain, wriggling, whilst we wriggled the hook, audibly scraping mouth parts, blood coming out, still failing to get the hook out. I thought this poor beautiful fish traumatised, damaged or could possibly die. I'm sensitive to creatures and thought the fish wouldn't of suffered or possibly died today if it wasn't for me. Sometimes on a really beautiful day too, when the fish are very happy. I'd imagine a gentle spring day they like. Not sure. But it made me think, I would be ruining a fish that was happy before. (It didn't need to be happy it just made it more surreal for me at that time in my life when I was younger.).
So I realised I was hurting/damaging/traumatising a creature. That's not fun for me.

The same goes for barbless hooks. They can end up lodged in a awkward way deep in their throat, which can end in blood also, not as much as barbed hooks but enough for me to care about the fish's well being.

As for the sport fishing and insect comparison; wild fish at least get the chance, though not always, to live another day and never get caught. Artificially stock fisheries in small artificial lakes is pretty horrific where the sentiment does occur to me, surely instant death is better than constant suffering. But that's an awkward scenario for the fish, not the spider on my porch. Which like I've said before, to me, is just a humble little eight legged creature making its way from A to B.
The only time insects became an issue for me is when wasps somehow make a nest in the attic and them flying in my house all the time. I would still just get a professional to move the nest rather than destroy it if possible. Or if my house was a wooden one and termites were underneath the house eating the wood.
For me, insects are mostly none the wiser to our possessions or totally harmless to me. So I wouldn't kill them. I'm not squeamish with them either. Though cave centipedes have freaked me out on holiday (vacation), where it was under my bed area, in dim evening light and I could not find it. I couldn't sleep there that night. I wouldn't of killed it. I would of quickly braced myself to get used to this new creature's appearance and movements and with distance get him out the room, outside, with contraptions.



Even when flies try it on with my ice cream outside I don't see red because usually carnivores or creatures resume eating with flies on the corpse or whatever. Creatures in the wild usually have strong immune systems and can very much handle flies that have traces of faeces on it. This millions of year old relationship is embedded in these flies.
And yes, I don't want flies on my ice cream either. I just look at the angle as to why the fly wishes to be on my ice-cream, even when I'm present to the ice-cream.

Quoting IanBlain

But as mindless as they are, bugs still capable of sensing and reacting to danger. That being said, I have to assume that they can perceive the pair of ominous, white, alien objects pictured above as dangerous when they make the mistake of crawling anywhere near my feet. Right?

Quoting IanBlain

Look how quickly a fly will move if you go to swat it with your hand. They have ways of escaping and avoiding danger.

Flies can react to incoming bullseye squatting. Ants or a spider on the pavement, are slow, they have little chance.
Spiders can often sit still around danger if they feel they can't out run a threat or feel invisible with their background, they sit still and hope to blend in with the environment to not be spotted and killed. I've dealt with a lot of house spiders some of them locomote very quickly into the nearest crack of my incoming presence.
The dainty daddy long-legs spiders are definitely slow, their thin ghostly appearance they rely on to not be spotted.
Orb-weaving spiders, the ones who make circular webs, when they are off their web they aren't nimble like other spiders. On their web, they react to danger either by running to a crack or curled leaf connected to their web or remain still with the background. They know you're there, sometimes I've gone up to one on a web, and it vibrates the web quickly to my presence. Of course, if you're on the other side of the web, the spider is less likely to spot you. All creatures have some pitfall to abuse or manipulate.

Quoting Why is it so hard to swat a fly?

"The speed at which those images are processed by the brain is called the "flicker fusion rate". In general, the smaller the species, the faster its critical flicker fusion rate - and flies, in particular, put us to shame.

Professor Roger Hardie, from the University of Cambridge, investigates how flies' eyes work, and he has an experiment to determine their flicker fusion rate."

According to this quote, ants being small can also see us as slow-motion.

Ants probably detect the incoming danger in slow-motion like the fly can but simply can't speed off as fast as a fly can, into three dimensional space. Even if this research wasn't correct, ants are hell of a lot slower than a fly and flies have three dimensional space to rapidly take advantage of.

Quoting IanBlain

That being said, I have to assume that they can perceive the pair of ominous, white, alien objects pictured above as dangerous when they make the mistake of crawling anywhere near my feet. Right?

Yeah, most likely it will seem too foreign for them to see as a danger or not.
Well, any object coming to squish a fly will make it jet off. Most insects will scurry off with slow moving objects coming on to them. Their locomotion can let them down with fast moving objects. I mentioned the slow-motion thing, if it's true, these small creatures see the threat coming and so some won't move, thinking this object will stop and move on (like a bird might), or try to move but are too slow. Whether we know for sure they know this incoming danger with them being still, it's hard to say. If you hovered an object over them for longer when they are still to see if they think; "screw this, I'm going to make a run for it." ,and then they react, would be a sign they knew it was a threat and ran off or with enough time they realised it is weird and run off.

Humans aren't perfect. Like the video in this thread with adults walking into windows. I've seen horror videos, people not keeping an eye on traffic and getting hit, underestimating dangers etc. It's got to happen in the insect world, surely.
Like humans, fish and insects can have different tendencies. I would expect that with brains or the simple fact that every creature has a different start in life with many variables at play. Brain plasticity is in insects, though from what I gather, because the literature is a bit too complex for me, in a different way to us. So experience can shape insects. It's something I would expect.

Quoting IanBlain

There are some bugs I don't kill however: butterflies, pray mantises, etc.

Ok, I see your sentiment.

The other thing is, if you don't get them, find them weird, or find it odd the things they do. Then they could think the same for us, with us being wildly different to them.

I admit, it's hard to get used to. The thought of a cave centipede crawling over me at night to my awareness. Is a very hard one to accept with me not freaking out. But I also think it would be a bit weird to be super calm with it.
Well it would also be freaky if your friend stood at your bed whilst you slept. So I think the odds are, I don't think the cave centipede wants to be near us or on us either. But my god if it happened to be on me at night, I would just have to jump out bed and run or flap, freak out, I would still try not to kill it though.



I agree, I prefer them in the cave than on me at night! Hehe.

Quoting Wetsocks68

Yeah, most likely it will seem too foreign for them to see as a danger or not.Well, any object coming to squish a fly will make it jet off. Most insects will scurry off with slow moving objects coming on to them. Their locomotion can let them down with fast moving objects. I mentioned the slow-motion thing, if it's true, these small creatures see the threat coming and so some won't move, thinking this object will stop and move on (like a bird might), or try to move but are too slow. Whether we know for sure they know this incoming danger with them being still, it's hard to say. If you hovered an object over them for longer when they are still to see if they think; "screw this, I'm going to make a run for it." ,and then they react, would be a sign they knew it was a threat and ran off or with enough time they realised it is weird and run off.

What's so foreign to them about a shoe though? Their world is full of large objects and surfaces.

I did some admittedly quick research and am learning that their leg hairs "hear" our movement at about 5 meters, some even see in color, and they have a keen sense for detecting vibrations. They definitely sense us from some distance away. So they at least seem capable of recognizing dangerous threats even though they don't comprehend them in our terms.

Even still, it's happened more than once where I'll be listening to music out back on the patio and be intruded on by a spider crawling on the floor, right in front of me...and just waiting to be stomped. Sure they don't comprehend when they invade a house... but how dense of a nerve cell cluster is needed to recognize a really big, white sneaker as something dangerous? If not danger... then what do you estimate they do perceive, then?

And yeah, they aren't asking for me to step on them, but they aren't being killed in sufficiently significant numbers to have adapted to avoid being stepped on. Even though I step on bugs on purpose, a guy like me doesn't make any dent in their population at all. In that context, is the kind of attention I give to spiders sad, wrong, or unwarranted?

Quoting Wetsocks68

Spiders can often sit still around danger if they feel they can't out run a threat or feel invisible with their background, they sit still and hope to blend in with the environment to not be spotted and killed.

Good point; they do tend to sit still. They wait until the last moment before evading a deadly threat and then go for the nearest available dark corner. Which I find maddening.

Quoting Wetsocks68

Ants probably detect the incoming danger in slow-motion like the fly can but simply can't speed off as fast as a fly can, into three dimensional space. Even if this research wasn't correct, ants are hell of a lot slower than a fly and flies have three dimensional space to rapidly take advantage of.

That is true; ants on the pavement can't move quickly enough to escape. In my experience though, they only run away when they are alone or in very small numbers.. but I am not sure in response to what. Vibration, sight, chemicals?

I have noticed their behavior is pretty different when in large groups and near their home. When I step on ant mound and just stand there with my shoe on their home, they scatter chaotically for about a minute but they don't run away or at least they don't go far. Instead they crawl all around and sometimes underneath my shoe trying to get in and out. At least that's based on my observations: and I've stepped on a lot of ants. :grin:

That isn't driven by malice at all though. It's more satisfying a curiosity by watching their reactions. Even though I treat ants like dirt, I still appreciate that the distance and speed at which they communicate and mobilize collectively in response to deadly threats (like my feet) through chemical signaling and vibrations alone, is pretty remarkable. No other insect I can think of comes close. It's fascinating how the colony acts almost like a single organism, sacrificing its individuals for the greater good... imagine if humans had that level of cooperation and one-ness of purpose.

Quoting Wetsocks68

Ok, I see your sentiment.

The other thing is, if you don't get them, find them weird, or find it odd the things they do. Then they could think the same for us, with us being wildly different to them.
I admit, it's hard to get used to. The thought of a cave centipede crawling over me at night to my awareness. Is a very hard one to accept with me not freaking out. But I also think it would be a bit weird to be super calm with it.
Well it would also be freaky if your friend stood at your bed whilst you slept. So I think the odds are, I don't think the cave centipede wants to be near us or on us either. But my god if it happened to be on me at night, I would just have to jump out bed and run or flap, freak out, I would still try not to kill it though.

For me it isn't just finding them weird or odd... but some are very annoying, creepy, and uninvited... emphasized more by the pictures you posted. To me they are like the tarantulas you mentioned, which are the stuff of nightmares.

Just the mental image of one of those centipedes on my bare leg, and feeling it, makes makes me cringe slightly. Not knowing what the hell it's doing under all those legs. You're a kinder man than me for trying not to kill it. That's one I'd chase down to squash.

OP reminds me of the “evil kid” from a certain dreamworks movie:

That movie, Antz, was sort of chilling to watch when I was a kid. Especially the part where the kid was trying to crush the ants. I remember being quite stricken by the fact that at least in the movie they were sentient... they were basically people.

Quoting IanBlain

As I suggested above in the post, it takes the expression "going out of your way to kill something" to a whole new level. Even still, there are likely people who disapprove of me stepping on ants for no reason, but would condone (or perhaps even celebrate) the above. Makes you think. :razz:

If you were to scale up what you do to the ants and compared it to the fishermen and trophy hunters, you are worse than both. Doesn’t matter how much more complex elephants are. What are you doing is destruction on a mass scale to them. Think: you are messing with anthill would be like Godzilla attacking Tokyo. And yes, it is sadistic. Menacing tiny lifeforms so you can feel like the big bad human is sadistic and knuckle-dragging.

You are being a tyrant to them just because you know they can’t do anything about it. Would you kick a bear to see how it reacts, the same way you use your feet to toy with ants? Of course not because you’re opportunistic. Not a positive quality.

Killing individual ants may not matter to you because they are parts of a whole but you are still interfering with their life cycles which impacts the colonys resource and birthing priorities to an unknown extent, requiring them to replace the workers you’ve crushed and devote more to rebuild what you destroyed.

Quoting IanBlain

“That is true; ants on the pavement can't move quickly enough to escape. In my experience though, they only run away when they are alone or in very small numbers.. but I am not sure in response to what. Vibration, sight, chemicals? I have noticed their behavior is pretty different when in large groups and near their home. When I step on ant mound and just stand there with my shoe on their home, they scatter chaotically for about a minute but they don't run away or at least they don't go far. Instead they crawl all around and sometimes underneath my shoe trying to get both inside and outside. At least that's based on my observations: and I've stepped on a lot of ants”.

How would you react if an aircraft carrier fell on your neighborhood? The scattering and random movements is not accidental; it is chemically programmed survival. When you brought your crappy shoe down on their home it was like a bomb went off.

Of course they’re going to try and climb out from underneath. It is the tactic they would use against an enemy army. They want and are trying to attack you. Ants are programmed to repel invaders at the site of their home. That white, grass-stained, monstrosity you sadistically chase down the survivors with (so you can “watch their reactions” to being stepped on) is a deadly invader. Your sneaker is an invader. YOU standing over them are an invader.

If they had the chance bite your skin, it would hurt and they could successfully repel you. Ants are evolved to survive attacks from giant invaders and in most cases repel them. The aberrant cruelty you show them doesn’t exist in the wild though; yes, you are an aberration. While other wildlife passing through may accidentally disrupt their home from time to time, they move on unlike you who purposely continues to stand directly on top of their home, knowing full well that your continued presence is causing mass chaos both above and below... a fact which greatly appeals to you.

The problem is although they can repel most animals, they are not evolved to deal with some giant punk purposely dragging his feet over their home repeatedly and squashing anything that moves, nor are they equipped to penetrate man-made objects/running shoes with hard rubber soles and artificial foam cushioning worn by some spoiled, little consumerist punk who already has life too easy as it is.

And when they finally dig an exit and finish coming out to retrieve their dead, you are still there, hovering your dirty, malodorous shoe over their home with a smug grin on your face about to do the same thing to them all over again... again and again until your "curiosity" is sated. Yes, you are sadistic. You like causing as much distress as possible…And unfortunately, all they can do is wait until you are done indulging yourself, lift your crappy foot off their home, and lumber off out of boredom…which is a glaring example of how unfair the universe is.

It's easy to feel like the big bad human in capitalist United States where the animals aren't so dangerous and you live with a surplus of throw-away luxuries. But try doing what you like to do here to an anthill in Africa, where the ants are dangerous and aggressive, and without your manufactured, malodorous footwear. No material possessions. Just you and the ants. Maybe you will find that your hubris has a limit.

Ouch... :sad:

Quoting KarpalTunnel

That movie, Antz, was sort of chilling to watch when I was a kid. Especially the part where the kid was trying to crush the ants. I remember being quite stricken by the fact that at least in the movie they were sentient... they were basically people.

Do you mean to say that ants perceive me as a faceless Cthulu-like titan? Cool. :grin:

More serious response: I saw that movie too. I don't think the ants comprehend what I'm doing to them like the kid in the film, but it's definitely fun imagining myself like that. Thanks.

Quoting KarpalTunnel

and without your manufactured, malodorous footwear.

...hey! You can blame the material for being spongy and porous. And what can I say: I'm an active guy. You say that like I should be bothered... but the more my running shoes smell, the manlier it makes me feel. :grin:




More serious response again: Knuckle dragging? Most people think I'm a pretty good guy, not some chest-beating bully. I even coach peewee tennis for free. And there's no sadism involved. For that to be true, the ants would have to experience suffering, which they are incapable of. Really surprised you think me stepping on ants is worse than people who shoot rare mountain goats, elephants, and endangered cats, like the adult children of Donald Trump do.

From Google
Jains believe that life (which equals soul) is sacred regardless of faith, caste, race, or even species. Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being.

I guess I admire this philosophy although I do not live it. The needless taking of life does seem to be undesirable. I like many others probably look at the level of imputed sentience or ability to suffer when judging such acts.

Here's an alternative point of view if anyone's interested.

I won't say I had a normal childhood, I definitely did not but given my experience of humanity's moral dimension - the small kid's section that I have some idea of - there are three kinds of immoral acts that are a big no-no and they are:

1. Murder
2. Lying
3. Theft

These three sins if I may call it that for convenience and not for religious reasons implies that we humans hold three things as of incalculable value (laying it on thick):

1. Life
2. Truth
3. Personal property

Crushing a bug amounts to killing it and that, if you do it to another person, is murder. Much of what has been discussed should revolve around the difference between bugs and humans.

The objective?

To demonstrate, if possible, that stomping on a bug isn't the same as dropping an intermodal container on a person below. However, that would mean life isn't the main issue (bugs can be killed) or, in other words, there are "things" more important than life. Life, in and of itself, its destruction, is not what murder is about!

Murder is taking the life of another person i.e. Murder is ending the life of x and x is a human.

Spraying a bug with poison is ending the life of x and x is not human.

I suspect that those who dislike people who crush bugs to death have the good sense to realize that bug-killing is just too close for comfort to condone - one condition for becoming a murderer is met (don't care about life; that's why bugs are killable). The day a person who kills bugs comes to know there really is no difference between insects and humans will be [s]celebrated[/s] mourned as the birthday of a serial killer, a genocidal maniac, a mass-murderer, a homicidal maniac. Too dramatic? Sorry! I just couldn't help it!

May God have mercy on our souls! :chin:

Reply to TheMadFool

I think you may be right. Even though it's an illogical leap though to see killing bugs as one step away from (or closer to) killing humans.

Plenty of people have less reservation about killing simpler beings relative to more complex beings, and don't "move on from the former to the latter". But I think some grasp for a rationalization to explain why killing even simpler beings bothers them - especially along with the notion that any pleasure might come of it.

In a game, you don't kill anyone or anything just because the appearance might give that impression, you simply "win". The sensation is that of victory/superiority, just the same as when winning any game against someone else. The form of the game is irrelevant. Killing bugs for some is much the same - it's a solution to a problem. But just because some prefer a method that involves death, it doesn't mean death is all the same or might become the same for them.

Reply to IanBlain Não li seu texto inteiro, mas acho que se eu estivesse em uma situação onde vários insetos invadissem minha casa eu provavelmente iria morar na rua invés de chamar a detenção.

Quoting TheMadFool

Não li seu texto inteiro, mas acho que se eu estivesse em uma situação onde vários insetos invadissem minha casa eu provavelmente iria morar na rua invés de chamar a detenção.

Using google translate, portugese: "I haven't read your entire text, but I think if I were in a situation where several insects invaded my house I would probably live on the street instead of that prison."

That is a greatly irrational solution to a small problem that can easily be solved with a foot.

Quoting IanBlain

That is a greatly irrational solution to a small problem that can easily be solved with a foot

That solution extends naturally to killing people who are, let's just say, problematic for you. Don't you agree? After all, in both cases we sanction killing or, more accurately, it's ok to off something/someone to deal with a problem.

Too, ecologically speaking, bugs are considered as essential components of the natural order, key to the health of the ecosystem - exterminating them, your foot in chemical and other forms, might come back to bite us.

Moreover, did you notice?, bug sprays are labelled, "POISON" - what kills them kills us too. I wonder what that means?

We are family...

Quoting prothero

Jains believe that life (which equals soul) is sacred regardless of faith, caste, race, or even species. Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being.

I guess I admire this philosophy although I do not live it. The needless taking of life does seem to be undesirable. I like many others probably look at the level of imputed sentience or ability to suffer when judging such acts.

They apparently live in India and I'm certain I'd be unwelcome among them. Still, I wonder about their philosophy's applications. Those guys use brooms to sweep away insects in their path. It's one thing for them to be uncomfortable with injuring or killing any living being, but I wonder what (if any) intervention they prescribe when witnessing someone else doing it. Do they intervene to stop violence or do they stop at simply observing it with frowns on their faces?

Quoting TheMadFool

That solution extends naturally to killing people who are, let's just say, problematic for you. Don't you agree? After all, in both cases we sanction killing or, more accurately, it's ok to off something/someone to deal with a problem

Hmm, but on the other hand: I have the wherewithal to recognize that much greater consideration must go into the killing of humans. There is greater loss and greater consequence. Bugs on the other hand live in a world far below me -- one of sand and grass and warring insect species, and in which every minute is battle for survival. When you already live in a world fraught with peril, where being eaten, dismembered, cocooned, drowned, dehydrated, swatted, or squashed could be a minute away, what's my shoe but another random deadly threat?

Quoting TheMadFool

Too, ecologically speaking, bugs are considered as essential components of the natural order, key to the health of the ecosystem - exterminating them, yourfoot in chemical and other forms, might come back to bite us.

You have a good point. The mass extermination of bugs as well as damaging the ecosystem would absolutely bite us. But being one guy, my foot alone (in any other form too) isn't capable of influencing the ecosystem on such a scale, no matter how many anthills I demolish personally. My "carbon footprint" and general impact on the environment overall, as result of other behavior, is a lot bigger than the literal footprints left when I purposely step on the ants in my driveway.

...

Quoting bert1

Do you dislike seeing someone step on bugs? Do you see it as worse than recreational fishing?

I'm interested in both and the reasoning behind each. Mostly the first.. and how and why it influences your opinion of the someone in question.

Quoting TheMadFool

That solution extends naturally to killing people who are, let's just say, problematic for you. Don't you agree? After all, in both cases we sanction killing or, more accurately, it's ok to off something/someone to deal with a problem.

I don't agree. Even a fly should be left alone except when they bite you. To use toxic spray is viscious and cowardly. It's a mean use of the intelligence we have. How mean can it get. Examining poisonous structures based in science on subject test flies in scientific labs is a silent testimony of western sciientific elite positioning itself far away from Nature. The flies scream in vain. Aowa! Bitten by a fly! Smashed them with my hand. Unluckily they bit my scrotum...

Do I dislike it when people purposely step on bugs? My answer is "that depends on the bug". My opinion regarding this is based upon a principle: that we should focus on encouraging the diversity of life, the diversity of species, rather than life itself, life for it's own sake. Of course, others, famously such as Albert Schweitzer, would have disagreed with me, citing a need to reverence life itself, but I can live with their disagreement. If a species is common and unthreatened, such as the common black ant, then go on, boy, step away, especially if the bug threatens destructiveness.. If, however, the "bug" in question is of a threatened or rarer species, such as a praying mantis or, increasingly, the European honey bee, then one should try to preserve the life.

Now, please don't ask me how this rationale extends to the species homo sapiens, which presently so grossly overpopulates the earth...

Well first of all, bugs experience pain. You might only half hurt them, and then they could be doomed to walk around for some time with chronic pain and then die.

It seems like OP is amazed more so at the influential idea that humans are not superior to all other species. Why should this idea amaze you? We're not superior to any other species. If you look systematically at all the wonders of what other species are able to achieve this should be obvious to you. Let David Attenborough's voice guide you through the amazing lives of other species in one of his documentaries. There is nobility in other species. There is spirituality. There is culture, even civilization (such as in the case of some ants), to admire.

Quoting IanBlain

So why is one action tolerated but not the other? Use this thread to discuss respectfully: Do you dislike seeing someone step on bugs? Do you see it as worse than recreational fishing?

It doesn't generally bother me. Maybe if someone seemed to enjoy stomping the life out of the unfortunate creature in an especially inhumane way, I might find the attitude and the performance at least slightly repugnant.

I'm inclined to say that recreational fishing is worse than recreational bug stomping. That's because I'm inclined to say the fish is more likely than the bug to count as a sentient being, or that the fish seems likely to be "more sentient" than the bug... or something along these lines.

It seems worse to torture a cow than to quickly stomp the life out of an ant. It seems worse to speak to another human being in an abusive way -- to be preemptively insulting and arrogant, for example -- than to stomp on a bug just for kicks.

That's just my inclination. If it turns out that somehow bugs and fish and mammals are all "equally sentient"... I suppose I'd have to reconsider.

Quoting IanBlain

I'm genuinely interested why a small number of people feel they should protest.

It's a fairly small minority in my circles too. Some of these conscientious objectors have been influenced by cultural trends associated with Buddhist and Jainist traditions. I suppose in some Buddhist communities, at least some communities of Buddhist monks, the attitude you've isolated is the norm, not the exception.

I think it's an admirable practice to take reasonable measures to avoid killing insects. I'm not sure it's admirable to admonish others for failing to adopt the same attitude. I'm pretty sure it's not admirable to freak out about it or to give it disproportionate attention.

Quoting Tanner Lloyd

Well first of all, bugs experience pain. You might only half hurt them, and then they could be doomed to walk around for some time with chronic pain and then die.

Pain as in suffering, or pain as in chemical response to harmful stimulus? :brow: I'm not closed off to the idea of bugs experiencing pain, but it doesn't seem likely. And even if they experienced "chronic pain" as a result of being half crushed, they're just bugs. They exist in a world far below me, their problems not even being on my radar. As I said, what is my sneaker except one of many other deadly threats they face each minute?

Quoting Tanner Lloyd

It seems like OP is amazed more so at the influential idea that humans are not superior to all other species. Why should this idea amaze you? We're not superior to any other species. If you look systematically at all the wonders of what other species are able to achieve this should be obvious to you. Let David Attenborough's voice guide you through the amazing lives of other species in one of his documentaries. There is nobility in other species. There is spirituality. There is culture, even civilization (such as in the case of some ants), to admire.

Superior is an arbitrary term and I don't really see it in those terms. However, why shouldn't I look down on ants? I'm literally a giant compared to them.

Also you mischaracterize my lack of appreciation. Even when I step on them, it is interesting to watch their reactions in response to different situations. I'm still amazed at what they are capable of collectively.

If it's ok to step on and snuff out bugs, is it ok if giants step on and snuff us (humans) out?

Reply to Kasperanza
That is a rather cruel logic, don't you think? Animals never hurt a person unless they feel threatened. Humanism, the philosophical idea that homo sapiens are the only species worth living and every other species is prey is an absurd concept.
What makes human beings the sole authority on pain? Animals feel pain just as much as we do and yet we don't value that.
Lobsters are boiled alive, the skin and organs of fishes are bring torn apart, pigs are terribly abused and slaughtered as they watch their friends go through the same in terror, all for what? So that human beings could hone their cuisine roulette, have fun and enjoy a big Mac.
When considered thoroughly, Thanos wasn't particularly wrong.
Animals kill each other only when necessary and to survive, they do it without any further emotions regarding betrayal, happiness, partiality, pride or sadism.
Human beings are the plight of the world, they inflict pain not only on themselves but also on innocent animals that cannot possibly fight back.

Quoting TheMadFool

If it's ok to step on and snuff out bugs, is it ok if giants step on and snuff us (humans) out?

If there were giants aliens who discovered Earth and started stepping on us for no reason -- much the same way I do ants -- then I wouldn't be in much of a position to complain, given what I stated. I do see your point. :razz:

In that same vein though, If the positions were reversed, and I encountered a race of tiny, intelligent aliens, I have to admit that I would be very inclined to take advantage of the size difference just as they would. The idea of having entire race of intelligent beings to either toy with, reward, or terrorize as a focus for my frustrations or whims is pretty tantalizing. It would be like playing god, but almost for real. And despite its moral quandaries, I could very much see myself being an old testament God and enjoying every second of it. And be honest: what guy hasn't fantasized about being a god every now and then? That seems a normal expression of the male ego, possibly one element to the mindset of most successful conquerors throughout history. Being an absolute tyrant is rewarding.

Quoting TheSoundConspirator

What makes human beings the sole authority on pain? Animals feel pain just as much as we do and yet we don't value that.

Can you substantiate that though?

Quoting TheSoundConspirator

Animals kill each other only when necessary and to survive, they do it without any further emotions regarding betrayal, happiness, partiality, pride or sadism.

It is not true that animals kill only when necessary for survival.

Quoting TheMadFool

Moreover, did you notice?, bug sprays are labelled, "POISON" - what kills them kills us too. I wonder what that means?

It's an interesting allegorical comparison... but my suspicion is they just meant toxic if ingested, inhaled, or exposed to skin. :razz:

Quoting IanBlain

I've been pondering something. Firstly, I'm the kind of guy who steps on bugs, not around them. If there's a bug in my house; I don't "rescue it." I squash it, then flush it. Just want to be upfront about that.

I don't purposely kill bugs. I'd rather take them out of the house. Especially spiders. I can catch it with my hands (cup my hands) and take it outside. I haven't killed a spider in my life -- at least not knowingly. Same with any other bugs -- cockroach (it's a mixed feeling, I don't like to be near them). Also, garden snails - I could never hurt them. I couldn't care less about the plants in the garden if they're happy eating and reproducing. (Oh, we're talking about bugs, okay). Anyway, the exception is the flies. I could be patient and let it out through the door, or not, and get the fly swatter. But it's the only bug that I would purposely kill, sometimes.

Reply to Caldwell I don't disapprove of your practice, although I don't practice it. When you see someone who pretty habitually squashes them, even going out of the way to do so, does it give you a different idea about them than you otherwise would have? Some do.. which I find interesting.

Quoting IanBlain

When you see someone who pretty habitually squashes them, even going out of the way to do so, does it give you a different idea about them than you otherwise would have?

Yes, it does. Because I find it unnecessary most of the time. So, my thought process is, the act of squishing must be a reaction to something more serious than bugs. Something about the personality of the person. It's just me. I don't really know why people squish bugs unnecessarily. I also don't shoo wild animals if I find them in the yard, like fox or racoon eating from the cat's food bowl. I let them be.

And oh yeah. The bees. I don't avoid bees -- they don't bother me. They stay away from me. lol. The ex BF, though, has phobia of bees. So, I'd be like cool when I hear bees buzzing in the bushes, and it would be like a kryptonite for him.

Reply to Caldwell It's definitely unnecessary, no question. You say it gives you a different idea about the person: the act being a reaction to something more serious is possible, but what about just indulging one's self for its own sake?

Reply to IanBlain
But isn't indulging one's self by killing bugs something to think about? There are a million other ways to indulge one's self. Do you know that people use a nutcracker or some other object to crack a nut just to see how well they could crack it? No joke.

Reply to Caldwell True there are other ways. But toying with nuts and other inanimate objects is less interesting and interactive than toying with ants. All are "unnecessary" though: I don't think many would argue against that.

Reply to IanBlain Reply to IanBlain
Yes, to answer that, we need to answer the question, what is pain?
Pain is essentially a response your brain generates when the neurons in a particular region of your body get stimulated. Complex species belonging to the kingdom Animalia have neuronal connections throughout their body. Now, in slaughterhouses, pigs are abused,tortured with cattle prods, kicked to the curb, and are made to go through unbearable psychological trauma. As they lay in wait to be killed, they see their peers and children get shot in front of them and that is not only immense physiological trauma but also psychological.
How do we know these (apart from the scream and agony of the animals)? We can see it with fMRI and multiple studies show that cows, pigs, chickens, goats, and sheep are animals that are very intelligent and feel emotional and physical pain as much as we do.
And what do we do about these? We breed them featherless with 6 legs so that we can enjoy a meal from KFC.
Despite awareness of torture in slaughterhouses, no laws are passed to rectify it and everyone who claims to be compassionate still eats the meat with no second thought.
Now, to answer your second question, animals kill for survival and to assert dominance, yes. But they do not industrialize it and keep killing more than 200 Million animals every single day just to hone their cultural roulette. Human beings have alternate methods of survival and food sources, ones that do not require slaughter and still give as much or more nutrition than meat, and yet we continue obliterating the lives of millions of animals every day.

Reply to IanBlain
"Less interesting and interactive than toying with ants"
Adolf Hitler was better than this, @IanBlain. At least he truly believed that the Aryan race was the purest and that jews were a hindrance to human development. He did not kill them and torture them out of "interactive and interesting" pleasure.
Ants form complex social colonies and show spectacular signs of intelligence. They feel pain as well, physical irritation as they are being squished. But we won't consider that, would we? Because we believe we are "superior species" when in fact, from what I can infer, we are inferior toevery other species. We kill, torture,breed, poke and prod other species, all so we can do what? Derive pleasure and enhance our causes.
Is it justifiable to kill and cruelly torture other species to gain momentary pleasure and enhance our "educational standards"? Frankly speaking, I'd go as far as to conclude that Mussolini and Hitler's agendas were purer than yours.

Quoting TheSoundConspirator

Human beings have alternate methods of survival and food sources, ones that do not require slaughter and still give as much or more nutrition than meat, and yet we continue obliterating the lives of millions of animals every day.

While I certainly hate hijacking a thread with a topic all on its own -- this is squishing bugs thread, not eating meat (and why is Hitler being used here? -- bugs, Hitler, meat. What a combination) -- I just want to say there are now plant-based "meats" sold in supermarkets. There have always been vegan meat around. But now they are common in stores.

Quoting IanBlain

If there were giants aliens who discovered Earth and started stepping on us for no reason -- much the same way I do ants -- then I wouldn't be in much of a position to complain, given what I stated. I do see your point. :razz:

In that same vein though, If the positions were reversed, and I encountered a race of tiny, intelligent aliens, I have to admit that I would be very inclined to take advantage of the size difference just as they would. The idea of having entire race of intelligent beings to either toy with, reward, or terrorize as a focus for my frustrations or whims is pretty tantalizing. It would be like playing god, but almost for real. And despite its moral quandaries, I could very much see myself being an old testament God and enjoying every second of it. And be honest: what guy hasn't fantasized about being a god every now and then? That seems a normal expression of the male ego, possibly one element to the mindset of most successful conquerors throughout history. Being an absolute tyrant is rewarding

Exactly. I think the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you - or it's negative formulation - do not do unto others what you wouldn't want others to do unto you - is key/germane to the morality of bug squishing.

The reason why we don't apply the Golden rule to bug stomping is because they seem incapable of using the tit-for-tat strategy that has a major role vis-à-vis the golden rule but the winds of change do blow and with odd results :point: Agent Kay Squishing Bugs In MIB

Quoting Caldwell

why is Hitler being used here?

Hitler is the bogeyman. If anything about you is, in any way, Hitlerish, you're f**ked!

Quoting TheMadFool

you're f**ked!

:grin: Ouch!

Quoting Caldwell

Ouch!

Are you Hitlerish?

Reply to TheMadFool
No. Just the way you said it. Funny.

Quoting Caldwell

No. Just the way you said it. Funny.

Roos Tarpals: Ouch time!



:grin:

Reply to Caldwell
This thread encompasses a vast majority of topics. It should not only be about the literal action of killing bugs but also the implications of the action and my stance regarding the physical pain of those bugs encompassed a variety of points that were addressed.

Quoting TheSoundConspirator

This thread encompasses a vast majority of topics. It should not only be about the literal action of killing bugs but also the implications of the action and my stance regarding the physical pain of those bugs encompassed a variety of points that were addressed.

Zhuangzi:Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly (a bug) or whether I am now a butterfly (a bug), dreaming I am a man.

Gloucester:

As flies (bugs) to wanton boys are we to th' gods,

They kill us for their sport.

Agent Smith (The Matrix):I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus (a bug). Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

Bugs bugging bugs!

Quoting TheMadFool

Roos Tarpals: Ouch time!

:grin:

Quoting TheSoundConspirator

This thread encompasses a vast majority of topics. It should not only be about the literal action of killing bugs but also the implications of the action and my stance regarding the physical pain of those bugs encompassed a variety of points that were addressed.

Okay, got it.

Quoting TheSoundConspirator

Is it justifiable to kill and cruelly torture other species to gain momentary pleasure and enhance our "educational standards"? Frankly speaking, I'd go as far as to conclude that Mussolini and Hitler's agendas were purer than yours.

Hitler's agenda was cold, systematic murder on a mass scale though. My motivation for demolishing an anthill on my driveway isn't malicious. I don't hate the ants, nor do I wish for them to be completely gone.

Quoting TheSoundConspirator

Ants form complex social colonies and show spectacular signs of intelligence. They feel pain as well, physical irritation as they are being squished.

Why are such intelligent beings so oblivious to danger then? There have been occasions where I'll stand over an antmound and hover my foot a few inches above it threateningly, and they don't appear to react or evade it.

If memory serves, a mosquito hawk was the target in this case:

If I'd known it was harmless, I'd have killed it myself.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

If I'd known it was harmless, I'd have killed it myself.

:smile: Guys, was there a disclaimer in the OP that said only serious posts?

Reply to Caldwell

It is serious, but you have to know the context a little. It's an expression of PKD's disillusionment with square culture in the late sixties, his perception of its shallowness and hypocrisy. A bit like "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here --- this is the war room." In book after book, he asks the reader to question, what counts as a person? It's not a denunciation of pest control, no, but of a callous attitude toward life. The book it occurs in is his memorial to the friends he lost to drugs and craziness, people whose harmless lives mainstream society was prepared to write off. He includes himself in the list.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

what counts as a person?

Yeah, typical PKD.

I once called someone I know personally an android. He was puzzled. I didn't elaborate. But I said it cause during the pandemic, I didn't believe he could get the virus if he tried -- he didn't smell like human. He doesn't have a smell in him. Like he's fresh out of a box no matter what time of day. He doesn't get sick. He doesn't crack at all. So, I wasn't worried when I touched whatever he touched.

Quoting TheMadFool

Exactly. I think the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you - or it's negative formulation - do not do unto others what you wouldn't want others to do unto you - is key/germane to the morality of bug squishing.

The reason why we don't apply the Golden rule to bug stomping is because they seem incapable of using the tit-for-tat strategy that has a major role vis-à-vis the golden rule but the winds of change do blow and with odd results :point: Agent Kay Squishing Bugs In MIB

I'd venture to say they are incapable of using tit-for-tat strategy. My actions toward bugs I encounter probably won't ever come back to bite me, as I think you are saying.

However, that would also apply to the situation you describe in which giant lifeforms arrived on Earth. As I mentioned, if I were in a situation in which I encountered a civilization of intelligent, flea-sized people, I would want to be as cruel as possible and terrorize the hell out of them. I'd very much want to take advantage of the size difference and establish dominance. I think that's a pretty understandable and reasonable wish for any guy though. Plus, the opportunity to be worshipped as a god would be almost irresistible, and the possibilities would be endless. Why let them have self-determination, if through sheer force, I could force them to engineer their society in my own image? I'd flatten any structure that didn't at least in some small way idolize me.

Quoting IanBlain

I'd venture to say they are incapable of using tit-for-tat strategy. My actions toward bugs I encounter probably won't ever come back to bite me, as I think you are saying.

However, that would also apply to the situation you describe in which giant lifeforms arrived on Earth. As I mentioned, if I were in a situation in which I encountered a civilization of intelligent, flea-sized people, I'd very much want to take advantage of the size difference and establish dominance. I think that's a pretty understandable and reasonable wish for any guy though. The opportunity to be worshipped as a god would be almost irresistible, and the possibilities would be endless. Why let them have self-determination, if through sheer force, I could force them to engineer their society in my own image? I'd flatten any structure that didn't at least in some small way idolize me.

It looks like we don't have a choice - this is the elimination stage of the game of life (@schopenhauer1). Kill or be killed.

Quoting IanBlain

I'd venture to say they are incapable of using tit-for-tat strategy. My actions toward bugs I encounter probably won't ever come back to bite me, as I think you are saying.

It might, however, be a sign of something that will cause you problems. You may or may not notice those problems. Even if, let's assume for argument, empathy for insects is misplaced, you might have a more general empathy deficit which will after your other relationships.

And of course people disliking your stepping on bugs, probably will not get bitten either.

Reply to TheMadFool

However, in the hypothetical scenario mentioned I wouldn't see it in terms of killing or be killed... although I'm sure the tiny people would. Intelligent oppressed people look to find a way to defeat their oppressor, and that is a role I'd be very eager to fill. However, I wouldn't want to wipe them out. But I would certainly want to terrorize them much like a temperamental Greek deity. Even just from a curiosity-standpoint, it would be endlessly fascinating to watch them labor in multitudes and to test just how much oppression they will tolerate before they retaliate with force. I'm not sure that it's an empathy issue as opposed to other desires just superseding it, at least in certain situations where certain conditions are met.

I'm careful not to.

I don't want to hurt something or end something's life abrubtly.

I'll blow/shuffle a spider away, but also help one out the bath in finicky approach.

I made an ant farm once but they reproduce too quickly.

Insects are not the same as animals, they are a different type of beast. I think they don't experience sadness and instead have deeper sense of wrath; no adrenaline but a majestic chemical calm, instead.

You sometimes step on a snail or slug by accident. Ought you feel guilty? ;)

Quoting Bylaw

It might, however, be a sign of something that will cause you problems. You may or may not notice those problems. Even if, let's assume for argument, empathy for insects is misplaced, you might have a more general empathy deficit which will after your other relationships.

That theory has been put forth but I question whether one's treatment of bugs is indicative of an empathy deficit when it comes to relationships in everyday life, especially with peers; I make friends easily and can get in their heads and feelings about their problems. I don't know anyone who would not say I'm not a great guy. My appreciation of others just doesn't extend down to bugs and especially ants whose maximum entertainment value for me are as squish victims. I'm a sizeist, but not a sociopath.

A bug's eye view: Would I like to be stepped on with an adidas rip-off housing a malodorous foot?

Quoting TheMadFool

From a bug's eye view: Would I like to be stepped on with an adidas rip-off housing a malodorous foot?

When you use that specific imagery...no, I guess you wouldn't. Nor would I...

You're trying to see if I acknowledge that my treatment of ants may be cruel by applying how I treat bugs (stepping on them because I can) from a perspective where you are still intelligent but bug-sized, and you're using specific imagery to critique the unceremonious regard for how I kill them : being crushed under some dismissive asshole's foot vs .giving them the freedom to be left alone from my kind attention. There appears to be a subtle commentary on the evils of materialism too... the victim being indifferently squashed under a giant sneaker of all things. It's clever symbolism.

Also, my feet aren't that "malodorous".... except on days I play tennis or frisbee :grin:

Quoting IanBlain

When you use that specific imagery...no, I guess you wouldn't. Nor would I...

You're trying to see if I acknowledge that my treatment of ants may be cruel by applying how I treat bugs (stepping on them because I can) from a perspective where you are still intelligent but bug-sized, and you're using specific imagery to critique the unceremonious regard for how I kill them : being crushed under some dismissive asshole's foot vs .giving them the freedom to be left alone from my kind attention. There appears to be a subtle commentary on materialism too... Dying from a running shoe of all things. It's clever. Also, my feet aren't that "malodorous".... except on days I play tennis or frisbee :grin:

We too are slightly buggish in our own way. Aren't we the offspring of Adam and Eve who were banished from the garden of Eden because they did what they were not supposed to do - they were bugs (in the divine program). :smile:

Reply to IanBlain
Precisely, Hitler's agenda sprouted out of malice, whereas yours appears to sprout out of sadism. If I have to weigh them on the "evil" scale, sadism would far outweigh hatred.
Now, my point regarding ants was to suggest that they do in fact, feel irritation as you squish them for your entertainment.
I am not suggesting that they are as intelligent as to have reflexes that make them sense potential danger, but that certainly doesn't justify squishing them to your heart's desire.

Quoting TheSoundConspirator

Precisely, Hitler's agenda sprouted out of malice, whereas yours appears to sprout out of sadism. If I have to weigh them on the "evil" scale, sadism would far outweigh hatred.
Now, my point regarding ants was to suggest that they do in fact, feel irritation as you squish them for your entertainment.

I appreciate your interpretation, but what leads you to believe my agenda sprouts out of sadism?

Let's apply what you say: I know that you believe that ants feel physical irritation, but if I'm oblivious to that irritation when I go to step on them, can the motivation of sadism be accurately assigned to my purpose, regardless of whether or not they do suffer? Sadism refers to purposely inflicting suffering.

Quoting TheSoundConspirator

Is it justifiable to kill and cruelly torture other species to gain momentary pleasure and enhance our "educational standards"? Frankly speaking, I'd go as far as to conclude that Mussolini and Hitler's agendas were purer than yours.

When I'm messing with an anthill in my driveway, my sneaker covering their home is just a weird, giant white thing to them, some object for them to try and avoid. Their perception of why it is there and what exactly I'm doing to them doesn't extend farther, so what makes this cruel?

Reply to IanBlain
Two reasons to avoid squashing bugs on purpose, unless they're harming you:

1. The more research you do into bugs, the more complex you'll find they are. Spiders have self-awareness and the ability to plan into the future, for example. Also you'll learn that while this one single bug may not be important in the grand scheme of things, bugs as a whole are much more important than humans as a whole for life on the planet to continue.

2. As Aristotle and Kant already pointed out, you should do acts that overall strengthen your character and don't create bad moral habits. They said you shouldn't kick a dog, for example, not because they cared much about dogs, but because then you'll slowly, incrementally become more inclined to kick a human.

Reply to Artemis

[ Artemis ! Welcome back :sparkle: ]

Reply to Amity

[Thank you :blush: Not sure how long I'll stick around, but it's a rainy day and we're stuck inside :joke: ]

Think about this: To bugs, DDT was a WMD that was used to commit genocide on helpless insect-folk.

Quoting TheMadFool

Exactly. I think the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you - or it's negative formulation - do not do unto others what you wouldn't want others to do unto you - is key/germane to the morality of bug squishing.

I agree it seems relevant in the present context.

Quoting TheMadFool

The reason why we don't apply the Golden rule to bug stomping is because they seem incapable of using the tit-for-tat strategy that has a major role vis-à-vis the golden rule but the winds of change do blow and with odd results

I wouldn't say application of the golden rule requires the agent to believe that others are capable of reciprocating. It may be sufficient for the agent to be capable of imagining themself in the other's place, even if the other can't perform the same feat.

For instance, it may be enough for the agent to consider questions like, how would I want to be treated if I were a bug; or, what would it be like for me to be treated thus if I were a bug? To extend the reasoning I offered above: If you happen to suppose bugs aren't sentient, then you might conclude it wouldn't "be like" anything for you to be treated any way whatsoever if you were a bug; or if you suppose bugs are only "marginally sentient", there may be room for you to infer or expect that if you were a bug you wouldn't be capable of having a significant objection to having the life swiftly crushed out of you.

It seems to me this is only a special case of the way we must contextualize the golden rule each time we apply it, by imagining ourselves in another's circumstances. I suppose the claim that the golden rule might be applied in different ways to different sorts of animal amounts to a claim that our moral community might be structured along such lines, with different moral status corresponding to different sorts of organism. Of course one must be cautious in drawing out such lines. I take it this sort of view would be compatible with at least some forms of sentientism.

Quoting Cabbage Farmer

Exactly. I think the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you - or it's negative formulation - do not do unto others what you wouldn't want others to do unto you - is key/germane to the morality of bug squishing.
— TheMadFool
I agree it seems relevant in the present context.

:ok:

Quoting Cabbage Farmer

The reason why we don't apply the Golden rule to bug stomping is because they seem incapable of using the tit-for-tat strategy that has a major role vis-à-vis the golden rule but the winds of change do blow and with odd results
— TheMadFool
I wouldn't say application of the golden rule requires the agent to believe that others are capable of reciprocating. It may be sufficient for the agent to be capable of imagining themself in the other's place, even if the other can't perform the same feat.

For instance, it may be enough for the agent to consider questions like, how would I want to be treated if I were a bug; or, what would it be like for me to be treated thus if I were a bug? To extend the reasoning I offered above: If you happen to suppose bugs aren't sentient, then you might conclude it wouldn't "be like" anything for you to be treated any way whatsoever if you were a bug; or if you suppose bugs are only "marginally sentient", there may be room for you to infer or expect that if you were a bug you wouldn't be capable of having a significant objection to having the life swiftly crushed out of you.

You're referring to empathy aren't you? Notice however, that when you put yourself in the other person's shoes, you're simulating tit for tat? How would I feel if the other person treated me the same way I'm treating him (the golden rule) is just another way of saying what if the other person could pay me back in the same coin?

Reply to TheMadFool I'm not proud to admit it.. but if it were possible for bugs retaliate -- to take tit for tat, etc,... I'd be less inclined to step on them and more inclined to leave them alone. As it stands right now, I can do whatever I want to them and they can't do anything about it. That does influence how I treat them -- as sleazy as that probably makes me look. And on a grander scale, if there were some cosmic "payback" awaiting me for my actions (although I don't think there is) then my karma toward bugs is well beyond negative.

Quoting TheMadFool

You're referring to empathy aren't you?

Perhaps.

Empathy is still a relatively new word with a rather tortuous history. Apparently the word entered English around 1908 as a translation for a German term coined in 1858 to describe an alleged process by which a perceiver "projects" their personality into a work of art or other perceptual object. That's just about opposite to how the word's most commonly used today. Evidently the translation borrowed from Greek, but abused the original meaning of the Greek term.

I've begun to avoid the term in my own discourse in light of this confusion. In most contexts sympathy works as well or better. By and large, psychological studies that purport to be studies of empathy could be as fittingly or more fittingly described as studies of sympathy. Someone should notify the psychologists.

Ordinarily, when we "feel another's pain", aren't we just recognizing their pain while feeling something similar to their pain? I feel something while I wince at the blow landed in a boxing match I'm watching, but what I feel is not the same as what I feel when I actually get punched in the face. Even if the feelings were as similar as the taste of the same apple in two mouths, is there some reason to suppose that I'm feeling their pain, instead of just feeling a pain that is very much like theirs?

It seems to me that sympathy works just fine to describe such fellow feeling. I'm not sure what any neologism might add to our language in this regard, besides confusion.

Quoting TheMadFool

Notice however, that when you put yourself in the other person's shoes, you're simulating tit for tat? How would I feel if the other person treated me the same way I'm treating him (the golden rule) is just another way of saying what if the other person could pay me back in the same coin?

I don't notice that.

When I imagine myself in another person's context, I am not necessarily imagining them reciprocating. I will not steal from them, though they may steal from me. I will seek to apply the golden rule in my actions with them, though they may decline to apply the golden rule in their actions with me. Depends on the fellow and on the context.

When I imagine myself in another nonhuman animal's context in order to apply the golden rule, I do not imagine them reciprocating, because I presume they cannot reciprocate in the relevant way.

Of course some nonhuman animals have sympathetic feelings and perform actions motivated by sympathetic feelings. I'm strongly inclined to doubt that bugs have the relevant sort of sympathetic feelings for creepy things like us.

To be clear, when I say in this connection "I imagine myself in another's context" I mean to include both their "internal" and "external" context. I don't imagine myself as me in their outward circumstances. I imagine what it would be like to be them in their outward circumstances.

I think some such adjustment for context and interpersonal differences must attend application of the golden rule. Lest the applier become a self-absorbed and overbearing boor: Since I eat meat, everyone gets meat. Since I love rough play, everyone gets rough play. Since I love to have my beliefs and usages incessantly challenged at dinner parties, everyone gets their beliefs and usages challenged at dinner parties….

Surely that's not consistent with the original intention of the moral principle in question.

A great part of the utility of the golden rule is that it prompts us to engage in imaginative acts in which we exercise our powers of compassion, sympathy, and interpersonal understanding while considering a range of prospective actions. Even when we suppose the other is unwilling or unable to reciprocate.

Quoting Cabbage Farmer

Perhaps.

Empathy is still a relatively new word with a rather tortuous history. Apparently the word entered English around 1908 as a translation for a German term coined in 1858 to describe an alleged process by which a perceiver "projects" their personality into a work of art or other perceptual object. That's just about opposite to how the word's most commonly used today. Evidently the translation borrowed from Greek, but abused the original meaning of the Greek term.

I've begun to avoid the term in my own discourse in light of this confusion. In most contexts sympathy works as well or better. By and large, psychological studies that purport to be studies of empathy could be as fittingly or more fittingly described as studies of sympathy. Someone should notify the psychologists.

Let's not complicate matters by digging into the etymological roots of words but thanks anyway for the links. Now, kindly tell me the difference between empathy and sympathy in terms of their conventional meaning, as they appear in normal discourse.

Quoting Cabbage Farmer

Ordinarily, when we "feel another's pain", aren't we just recognizing their pain while feeling something similar to their pain? I feel something while I wince at the blow landed in a boxing match I'm watching, but what I feel is not the same as what I feel when I actually get punched in the face. Even if the feelings were as similar as the taste of the same apple in two mouths, is there some reason to suppose that I'm feeling their pain, instead of just feeling a pain that is very much like theirs?

As far as I know, there really is no way of actually experiencing another person's feelings. We can only imagine what someone must be going through but of course this is shaped by personal experience and other relevant data. Reason, it seems, plays a major role in empathy and sympathy.

Quoting Cabbage Farmer

I don't notice that.

Me too until I did that is.

Quoting Cabbage Farmer

For instance, it may be enough for the agent to consider questions like, how would I want to be treated if I were a bug; or, what would it be like for me to be treated thus if I were a bug? To extend the reasoning I offered above: If you happen to suppose bugs aren't sentient, then you might conclude it wouldn't "be like" anything for you to be treated any way whatsoever if you were a bug; or if you suppose bugs are only "marginally sentient", there may be room for you to infer or expect that if you were a bug you wouldn't be capable of having a significant objection to having the life swiftly crushed out of you.

That paragraph comes really close to describing how I've looked at it. If I were the size and form of an ant but retained all my current senses and intellect, then sure: I'd pray never to be discovered by someone like me, knowing what I'm inclined to do to anthills I encounter. But if I had the intellect and awareness of an ant, as well as their form... probably I wouldn't object to being swiftly crushed because I would have no concept of it.

As Reply to TheMadFool stated, however, the golden rule is much more relevant when there's a chance of payback.. but perhaps also if intelligence and perception remains to scale even if size doesn't. There was an old episode of the Twilight Zone I saw in which an astronaut discovered a planet populated by tiny people. To them, he was an absolute giant, and to motivate them to obey his commands, he would periodically step on their towns.


I have to admit that if I were certain no one would ever find out or punish me for it, I could easily see myself fulfilling the role of the dominant oppressor, if I were in that situation. Although I'd be nowhere near as psychotic as that character (who was truly a raving power-mad lunatic, if you've seen that TZ episode) I would still very much sink my teeth into the opportunity to play god. As a giant, I could think of all sorts of unpleasant tasks to make the tiny people carry out for no other reason than to menace and subjugate them. At the very least, I'd crush their military. I wonder: is this inclination "evil" or just personal fallibility?

Quoting IanBlain

I have to admit that if I were certain no one would ever find out or punish me for it, I could easily see myself fulfilling the role of the dominant oppressor, if I were in that situation. Although I'd be nowhere near as psychotic as that character (who was truly a raving power-mad lunatic, if you've seen that TZ episode) I would still very much sink my teeth into the opportunity to play god. As a giant, I could think of all sorts of unpleasant tasks to make the tiny people carry out for no other reason than to menace and subjugate them. At the very least, I'd crush their military. I wonder: is this inclination "evil" or just personal fallibility?

I suppose this is a special variation on the theme illustrated by discussion of the legend of the Ring of Gyges in Book Two of Plato's Republic.

Are you likewise disposed to commit all sorts of crimes in this world, to steal from other humans, to torture nonhuman animals, and so on -- whenever you believe you can escape detection and punishment?

Quoting IanBlain

As ?TheMadFool
stated, however, the golden rule is much more relevant when there's a chance of payback.. but perhaps also if intelligence and perception remains to scale even if size doesn't.

As I've indicated previously, I don't believe that reciprocity makes the golden rule more relevant as a moral principle in general. The golden rule doesn't require us to consider reciprocity as a condition of application. In at least some traditional contexts, agents are encouraged to apply it even when they believe reciprocity will not be forthcoming.

Morality aside, considerations of reciprocity do make the golden rule more relevant as a prudential principle. Even selfish monsters with no moral compass might realize they have some practical incentives to apply the golden rule in some circumstances -- but not in all circumstances, as you and Plato rightly note.

Quoting TheMadFool

Let's not complicate matters by digging into the etymological roots of words but thanks anyway for the links. Now, kindly tell me the difference between empathy and sympathy in terms of their conventional meaning, as they appear in normal discourse.

Etymology remains an instructive guide to good usage for good speakers. Clear thinking is promoted by clear speech. I'm aware that etymological considerations are unfashionable. So are clarity, good sense, and reasonable discourse.

Etymology aside, the difference between the two terms in their common use is suggested by the custom of reserving a special position in the language for "empathy" -- as if empathy were something other than sympathy, or perhaps a special sort of sympathy. Occasionally this custom is reinforced when people explicitly emphasize that they have empathy, not plain old sympathy, in mind. I'm not sure what their distinction is supposed to mean. Often it seems that people suppose or suggest there is some special power of "feeling another person's feeling". Many college freshman begin to use the word "empathy" as if they've learned about a new sort of experience or attitude, not merely acquired a synonym for "sympathy"; and in some cases the habit persists for the rest of their lives without a second thought.

As I've already noted, it seems to me that in most or all cases, "sympathy" does a fine job of referring to experiences in which a person recognizes another's feeling and feels a similar -- but not identical -- feeling in response to or as part of that recognition. Given the appropriateness of the term "sympathy" for such cases, and the confusions I detect in historical and current use of the term "empathy", I prefer to avoid the neologism in my own discourse, as both superfluous and misleading.

Quoting TheMadFool

As far as I know, there really is no way of actually experiencing another person's feelings. We can only imagine what someone must be going through but of course this is shaped by personal experience and other relevant data. Reason, it seems, plays a major role in empathy and sympathy.

In fact I believe there are "sympathetic feelings", as suggested by reports of "sympathy pains" and mirror neurons, for instance. Moreover, there is a trivial sense in which we do perceive other people's feelings -- in about the same ways we perceive the brightness of the sun or the backfiring of an engine.

Of course I agree that reason and imagination, including reflection on the history of our own personal experience, play a crucial role in our understanding of others.

But where does this lead our conversation about bug killing? Weren't we talking about the golden rule? Do you agree with what I've said so far about the irrelevance of expectations about reciprocity in applications of the golden rule, and specifically in deliberations about the treatment of nonhuman animals, including bugs?

Quoting TheMadFool

Me too until I did that is.

Would you care to account for this observation of yours, in light of what I've said so far about reciprocity and the golden rule?

I've yet to notice anything in what you've said that might support your claim.

Reply to Cabbage Farmer

I can appreciate a distinction between the two words, and I believe both are useful.

Someone crying during a film is a pretty raw and pure example of empathy and not sympathy. The person crying isn't feeling bad for the fictional character who experiences a tragedy. That would be sympathy. They aren't grieving for a fictional loss, which would also be closer to sympathy.

Rather, they are imagining what is going on in the fictional character's head at the time they see them expressing their distress on screen, almost as if it were going on in their own head. They are simulating the same feeling as the person crying and as a result, they also cry with the character on screen. That's empathy. Another example would be feeling distress over witnessing or even imagining a dog being abused in a very painful way.

In contrast, sympathy regards people's upset in a "sucks to be you" or "I get that" way. It's acknowledgement of other's distress, even understanding of it, but not necessarily getting into the head of the creature experiencing the distress.