Expert: Stephen Vantassel - 11/29/2007

Question
QUESTION: My friend - carnivore asked me a tricky question which i couldn't answer:
Why shouldn't we capture wild carnivores and isolate them  and feed with non-meat food to save lives of many other animals? Is it connected with the social contract in which wild animals aren't participating, so they are not responsible for their behavior in front of anything?

ANSWER: Your friend has a very important point, one that animal rights activists neglect to consider, namely the fact that to live is to kill.
But I think that AR tries to skirt the topic by arguing that because animals can't make moral choices, they do not have moral obligations. Whereas humans have the ability to choose therefore we are supposed to not eat animals even though a vegetarian diet involves the killing of animals. (A fact AR try desperately to ignore).
The reason why AR doesn't believe we should stop carnivorous activity in nature is because doing so would cause more harm than good. (not to mention that it would be impossible).


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: What do you mean by saying that "vegetarian diet involves the killing of animals"? And "to live is to kill"?


Answer
When people eat plants they don't realize that the processes to grow those plants involve harm to wildlife. Farmers have to blast birds, combines shred rodents and of course the loss of habitat that occurs with growing crops. Just consider the buffalo. Hunting wasn't the only cause for their decline. Sod busting also had an impact as it continues to.

So my point is whether one eats meat and plants or just plants, the fact remains neither one is free of having to kill animals. Just one is more cognizant of the reality than the other.