Vets castrating an animal under anesthesia pales in comparison to male calves castration by using tight rubber band (AMZN sells them too) to cut the blood supply to scrotum and thus causing necrosis and ultimately scrotum and testicles falling off. Without any anesthesia. A widespread, most popular, practice in US. The animal suffers tremendous pain for several weeks. The true cost of beef.
> Does suffering matter if death follows eventually? The dead cares about nothing, because it remembers nothing
Yes it matters. Causing suffering to a consciousness that can experience pain is inhumane.
Now, reasonable people can disagree how far to extend our circle of empathy. Some would exclude animals or even other humans (eg criminals or someone of a different ethnicity), while other people would go so far as to include ants, plants, or rocks. I think both extremes are wrong.
Perhaps more poignantly to you question, what if you ask yourself:
- does your answer change considering humans are also animals?
- regardless of target, what does it say to the character of a person who chooses to be cruel when they don’t have to
Reasonable people can also disagree as to the amount of pain and reasons for it.
If you have surgery that involves painful recovery, should the surgeon refuse to perform it? Only if it's elective? Or it's ok because you elect it? What about required surgery on a non-human animal? Is the painful recovery justified by the surgery's necessity [to achieve a human-desired goal]? What if it's necessary to extend the animal's life, or ameliorate other pain?
In the case of TFA the intervention is part of habitat management -- preserving the species in the face of human encroachment, or even just in the face of encroachment that occurred even if no further encroachment is allowed. That seems to me like a reasonable justification for the pain caused in that case, and this is also the case for cats and dogs even though the justification is slightly different there.
> In the case of TFA the intervention is part of habitat management -- preserving the species in the face of human encroachment, or even just in the face of encroachment that occurred even if no further encroachment is allowed. That seems to me like a reasonable justification for the pain caused in that case,
Agree. Similar story about elephants, who can wreck havoc on an ecosystem. Culling them is a good practice.
So it's not at all about the target of the suffering. It's all about the one(s) causing it. Which suggests to me that the suffering really doesn't matter, objectively speaking. And as such it also doesn't matter how far/near the circle is extended. It ultimately boils down to the others considering and judging any given situation, not the one(s) caused to suffer (to which applicability of definition is highly questionable in the first place if it includes plants and rocks).
Of course this changes greatly if the sufferer(s) survive the ordeal for a significant amount of time beyond, as there may be repercussions, depending on the degree of the effects caused and the capacity (physical, psychological, social, etc) of the sufferer(s).
