No since they aren't dying for no reason. They're dying to be used as food.Would it be cruel if she had fed the fish to a predator instead of poisoning them?
No since they aren't dying for no reason. They're dying to be used as food.Would it be cruel if she had fed the fish to a predator instead of poisoning them?
No since they aren't dying for no reason. They're dying to be used as food.
The thing is, the fish usually fits in the bigger fish's mouth as in, one gulp and it's gone. 0 to minimal suffering. The human would get mauled and attacked by the tiger, making their last moments pure suffering.Would you rather be poisoned or fed to a tiger? The fish experience the same end either way. It can't be cruel one way and not cruel another. Isn't the basis of the anger here that what she did was cruel?
Yes it can be cruel.
A person is killed so a scientist can find a cure for cancer.
A person is killed by a murderer.
They both die but one is obviously for the greater good.