you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 7 points 1 year ago (56 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    I have so many arguments against this I don’t even know were to start, so I’ll keep it simple: you need to abandon anthropocentrism.

    Humans are animals and not particularly special or even intelligent ones. (Intelligence being defined as the ability to solve problems and learn from them) Our “intelligence” is actually just cumulative generationally passed knowledge. It is not clear that humans are indeed more rational than a tiger or that tigers or non human animals in general lack rationality, except only in the way in which a human would define rationality which cannot be a universal claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

    I'm not op and I'm an omnivore and i have to tell you, your reply is ... not a good response to what op said. It's full of strawmen arguments and nonsense. You seem to be arguing that humans can't choose to be vegetarians? And you veer way off into nowhere arguing about what you think intelligence is? I dunno, for someone who said they have a ton of arguments, you sure picked a bunch of bad ones

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I believe they are saying you can't place a universal standard of behaviour or ethics onto the multitude of human animals that live on the earth

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Even if that's what they're saying, that isn't a meaningful argument against what op said.

    It is possible for a human to live a long and healthy life without eating meat.

    It is not possible for a tiger to live a long and healthy life without eating meat. (without human intervention)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Humans can choose to be vegetarians of course, that doesn’t mean that killing animals is immoral or wrong, necessarily. That notion can only exist if you think humans have a superior place in the world to that of animals. Anthropocentrism is central to this idea that humans are the only animals who cannot kill other animals to feed themselves without it being immoral.

    Ie a chimp could choose to eat fruits if he wanted but they also often eat monkeys even if fruit is available. How is that different, from a human choosing to eat a cow even if he could eat grain? The difference is only that you think the human “knows better” than the chimp.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    Your argument is: If animals do a thing then it can't be immoral for us to do it. I'm sure at this point in the discussion you realize that that's not a valid argument

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Would you consider bestiality immoral then? The animal equivalent of bestiality (interspecies sex) occurs regularly between different species after all.

    I am not able to provide an objective moral reason if other animals may be treated differently from humans. If consent cannot be taken into account, raping animals is not immoral.

    The sole argument could be that bestiality harms or at the very least exposes an animal to a significant risk of harm. But then again, killing an animal certainly harms it much worse but this would be morally acceptable in such a system, so the harm an animal faces isn't really part of the equation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    this doesn't refute what I said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    What I tried to say is:

    If treating other animals like they behave towards other animals is acceptable, the only reason beastiality would be illegal is because of "ew".

    I'd say that's one reason why our standards should be higher than the standards of animals. Suffering is bad even when non-humans are affected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    If treating other animals like they behave towards other animals is acceptable, the only reason beastiality would be illegal is because of "ew".

    laws are bad, and don't have anything to do with morality

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Substitute illegal with "prohibited according to the social contract of your anarchist commune" then. Or with whatever form of society and its rule system you would like to live in where the rules are a moral guide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    that's not how morality (or rules) works at all. morals are formed from an ethical system. deontologists have the categorical imperative, utilitarianism and hedonism have the maximization of pleasure, divine command theorists have the command of the deity, virtue ethicists have moderation between competing extremes. if any of them prohibit sex with animals, it's probably only divine command theory and maybe the categorical imperative. I guess the big "eww" factor could put off the virtue ethicists, too (bestiality isn't very aesthetic).

    rules and laws are meant to keep social order. where they prohibit thing like killing or some other ethically bad thing, it is only a coincidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • That is not my argument at all. I never made such a universal claim.

    My claim is that all animals have a right to feed themselves and as a part of that right there is a right to kill other animals. Therefore it is not more immoral for a human to kill an animal than it is for a tiger. I say that only in this context, because our biology evolved to also use meat. We can survive without it sure, but it is suboptimal. It is also true that we should be eating way less meat than we do. Therefore the immoral thing is not killing or eating animals but rather the industry around it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 17 points 1 year ago* (3 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago

    It doesn’t need to be invoked, the higher moral agency placed on humans hinges on the notion of superior human rationality. You could choose to be a vegetarian and choose not to kill animals, but that doesn’t mean that it is a more ethical or moral choice because human biology evolved to require meat other wise it requires planning and supplementation that is not necessarily possible outside of industrial societies. I do agree that choosing not to eat animals due to the industrial nature of meat production is a more ethical choice, but not that killing animals is necessarily wrong.

    I may not be explaining it well but basically: the idea that humans killing animals is wrong can only exist if you think humans are superior to animals. I reject that notion and that’s where my argument comes from.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    All life is supported by displacing or ending others. Even if you don't view plants as ethically problematic, the agricultural practices to feed civilisation, by definition, must upset the natural ecological balance and harm animals.

    The reason a vegan doesn't feel upset about eating produce is the degree of removal from the animal harm. They don't see the deforestation or destruction of wetlands or the damage done by pesticides or in fertilizer production. It's no different than an omnivore not feeling guilt when a butcher kills an animal (even if they wouldn't do it themselves).

    This harm has always happened since we developed coordinated agrarian societies. The most ethical stance is that humans should return to their natural ecological niche, hunter-gatherers with minimal reliance on agriculture.

    However, veganism isn't possible in such a society. The ability to supplement the human diet with plant based alternatives at scale requires disruptive agriculture. Thus strict veganism* in this lens is inherently self defeating.

    *The vegan concept of harm reduction isn't impacted here, there are still lots of reasons to go plant based

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I have a mostly vegan diet but can't updoot this enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    I think this is fundamentally true (although it has issues when it scales down to insects and below that requires an arbitrary line to be drawn) but I'm not convinced that being absolute about it is useful in harm reduction.

    It's objectively better that someone looks to buy meat from a farm that cares about the welfare of its animals than one that maximizes profit at the cost of the wellbeing and happiness of the animal.

    Naturally it's better still if they reduce or stop their meat consumption, but making it black-and-white can potentially result in a worse outcome by setting the bar higher than the consumer is willing to jump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It's a lot better than dying painfully and slow

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The one that has a life out in the field and then just dies one day without any stress. The one that is in a factory farm never sees the light is stressed their whole life. Guess what life is a bitch and unfair everything dies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I genuinely can't understand the disconnect you people have between a plot of ecologically diverse forest life and a sterile field of corn just for the indulgence of a bag of Doritos.

    See, it's not hard to make disingenuous leaps. If you're going to tell me about sustainable local farming don't bother, I'll dismiss it like local animal farming vs. factory slaughter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    So what is your solution for when a species is getting over populated and destroying an ecosystem? Is it not more ethical to kill some and preserve the ecosystem for the rest of the wildlife in that area?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Not enough or no natural predators usually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    How about a third option:

    Reintroduce predators that were native to that ecosystem.

    If the rampant species has flourished for some time without predators, then they might be less agile in avoiding them, leading to better outcomes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    run wild through the neighborhood

    Bears do this in many parts of North America and in general northern latitudes, and people live in harmony.

    You're appealing to fear, and the slippery slope here is eradication of all apex predators. That has done absolutely nothing for environmental conservation in the cases where it has happened.

    Apex predators can be reintroduced to habitats without direct impacts to humans. Of course there are indirect impacts, like livestock culling, but those pale in comparison to the moral ill of endangering entire species. Imagine if humans were hunted by a more sophisticated apex predators. We'd want to keep our place in the ecosystem.

    Typical anthropocentrism at work

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    slippery slope is literally fallacious reasoning

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    When does the reasoning stop?

    When does this notion that we must eradicate apex predators from environments to protect our welfare and wealth come to a close?

    While there is no limit to our empathy, there is also no limit to human ego and enslavement

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I feel like you are assuming I'm against you. We agree that this is the correct thing to do. I'm just trying to explain why it isn't going to happen. We didn't get here by accident. People are garbage. Why would we suddenly behave any differently? People only care about what affects them in the moment.

    Imagine telling a random person they have two choices.

    Choice number one is business as usual, people hunt down the overpopulated animals, they get food out of the deal and the ecosystem is preserved.

    Choice number two is bringing in some wolves who will achieve the same end goal, except now people don't get the food and you gotta be extra careful being outside at night if you live anywhere near the tree line (and potentially anywhere in town depending on the size).

    This is also assuming that it works out as we hope and the wolves don't become overpopulated themselves due to easy hunting and living conditions because of all the oblivious prey that don't realize they are even on the menu.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Could be any number of valid reasons that have nothing to do with eating meat. For example, human safety. Unless you're arguing for a dismantling of civilization due to its natural encroachment, I don't know where you're going with this.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)