you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Look at human history we ate each other and other human species. We are not special we are not chosen by God. We are just animals that think we are special. Even being vegan has an effect on the earth destroying habitat ruining bio diversity chemicals getting into the environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 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
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    In relating to other animals, there is no reason our standard should be any different than animals to one another. In relating to other people, it is reasonable to have a different standard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 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
  • [+] 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
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago

    I'd like to see a single human alive today who because of their actions has not killed another animal? I guarantee every single human alive today has been responsible for killing an animal. Sure it might not have been for food but your actions have resulted in the death of an animal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -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