Amends (2018-05-23) (discuss.online)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/pbf@discuss.online
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 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
  • [โ€“] -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
  • [โ€“] -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
  • [โ€“] 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
  • [โ€“] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    this doesn't refute what I said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 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
  • [โ€“] 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
  • [โ€“] 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
  • [โ€“] 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