6 ms·

I think your comment is mostly in jest (and it's funny), but... Most of nature doesn't have a "choice" in its cruelty - eat the thing or die. Humans have a cho

I think your comment is mostly in jest (and it's funny), but... Most of nature doesn't have a "choice" in its cruelty - eat the thing or die. Humans have a choice most of the time. You can say that you killing X isn't worse than its natural predator doing so, but the reality is that you could survive without killing it and yet you chose eating it over its living. Personally I'm not pro- or anti-killing of food animals, but reducing the argument to "I'm not worse than nature so I can painfully and slowly kill cows like lions do!" isn't being totally honest about the agency that you have. IMHO if you're going to decide that you'd like to kill something to eat it, do it in a "respectful" way that doesn't cause more suffering than necessary - doing any less is more or less reckless cruelty (to put it harshly)

Bromskloss 9y ago
I don't think I agree with either of you. :-) To your parent comment, I would say that, when deciding how I should act, it's irrelevant what previous suffering nature has brought upon people and lobsters. To you, I'd say that it's irrelevant whether nature had other options. Suppose nature did have other, more gentle, options, but chose to incur suffering nonetheless. Would that make it more legitimate for me to cause suffering too?
- rosser 9y ago
  It's not whether nature has other or better options. It's whether we do.
- ryanianian 9y ago
  Good points.
- Y_Y 9y ago
  I think all three of you raise good points and am delighted to see such a thoughtful and civil conversation on hn.