5 ms·
How does that argument extend to animals that eat other animals? And why is the default defined as not eating meat?
by maccio92 8y ago
How does that argument extend to animals that eat other animals? And why is the default defined as not eating meat?
- busterarm 8y agoThe common justification for this is the comparative anatomy argument that we're primates and primates don't eat meat. These same people have had their heads in the sand for the last 30 years, because it's been found that primates do quite commonly eat meat.
- elsyms 8y agoDefinitely not. The common justification for this is that we, as the most intelligent species on the planet, have developed a moral conscience. As such, it is unconscionable that we support the literal mass murder and ill-treatment of billions of animals each year when there are alternatives that require no suffering and no death.
- busterarm 8y agoParent Poster said: > the default You're talking about something else completely. There is no default morality. If morality is a choice to make then it is not a default behavior. I'm responding to the question asked while you're propping your moral choice above the observed natural behavior of other species. I didn't even begin to discuss the morality of eating meat.
- alanwatts 8y ago>it is unconscionable that we support the literal mass murder and ill-treatment of billions of animals each year when there are alternatives that require no suffering and no death. There are ways to put down animals which require no suffering. And no, there are no alternatives to death. Plants are living things too. Why is it okay to murder a plant but not an animal?
- teaneedz 8y agohttps://mercyforanimals.org/heres-why-youre-wrong-when-you-say-plants https://mercyforanimals.org/heres-why-youre-wrong-when-you-s...
- ahelwer 8y agoWe usually divide the world into moral agents (pretty much just humans) and non-moral-agents. The default is not eating meat because the default is not eating anything. Humans must take a positive action to eat something. Generally perfect duties in the Kantian sense take the form of "thou shalt-nots", so a positive action you shouldn't take, like killing a random stranger or some such. This is contrasted with imperfect duties, which are things that are merely virtuous to do - like using your time & resources to help the less-fortunate, for example.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago>The default is not eating meat because the default is not eating anything. That's default for rocks and such, but not living things, whose existence requires by default the death of other living things
- CodeTheInternet 8y agoI'm a solitarian. I use photosynthesis.
- christofosho 8y agoCouldn't this be extended to plant life as well?
- ahelwer 8y agoIt could, and indeed there are people who hold this belief. They are called "Fruititarians" and only eat things which can be taken from the plant without killing or harming it, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism I don't personally subscribe to this.
- busterarm 8y ago> Humans must take a positive action to eat something. If you're going to talk about morality and agency, it is not a positive choice to eat anything. It's acting out of necessity to survive. Choosing not to eat is self-destruction and there is absolutely nothing about that that's a moral choice. In fact, it's generally accepted to be immoral[1]. This is why we force feed people on hunger strikes and why suicide is illegal. Modern/western written law is based on natural law. "Breatharianism" is pure stupidity/insanity and anyone who undertakes such practice can (and will) literally go die. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI25easQs2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI25easQs2k
- bg4 8y agoApparently lions, tigers and bears aren't aware of the Kantian perfect/imperfect duty divide.
- floil 8y agoOh my.
- tombert 8y agoI don't know that I fully agree with the parent's logic (despite the fact that I actually am a vegetarian), but I think the rationale to his argument is that humans are able to survive without meat (unlike cats, lions, or tigers), and we also have the ability to realize that we are able to avoid meat. Cats, bears, and tigers really don't have the mental faculties to know good or bad, or right and wrong, but we do (at least to some extent). If that's the case, shouldn't we avoid killing wherever possible? Again, not sure I completely agree with the line of reasoning, but I at least see the point.
- perl4ever 8y agoNon vegetarians everywhere demonstrably don't have the ability or "mental faculties" to see that eating meat is wrong, any more than lions and tigers and bears do. It's like someone saying everyone has the ability to accept God or Jesus. No, we don't. And it's a touchy subject, because zealots tend to next infer that someone isn't fully human if they don't share fundamental beliefs or axioms.
- tombert 8y agoAgain, not saying that I fully agree, I'm just trying to explain the perspective.
- kpwagner 8y agoThe default really is not eating anything. Just fast, and fast, and fast, and die.
- prepend 8y agoObviously those animals are unethical. But once Orca evolve enough to really grok Kant they should come around and die off.
- maxbrunsfeld 8y agoAnimals don't raise other animals on cruel factory farms.
- Torgo 8y agoAnts farm aphids.
- curo 8y agoRe: why not "animals that eat other animals," the burden of proof here is with meat-eaters (those against killing people at least). There's a special status we afford to ourselves as humans, so why do we so easily accept the privileges of it, but raise objections when it comes with additional moral responsibilities? As for the default, I think a simple way to put it is, "you don't have to eat meat."
- donutte 8y agoShould it? If I argue that it’s immoral to not vaccinate your children, am I failing in not arguing that wild deer should vaccinate their children?