4 ms·

It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. The way humans live in the wild is pretty differe

It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. As an aside: I personally don’t think it actually matters whether captivity is better than nature, but I’m pointing out arguendo that it probably isn’t. I think it is fine, short of wanton cruelty, for us humans to use animals for our own ends.

coldtea 8y ago
>It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. Of course it does. >The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. The civilisation is human's wild. We built this, it was not imposed upon us.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. It's a sad day when you need to give a reason why captivity is worst than letting lions live free. In the end, even genocide is not good or bad objectively. It depends on a value judgement, which from a rational perspective it's still a leap of faith or "fallacy". Either you acknowledge the value of freedom for animals or you don't. But to avoid the "naturalistic fallacy" let's perform an empirical, scientific experiment: let's keep you captive in a cage for several years, and see how you fare, and whether you find it alright afterwards. We'll also have a control group and everything of course, lest we mess up the experiment. >Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too. In the lion's case, it's a nature imposed on them, so there's a difference. Just because we're all parts of nature doesn't mean we enjoy or thrive under everything that happens in nature: we wouldn't enjoy being eaten by lions or being kept captive in cages by higher sentient animals (e.g. aliens).
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      I am a person, not a lion. Pretty different. A lion doesn’t even understand what freedom is. Freedom as we understand it is a very high level abstraction of a messy world that involves all sorts of limits on what we can do.
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      Also, now you’re saying some aspects of nature are good but some are bad. So you agree that nature isn’t good in itself. It sounds like nature is besides the point really. Whatever sets apart the aspects of nature that are good from those that are bad, that is what actually matters.

coldtea 8y ago

>It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. Of course it does. >The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. The civilisation is human's wild. We built this, it was not imposed upon us.

marcoperaza 8y ago
That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. It's a sad day when you need to give a reason why captivity is worst than letting lions live free. In the end, even genocide is not good or bad objectively. It depends on a value judgement, which from a rational perspective it's still a leap of faith or "fallacy". Either you acknowledge the value of freedom for animals or you don't. But to avoid the "naturalistic fallacy" let's perform an empirical, scientific experiment: let's keep you captive in a cage for several years, and see how you fare, and whether you find it alright afterwards. We'll also have a control group and everything of course, lest we mess up the experiment. >Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too. In the lion's case, it's a nature imposed on them, so there's a difference. Just because we're all parts of nature doesn't mean we enjoy or thrive under everything that happens in nature: we wouldn't enjoy being eaten by lions or being kept captive in cages by higher sentient animals (e.g. aliens).
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    I am a person, not a lion. Pretty different. A lion doesn’t even understand what freedom is. Freedom as we understand it is a very high level abstraction of a messy world that involves all sorts of limits on what we can do.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    Also, now you’re saying some aspects of nature are good but some are bad. So you agree that nature isn’t good in itself. It sounds like nature is besides the point really. Whatever sets apart the aspects of nature that are good from those that are bad, that is what actually matters.