4 ms·

“Animals eating other animals is natural evolutionary behavior.” Whether something is “natural” has no bearing on its goodness. And certainly plenty of the beh

“Animals eating other animals is natural evolutionary behavior.” Whether something is “natural” has no bearing on its goodness. And certainly plenty of the behaviors that cause human suffering are 100% natural. “If carnivore animals has the same concerns and turned to tofu, they’d be dead.” We’re not obligate carnivores so this is a non-sequitor. “Let’s concentrate on the suffering of our fellow human beings...” This is a fine conclusion that just doesn’t happen to follow from anything else you said.

coldtea 7y ago
>Whether something is “natural” has no bearing on its goodness. Well, goodness also is not a logical argument. Good according to what, some arbitrary morals? Other people find it perfectly good to eat burgers. >And certainly plenty of the behaviors that cause human suffering are 100% natural. Only in the contrived sense, that we are part of nature as a species. But we have long made the distinction that our more advanced developments concerning invention, historical developments, innovation, etc, are part of "civilization", and it's the behaviors that we already had before we developed those that are our "natural" part. And we did ate meat before we had writing, and mobile phones. >This is a fine conclusion that just doesn’t happen to follow from anything else you said. Isn't not meant to be a logical deduction from something said earlier, it's meant to be about prioritization.
- dabbledash 7y ago
  “We have long made the distinction.....” Rape, murder, and infanticide are all natural human behaviors by this definition, and they’ve become less common as we’ve become more divorced from nature. Also natural: having about half of your children die what are now preventable deaths. Life in nature is complete shit. And I was assuming here a basically utilitarian definition of the good, because of your concern with suffering. Of course it’s debatable.

coldtea 7y ago

>Whether something is “natural” has no bearing on its goodness. Well, goodness also is not a logical argument. Good according to what, some arbitrary morals? Other people find it perfectly good to eat burgers. >And certainly plenty of the behaviors that cause human suffering are 100% natural. Only in the contrived sense, that we are part of nature as a species. But we have long made the distinction that our more advanced developments concerning invention, historical developments, innovation, etc, are part of "civilization", and it's the behaviors that we already had before we developed those that are our "natural" part. And we did ate meat before we had writing, and mobile phones. >This is a fine conclusion that just doesn’t happen to follow from anything else you said. Isn't not meant to be a logical deduction from something said earlier, it's meant to be about prioritization.

dabbledash 7y ago
“We have long made the distinction.....” Rape, murder, and infanticide are all natural human behaviors by this definition, and they’ve become less common as we’ve become more divorced from nature. Also natural: having about half of your children die what are now preventable deaths. Life in nature is complete shit. And I was assuming here a basically utilitarian definition of the good, because of your concern with suffering. Of course it’s debatable.