3 ms·

I don't hold it against tigers and lions I additionally wouldn't hold it against a tiger or lion for eating me. I'd certainly attempt to avoid it, but I won't

I don't hold it against tigers and lions I additionally wouldn't hold it against a tiger or lion for eating me. I'd certainly attempt to avoid it, but I won't blame the animal. Animals eat other animals. We're animals. While not eating other animals seems morally virtuous, I don't necessarily see it as a moral imperative simply because we can think about it in a more abstract way than other animals likely can.

Falling3 7y ago
That's a Naturalistic Fallacy. You can justify just about any behavior (theft, murder, rape) by the same reasoning that other animals do it.
- technothrasher 7y ago
  It's only the naturalistic fallacy if I was claiming it is good. I wasn't, I was simply claiming it is what we are, so to claim it is wierd or inherently strange is not valid. The claim that it is "bad" may be correct, but it needs to be supported before there is any reason to change our nature.
- antisthenes 7y ago
  First of all, it's called Appeal to Nature fallacy, not Naturalistic fallacy. Second, theft, murder and rape aren't necessary for immediate survival. Also, animals don't commit murder in nature, because the target of the murder has to be a human, and it has to be within the context of human law. Same with rape and theft. In the context of nature those actions are just competition for resources. I'm actually not entirely sure what your point was.
  - Falling3 7y ago
    First, the Naturalistic Fallacy is a more specific version of Appeal to Nature focused specifically of moral claims rather than just "goodness". But you knew the point, so I'm sure why you felt the need to attempt a correction. Second, I'll amend my statement to be "theft, rape, and the killing of members of your own species". Murder is a word with many uses, legal and otherwise. But again, my word choice had nothing to do with my point, but you seem intent on getting hung up on pedantry. As for your immediate survival comment, I've never been presented with a situation where my survival depending on eating an animal. Remember - what we're discussing is eating animals, not eating in general. I think you know exactly what my point what but seem quite intent on purposefully missing it.

Falling3 7y ago

That's a Naturalistic Fallacy. You can justify just about any behavior (theft, murder, rape) by the same reasoning that other animals do it.

technothrasher 7y ago
It's only the naturalistic fallacy if I was claiming it is good. I wasn't, I was simply claiming it is what we are, so to claim it is wierd or inherently strange is not valid. The claim that it is "bad" may be correct, but it needs to be supported before there is any reason to change our nature.
antisthenes 7y ago
First of all, it's called Appeal to Nature fallacy, not Naturalistic fallacy. Second, theft, murder and rape aren't necessary for immediate survival. Also, animals don't commit murder in nature, because the target of the murder has to be a human, and it has to be within the context of human law. Same with rape and theft. In the context of nature those actions are just competition for resources. I'm actually not entirely sure what your point was.
- Falling3 7y ago
  First, the Naturalistic Fallacy is a more specific version of Appeal to Nature focused specifically of moral claims rather than just "goodness". But you knew the point, so I'm sure why you felt the need to attempt a correction. Second, I'll amend my statement to be "theft, rape, and the killing of members of your own species". Murder is a word with many uses, legal and otherwise. But again, my word choice had nothing to do with my point, but you seem intent on getting hung up on pedantry. As for your immediate survival comment, I've never been presented with a situation where my survival depending on eating an animal. Remember - what we're discussing is eating animals, not eating in general. I think you know exactly what my point what but seem quite intent on purposefully missing it.