3 ms·
I'm not sure I understand the down votes. I posed the question in a flippant manner, but I ask the question in earnest. The grandparent pointed out that the c
by JackFr 7y ago
I'm not sure I understand the down votes. I posed the question in a flippant manner, but I ask the question in earnest.
The grandparent pointed out that the concept of 'being mean' can't easily be applied to animals. The parent asserted without argument (or even definition) that it comes down to 'harm reduction', and went on to pontificate about humans overestimating their exceptionalism. So are the humpback whales harming the orcas by depriving them of a food source? Are the orcas harming the seal by eating him? Are the humpback whales harming the smaller fish who the seal will eat?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gerbilly 7y ago> The grandparent pointed out that the concept of 'being mean' can't easily be applied to animals. The complex cognition of 'being mean' might apply to an animal, or it might not. I'm not arguing that. What I was trying to argue, was that complex cognitions aren't required for complex looking behaviour. In this case a maternal behaviour that already exists in the whale, to protect it's offspring, seems to have been transferred to a seal. I see no need for complex concepts or moral calculi to explain the whale's behaviour. You are of course correct that it fails at reducing harm down the line, but that's what makes it tragic, and interesting.