> The list of atrocities of what's available in nature to me is never a good litmus test of what we as conscious humane beings should condone. We can do better

> The list of atrocities of what's available in nature to me is never a good litmus test of what we as conscious humane beings should condone. We can do better than exhibit the mindless behavior (as a result of our desires) that animals do. I don't think that it's a good litmus test, but I don't think that it's pointless to reflect on what ethical rules would have to say if we treated animals in the capacity of humans, similar to how philosophers discuss marginal cases. Animals aren't exactly mindless, but behave differently in great part because they evolved differently, and may cease to thrive if certain ethical rules applied to them. The environmental pressures that led to certain behaviors being optimal for animals can inform us on what's ethical and what's not for humans.