5 ms·

That's some flawed reasoning if there ever was any. If the justification for eating pigs is that you're no better than them, and they "would" eat "little girls

by bambax 6y ago

That's some flawed reasoning if there ever was any. If the justification for eating pigs is that you're no better than them, and they "would" eat "little girls", why not eat little girls yourself? They would be much tender than adult pigs, and presumably easier to find. Also, how do you know pigs would eat little girls? Pigs that we eat were created by us. They would not exist if not us. Wild pigs, while omnivorous, eat mostly plants and extremely small animals; when they eat bigger animals it's usually because they're already dead.

d110af5ccf 6y ago
> Wild pigs, while omnivorous, eat mostly plants and extremely small animals That's almost certainly because they aren't very good predators (ie minimal opportunity to hunt in an evolutionarily advantageous manner). > why not eat little girls yourself Because humans don't do that, so we're not interested in justifying that behavior. Also there's an obvious lack of symmetry there - it's no longer an inter-species interaction, so it no longer fits the template being applied here. Thus that question is more or less off topic in context. That said, from an evolutionary perspective cannibalism generally isn't an advantageous trait for the overall population (exceptions exist, of course). To the best of my knowledge pigs don't cannibalize one another (or perhaps they do, but again that really isn't relevant in context). The real issue with such reasoning is (IMO) that it would appear capable of justifying some apparently problematic actions. House cats seemingly enjoy torturing small prey, and would presumably be happy to do the same to us. Yet I would hardly accept that as justification for someone torturing their house cat.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  The difference is again in whether there is a good reason to do something, or not. There is no good reason to toture e.g. someone's house cat, so it would cause unnecessary suffering. There is a good reason to kill another animal to eat it: to eat it. But again that does not justify torturing the animal before eating it.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    I think that still leaves open the issue of humans hunting animals for sport. For example, if someone enjoys hunting lions, is that "a good reason", in the same way that someone enjoying torturing a house cat is "not a good reason"? Fortunately I think there is a simple resolution to this question, in that torturing animals is heavily associated with (if not predictive or causative of) a tendency to harm humans too, and so it should be forbidden for that reason alone. Similarly, it is justified to ban specifically hunting which leads to extinction of rare animals on the basis that the existence of these animals is part of the common cultural heritage of humanity and therefore no one has a right to prevent future generations from enjoying it.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
      >> I think that still leaves open the issue of humans hunting animals for sport. For example, if someone enjoys hunting lions, is that "a good reason", in the same way that someone enjoying torturing a house cat is "not a good reason"? I honestly don't think so. In the same way, I don't think it's a good reason to rape someone because it would give the rapist pleasure. There has to be a balance, right? Killing an animal to eat it makes sense, because you can't eat it without klling it. But causing pain and suffering beyond what's absolutely unavoidable (you're killing the animal so it is going to be in at least some distress for some time before it dies) is madness. Only maniacs enjoy watching another living being in suffering. And I do believe that people who enjoy killing animals, for any reason, are broken somewhere in their heads. Taking a life is not something to be enjoyed.
      - dane-pgp 6y ago
        > Killing an animal to eat it makes sense, because you can't eat it without klling it. Just to think through the logic of that statement, let me also point out that killing an animal to mount its head on your wall makes sense, because you can't mount its head on your wall without killing it. I think I agree with most of what you're saying, but we need to be careful not to hide implicit value judgements in our arguments like "Surely no reasonable person would want to hunt an animal for sport" or, conversely, "Surely no reasonable person would want to eat an animal for food (when there are so many delicious types of plant out there that provide nourishment just as well)".

by bambax 6y ago

d110af5ccf 6y ago

> Wild pigs, while omnivorous, eat mostly plants and extremely small animals That's almost certainly because they aren't very good predators (ie minimal opportunity to hunt in an evolutionarily advantageous manner). > why not eat little girls yourself Because humans don't do that, so we're not interested in justifying that behavior. Also there's an obvious lack of symmetry there - it's no longer an inter-species interaction, so it no longer fits the template being applied here. Thus that question is more or less off topic in context. That said, from an evolutionary perspective cannibalism generally isn't an advantageous trait for the overall population (exceptions exist, of course). To the best of my knowledge pigs don't cannibalize one another (or perhaps they do, but again that really isn't relevant in context). The real issue with such reasoning is (IMO) that it would appear capable of justifying some apparently problematic actions. House cats seemingly enjoy torturing small prey, and would presumably be happy to do the same to us. Yet I would hardly accept that as justification for someone torturing their house cat.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
The difference is again in whether there is a good reason to do something, or not. There is no good reason to toture e.g. someone's house cat, so it would cause unnecessary suffering. There is a good reason to kill another animal to eat it: to eat it. But again that does not justify torturing the animal before eating it.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  I think that still leaves open the issue of humans hunting animals for sport. For example, if someone enjoys hunting lions, is that "a good reason", in the same way that someone enjoying torturing a house cat is "not a good reason"? Fortunately I think there is a simple resolution to this question, in that torturing animals is heavily associated with (if not predictive or causative of) a tendency to harm humans too, and so it should be forbidden for that reason alone. Similarly, it is justified to ban specifically hunting which leads to extinction of rare animals on the basis that the existence of these animals is part of the common cultural heritage of humanity and therefore no one has a right to prevent future generations from enjoying it.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    >> I think that still leaves open the issue of humans hunting animals for sport. For example, if someone enjoys hunting lions, is that "a good reason", in the same way that someone enjoying torturing a house cat is "not a good reason"? I honestly don't think so. In the same way, I don't think it's a good reason to rape someone because it would give the rapist pleasure. There has to be a balance, right? Killing an animal to eat it makes sense, because you can't eat it without klling it. But causing pain and suffering beyond what's absolutely unavoidable (you're killing the animal so it is going to be in at least some distress for some time before it dies) is madness. Only maniacs enjoy watching another living being in suffering. And I do believe that people who enjoy killing animals, for any reason, are broken somewhere in their heads. Taking a life is not something to be enjoyed.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      > Killing an animal to eat it makes sense, because you can't eat it without klling it. Just to think through the logic of that statement, let me also point out that killing an animal to mount its head on your wall makes sense, because you can't mount its head on your wall without killing it. I think I agree with most of what you're saying, but we need to be careful not to hide implicit value judgements in our arguments like "Surely no reasonable person would want to hunt an animal for sport" or, conversely, "Surely no reasonable person would want to eat an animal for food (when there are so many delicious types of plant out there that provide nourishment just as well)".