5 ms·

> Wild pigs, while omnivorous, eat mostly plants and extremely small animals That's almost certainly because they aren't very good predators (ie minimal opport

> 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)".
      - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
        You don't have to kill an animal to mount its head on a wall- you can wait for it to die. The reason people don't do that is because they want to display those heads as trophies. I think there is an ocean of difference between killing an animal to feed on its flesh, and killing an animal purely for enjoyment, or for bragging rights. Feeding is necessary. Bragging about what a big hunter one is, is not. Anyway I think there are many more people who think recreational hunting is crule than people who think meat is cruel.
- bambax 6y ago
  That is absolutely false. Yes you can eat the animal you kill, but this is not about hunting for survival. We don't need to eat animals to stay alive and healthy. The reason we eat animals isn't even because it's good for us; it's just that we like it. We could defend torturing them with the same argument: we like it, so why not? In any case, some (most) forms of animal food indeed require torturing the animals to produce it, and I don't just mean foie gras; you need to remove the calf from the cow to get milk (and the cow then cries for weeks); you need to kill male chicks to have an economically viable chicken farm, and fatten the remaining female ones so much they can't stand on their own legs; etc. It is a novel and interesting line of reasoning to pretend that the justification to kill animals is that we are "the same"; but if we extend that argument, we find that there is no reason to prefer your life over a pig's life.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    People eat meat because they like it, but the reason people like eating meat is because it's very nutritious. In pre-industrial societies, even in early industrial societies, there would be no substitute for meat (including fish flesh), other than eggs or dairy, and going without some animal protein for a long time would cause nutritional deficiencies. This is the reason we like to eat meat: because we are animals who need to eat meat to live, thrive and survive. And plants also. We also need to eat plants to survive. We need to eat more plants than meat to surive. But a balanced diet includes some meat or animal products, like eggs or dairy. >> It is a novel and interesting line of reasoning to pretend that the justification to kill animals is that we are "the same"; but if we extend that argument, we find that there is no reason to prefer your life over a pig's life. I'm sorry but I don't "pretend" anything. I claim something and you disagree with it- but please don't demean my contribution of my opinion to this thread by insinuating that I'm being dishonest. The idea that humans are different to animals has been used to defend both cruelty to animals, saying they don't have a soul and so do not feel pain and therefore we can abuse them freely; and the cessation of animal exploitation, saying that humans stand at a higher moral ground than other animals and "we should know better". Personally, I prefer my life over a pig's life. I don't know your life.

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)".
    - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
      You don't have to kill an animal to mount its head on a wall- you can wait for it to die. The reason people don't do that is because they want to display those heads as trophies. I think there is an ocean of difference between killing an animal to feed on its flesh, and killing an animal purely for enjoyment, or for bragging rights. Feeding is necessary. Bragging about what a big hunter one is, is not. Anyway I think there are many more people who think recreational hunting is crule than people who think meat is cruel.
bambax 6y ago
That is absolutely false. Yes you can eat the animal you kill, but this is not about hunting for survival. We don't need to eat animals to stay alive and healthy. The reason we eat animals isn't even because it's good for us; it's just that we like it. We could defend torturing them with the same argument: we like it, so why not? In any case, some (most) forms of animal food indeed require torturing the animals to produce it, and I don't just mean foie gras; you need to remove the calf from the cow to get milk (and the cow then cries for weeks); you need to kill male chicks to have an economically viable chicken farm, and fatten the remaining female ones so much they can't stand on their own legs; etc. It is a novel and interesting line of reasoning to pretend that the justification to kill animals is that we are "the same"; but if we extend that argument, we find that there is no reason to prefer your life over a pig's life.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  People eat meat because they like it, but the reason people like eating meat is because it's very nutritious. In pre-industrial societies, even in early industrial societies, there would be no substitute for meat (including fish flesh), other than eggs or dairy, and going without some animal protein for a long time would cause nutritional deficiencies. This is the reason we like to eat meat: because we are animals who need to eat meat to live, thrive and survive. And plants also. We also need to eat plants to survive. We need to eat more plants than meat to surive. But a balanced diet includes some meat or animal products, like eggs or dairy. >> It is a novel and interesting line of reasoning to pretend that the justification to kill animals is that we are "the same"; but if we extend that argument, we find that there is no reason to prefer your life over a pig's life. I'm sorry but I don't "pretend" anything. I claim something and you disagree with it- but please don't demean my contribution of my opinion to this thread by insinuating that I'm being dishonest. The idea that humans are different to animals has been used to defend both cruelty to animals, saying they don't have a soul and so do not feel pain and therefore we can abuse them freely; and the cessation of animal exploitation, saying that humans stand at a higher moral ground than other animals and "we should know better". Personally, I prefer my life over a pig's life. I don't know your life.