3 ms·
Maybe take it apart piece by piece. For example, the argument that killing animals for food is immoral. If that’s true then nature is immoral. Perhaps because
by prepend 5y ago
Maybe take it apart piece by piece.
For example, the argument that killing animals for food is immoral. If that’s true then nature is immoral. Perhaps because humans are uniquely sapient, we can avoid this. But that presumes that humans are uniquely superior to recognize this over all other carnivors.
- colordrops 5y agoThanks for helping break it down. I'll address it using your help. > But that presumes that humans are uniquely superior to recognize this over all other carnivors [sic]. It doesn't need to involve a value judgment that we are somehow "superior". It just requires recognizing the obvious, that we are indeed uniquely sapient. Furthermore the argument for killing animals is using the flawed appeal to nature, which doesn't work for rape or any other of the countless "natural" activities we overcame with our sapience.
- prepend 5y agoTo clarify, I wasn’t saying that because meateating occurs in nature, it is correct. I was pointing out that if meateating is wrong, then there’s lots of other things we have to deal with. That is just one of the simplest, pragmatic I think, reasons to dispute “all meateating is bad.” Note, I think we should eat meat in a humane way so actually think this california law is helpful. I just don’t think that all meat eating is bad.
- geofft 5y agoBirds poop on car windshields all the time, so how come when I do it, it's "public indecency"? If that's true then nature is immoral. Why is this cop presuming that humans are uniquely superior to recognize this over all other animals? And don't get me started on this law that I have to be clothed.... No other animal is clothed. Maybe humans are the ones who are wrong? Really makes you think.
- user-the-name 5y agoTrue, true, and true.