3 ms·

To me the main argument around the morality of killing animals for food has to do with the natural life cycle. You absolutely can have a self-consistent positio

To me the main argument around the morality of killing animals for food has to do with the natural life cycle. You absolutely can have a self-consistent position that killing animals for food is morally evil, but only if you also consider all carnivores as morally evil. I believe Hinduism for example holds this position. But I don't think you can consider a human killing a lamb morally evil while thinking that a tiger doing the same is morally neutral. I'd also note, as I have elsewhere, that the way we sacrifice animals is much, much nicer than how they usually die in nature. Unfortunately, the way we raise animals is often incredibly cruel, much worse than necessary and much worse than we generally used to do it historically. I feel this is mostly the same as other horrible practices that savage capitalism has brought and that will hopefully end one way or another because of global warming.

sweetheart 5y ago
Applying questions of the morality of eating meat to obligate carnivores makes no sense; there can be no moral question if there isn’t an option between two paths. Obligate carnivores MUST eat meat, so whether or not they “should” makes no sense to ask. Humans are not obligate carnivores, though, which is morally relevant. We can hold human beings to a standard (don’t eat animals if you can avoid it) but not carnivores to the same specifically because we have a choice and they do not.
- simiones 5y ago
  Usually, killing another being in order for you to survive (outside of self-defense) is not considered morally right. Either way, even by your logic, tigers may be morally neutral, but bears or wolves should still be considered evil.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    Well the first part of what you said seems just completely untrue. I don’t think if someone was starving and they needed to eat an animal to survive that anyone would say they acted immorally. As to your second point: no. Those animals lack the moral reasoning ability to make a choice between eating meat and not eating meat. We don’t, though. If I ever meat a bear who is able to make nuanced moral considerations like the ethics of eating meat, and who has access to a plant based diet on which they can survive, then sure I’ll hold them to the same standard as you and me. I don’t think Im ever going to meet a bear like that though.
    - jbotz 5y ago
      What about if someone were starving and they needed to eat a human to survive? (Because there wasn't anything else, shipwreck, etc) You're trying to apply the same standards to animals as to humans with respect to killing them being morally wrong, but then you make an exception that seems to place humans into a completely different category again. I don't like your exception because things are basically never that clear-cut... there's always another way. If you want to be so absolute about the morality of killing, then stick to it and don't make exceptions. If you don't want to consider animals as food, then don't consider them food, even if it means starving to death. Just as I don't think I would ever consider another human as food, even if I'm starving to death.
      - sweetheart 5y ago
        > What about if someone were starving and they needed to eat a human to survive? Yeah, what about it? I don't understand the relevance of the thought experiment. > If you don't want to consider animals as food, then don't consider them food, even if it means starving to death Why can't I consider them food when there is no other option? Why can't I try to preserve animal life as much as I can, unless my very own suffering and death are at stake? How is it so controversial to simply say that we should avoid suffering so long as we are not sacrificing our own life? If I'm well off and healthy and have everything I need to survive, then the suffering caused by my killing an animal seems super unnecessary and pointless, no? But that same act (killing and consuming the animal) when I need to do it to survive is _not_ unnecessary or pointless, thus rendering it not immoral. That's all.
    - cheese_goddess 5y ago
      > Those animals lack the moral reasoning ability to make a choice between eating meat and not eating meat. But how can you say that? You can't know what choices an animal makes or doesn't make. In fact, if you have pets or been around animals for some time, it would be blindingly obvious that animals absolutely make choices between whether to eat something or not, be it meat or anything else. For example, the cats in the farm where I live have no compunction about eating humans' food (for example, one of my cheeses that I foolishly left within their reach), but the dogs will never touch it. And make no mistake: those are absolutely moral choices. The dogs know it's wrong to eat food that is for humans and that there will be repercussions if they do so. The cats don't care and only mind when they're caught. Your caricature of animals as unthinking feeding machines is unrealistic and it is not based on any close contact or detailed knowledge of animals. Please re-examine your beliefs because they are unfounded and uninformed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

sweetheart 5y ago

Applying questions of the morality of eating meat to obligate carnivores makes no sense; there can be no moral question if there isn’t an option between two paths. Obligate carnivores MUST eat meat, so whether or not they “should” makes no sense to ask. Humans are not obligate carnivores, though, which is morally relevant. We can hold human beings to a standard (don’t eat animals if you can avoid it) but not carnivores to the same specifically because we have a choice and they do not.

simiones 5y ago
Usually, killing another being in order for you to survive (outside of self-defense) is not considered morally right. Either way, even by your logic, tigers may be morally neutral, but bears or wolves should still be considered evil.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Well the first part of what you said seems just completely untrue. I don’t think if someone was starving and they needed to eat an animal to survive that anyone would say they acted immorally. As to your second point: no. Those animals lack the moral reasoning ability to make a choice between eating meat and not eating meat. We don’t, though. If I ever meat a bear who is able to make nuanced moral considerations like the ethics of eating meat, and who has access to a plant based diet on which they can survive, then sure I’ll hold them to the same standard as you and me. I don’t think Im ever going to meet a bear like that though.
  - jbotz 5y ago
    What about if someone were starving and they needed to eat a human to survive? (Because there wasn't anything else, shipwreck, etc) You're trying to apply the same standards to animals as to humans with respect to killing them being morally wrong, but then you make an exception that seems to place humans into a completely different category again. I don't like your exception because things are basically never that clear-cut... there's always another way. If you want to be so absolute about the morality of killing, then stick to it and don't make exceptions. If you don't want to consider animals as food, then don't consider them food, even if it means starving to death. Just as I don't think I would ever consider another human as food, even if I'm starving to death.
    - sweetheart 5y ago
      > What about if someone were starving and they needed to eat a human to survive? Yeah, what about it? I don't understand the relevance of the thought experiment. > If you don't want to consider animals as food, then don't consider them food, even if it means starving to death Why can't I consider them food when there is no other option? Why can't I try to preserve animal life as much as I can, unless my very own suffering and death are at stake? How is it so controversial to simply say that we should avoid suffering so long as we are not sacrificing our own life? If I'm well off and healthy and have everything I need to survive, then the suffering caused by my killing an animal seems super unnecessary and pointless, no? But that same act (killing and consuming the animal) when I need to do it to survive is _not_ unnecessary or pointless, thus rendering it not immoral. That's all.
  - cheese_goddess 5y ago
    > Those animals lack the moral reasoning ability to make a choice between eating meat and not eating meat. But how can you say that? You can't know what choices an animal makes or doesn't make. In fact, if you have pets or been around animals for some time, it would be blindingly obvious that animals absolutely make choices between whether to eat something or not, be it meat or anything else. For example, the cats in the farm where I live have no compunction about eating humans' food (for example, one of my cheeses that I foolishly left within their reach), but the dogs will never touch it. And make no mistake: those are absolutely moral choices. The dogs know it's wrong to eat food that is for humans and that there will be repercussions if they do so. The cats don't care and only mind when they're caught. Your caricature of animals as unthinking feeding machines is unrealistic and it is not based on any close contact or detailed knowledge of animals. Please re-examine your beliefs because they are unfounded and uninformed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]