3 ms·
That’s completely different, if humans all started eating each other then your own existence is at risk, so a moral imperative arises. This doesn’t apply to ot
by onethought 3y ago
That’s completely different, if humans all started eating each other then your own existence is at risk, so a moral imperative arises.
This doesn’t apply to other animals.
- chimprich 3y agoYour only argument against eating humans is pragmatism? So you'd be fine with it if you were guaranteed no repercussions?
- onethought 3y agoNo my argument is the definition of a moral imperative… Kant sort to solve moral questions using pure reason. Culminating in his famous categorical imperative, also known as the universality principle: “It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people” You have some how confused this with pragmatism, and while Kant could be viewed as quite pragmatic, taken to its extreme, a pragmatic position would be: if you are hungry and human meat is available, then eat it.
- shepherdjerred 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- psd1 3y agoCould we eat apes? Other hominids? Neanderthals? Funny where empathy ends, isn't it. It seems to be subject to individual variation.
- ace_of_spades 3y agoBut that’s a rather simplistic perspective because a moral imperative in the Kantian sense can already apply much earlier. For instance, don‘t inflict unnecessary harm on living animals if it can be reasonably avoided. At least to me this sounds like a pretty reasonable rule that I would be willing to follow and could prevent a lot of suffering in the world.