7 ms·

I don’t really follow. There are billions/trillions of these creatures who are eaten alive every year in the wild. Why is it so significant that humans also do

• endtime 3y ago
  Animals do lots of things we consider unethical and unacceptable for humans to do.
  • permalac 3y ago
    We may need to try and be better than them. I think that is the point, at least for me. I'm no vegetarian, and I like to indulge myself with some 'pulpo a la gallega', But one thing is killing an animal because we are at the top of the food chain, and another thing is killing in the name of sport or culture.
  • zabzonk 3y ago
    such as what?
  • TecoAndJix 3y ago
    Great point. Do you think it is immoral for the animals to do these acts? Should we as bystanders have any obligation to prevent this from occurring?
  • jabl 3y ago
    Animals don't have the mental capacity reason about moral philosophy, so we can't really judge them for not behaving in another way. But we humans have, and yes, we can judge other humans for causing unnecessary suffering towards others.
• lisasays 3y ago
  Because in this case - they're not being devoured so someone can survive. But for the sheer gall and thrill of it. Meanwhile, humans have a huge empathy problem in regard to animals (and other types of species) - perhaps its most categorical failing, and the driver for the most pressing crises of our time, in fact.
• virgildotcodes 3y ago
  This is an appeal to nature fallacy. Rape, homicide, and infanticide happen in nature, is that a justification for us to do it?
  • zabzonk 3y ago
    > Rape, homicide, and infanticide happen in nature those can only happen within the same species
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • Ekaros 3y ago
      Cuckoos? Don't they infanticide other birds?
    • rascul 3y ago
      There are videos on YouTube of monkeys forcefully doing things to other animals and people which might be considered rape.
  • johnnyanmac 3y ago
    People do it regardless. It's not a justification, but it's also not a preventative measure to say "this is bad". But in the grand scheme of things, I don't think honoring prey is even in the top 100 issues in terms of impacts humans have on marine ecosystems. Sorry if I sound belittling, but it does sound like this whole thing is more of a symbolic gesure than a means to really resolve the issues we have caused. That's why I don't take it quite as seriously.
• srameshc 3y ago
  Because there is a difference between being eaten in the wild by other animals who survive on those and humans expoliting the wild life or marine life.
  • dsego 3y ago
    What's the difference honestly?
    • LinXitoW 3y ago
      Necessity, which is also the important difference between murder and self defense. I so wish people would think of dog or cat meat in these supposedly difficult questions. What's the difference between killing and eating a dog for survival and doing it for fun, or because it tastes good?
• mvdtnz 3y ago
  Because we can do better. I don't know about you but I hold myself to a higher moral standard than a shark.
  • xdennis 3y ago
    "Better" is your personal morality. Whenever people are doing too well they invent hardships for themselves. No one who is struggled find food will come up with random rules about should and shouldn't be eaten.
    • netrus 3y ago
      Another way of saying "inventing hardships" is "raising the bar". People who struggle to find food might do all kinds of horrible things in order to survive - for example at the expense of other humans competing for the same food. When it becomes easier to source food, they can raise their moral standards. Do you think that's some kind of fallacy? That the standard should be the same, no matter how hard it is to source food (or, in the context of this discussion, alternative foods)?
• zvmaz 3y ago
  > I don’t really follow. There are billions/trillions of these creatures who are eaten alive every year in the wild. Why is it so significant that humans also do this? That tells us little on our moral obligations towards them and, for that matter, towards our fellow humans. Animals also murder other members of their own species, is murder hence ok?
  • nvahalik 3y ago
    > Animals also murder I think you mean kill. Murder involves intent. Animals do not have intent. Usually murder involves malice. Animals don't have malice. Killing can be in self-defense or self-preservation. Most animals don't simply kill other animals unless provoked or they are hungry. Animals kill. Humans are the only beings capable of murder.
    • jackmott42 3y ago
      Are you sure no animals have intent?
    • Jtsummers 3y ago
      > Animals do not have intent. Only if you believe they're automata. Which raises the question, are humans not automata as well? If we are, then we also don't murder as we also don't have intent. But if we have intent, what's the line that separates us (other than the obvious "not the same species") from other animals that renders them mere unintentional automata and us intentional non-automata? Also, spend a few days with any animal, you'll see they have intentions. They're just harder to discern. > Animals don't have malice. Likewise some do have malice. It's just harder to discern as we lack the ability to communicate with them and they lack the ability to articulate to us what their feelings are.
      • TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
        I agree with your analysis, but while I can’t speak for the original commenter, I think their point was probably closer to: “If we can all have this conversation together, it’s clearly a choice for us.” I (am not being cute when I say I) truly wish I could talk _with_ my cat. I would ask if she murdered that bug or was operating on instinct. Did she kill for sport, defense, or hunger? Was she just pissed off? I don’t know and she can’t tell me, so I can only assume she’s just doing what cats do. Among our own species I don’t think that “benefit of the doubt” (?) is defacto transferable. I hope this makes sense. I am enjoying this conversation in an odd kind of way. I’ve been waiting for news like this for a long time. Though the article and UKGOV articles are from 2021? Edit: today my main job was typos
• wizofaus 3y ago
  Do non-humans also create YouTube videos showing off their bravado (or whatever it is) where they knowingly inflict pain and misery on other species?
  • zabzonk 3y ago
    do non-humans have access to YouTube? if they did, there is no telling what they might post there.
    • johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Dolphin Youtube would make even Liveleaks blush. also, RIP Liveleaks
      • evandale 3y ago
        Orca TikTok would be a hell of a ride. I'd love to doom scroll the the kid orcas wearing their salmon hats and the adults making reactions videos to their grandkids reviving a dead trend. Or an orca declaring "I'm Donny Rocksville and this is rock the boat!!" before him and all his friends capsize a ship off of Spain.
        • wizofaus 3y ago
          Orca behaviour does seem to indicate they inflict pain/misery on other creatures largely for the "fun" of it. But we don't really know, and certainly don't know whether they're capable of properly understanding that their victims are suffering.
          • evandale 3y ago
            I know we don't know for sure but it there is evidence to suggest orcas may have equal or better emotional processing than humans. In Blackfish one of the most interesting attacks was against a trainer, Ken Peters, who was also a trained diver. The orca seemed to know the limits of the trainer and how long she could keep him underwater. When she brought him up she gave him time to breathe and compose himself before dunking him under again. She could have easily killed him if that was her intent but it didn't seem to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv2_OX4Soeg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv2_OX4Soeg
• Lorkki 3y ago
  Morally, it's pretty significant that we make conscious decisions (as a process that we often see as distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom) to kill and eat thousands of other animals mostly for the sake of taste, rather than for the sake of necessity, which is why most other animals hunt.
• autoexec 3y ago
  > There are billions/trillions of these creatures who are eaten alive every year in the wild. Why is it so significant that humans also do this? Most animals eat other animals in such cruel ways because they don't have better means available to them and because if they didn't use the teeth and claws they have to catch prey they'd starve. Humans don't have to be needlessly cruel in order to eat an animal. For us, it's a choice. I'd prefer that every hamburger I eat comes from a cow who lived a long happy cow life then died suddenly and without pain. There's no section in the meat department at my grocery store for "happy cows that died painlessly" though, so I'm left with what's available. I can accept that, but there's zero reason for me to torture a live cow and excuses like "well, a lion would have ripped it apart while it was alive" wouldn't justify my actions if I did. By all means, eat animals! They're delicious! At a minimum though, we shouldn't go out of our way to make a living thing suffer.
  • xdennis 3y ago
    > For us, it's a choice. Yes, it's your choice, and your choice to consider it "cruel". Don't force your choices onto others.
    • burnished 3y ago
      Its a little hypocritical of you to try and force this perspective on others - if this is how you feel shouldnt you simply keep quiet and make your own decisions, to avoid forcing your choices onto others?
    • autoexec 3y ago
      I think that, apart from psychopaths, very few people wouldn't consider torturing an animal to be "cruel". There are extreme circumstances which may justify being cruel in that way, but making a youtube video isn't one of them.
    • agalunar 3y ago
      This doesn't make sense to me; it sounds like you're suggesting I can't make my own moral judgment regarding your actions – that if you think what you're doing is okay, I have to think it's okay too. Even if morality is only about answering the question, "how should I conduct myself", and not directly about how anyone else should conduct themselves, if one of my values is alleviating the suffering of others, I will need to recognize when other feeling things are being hurt. If you're the one causing the hurt, I suppose you could say that I'm not making a "moral judgment" about your actions (but rather some other kind of assessment), but regardless I will feel a duty to intervene.
• jackmott42 3y ago
  One of the great things we are capable of as humans is NOT doing what has always been done just because. People who think that is a justification or clever quip could be argued to be barbaric and without any creative imagination.
• dweymouth 3y ago
  Animals devour to survive. Humans (in first world countries at least) don't need to do that. We eat meat because we like it, not because we need to. And we have the choice to do otherwise. In fact, plant based alternatives are healthier for us (look up the China study), and for the planet (most Amazon deforestation is to grow cattle feed). There is no need for most of us to eat any animal products at all.
• burnished 3y ago
  Its a bit hard to take this perspective seriously - you arent exactly living in the conditions that you are talking about you know? 'Man at top of heap says situation basically acceptable' Don't mistake this for moralizing, I just think your position is weak.
• diydsp 3y ago
  Because we have awareness. Err some of us.