5 ms·

Yes. It's also okay to kill animals. Why? Because it's natural. Why is it natural? Because every single animal kills either plants or animals. And while we as

Yes. It's also okay to kill animals. Why? Because it's natural. Why is it natural? Because every single animal kills either plants or animals. And while we as a species can use our brains to resist eating animals, we can't resist eating both fauna and flora.

spindritf 14y ago
> It's also okay to kill animals. Why? Because it's natural. I'm not sure if you're mocking the naturalistic fallacy or committing to it. The problem of a higher order they have is the underlying axiom of decreasing total suffering. We lack information to asses the full consequences of our actions and so any morality based on the ultimate results will be unworkable.
- tokenizer 14y ago
  >We lack information to asses the full consequences of our actions and so any morality based on the ultimate results will be unworkable. So then what should we do? If any morality based on our small understanding of suffering is largely unknowable, then why should it be immoral to eat animals? Furthermore, is this a question of knowing, or is it universal? Is it alright for tribesmen to kill animals if they haven't even considered the animal's suffering?
  - writtles 14y ago
    Following the same logic you could replace the word animals with "people" in your counter argument and you'll see where that gets you. Our morality has evolved since prehistoric times and continues to do so in the face of challenges such as this (and many more). An example of a move towards more ethical food practices would be something like this: Since a pig is as smart as a three-year-old human, perhaps it might be a little more ethical to treat that pig humanely while it is alive even--if we do end up eating it. So lets move towards more humane treatment of livestock.
    - twiceaday 14y ago
      > Following the same logic you could replace the word animals with "people" in your counter argument and you'll see where that gets you It doesn't get you anywhere useful. It gets you back to the original argument of whether people are an exceptional animal.
wahnfrieden 14y ago
Why should naturalness inform morality?
- harshreality 14y ago
  In addition, why should naturalness (historical human diet in this case) influence or subvert judgments about health effects and sustainability?
- tokenizer 14y ago
  It shouldn't. But this isn't a moral issue. Both flora and fauna are living organisms. You must eat one or both of them to survive. Deciding which one's inherent value precedes the other is offensive, and illogical. Both are edible, ergo, everybody will eat a combination of the two. Are you saying my combo (both), is less moral than yours perhaps (flora only)? If so, I simply disagree. That's all.
bajsejohannes 14y ago
I eat animals, but I'm not convinced by your argument. We're omnivores, so it wouldn't be unnatural for us to survive on plants. In fact, there are cultures that do just that.
- tokenizer 14y ago
  We're just animals trying to survive when you ignore the fact that we have advanced brains. Us as animals require an omnivorous diet (please link to these vegetarian cultures please), or we would die of heart failure due to B12 deficiency. And while I understand that this is an appeal to nature. It doesn't matter whether this is good or bad; it's necessary. Anybody making the claim that it isn't is ignoring collateral mentioned in the article, and is really just leaning on one side of two different, but albeit very important classes of organisms. I'd prefer to treat them fairly. Eat them both!
harshreality 14y ago
> And while we as a species can use our brains to resist eating animals, we can't resist eating both fauna and flora. I don't know what that means. You contradicted yourself. Vegetarians exist, and many of them are not tempted to eat meat; many are disgusted by the thought of eating meat (more psychologically than because of taste).
- wahnfrieden 14y ago
  He's saying you can't resist eating both animal and plant. (You can, and it leads to starvation.)
  - harshreality 14y ago
    My mistake, that's not contradictory, but I still don't understand the argument. To me it looks like this: Break down some necessary activity into a dichotomy where one option is neutral/good, and the other option is undesirable according to some people. It's invalid to claim that the undesirable action is actually ok simply because you have to pick one or the other. Instead, you have to make an argument specifically against the neutral/good option.
zerostar07 14y ago
But, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature Since we are omnivorous and not carnivorous, this has become a moral issue.
- tokenizer 14y ago
  But we're also not herbivorous. And like the web page illustrates, our understanding of flora is lacking. I personally think sustenance is a health not a moral issue. I believe certain organisms must die in order for us to thrive. This means eliminating certain germs, certain bacteria, certain dangerous plants, and certain delicious animals/plants. And while we can eliminate eating meat directly, I think the article makes a good point about collateral damage.
  - zerostar07 14y ago
    We already have drastically altered our environment with farming, which is a much bigger effect than what our normal hunting would have. Anyway, i think the solution to the moral issue at hand will be artificial in vitro meat.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    There's another moral dimension about whether we kill the animals ourselves or get someone else to do it, and if we're happy for industrial systems to produce food.
DanBC 14y ago
> It's also okay to kill animals. It depends on the animal and how you kill it. Those borders change for different people. Some people are happy to throw lobsters in pans of boiling water; others use a sharp knife through the head; others refuse to eat lobster. Many people don't want to eat dogs, and that opinion gets stronger if you keep the dog in a small cage for its life and then beat it slowly to death.

spindritf 14y ago

> It's also okay to kill animals. Why? Because it's natural. I'm not sure if you're mocking the naturalistic fallacy or committing to it. The problem of a higher order they have is the underlying axiom of decreasing total suffering. We lack information to asses the full consequences of our actions and so any morality based on the ultimate results will be unworkable.

tokenizer 14y ago
>We lack information to asses the full consequences of our actions and so any morality based on the ultimate results will be unworkable. So then what should we do? If any morality based on our small understanding of suffering is largely unknowable, then why should it be immoral to eat animals? Furthermore, is this a question of knowing, or is it universal? Is it alright for tribesmen to kill animals if they haven't even considered the animal's suffering?
- writtles 14y ago
  Following the same logic you could replace the word animals with "people" in your counter argument and you'll see where that gets you. Our morality has evolved since prehistoric times and continues to do so in the face of challenges such as this (and many more). An example of a move towards more ethical food practices would be something like this: Since a pig is as smart as a three-year-old human, perhaps it might be a little more ethical to treat that pig humanely while it is alive even--if we do end up eating it. So lets move towards more humane treatment of livestock.
  - twiceaday 14y ago
    > Following the same logic you could replace the word animals with "people" in your counter argument and you'll see where that gets you It doesn't get you anywhere useful. It gets you back to the original argument of whether people are an exceptional animal.

wahnfrieden 14y ago

Why should naturalness inform morality?

harshreality 14y ago
In addition, why should naturalness (historical human diet in this case) influence or subvert judgments about health effects and sustainability?
tokenizer 14y ago
It shouldn't. But this isn't a moral issue. Both flora and fauna are living organisms. You must eat one or both of them to survive. Deciding which one's inherent value precedes the other is offensive, and illogical. Both are edible, ergo, everybody will eat a combination of the two. Are you saying my combo (both), is less moral than yours perhaps (flora only)? If so, I simply disagree. That's all.

bajsejohannes 14y ago

I eat animals, but I'm not convinced by your argument. We're omnivores, so it wouldn't be unnatural for us to survive on plants. In fact, there are cultures that do just that.

tokenizer 14y ago
We're just animals trying to survive when you ignore the fact that we have advanced brains. Us as animals require an omnivorous diet (please link to these vegetarian cultures please), or we would die of heart failure due to B12 deficiency. And while I understand that this is an appeal to nature. It doesn't matter whether this is good or bad; it's necessary. Anybody making the claim that it isn't is ignoring collateral mentioned in the article, and is really just leaning on one side of two different, but albeit very important classes of organisms. I'd prefer to treat them fairly. Eat them both!

harshreality 14y ago

> And while we as a species can use our brains to resist eating animals, we can't resist eating both fauna and flora. I don't know what that means. You contradicted yourself. Vegetarians exist, and many of them are not tempted to eat meat; many are disgusted by the thought of eating meat (more psychologically than because of taste).

wahnfrieden 14y ago
He's saying you can't resist eating both animal and plant. (You can, and it leads to starvation.)
- harshreality 14y ago
  My mistake, that's not contradictory, but I still don't understand the argument. To me it looks like this: Break down some necessary activity into a dichotomy where one option is neutral/good, and the other option is undesirable according to some people. It's invalid to claim that the undesirable action is actually ok simply because you have to pick one or the other. Instead, you have to make an argument specifically against the neutral/good option.

zerostar07 14y ago

But, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature Since we are omnivorous and not carnivorous, this has become a moral issue.

tokenizer 14y ago
But we're also not herbivorous. And like the web page illustrates, our understanding of flora is lacking. I personally think sustenance is a health not a moral issue. I believe certain organisms must die in order for us to thrive. This means eliminating certain germs, certain bacteria, certain dangerous plants, and certain delicious animals/plants. And while we can eliminate eating meat directly, I think the article makes a good point about collateral damage.
- zerostar07 14y ago
  We already have drastically altered our environment with farming, which is a much bigger effect than what our normal hunting would have. Anyway, i think the solution to the moral issue at hand will be artificial in vitro meat.
- DanBC 14y ago
  There's another moral dimension about whether we kill the animals ourselves or get someone else to do it, and if we're happy for industrial systems to produce food.

DanBC 14y ago

> It's also okay to kill animals. It depends on the animal and how you kill it. Those borders change for different people. Some people are happy to throw lobsters in pans of boiling water; others use a sharp knife through the head; others refuse to eat lobster. Many people don't want to eat dogs, and that opinion gets stronger if you keep the dog in a small cage for its life and then beat it slowly to death.