Are vegans and carnivores that don't kill for themselves not both trying to avoid/running away from the same fear - that we are natural predators (in part ofc - omnivores) — Benj96
if instead of a butcher you had to go to a slaughterhouse and kill what you need for your family, would you respect animals more? Would you eat meat less frequently? Would you be grateful for it? — Benj96
We are the only animal that knows what we are doing while we are doing it. Existence is prior to essence. Saying we have an essence that is natural predators in that case is putting cart before horse. We can be what we want to be. — schopenhauer1
Then, when a mental sick person commits a crime, probably he was not really aware about what he was doing. — javi2541997
I even think that there animals who are more aware of their actions than some humans. — javi2541997
So if a mentally ill person comes at me with a knife and I harm him in self-defense, seems an obvious case of self-defense. Same with an animal who comes at me or even unintentionally is very harmful to me (like the schizophrenic attacking me). — schopenhauer1
Yes, completely. But the schizophrenic person is mentally ill, so I think he derserves a more "neutral" trial if you put a lawsuit on him. He needs being supervised by psychologists or professionals. I mean he is not a normal person with ordinary capacities and then, he should not be convicted as a killer or criminal but as a sick man. — javi2541997
well wouldn't you kill X animal who might kill you? — schopenhauer1
Extreme vegans that killing a spider and a cow are on the same level, have no nuance in context and perhaps reality. — schopenhauer1
We are the only animal that knows what we are doing while we are doing it — schopenhauer1
Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. It's a tragedy of life, and veganism or vegetarianism does not seem like a cut and dry solution at all to — Tzeentch
Extreme vegans that killing a spider and a cow are on the same level, have no nuance in context and perhaps reality. — schopenhauer1
It's a tragedy of life, and veganism or vegetarianism does not seem like a cut and dry solution at all to me. — Tzeentch
I think there’s a real difference between harming spiders, rats, cows, and apes.
5m — schopenhauer1
I would defend myself because my natural instinct of survival says me to kill X animal to keep alive. It is like a reflex action and I am not sure if I would be "aware" of my own actions of killing an animal just for surviving. — javi2541997
Agreed but can there be a recognition of a spectrum of sentience and obligations to harm become more pronounced as sentience increases? I think there’s a real difference between harming spiders, rats, cows, and apes. — schopenhauer1
. But the cases are only a few and even there are some dog breeds who are violent by nature like pitbull or American standford — javi2541997
By making it in vats in a factory. We can do that now. That would address the ethical concern, though not necessarily all other concerns.What then are we to make of eating meat? How could we compromise and settle everyone's concerns surrounding the ethics of meat? — Benj96
If the confrontation between the meat-eating human and his prey takes place in slaughterhouse, it's very likely to put the human off his meat, for a while anyway. But it's not a setting that engenders respect: by the time it arrives at there, the animal is already degraded, traumatized and reduced to the status of a commodity. The ethical wrong is not in the ending of a life, but in the method of production and destruction that takes an individual entity from its artificial inception through its miserable short life to its ignominious end. I doubt gratitude enters this scenario.Question 1: if instead of a butcher you had to go to a slaughterhouse and kill what you need for your family, would you respect animals more? Would you eat meat less frequently? Would you be grateful for it? — Benj96
No, I don't think so. Vegans who make that decision on ethical grounds are reacting, not to natural hunting but to modern life and food-production. They're not rejecting a lifestyle where eight men go out with spears and bring home two or three caribou to feed the clan all winter, in favour of relying on the roots and dried berries the women had been able to gather.Question 2: Are vegans and carnivores that don't kill for themselves not both trying to avoid/running away from the same fear - that we are natural predators (in part ofc - omnivores) — Benj96
In that case, his legal defense is "Not guilty, due to diminished capacity".Then, when a mental sick person commits a crime, probably he was not really aware about what he was doing. — javi2541997
The distinction is not in the covering but in the ability to feel pain.Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. — Tzeentch
The more we learn about animal behaviour and intelligence, the more evident this becomes.I think most animals know exactly what they're doing. — Benj96
Of course you would be aware. All primitive hunters who kill to survive are aware, as are sport hunters who do it for fun. But, in real life, how often do you really have to choose between killing and starvation? How about a nice bowl of cereal instead? Moussaka? Bean soup?I would defend myself because my natural instinct of survival says me to kill X animal to keep alive. It is like a reflex action and I am not sure if I would be "aware" of my own actions of killing an animal just for surviving. — javi2541997
There is an instinctive range of sympathy from least to most likeness to ourselves. But that's sentiment, not obligation - not reliable, either, as we learn that outward appearance is a poor indicator of sentience.Agreed but can there be a recognition of a spectrum of sentience and obligations to harm become more pronounced as sentience increases? — schopenhauer1
There was nothing inadvertent about it. We bred all domestic animals to serve our purposes. Pit bulls were bred to fight for the entertainment of spectators. Wolfhounds, terrier and beagles were bred for hunting. Some for sniffing, some for racing, some for rescue work and some for guarding. Since most of the vicious animal sports have been outlawed, some of those breeds pose a problem. But we still breed dangerous dogs for guarding our valuables.In our quest to breed the most loyal and docile breeds (labradors, retrievers etc) we inadvertently and accidentally made the opposite simultaneously - aggressive and hostile breeds that don't really serve our purposes. — Benj96
Of course you would be aware. All primitive hunters who kill to survive are aware, as are sport hunters who do it for fun. But, in real life, how often do you really have to choose between killing and starvation? — Vera Mont
But that’s a different example. — javi2541997
The distinction is not in the covering but in the ability to feel pain. — Vera Mont
Yet our moral and legal codes do not distinguish different kinds of animal-slaughter by motive, only by species. — Vera Mont
Because they are in order of what is most different (spider) to what is most similar (ape) - close to self? If self preservation is your motto is it not the same instinct as all of these animals: spiders, rats, cows and apes?
And if so, if they all have the same will to survive and reproduce who are we to determine which do and which don't? Is it balanced to only consider what is in it for us (humans)? Is all of nature (us included) not mutually dependent on one another for the skills, the niches, we offer in service to a greater good - an ecosystem? — Benj96
Personally, I don't think there is a moral difference.
By the same logic, would it be more acceptable to harm a less sentient human than a more sentient one? — Tzeentch
Vegetarianism or limited meat consumption seems like the most balanced way humans could prevent interfering with nature's balance. In a vegetarian world animals would live and die in balance while always producing useful products - dairy eggs etc - good sources of protein. And only killed for essential reasons - things that can only be practically made from leather instead of plastic, for social festivities, and perhaps transplantations in medicine. Not only would we minimise the carbon emissions from the meat industry but we would stave off the illnesses that come with high intensity farming and the lack of hygiene and easy transmissibility of disease that comes with it. — Benj96
To cut down a tree, to butcher a lamb, what is the difference, really? — Tzeentch
That's an opinion many humans share. Not all, however.I don't think the ability to feel pain is in any way relevant. — Tzeentch
Insects do; they have a nervous system. When caught in a trap, they try to escape. Broccoli doesn't. I eat broccoli, but not spiders.Besides, how do you know insects and plants do not feel pain? They react to being attacked just like a mammal would. — Tzeentch
How long does it take, usually? I haven't fed myself with the flesh of mammal, birds or sea-creatures for 30-odd years. So far, feeling fine.If you do not feed yourself with meat you would lose proteins and then you will get sick. — javi2541997
Although I understand that we can't let the farm animals breeding forever, it may simply be a solution like not introducing males and females together or something like that. Stop it at the breeding part so it doesn't have to get to the killing part. — schopenhauer1
:up:Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. It's a tragedy of life, and veganism or vegetarianism does not seem like a cut and dry solution at all to me. — Tzeentch
:up: :up:To me, eating plants or insects seems more like shifting the harm to something we have a harder time empathizing with. We sell it off by ascribing value to those traits which we empathize with most naturally - sentience, fluffiness, etc. — Tzeentch
I don't think there is anything to gain by saying: If you can't be perfect, you shouldn't try at all. — Vera Mont
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.