The word 'natural' is defined as: " existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. " - So maybe you should define what you think the word 'natural' even means. You seem to be confused. — chatterbears

No. It is you that is totally contradicting yourself all the time and are quite illogical.

On one hand you say the human race is a species just like other and hence, part of nature. Then you define natural by being anything not made or caused by humankind. So what is the human race, natural or separate from nature? So what beaver does is natural, but what we do isn't. Actually with your definition nearly all of our food is unnatural as the flora that we eat is cultivated and farmed, just like uh, the domesticated fauna. But that contradiction doesn't concern you.

Then your totally hypocritical idea of mass genocide of the domesticated fauna. First you accept that domesticated animals can indeed have a good life and all sentient life deserves to have a life. Then you purpose a mass extinction of domesticated animals. Because they are killed in a bad way.

Then you argue it's not genocide because the animals are 'benevolently' simply separated by gender and left die of old age. Perhaps let to starve to death once they are so old and frail they cannot walk, so that you can proclaim their death 'natural' or something. And for you not to get a bad conscious (of the catastrophic reduction in numbers of the animals which could be called genocide), you propose sanctuaries. Well, how big would these sanctuaries are for you to feel good? 50 Ayrshire cows in a sanctuary in Ayrshire? 80 Holstein-Friesian cows in Holstein? More? Less? Because there is absolutely nothing 'natural' (by your definition) in your sanctuaries.

It has nothing to do with my moral outlook, so I don't even know where you got that from. — chatterbears

Never have I seen anyone contradict himself in PF like you do. You go on and on about torture chambers, the suffering of animals, the inhumane treatment animals when they are killed, but then you declare it has NOTHING to do with your moral outlook! Nothing. You're even confused where would I get this kind of idea.

Well, have to say it: you are totally confused and in some kind of denial that I don't know.

science supports a Vegan lifestyle — chatterbears

Science is a method, which tells how things are. Not how things ought to be. You should teach yourself the definition of science.

And if you are going to argue nonsensically this illogical idea by referring pro-vegan articles, then there's a multitude of articles done by scientists promoting a healthy diet with small part of the diet consisting of fish and meat. And when in those studies the writers have used the scientific method and have come to the fact that some diet is more healthy than another, that is not "Science" saying anything. It never is. That is a scientist making normative statement after intrepreting the result.

But anyway, that's useless because there's actually no logic in your views, where you start from denying that your reasoning comes out from ethical views.

I think it's also worth wondering just how happy wild animals actually are...

If a domesticated animal is treated well, I cannot see their wild counterparts being happier...

Wild animals live in fear and near constant struggle (a struggle ensured by all the natural competition); starvation and predation are constant threats. A goat who is protected by a fence or gate at night, no longer has to live on the sides of mountainous cliffs for protection and has access to all the grass and shrubs it can eat. Wouldn't that make them happy?

Good farmers have always been able to reduce the amount of stress experienced by their animals.

Good farmers have always been able to reduce the amount of stress experienced by their animals. — "VagabondSpectre

It's just that people have through urbanization grown apart from countrylife. They don't see how much care farmer can give to their domesticated animals. Farmers are a small minority today.

Why this wouldn't be simply a discussion of treating domesticated animals better, I don't know. Because otherwise it doesn't make much sense.

On one hand you say the human race is a species just like other and hence, part of nature. — ssu

Yes, humans are a part of nature.

Then you define natural by being anything not made or caused by humankind. — ssu

Yes, things that humans create (such as watches) are not found in nature. Things that occur naturally, such as trees and beaver dams, are different from things that do not occur naturally, such as airplanes, watches, phones and automobiles.

So what is the human race, natural or separate from nature? — ssu

The human species are part of the animal kingdom, which occurs in nature. What humans actually create, such as helicopters, are not naturally occurring.

So what beaver does is natural, but what we do isn't. — ssu

This depends on how you define the word 'natural', which is why I told you to define it (but you still have not). But yes. In how I define it, a beaver builds a dam to provide ponds as protection against predators such as coyotes, wolves, and bears, and to provide easy access to food during winter. When a species of animal, in nature, creates things for its own survival out of necessity, it is deemed as natural. Humans do nothing of the sort. Almost everything humans create is unnatural. If you define natural in a different way, then explain your definition. But I have not contradicted myself within my own definition and how I use the term.

Actually with your definition nearly all of our food is unnatural as the flora that we eat is cultivated and farmed, just like uh, the domesticated fauna. But that contradiction doesn't concern you. — ssu

Yes, all of our food is unnatural. And your point is?

Then your totally hypocritical idea of mass genocide of the domesticated fauna. First you accept that domesticated animals can indeed have a good life and all sentient life deserves to have a life. Then you purpose a mass extinction of domesticated animals. Because they are killed in a bad way. — ssu

There's a difference between causing an extinction and letting animals die off naturally. If we created Robots, but then stopped creating them because they were causing too many problems, would you call that a mass extinction? That's just an incorrect use of the term extinction. You're trying to inject a contradiction where it does not fit. And I've already address this point once, so go back and read my response to you on the last page.

The judgment that I make on what is or isn't natural, is based on the actual definition of natural. It has nothing to do with my moral outlook, so I don't even know where you got that from. — chatterbears

This was my original statement. In which you then only quoted part of it.

It has nothing to do with my moral outlook, so I don't even know where you got that from. — chatterbears

Can you be more dishonest? If you actually comprehended the FULL context, I clearly stated how I use the term 'natural', which has nothing to do with my moral outlook. Whether or not something is natural, does not say whether or not something is morally acceptable. Lions commit infanticide in nature, yet I wouldn't state that is morally acceptable (even though it is natural).

Never have I seen anyone contradict himself in PF like you do. You go on and on about torture chambers, the suffering of animals, the inhumane treatment animals when they are killed, but then you declare it has NOTHING to do with your moral outlook! Nothing. You're even confused where would I get this kind of idea. — chatterbears

Please point out the contradict, in context. Without quoting one part of a sentence like a dishonest tool. When did I ever say that my objection to animal torture chambers have nothing to do with my moral outlook? Please quote where I said that, and you better do it properly this time.

Science is a method, which tells how things are. Not how things ought to be. You should teach yourself the definition of science. — chatterbears

Science uses a method, but it is not a 'method' by definition. Science builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Therefore, if science tells us that eating meat is unhealthy for your body, it can make a probable prediction about your health in reference to how you eat. You should teach yourself the concept of understanding how something is defined.

then there's a multitude of articles done by scientists promoting a healthy diet with small part of the diet consisting of fish and meat. — chatterbears

Yes, in which most of those articles/studies are funded by the industries who create those products. Not to mention, the argument that states "Incorporating a small amount of meat into your diet won't hurt you." - Is the same as saying, "Smoking 1 cigarette per week won't hurt you." - Yeah, of course a small amount of something bad won't have a significant impact on your health. That doesn't mean that it isn't bad for you.

But anyway, that's useless because there's actually no logic in your views, where you start from denying that your reasoning comes out from ethical views. — ssu

Coming from the person who dishonestly misquotes and misrepresents my position.

Lions commit infanticide in nature, yet I wouldn't state that is morally acceptable (even though it is natural). — chatterbears

(ought we intervene to save the cubs?)

Is it morally acceptable for lions to slaughter animals for meat consumption?

-It's good you don't work there anymore. Did you become vegetarian/vegan because of that experience? Or do you still eat animals? If so, why.

No, it did not affect my habits at the time, at least much. I tried avoiding sausages for a while, simply because I had worked on the casing line, which is super eewwww. I was conscious of the animal's suffering, of how much better off they wouod be even in a regular family farm, at least for a psrt of their existence. But honestly, I beleived that back then the conditions of effective protest against the meat mass industry were not there. Our plant was selling mostly to Americans, Japanese and Chinese markets. Even if I stopped althogether eating pork, there was no way for Olymel to register my act of economic protest.

I'm also comfortable with the fact that my existence might cost others theirs. Or that theirs might end up costing mine. I didnt make up those rules, would change them if I could, but honestly, I'd rather be the wolf then the deer, if the choice was mine.

It is also important to realize that most of us meat eaters are quite simply addicted to it. I tried piscarism (only seafood, no red or white meat) for about a year and half, and its stupid to say, but walking next to a salami stand at the market was one of the worst craving moments I've ever felt.

Still, I find the willful blindness to the horrible conditions of livestock to be seriously infuriating. One of the thing that struck me, working at the plant was how, if it was humans being gased, proded, hooked, cut at the throat, dunk in boiling waters, passed through flamers and then broken for parts, that this would be the very best and most vivid presentation of evil and Hell ever. And we've been pretty good, as a specie, at coming up with those. And yet I didn't feel horror for the hogs, none of us did, even when we agreed the conditions were terrible.

I would put into the ground anyone who would do to my cat what I did to those hogs, and yet, even when I'm writing this, I can't help but feel that this is normal and in no way hypocritical. Our worst curse is probably our ability to justify just about anything to ourselves...

When a species of animal, in nature, creates things for its own survival out of necessity, it is deemed as natural. Humans do nothing of the sort. Almost everything humans create is unnatural. - Yes, all of our food is unnatural. And your point is? — chatterbears

I rest my case.

I've never seen anyone as self-contradictory as you in the PF.

- I think it's also worth wondering just how happy wild animals actually are...

I would recommend reading Being a Beast, by Charles Foster. Its not rigorous phenomenological research, but it gives you a sense of just how alien to us even an otter' umwelt really is, and how hard it would be to relate something like happiness to his existence. Still, the problem of suffering is far more apparent than that of happiness, as well for beasts as for humans.

But this is a bit otiose to the question. We have little responsability to the welfare of wild animals we do not interact with. But, given our imprints extension on this world, we almost always have some degree of interaction and therefore responsabilities. Domestication is not the problem, really, its the mass industrialization and complete and utter commodification of independant, sentient living beings. I am actually of the opinion that the domestication of companion species demonstrate one of the most noble aspect of humanity, despite the fact that it is far from being a perfect relationship.

When a species of animal, in nature, creates things for its own survival out of necessity, it is deemed as natural. Humans do nothing of the sort. Almost everything humans create is unnatural. - Yes, all of our food is unnatural. And your point is? — chatterbears

I rest my case.

I've never seen anyone as self-contradictory as you in the PF. — ssu

Going to ignore you from this point on, since it is clear you're a troll and/or uninterested to have an actual discussion, while dishonestly misrepresenting my position.

1. I defined natural. And part of that definition was when a species of animal creates things for it's own survival out of necessity. Such as a spider creating a web to catch prey to eat and survive.

2. Humans do not create things out of necessity for their survival, which is why almost all of our food is unnatural. We do not need to eat animals to survive, which is why factory farms are not natural.

There is no contradiction here, other than you asserting there is one. As I said, I'm going to stop responding to you from here. GL on another thread.

(ought we intervene to save the cubs?)

Is it morally acceptable for lions to slaughter animals for meat consumption? — VagabondSpectre

Vaga, a few points here.

1. I'll respond to your last post. It was a bit long and I'm going to take a bit more time to respond to it. Probably will by tomorrow.

2. Lions do not have the same intelligence level as we do, and do not have the same moral thought process as we do. In the same way I am not going to hold a severely mentally handicapped person accountable for their wrongdoings, I don't necessarily hold the lion accountable either. On some level, they may or may not have empathy (we know some animals do display empathy, while others may not). But again, as humans, we can think and reflect on our actions on a much deeper level. We know that infanticide is immoral, unless of course the child was suffering in pain from a disease they were born with, in which it would be more moral to end their suffering than to continue it. But at that point, it probably wouldn't be labeled as infanticide anymore, as that is usually associated with an unjust killing of a young infant.

And yes, as I said before, some animals need to kill other animals in order to survive out of necessity. And if you couple that with their very limited reasoning ability to process their actions and reflect back on what they have done, I would not say a lion is immoral for killing a zebra. It is the only way that the lion knows how to survive. But on the other hand, we as humans, can survive on plants. Yet we still choose to create a system that breeds animals into torture and slaughter, just so we can have a better taste pleasure. We know of many ways to survive, while the lion does not. Yet we still choose to survive on the unnecessary exploitation of animals.

Also Vaga. (and I welcome anyone else to critique this as well). Can you tell me if you see the same "contradictions" that SSU is seeing within my argument. Because according to him, he has never seen anybody contradict themselves more than me on this forum. (smh)

I'm also comfortable with the fact that my existence might cost others theirs. Or that theirs might end up costing mine. I didnt make up those rules, would change them if I could, but honestly, I'd rather be the wolf then the deer, if the choice was mine. — Akanthinos

Understood, but would you stop unnecessary violence if you could? I understand that much of us have probably benefited from the exploitation of another living being. Even something like the tires on my car, were probably made from cow by-products. This is something I have no control of, unless I want to ride a bike to work. But even the bike would have tires made with the same ingredients. Veganism isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It is basically stating that we can help where we can, practically and simply. How cars are made, is not in my control. What I eat, is completely in my control. (Aside from a food allergy or other anomalies.)

So again. If you could help another living being not suffer, why wouldn't you?

I would put into the ground anyone who would do to my cat what I did to those hogs, and yet, even when I'm writing this, I can't help but feel that this is normal and in no way hypocritical. Our worst curse is probably our ability to justify just about anything to ourselves... — Akanthinos

Well, you would just have to explain why you put more value on your cat, rather than a pig or a cow. Would you also feel the same about a random person's cat? Or is it only your cat, that you would be upset about? But I think it is clear, that society has essentially indoctrinated us to believe that some animals deserve love and care, while others to not. This is where the inconsistent belief system starts. Why is a dog/cat deserving of life, but a cow/chicken/pig is not? It has been researched that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, so you cannot point to intelligence as the determining factor. If it is about a special bond with your specific cat, your reasoning becomes part of the special pleading realm, with a hint of being arbitrary. And I doubt that you would want your existence to rely on someone's arbitrary decision to keep you alive, or based on how special you are to them.

Yes, I see what you're saying. :up: But when you say "usage doesn't always correspond with abuse", I wonder. :chin: If we had masters who kept us captive, and forced us to do certain things, even if they are things we might have chosen to do for ourselves, would we feel used? Would we feel like slaves? Would the use of our masters seem like abuse to us? I rather think it might.

I know many people - people who genuinely love animals - who have pets. Or animal captives, if I'm being provocative. We've used animals for so long now (millennia...) that we don't even notice that we're doing it, I think. We love our dogs; we have five. (!) But they cannot come and go as they wish; they are captives. Morally, is this OK? That's what I'm asking. ... And my answer is: I'm not sure. (Yeah, I know, lacking decisiveness. :smile:)

We love our dogs; we have five. (!) But they cannot come and go as they wish; they are captives. Morally, is this OK? That's what I'm asking. ... And my answer is: I'm not sure. (Yeah, I know, lacking decisiveness. :smile:) — Pattern-chaser

The main distinction that you seem to be ignoring here is, our pets cannot survive on their own. They wouldn't be able to eat normally, while also being put in more danger from things like cars and possibly other animals (coyotes / mountain lions / etc.). We, as humans, can survive on our own. If someone drugged you, tied you up and locked you in their home, we would see this as captivity. But if that person let you go, could you not survive on your own, given the current resources our world has for human survival.

On the flip side, owning pets is a selfish endeavor that humans have engaged in. Most of the time, the pet is sleeping and/or doing nothing. And if the dog barks, we tell it to be quiet. Many people rarely even take their dogs for an adequate walk (at least 1 hour). Many people ignore and/or neglect their dogs. Most people would put their dog down if it needed a surgery that costed too much money, yet wouldn't think twice if the same situation applied to their children.

But for the people who actually treat their dogs like family, and treat them like they have physical and emotion needs (which they do), it is more moral to take care of this dog in their home, than to let it be 'free', as it cannot survive on its own.

Going to ignore you from this point on, since it is clear you're a troll — chatterbears

OK, so I'm a troll and you will diss me now for giving some critique. But fine, seems you really didn't get my point and obviously don't care, so enough of that. I won't bother anymore.

2. Lions do not have the same intelligence level as we do, and do not have the same moral thought process as we do. In the same way I am not going to hold a severely mentally handicapped person accountable for their wrongdoings, I don't necessarily hold the lion accountable either. On some level, they may or may not have empathy (we know some animals do display empathy, while others may not). But again, as humans, we can think and reflect on our actions on a much deeper level. We know that infanticide is immoral, unless of course the child was suffering in pain from a disease they were born with, in which it would be more moral to end their suffering than to continue it. But at that point, it probably wouldn't be labeled as infanticide anymore, as that is usually associated with an unjust killing of a young infant.

And yes, as I said before, some animals need to kill other animals in order to survive out of necessity. And if you couple that with their very limited reasoning ability to process their actions and reflect back on what they have done, I would not say a lion is immoral for killing a zebra. It is the only way that the lion knows how to survive. But on the other hand, we as humans, can survive on plants. Yet we still choose to create a system that breeds animals into torture and slaughter, just so we can have a better taste pleasure. We know of many ways to survive, while the lion does not. Yet we still choose to survive on the unnecessary exploitation of animals. — chatterbears

Infanticide among lions isn't immoral if their killing of prey isn't immoral. Cold as this reality may be, competition for survival between lions and other animals leads to a breakdown of all avenues of cooperation and leaves only direct conflict as a viable survival strategy.

To various degrees, the avenues of peaceful coexistence between humans and animals also break down and leave us more and more reliant on selfish behavior as a means of survival.

Tribal society simply cannot live vegan (and even if you can find one of the ultra-rare examples, it only works in a very particular climate and ecosystem which happens to allow it). Meat energy got us out of the forest and into the fields (farms). Since its invention agriculture has relied on animal husbandry in some form, and while today there are technological options that are newly becoming available which can help us be less reliant on animals, many are not proven or even tested on commercial scales. For any non-first world nation meat is an absolute must for nutritional self-sufficiency. In first world nations, the expense of eliminating meat entirely would be massive, which would cut directly into other important infrastructural investments in things like education and medicine. The poorest individuals who already suffer from poor nutrition would almost certainly need to pay more money to acquire the same amount of nutrients than they would in a meat-inclusive market. If we eliminated meat consumption entirely,at some point we would be trading the health and well-being of humans to avoid the slaughter of farm animals. In this sense, to a certain degree, it's either us or them. There is yet no possible world in which we can extend full moral consideration to farm animals while maintaining the same moral consideration for other humans.

Your energy would be much better placed by attacking those aspects of meat consumption which aren't actually efficient or are needlessly cruel (factory farming for instance). You could argue that eating at KFC is immoral because it is not done to save money or to acquire nutrition (it's not healthy) and is ONLY done for the taste, which requires the insanely massive industrial scale chicken farms which we all know are describable as hell for chickens. You should attack the over consumption of meat, inefficient agricultural practices used to over-produce meat, and the cruel farming practices necessary to do it.

Once we're closer to a world where nobody is overeating meat in the first place, where cruel industrial farms are unnecessary, and where the existing farms which do produce meat are ethical and efficient (e.g: free range cattle foraging rough land), then we will have a much better idea of how much it will cost to eliminate meat entirely along with our moral obligation to do so.

I want you to remember that I'm not saying we should not reduce our consumption of meat; it's clear we over-eat meat and we produce too much of it. What I'm saying is that the total and complete elimination of meat entirely is both too expensive, and ethically neutral (or worse). It's too expensive because some meat reduces the volume of food we need to consume and has a convenient mix of particular nutrients which can be hard to source elsewhere (especially without getting too much of other things) and because traditional animal husbandry is severely productive. It's ethically neutral (or worse) to eliminate the farming of animals entirely because many farm animals do lead happy lives despite eventually being intentionally killed (farm animals can lead lives that are worth living), and so ending their existence via the sanctuary-genocide you propose would plausibly be unethical.

Also Vaga. (and I welcome anyone else to critique this as well). Can you tell me if you see the same "contradictions" that SSU is seeing within my argument. Because according to him, he has never seen anybody contradict themselves more than me on this forum. (smh) — chatterbears

I do see contradictions, but I've seen bigger...

I think the main contradiction SSU is concerned with is that you treat humans as wholly separate from nature and therefore indictable by standards which apply to nothing else. I've said it before, we aren't yet fully emancipated from nature; we're still playing a survival game and the risks are still considerable. To some degree we're not yet systemically free from the need to eat meat, and I firmly believe that a national or global switch at our present level of infrastructure and understanding would court too many risks. Your attack against anyone and everyone who eats meat is misplaced; you should attack those who are economically capable of supporting meat alternatives, and also attack those who contribute to the over-production of meat (and accompanying cruelty) by supporting places like KFC.

I think the main contradiction SSU is concerned with is that you treat humans as wholly separate from nature and therefore indictable by standards which apply to nothing else. I've said it before, we aren't yet fully emancipated from nature; we're still playing a survival game and the risks are still considerable. — VagabondSpectre

When did I say humans are wholly separate from nature? Humans are animals. Animals are a part of nature. Humans are a part of nature. I never denied this.

Also, why wouldn't we apply different standards to a species that has a higher capacity for moral consideration and intelligence? Do you not hold an adult to a different moral standard than a child? Similarly, do you not hold a human to a different moral standard than a lion? I think the answer is clear here.

Humans are not separate from nature, but they are more accountable for their actions than all other animals. Please tell me exactly where I contradicted myself? Maybe finding the exact line-by-line would help me, because I still don't see it. And I am not just saying this sarcastically. If I am actually contradicting myself, I would like you to show me exactly where.

Chatterbears, have you decided that you'll ignore me? You haven't responded to me yet, now on the page before this one.

I claim that it is arbitrary to place humans on one plain, the warm 'n fuzzies a close second, and slugs, snails, tadpoles, shrimps, sea anemones, and plants sufficiently far below those-in-the-club that we can tread on them or eat them as we wish. I claim this because of the very intelligence and superior grasp of moral principles that you say humans possess. For example, I haven't seen a compelling argument yet that mere sentience, if that truly applies to any one of the warm 'n fuzzies, is a sufficiently distinctive quality to place them outside of our list of consumables. There isn't even a good argument against cannibalism, except for a few glitches arising from prions and other defects. Instead, the arguments seem more to rely on the 'ick' factor than anything else.


If it is immoral to eat animals, as the more zealous insist, and not just to farm them more efficiently, then it is immoral for all humans because we are deemed to be equal. How would you fault, in a compelling argument, those who subsist on animal byproducts? After all, their prey are 'sentient'....aren't they?

I claim that it is arbitrary to place humans on one plain, the warm 'n fuzzies a close second, and slugs, snails, tadpoles, shrimps, sea anemones, and plants sufficiently far below those-in-the-club that we can tread on them or eat them as we wish. I claim this because of the very intelligence and superior grasp of moral principles that you say humans possess. — gloaming

A rhino isn't warm n' fuzzie, yet I would put him on the same plain of moral consideration as dogs. Also, it is not arbitrary to state that sentient creatures are deserving of life. Since, sentient implies the ability to feel pain and suffer. And to feel pain and suffer, directly relates to how we make moral decisions. If a plant cannot feel pain or suffer, then moral consideration does not apply to it. That is not arbitrary. And as I said to Vaga, humans should be held to a higher moral accountability than other animals, similar to how an adult should be held to a higher moral accountability than a child. As the famous quote goes, with great power comes great responsibility. And with great intelligence and the ability to reflect on one's actions, comes great accountability to ensure those actions are morally correct and ethically consistent.

For example, I haven't seen a compelling argument yet that mere sentience, if that truly applies to any one of the warm 'n fuzzies, is a sufficiently distinctive quality to place them outside of our list of consumables. There isn't even a good argument against cannibalism, except for a few glitches arising from prions and other defects. Instead, the arguments seem more to rely on the 'ick' factor than anything else. — gloaming

There are different levels of sentience, but at the baseline, a sentient creature should not be exploited or used for an unnecessary purpose. Plain and simple. Also, I am not against cannibalism, at it's core. A human can die of natural causes, and someone else could eat them. I have no problem with that. The problem comes in when people place value on the dead person's body, in which they would not want their loved one eaten by somebody else. But if you're referring to a different cannibalism, where people are being killed and eaten unnecessarily, then yes I am against that.

If it is immoral to eat animals, as the more zealous insist, and not just to farm them more efficiently, then it is immoral for all humans because we are deemed to be equal. How would you fault, in a compelling argument, those who subsist on animal byproducts? After all, their prey are 'sentient'....aren't they? — gloaming

Your sentence doesn't make sense. "If it is immoral to eat animals, and not just to farm them more efficiently, then it is immoral for all humans because we are deemed to be equal" - Huh?

It is immoral for all humans to what? It is immoral for all humans to eat animals at all? It is immoral for all humans to exist? I don't understand what you just said there.

I set the meaning in the statement following the one you quoted. If some subsist by eating animals (and they do), and animals are sentient, and if eating animals (that are sentient) is immoral, what excuse could you allow to any human for eating an animal for any reason? Would a person who is in extremis, literally starving, be excused for eating his dog? Or, if because it is immoral to kill and eat 'sentient' beings, he should simply get on with his own demise?

The contradiction is that you frame what humans do as apart from nature, unnatural, and therefore not absolvable in the same way, say, lions killing gazelles is. Yes we're more intelligent, yes we can hold ourselves to higher standards, but we don't have a godlike ability to absolutely refrain from exploiting life which is lower down the food chain for our own survival and prosperity.

If lions are allowed to prey on other animals in order to prosper, why are we not allowed to prey on other animals in order to prosper?

You could say that the lion doesn't know better or that it has no other choice (and these reasons apply to humans in various degrees), but the very existence and prosperity of lions and other predators necessitates that they go around exploiting other forms of sentient life. Going by the basic standards you've outlined, it would not be immoral to exterminate all lions and other predator species in order to preserve the other forms of life which are unfairly exploited by them. If I see a mountain lion trying to kill a family of deer, can I not shoot the lion in defense of the innocent deer?

If you disagree because what lions and other predators do is natural, then you've unfairly or irrationally delineated between humans and all other nature.

The main distinction that you seem to be ignoring here is, our pets cannot survive on their own. — chatterbears

Well yes, but what is the cause of this? Could it be that there is no "wild" for them to live in any more? If we consider dogs, and their 'wild' cousins, wolves, there is nowhere they *could* live. We have paved the wild, and built houses on it. There is no room for wolves (or wild dogs) in our human-dominated world. If there was, I offer the suggestion that dogs could survive quite happily in the wild. :chin:

but we don't have a godlike ability to absolutely refrain from exploiting life which is lower down the food chain for our own survival and prosperity. — VagabondSpectre

I never stated we can perfectly refrain from exploiting any form of life. We do it all the time, and it will be almost impossible to eradicate it. What I am saying is, to refrain from exploiting another animal unnecessary, when it is practical and easy to do. Changing your diet, is an easy way to refrain from the unnecessary exploitation of animals, and it is easy to do compared to other things.

If lions are allowed to prey on other animals in order to prosper, why are we not allowed to prey on other animals in order to prosper? — VagabondSpectre

I have explained this already. Lions prey on other animals in order to survive. Do we need to prey on other animals in order to survive in the same way the lions do? Absolutely not. Also, if you are going to look to a lion for moral guidance and action persuasion, then do you believe it is ok for humans to kill their babies since lions do it as well?

You could say that the lion doesn't know better or that it has no other choice (and these reasons apply to humans in various degrees), but the very existence and prosperity of lions and other predators necessitates that they go around exploiting other forms of sentient life. — VagabondSpectre

Yes. When an animal has no other choice to survive, other than killing other life, I don't find it immoral to do so. We, as humans, are in a position where we do not need to factory farm in order to survive. We are not in the same position as the lions.

Going by the basic standards you've outlined, it would not be immoral to exterminate all lions and other predator species in order to preserve the other forms of life which are unfairly exploited by them. If I see a mountain lion trying to kill a family of deer, can I not shoot the lion in defense of the innocent deer? — VagabondSpectre

To kill that lion would mean that you believe it is wrong to take an innocent life, even if it is based on survival. And to do so, would mean that you surely believe factory farming is immoral and would stop contributing to it.

I do not think it is immoral for an animal to survive by killing another animal. If that the only way they know how to survive, there is nothing immoral about it. Not to mention, lions are not moral agents. They do not have the capacity to reflect on their actions in the same way we do, which is why it would be asinine to deploy human standards of morality to a lion. In the same way it would be asinine to deploy adult standards to a 3-year old.

If you disagree because what lions and other predators do is natural, then you've unfairly or irrationally delineated between humans and all other nature. — VagabondSpectre

I have never stated that I base my moral outlook on what is natural. It is based on the unnecessary suffering of sentient creatures. A zebra does not unnecessarily suffer from a lion, because that lion's survival is dependent upon the necessity to hunt and kill. Farm animals unnecessarily suffer from humans, because a human is not dependent upon a farm animal in order to survive.

What is natural and what is moral, are two completely separate things. And I have made this clear multiple times, so I am not sure why you and SSU keep coming back to that. As I said to you once already, please copy/paste a line of me stating something, and another line of me contradicting myself.

I set the meaning in the statement following the one you quoted. If some subsist by eating animals (and they do), and animals are sentient, and if eating animals (that are sentient) is immoral, what excuse could you allow to any human for eating an animal for any reason? Would a person who is in extremis, literally starving, be excused for eating his dog? Or, if because it is immoral to kill and eat 'sentient' beings, he should simply get on with his own demise? — gloaming

Still not sure I understand your point, but I'll try to answer.

I don't think it is immoral to kill an animal for your survival. Whether that is a dog, cat, or even a human But humans are never put in this situation, aside from the extremely rare hiker who gets lost in the woods and can't find his way home, in which he is forced to kill an animal in order to survive. Bringing up this type of hypothetical doesn't apply, because it is not a real world scenario that everybody in this forum faces. It's also irrelevant to the original point of this thread, which is that humans do not need to eat animals in order to survive.

There's a rare case for every type of situation. But the overwhelming majority of humans never experience this themselves, let alone hear about it.

I never stated we can perfectly refrain from exploiting any form of life. We do it all the time, and it will be almost impossible to eradicate it. — chatterbears

Do we need to prey on other animals in order to survive in the same way the lions do? Absolutely not. — chatterbears

At least some people actually do need to eat meat in order to prosper (and some to survive).

Yes. When an animal has no other choice to survive, other than killing other life, I don't find it immoral to do so. We, as humans, are in a position where we do not need to factory farm in order to survive. We are not in the same position as the lions. — chatterbears

There's a spectrum of positions that individual humans and human groups occupy, and some are not unlike the position of the lion.

To kill that lion would mean that you believe it is wrong to take an innocent life, even if it is based on survival. And to do so, would mean that you surely believe factory farming is immoral and would stop contributing to it.

I do not think it is immoral for an animal to survive by killing another animal. If that the only way they know how to survive, there is nothing immoral about it. Not to mention, lions are not moral agents. They do not have the capacity to reflect on their actions in the same way we do, which is why it would be asinine to deploy human standards of morality to a lion. In the same way it would be asinine to deploy adult standards to a 3-year old. — chatterbears

But you've neglected to deny the charge (to answer the question).

You would not be opposed to the extermination of all lions (or at least your framework does not portray it as immoral and you have not objected to it).

Both the lion and the deer are innocent, but one has to die for the other to thrive. Why should I not kill the lion to spare the deer?

I have never stated that I base my moral outlook on what is natural. It is based on the unnecessary suffering of sentient creatures. A zebra does not unnecessarily suffer from a lion, because that lion's survival is dependent upon the necessity to hunt and kill. Farm animals unnecessarily suffer from humans, because a human is not dependent upon a farm animal in order to survive. — chatterbears

I'm not interested in pinning you down on a naturalistic fallacy, I'm much more interested in getting you to accept that human agriculture is not yet advanced enough to completely eschew the use of animals.

You can say that we could be capable of doing so if we were prepared to accept any cost to do so, but we're not prepared to accept any cost. Just like you're (presumably) not prepared to accept the extermination of lions to preserve the herbivores, humans aren't yet willing or prepared to risk sacrificing their ability to thrive for the sake of another species (read: we're not yet capable of logistically planning and funding an animal free national diet). The cost would be too much and at some point the stability of our prosperity would be threatened.