Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
A sufficient majority of people want to eat animals, but not a sufficient majority of people want to fuck them. Morality is indeed completely subjective and defined only by culture
If life is to continue on this planet simultaneously with ethics, there must be an exception for living beings to morally participate in the food chain as their bodies evolved. This does not excuse our modern industrial system or domesticating animals, it excuses carnivory as it evolved only.
Now you might say “but humans are meant to eat plants” or “humans are omnivores meant to eat a large variety”. No, you’re deluded. No animal on Earth has every evolved to eat a large variety of foods, plant toxins are too numerous and varied too allow this, that’s why humans cook and process most (non-fruit) plants before eating them. Animals we call omnivores are really flexible carnivores that would die on an all plant diet that wasn’t fortified or selected by humans from plants outside of the animal’s habitat.
Most of the plants we eat today did not exist in our specie’s early days, we’ve bred almost the entire produce section at the grocery store, taking toxic barely digestible plants and changing them into broccoli and such. The plants we eat that did exist only existed in their native habitat, which was not necessarily where humans were. A human in Africa was not eating oranges from China 300k years ago.
Animals that evolved to eat plants have digestive systems oriented around providing an environment for bacteria to break down cellulose, they have adaptations to withstand the specific toxins in the specific plants they evolved to eat. Rabbits have to eat their shit and re-digest it get enough nutrition from plants. Cows have a multi-chambered stomach without an acid barrier in front, horses have to eat constantly. Gorillas are “hind gut digesters” that fart constantly and have massive barrel torsos to fit a digestive system large enough to support the rest of their bodies. Human digestive systems are clearly oriented around digestion of meat and using high-energy density fat to provide the massive amount of energy our brain needs.
But why don’t we have claws and fangs like other carnivores? Well, first, many carnivorous animals don’t fit this mental image. Second, human ancestors were frugivores going back like 5+ million years that started eating meat via scavenging, this explains our stomach acid on par with buzzards and condors, an acidic stomach is an “acid barrier” bacteria cannot pass. Then we evolved to eat large prey with lots of fat that we hunted by group coordination, ability to throw, and ability to create weapons, ability to direct an animal to fall to it’s death. Humans didn’t evolve to directly chase and kill animals with our hands and teeth, we’re tool masters.
Our bodies do poorly with chronic carb intake, this is the cause of most modern maladies. Our bodies evolved to fuel themselves with saturated fat we eat, small animals with little fat are inappropriate human food (e.g. “rabbit starvation”). In fact, almost all animals are “powered by fat”, not by sugar as we’re told. Cows are powered by short chain fatty acids produced by bacteria eating the plants the cow consumes.
You are saying that humans killing animal for their benefits is right. Then you should also appreciate humans having sex with other animals. Because in both cases we are neglecting the Animal’s consent in its entirely. As we are far more intelligent and strong, we should do whatever we please (Killing or Raping) with other animals. It’s logically consistent.
If by benefit you mean survival, then yes. Fucking animals is not what humans evolved to do for survival.
If Killing is considered right then Raping should be right because both persons are getting away with doing wrong to “innocent victims”. Here, Killer should not be judgmental of Rapist’s actions because Killing is a far bigger crime.
An idea that species can “be meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy. Aincent Greeks believed that gods designed and meant us to live a certain way, this approach was adapted by other religions. It cannot be applied to evolution as evolution is a sequence of random events, some more likely than other.
We have evolved to, under certain conditions, when it increases our or our relatives’ chances of survival or recreation, kill others of our species or enact violence against them, including the type of violence that increases the expected number of offsprings of the person enacting it, but nobody argues we should build ethics around it.
but nobody argues we should build ethics around it
I argue that we should build ethics around it.
An idea that species can “be meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy.
People, even those that understand evolution often speak this way because it’s easier, this is Lemmy, not a research paper.
I claim that what we call morality and ethics is human cultural interpretation of what we call game theory. My foundation for morality is respect for consent, except in cases of self/community defense and participation in the food chain as evolution has produced my body in this way due to natural selection to operate at a particular trophic level.
If it were for pure game theory, slavery would still exist in some form (legally, because illegal slavery is still wide-spread IRL). Why would we care to liberate a useful caste of human servants if they would lose all means to rebel against a modern army? Granted, they could kill someone in an uprising, but so does cattle occasionally injure and kill farmers. Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.
Sexual morality is rooted in consent. Mortal morality is not.
So Killing animal without their permission is right. But Sex with animal without their permission is wrong. It isn’t consistent. It feels like we are just giving justifications for far worse crime because we have benefits associated with it.
I guess because animals (eg tigers) eat other animals (e.g deer) and have evolved exactly towards that purpose. That’s how their species survives.
It’s not often that I see a tiger performing sexual assault on a deer. That’s not required for the tiger’s survival.
Now whether humans are “naturally” meat eaters and therefore we should feel “better” about eating animals I don’t know. Nutritionally I think the evidence probably leans towards being omnivore, similar to many other apes and monkeys.
Both groups can emphatically agree on something - that they love the taste of animal meat.
So you interviewed those people individually and determined that they are in fact the same people? Excellent work!
Wait… you didn’t? Then go away.
Outside the “food for survival” aspect (which I won’t touch on because everyone else already has)…Rape vs Murder is essentially the topic here.
I’m in the camp that murder (as in intentional cold blooded murder) is comparatively worse. Culturally, I think the overwhelming majority of people disagree.
I think there are people out there that would much rather be around someone who has killed in cold blood. I think there are far more people willing to accept that a former murderer has reformed. There is a certain degree of sanctity people give sex that they don’t even give life itself.
Both are extraordinarily heinous crimes and i am in no way defending either.
Zoophilia is banned because it’s gross. Killing animals is okay because it’s delicious. Lol jk but actually I’d be fine with being more vegetarian. But probably not vegan yet.
Raping animals is illigal, except when you becme a farmer
Food is necessary for survival, sex isn’t
Skipping over the fact that killing animals for food isn’t necessary
I feel like that statement needs some caveats. There’s quite a few situations where “killing is necessary for food” is an accurate statement.
So, you’d be okay if somebody killed you as long as they ate you afterwards?
Like some here who have said it before, it’s about survival.
There’s no survival issue when it comes to zoophilia.
There still is with eating meat.To say that most people don’t need meat is to ignore more than half the planet.
I thought this place was aware that not everyone can afford a diet,
let alone a healthy vegan diet.I’m not a big fan of pulling the ladder up behind oneself and start demanding
everyone else to follow suit when they’re living in either developing nations or
nations that are in a state of collapse or both.That said, since natural meat production is theoretically more expensive
than growing meat in a lab,
we’ll be heading towards the dissolution of eating farm animals soon
and with it, most farm animals themselves.The wealthier a country becomes, the more meat they eat. The vast majority of the world could survive on a vegan diet. Thrive, even. This isn’t about survival, it’s about taste.
Some of the countries with the large percentages of vegetarians, vegans or predominantly plant forward diets such as India or South East Asia are not wealthy by Western standards. Eating a ‘healthy’ plant forward diet does not have to be an expensive affair.
The perception that a plant based diet is a wealthy western modern invention is white washing its unglamorous origins as a traditional eastern diet, especially in Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, etc cultures.
To dismiss a plant forward diet because not everyone can afford to eat impossible burgers 7x a week is disingenuous, as people were eating diets with little to no meat for centuries before faux ‘beuf’ plant minces were invented.
Vegetarianism in India is more nuanced then that; I personally see it in 4 different facets.
one is that it is the Upper Caste’s(who traditionally have more access to wealth) enforcing their values(religious requirement to be a vegetarian) on people who they see as below them.
Many poor people in India disproportionately eat more meat than their richer counter parts.
Animal protein is just cheaper and more dense than plant based protein, and plant based protein is also seasonal as compared to animal based protein.
It also doesn’t help that vegetarianism has become a political issue in India, and is part of the ongoing culture wars happening in the country.
I agree. Just a comment on lab-grown meat. I’m not sure if that is going to help in developing markets. Maybe a big lab can produce meat that you can buy for less money than you’d need for a real steak in an advanced economy. That doesn’t mean that someone in the Philippines countryside can start their own meat-lab instead of raising chicken.
I’m sure you would hear more than a few say something along the lines of 1) ending their life can be done relatively humanely. And it serves a fundamental purpose, for sustenance. While meat for sustenance is not actually necessary, it is considered a basic staple of our diets and generally acceptable. 2) Having sex with animals, though, harms them in a way and leaves them to live with that harm. It can traumatize the animal. It is inherently inhumane. And it serves no purpose but to satisfy a carnal desire, a morbid curiosity, or a sadistic appetite.
I’m not saying that it is an altogether consistent or sound argument. It is something some can rationalize though. But, frankly, I would call either explanation at least a little bit bullshit.
The answer to either their desire for meat or their revulsion to animal molestation is that their instincts give them those feelings. It is evolution. Animal meats and fats are a calorie dense and nutritionally valuable food source that our ancestors have eaten since before humans existed, and we’re mostly wired to enjoy the taste and crave it. A revulsion for sex outside of species helps make sure that we continue to make babies. It’s as simple as that.
Some very few people don’t have one, the other or both of these instincts, but the vast majority do. Most of those people will happily rationalize the feeling that isn’t based in rationality, like above. Some will examine those feelings and rationalize themselves into changing/recontextualizing their feelings or choosing to not act upon them in light of their viewpoint or some virtue they’ve applied to the question. But most just do what feels right and is normalized and don’t ever really truly question it.
And even if you are one of those people who has rationalized themselves into a rationally/morally superior position regarding meat eating, or maybe you never even had an instinctual desire for it, you almost certainly have other habits, values, opinions, etc. that go against every rationality too that just come with human nature.
We’re people. We’re animals. We have intelligence. We have primal drives. Nobody is morally perfect. Nobody can even agree on what moral perfection is. Morality is both subjective on the whole, and objective for each and every one of us. We just gotta get along.
If alien species more powerful and smart came to earth i would rather be molested than killed and turned into a sausage.
Wise choice, Mr. Schopenhauer.
emotivism. when i eat burger i say “yay”, when you fuck animal i say “boo”
Why such opposite reaction? X commited murder for its benefit and Y commited rape for its benefit. Both have dismissed the “consent of animals” for their respective benefits. You can either condone both or condemn both.
i am not claiming one is right and the other is wrong. i am simply claiming that, for reasons outside of my control, eating meat evokes a positive emotion within me while zoophilia evokes a negative emotion. just like i cannot help it when i find vanilla ice cream more delicious than chocolate ice cream, i cannot help it when i experience a positive emotion when eating meat and a negative emotion when confronted with zoophilia. i am not making a factual statement about reality, i am just expressing my emotions and letting that guide my sense of morality. and i am a mere observer of my emotions, not their author.
Really enjoyed this thread.
This is one of the threads of all time!
Most people don’t use critical reasoning to make their decisions, hence why most people live their lives in a state of constant contradictions.
My old philosophy professor once told us that the most effective way to expose somebody’s lack of critical reasoning about an issue is to just respond with, “who says?”
Basically the Socratic method, ask them to justify the statements they make, and see how they respond. The vast majority of the time, you’ll quickly find out that they don’t have any good reasons to support their statements. They haven’t given them much thought at all, nor much thought to differing views/positions. They live their lives in ways that feel generally “correct” or pleasurable to them, and that’s it.
Why do they think it’s alright to eat factory farmed meat? Because they like the taste, the thought of billions of animals living short, miserable lives, then being slaughtered and processed for us to consume doesn’t horrify or disgust them, so they keep doing it.
Most people when challenged on it will put up some vague attempt to support their actions, “Other animals do it to each other, so why not us?” “Animals don’t have sophisticated minds, so it doesn’t actually cause them real suffering.” “Humans need animal protein to be healthy.” etc. All terribly weak arguments that are easily refuted. But most people don’t care, because most societies normalize meat consumption and factory farming. They grew up eating meat with other people eating meat all around them, and they never gave it any thought.
Hence why most pet owners who eat meat would be absolutely horrified and disgusted if their dog or cat had a litter and somebody bought all of the puppies/kittens, only to torture, slaughter, and eat them. A completely inconsistent reaction given the fact that the pet owner happily eats other animals that are treated in the same way. But again, they didn’t reason themselves into their viewpoint, so they don’t worry about being consistent.
This is further confirmed by anecdotes from vegetarians/vegans, who will tell you about all the awkward, unprompted reactions from meat-eaters when they find out they don’t eat meat. Many people get very defensive, often making snide or accusatory remarks about vegetarianism/veganism. They don’t like the idea that eating factory meat is morally wrong, because they like the taste and don’t want to make to effort to change their lifestyle to confirm with that moral principle. So they mock, tease, or try to “expose” inconsistencies in the vegetarian/vegan’s own worldview as a defense mechanism.
If they can make the vegetarian/vegan look foolish, then that feels like a win psychologically to them, which provides mental and emotional comfort and allows them to slip back into their lifestyle without needing to confront their own moral failings.
“Other animals do it to each other, so why not us?” “Animals don’t have sophisticated minds, so it doesn’t actually cause them real suffering.” “Humans need animal protein to be healthy.” etc. All terribly weak arguments that are easily refuted.
if you care to articulate these refutations, i’d be fascinated to see how strong your arguments are.
- The first argument is just another version of the “it’s natural/unnatural, therefore it’s right/wrong.” Many animals also eat their own young, rape each other, etc. Does that make it acceptable for humans to do it also? Of course not. Some homophobes will point out that homosexual relationships are evolutionarily disadvantageous, (“unnatural”) and therefore that means it’s wrong for humans to form homosexual relationships. Obviously a ridiculous argument, but it’s just the inverse form of the one above.
- Is it alright to torture a human infant or a severely developmentally disabled person? What about a person with very advanced Alzheimer’s? All three examples have little to no mental self-awareness, certainly less than a dog, pig, dolphin, etc. At what point is self awareness sufficiently low enough to make it morally acceptable to cause deliberate pain to that person for your own enjoyment? Second, there is a growing body of evidence that a large portion of animals, including many that are currently farmed/fished for consumption, demonstrate sentience beyond simple reflexes. Beyond the scientific studies, everyday experience indicates this in many animals. Dogs, pigs, birds, octopus, can all solve simple puzzles, demonstrate various apparent emotions like curiosity, fear, joy, confusion, anger, etc. Clearly some level of sentience is present, even if it’s quite simple.
- All essential nutrients humans need can be found in plants. You need to adjust your diet obviously, some nutrients like B12 and Iron are harder to get from a plant-based diet. While others, like Vitamin C and Fiber are easier. The old stereotype that vegetarians/vegans are all malnourished weaklings, is a myth. There are many vegetarian/vegan elite athletes, including Olympic medalists and world record holders, (Alex Morgan, Scott Jurek, Dotsie Bausch, Fiona Oakes, Meagan Duhamel). So at least in the developed world, (where factory farming is the most pervasive,) there is no nutritional need for the general population to eat animals.
All essential nutrients humans need can be found in plants. You need to adjust your diet obviously, some nutrients like B12 and Iron are harder to get from a plant-based diet. While others, like Vitamin C and Fiber are easier.
If you eat 100% plant based you will need to supplement which contradicts the first sentence.
the distinction between food and supplements is purely regulatory and semantic. at what point does something become a food or a supplement? if i lack vitamin c and i eat an orange, have i supplemented with vitamin c? b12 supplements are made through microbial fermentation, like alcohol or vinegar or lactic acid. if i need iron and i take a pill, i’ve supplemented with iron, but if need sodium and i eat salt, have i supplemented? starch and sugar are simple chemicals extracted from whole foods, yet they are still considered foods. my point is that there is no true objective distinction between food and supplements, it’s just a vague label like “natural/unnatural”
Reading on this a bit more, it looks like I was off on B12 specifically. Vegetarians can get this from eggs and milk, but full vegans need to either eat plant-based foods that are fortified with B12, or directly take a B12 supplement.
So my first sentence should actually be, “All essential nutrients humans need can be provided by a plant-based diet.” That is accurate because it includes fortified plant-based foods, plant-based direct suppliments, and vegetarians.
