Amends (2018-05-23)

Is there any altruistic act that you couldn't apply that logic to?

25 God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.

26 God said, “Let’s make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 God said, “Behold,[a] I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. 30 To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so.

31 God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

Footnotes

1:29 “Behold”, from “הִנֵּה”, means look at, take notice, observe, see, or gaze at. It is often used as an interjection.

Public domain, WEB translation.

That's really interesting! I'd be curious to see what other translations read as (especially ancient languages, if I were smart enough to read them), but in the NIV translation, you could absolutely read that as a call to eat only plants, and to care for the animals.

It could also be taken another, slightly more terrifying way, too.

If we assume what we're doing is right, farming and killing animals for food, and work backwards from there, the verses say that God made the animals, and gave us dominion over them. If we assume the way we currently treat animals and view them is how that dominion works, then when it goes on to say that God made man in God's image, it could be implied to say that man is to animal as God is to man.

Which could mean God is farming and killing us for God's sustenance. We're nothing but chickens in cages.

Problem is we are not herbivores. And especially back then when we didn't have global access to food when ever we wanted being a vegan would be almost impossible in certain locations.

That's basically the same thing as what they said though.

And let's be honest, if a tiger was capable of farming livestock, it probably would.

The easiest path is not necessarily the best or right path. Though I do agree that in the context of modern industrial meat production the more ethical thing to do is not consume meat. But that is not the same thing as saying that eating meat is wrong, or immoral. The immoral thing is the way the animals suffer before being killed.

I already have stated a thousand times that this is not an appeal to nature, the claim is not universalist it is strictly related to the killing of animals in the context of subsistence. All animals have a right to live and as part of the right to live there is a right to kill in order to live and substist. Furthermore part of the scaffolding that I do not want to get into because then I have to write even more is that death itself absent pain is of no moral significance because the subject cannot be present for their own death and therefore cannot suffer it. Suffering is the only universally significant moral concept because all beings share in it and actively avoid it. Therefore we have a moral responsibility to not inflict suffering, but suffering =death.

Yes it is ethical to kill a dog to eat it. I mean I wouldn’t do it but it is ethical. Just because I emotionally have a response to it doesn’t change the logic of the matter. I never justified violence against animals fyi, I’m absolutely against that because it inflicts suffering. So in this case you would need to kill the dog without it suffering.

But yeah the line of thinking in order to convince others requires a lot more elaboration than Im willing at this point to give here.

Maybe I’ll put it to paper and tag everyone here, it would at least make for some interesting discussion.

Who says that the lion isn’t just needlessly cruel? You can only assume that it lacks the ability to make moral decisions, but then again humans kill children all the time for incomprehensible reasons. How are these lions and humans different except your perception that one has moral agency and the other doesn’t based on absolutely no empirical evidence except your belief in your own superiority.

Again this entire thing hinges on the notion that animals lack rationality, but the evidence increasingly dies not support that. But that’s neither here nor there, the nature of a lion is different to the nature of a human. And even then, we still do what you have described all the time. It may be wrong but we do it, and we will still do it a thousand years from now if we are still around. Now the argument is not because “it is part of your nature, you’re allowed to do it”, the argument is that all animals have a right to kill other animals in order to defend or feed themselves.

The other part of the argument is that unless you think for example another omnivore like a chimp (which fyi we have absolutely no reason to believe are any less rational than us ) is immoral if they decide to eat meat having plant based foods available then you shouldn’t think that about human beings.

If you want to improve animal welfare, you need to start believing that all animals, including human animals are equal. While society continues to believe humans are superior in any way to animals we will not be able to create a world in which all species are equally respected.

I have so many arguments against this I don’t even know were to start, so I’ll keep it simple: you need to abandon anthropocentrism.

Humans are animals and not particularly special or even intelligent ones. (Intelligence being defined as the ability to solve problems and learn from them) Our “intelligence” is actually just cumulative generationally passed knowledge. It is not clear that humans are indeed more rational than a tiger or that tigers or non human animals in general lack rationality, except only in the way in which a human would define rationality which cannot be a universal claim.

I think this is fundamentally true (although it has issues when it scales down to insects and below that requires an arbitrary line to be drawn) but I'm not convinced that being absolute about it is useful in harm reduction.

It's objectively better that someone looks to buy meat from a farm that cares about the welfare of its animals than one that maximizes profit at the cost of the wellbeing and happiness of the animal.

Naturally it's better still if they reduce or stop their meat consumption, but making it black-and-white can potentially result in a worse outcome by setting the bar higher than the consumer is willing to jump.

You can so ethically take a life.

So what is your solution for when a species is getting over populated and destroying an ecosystem? Is it not more ethical to kill some and preserve the ecosystem for the rest of the wildlife in that area?

Or to grow it without a central nerve system.

I don't think he ate the japanese soldier either

Could be saying he is liable for ivory trade.

Out in the wild, the vast majority of animals are eaten alive.

I think that's meant towards the comic artist, right? My question existed long before I ever saw this comic.

I'm not even vegetarian/ vegan, but you just come off as a giant asshole.

It is a well known fact that it's entirely possible to thrive on a non meat diet. So your argument that we need meat to thrive is a really bad one.

The world works the way we make it work. Imagine wanting to end slavery, and there you go "Grow up from the little child crying over the idea of slaves deserving their own lives, you just don't understand how the world works!"

You don't have to justify wanting to eat meat for sustenance. And you also don't need to be an asshole about it when engaging in civil conversations.

Joe didn't order any of those animals killed, either. He bought parts of them that were packaged and made available for anyone to buy.

The point is "fuck you, you will always be guilty of something".

And I of course took it, by no longer giving a shit.

Inb4: I realize that every acre of wheat and corn my basic vegan ass has obliterated probably killed some field varmints. It's still less destructive than someone eating a burger.

what's CO

Why make the distinction? Because you can't project human emotion onto a plant? The distinction is arbitrary.

And, like many others, is capable of sparking conversations

Indeed. Time to show Lucifer and Yahweh who is boss.