A legislative move to ban the consumption of dog meat is losing steam as rival parties have yet to reach a consensus over the issue amid fierce opposition from dog meat traders.
ok well that line of argument falls prey to a line-drawing fallacy. there is a clear difference between people and non-human animals. even if there is no singular trait, or no less-than-complete set of traits that we can point to as the distinguishing mark, it is obvious that there is a difference or we wouldn’t discriminate between humans and non-human animals.
SINCE THAT IS NOT WHERE YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE HEADING
i would just say “we’re human” and, in light of the rebuttal to the NTT argument (which you weren’t conciously advancing), i think it’s that is sufficient.
living things are in competition and killing is a matter of course. it is natural. i think a special case must be made against killings. among humans, there are many (distinct) arguments against killing. among the ones i’ve heard, the ones which would also apply to animals are not ones that i personally believe.
living things are in competition and killing is a matter of course. it is natural.
And?
i think a special case must be made against killings. among humans, there are many (distinct) arguments against killing. among the ones i’ve heard, the ones which would also apply to animals are not ones that i personally believe.
What do you believe? From what I’ve been able to gather from your replies to me and others, you put hold the following two beliefs:
That ‘human’ is a distinct category of being that makes us the only thing worthy of moral consideration;
That the practice of killing animals is so widespread, so normalised, that it must be morally OK, because if it were wrong, we wouldn’t practice it so widely;
and so a case must be made that this obviously natural phenomenon is immoral. i think it is probably usually amoral,but there may be conditions where it is a moral duty.
OK, so this is literally an appeal to nature. I seriously don’t see why behaviour should get a free pass just because it’s ‘natural,’ except the very natural phenomenon of humans killing each other.
That the practice of killing animals is so widespread, so normalised, that it must be morally OK
again, not quite. the practice of killing animals is near-universal among all life-forms. bacteria kill animals. fungi kill animals. animals kill animals. if causing the death of animals is to be believed to be bad, a case needs to be made for that.
That ‘human’ is a distinct category of being that makes us the only thing worthy of moral consideration;
close. human is a distinct category of being. we are the only beings to whom moral consideration is due. this may be a vestigial belief: i’m not sure i buy into deontology anymore. currently, i think i’m a virtue ethicist but i’m not even sure about that. my doubt about deontology comes from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience that most people seem to just sort of do what they want, and then make up a reason why it was the right thing to do. but this is sort of rambling. to be concise on this point, the categorical imperative implies, to me, that people ought to be treated as well as i would like to be treated. i don’t know what it’s like to be a chicken or a pig, but i can’t imagine that, as a pig, i’d expect any standard of behavior from people. as a person, i have no standard of behavior for the animals that prey on people.
i don’t know what it’s like to be a chicken or a pig
But you do know what it’s like to suffer. And you know pigs, chickens, and other farm animals can suffer. Does that not count for anything? Or do you not consider suffering to be an inheriently bad thing?
Never heard of the term before now, but yeah I suppose it is NTT.
ok well that line of argument falls prey to a line-drawing fallacy. there is a clear difference between people and non-human animals. even if there is no singular trait, or no less-than-complete set of traits that we can point to as the distinguishing mark, it is obvious that there is a difference or we wouldn’t discriminate between humans and non-human animals.
SINCE THAT IS NOT WHERE YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE HEADING
i would just say “we’re human” and, in light of the rebuttal to the NTT argument (which you weren’t conciously advancing), i think it’s that is sufficient.
Isn’t this just the is-ought problem though? Just because we currently distinguish between animals and humans doesn’t mean we ought to.
i don’t think so. it’s clear that pigs aren’t human. they are different.
I’m not saying there are, but just because we currently murder pigs is not justification to continue killing them.
living things are in competition and killing is a matter of course. it is natural. i think a special case must be made against killings. among humans, there are many (distinct) arguments against killing. among the ones i’ve heard, the ones which would also apply to animals are not ones that i personally believe.
And?
What do you believe? From what I’ve been able to gather from your replies to me and others, you put hold the following two beliefs:
I don’t think these are sound arguments.
and so a case must be made that this obviously natural phenomenon is immoral. i think it is probably usually amoral,but there may be conditions where it is a moral duty.
OK, so this is literally an appeal to nature. I seriously don’t see why behaviour should get a free pass just because it’s ‘natural,’ except the very natural phenomenon of humans killing each other.
again, not quite. the practice of killing animals is near-universal among all life-forms. bacteria kill animals. fungi kill animals. animals kill animals. if causing the death of animals is to be believed to be bad, a case needs to be made for that.
close. human is a distinct category of being. we are the only beings to whom moral consideration is due. this may be a vestigial belief: i’m not sure i buy into deontology anymore. currently, i think i’m a virtue ethicist but i’m not even sure about that. my doubt about deontology comes from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience that most people seem to just sort of do what they want, and then make up a reason why it was the right thing to do. but this is sort of rambling. to be concise on this point, the categorical imperative implies, to me, that people ought to be treated as well as i would like to be treated. i don’t know what it’s like to be a chicken or a pig, but i can’t imagine that, as a pig, i’d expect any standard of behavior from people. as a person, i have no standard of behavior for the animals that prey on people.
But you do know what it’s like to suffer. And you know pigs, chickens, and other farm animals can suffer. Does that not count for anything? Or do you not consider suffering to be an inheriently bad thing?