• flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    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:

    1. That ‘human’ is a distinct category of being that makes us the only thing worthy of moral consideration;
    2. 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;

    I don’t think these are sound arguments.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      And?

      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.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        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?

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          suffering isn’t inherently immoral, and almost no ethical system treats it as such (there is one that comes to mind but it’s got big problems)

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              i think minimizing unnecessary suffering is probably a moral good, but not a moral duty.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  trying to prevent suffering might be laudable but i don’t think indifference in this respect is immoral.

                  edit, i read too fast. i missed that you were asking about causing ME, A PERSON suffering. yea. you should be cognizant of that and avoid it when you can.

                  • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    I think being indifferent to the suffering you cause on those around you is a moral failing. You said yourself you aim to treat people how you want to be treated, do you not care if those around you inflict suffering on you? I don’t see how indifference to suffering can be universalised.

                    Edit: didn’t see your edit before posting, I still don’t think you’ve justified why the unnecessary killing/causing suffering of a person and animal are different. Your argument seems very circular on this, killing humans and animals are different because they are different.