The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Speciesism is a form of discrimination based on species membership, something that you're falling back on - that said, do you believe in darwinism aka evolution?
The trait which I claim, also invalidates your argument, lacking in animals, is the belief that humans hold intrinsic moral value.
NOTE EMPHASIS.
Now in your opinion..
You're justified in killing an animal cos they "lack the belief that humans hold value"
You find the killing to be okay.
You're not justified in killing a mentally handicapped human being - even tho they;
"lack the belief that humans hold value"
You don't find the killing to be okay.
Your thought process has bigger and more fundamental problems. Firstly, meat eaters don't have to justify their process since it is the norm here on planet Earth, long before there were people. Rather you've got to justify not killing for food, since that choice is a human invention. Of course it is completely logical and justifiable not to kill for food (humans have chosen to do so for millennia), but you are being illogical by using the phrasing the way you have.
Certain meat eaters do have to justify culling from the wild in this era of domesticated animal husbandry. COVID 19 is only the most recent argument against the practice.
LuckyR wrote: ↑March 20th, 2020, 11:00 am
Certain meat eaters do have to justify culling from the wild in this era of domesticated animal husbandry. COVID 19 is only the most recent argument against the practice.
I think that is still speculation which links COVID with animals.
Since COVID is a mutation of the common cold, the likelihood is the humans gave it to animals in the first place.
People like to run with this story since it gets all their racist juices flowing. Trump is calling it the "Chinese Virus".
Kaz_1983 wrote: ↑March 20th, 2020, 6:31 am
Speciesism is a form of discrimination based on species membership, something that you're falling back on - that said, do you believe in darwinism aka evolution?
Yeah I think all those COVID 19 members should be able to vote.
I vote Jellyfish for POTAS. Why not give all invertebrates the right to stand for office??
I would be better than Trump
Obviously, most cultures - not all - have routinely killed animals to survive. All that high density energy is said to have allowed humans to develop their large energy-hungry brains.
Yet it's been shown that we do not need to kill to remain healthy, and vegetarians tend to live as long, or longer, than those with omnivorous diets. So, unlike many of our ancestors, it seems that most of us do not need to eat meat to thrive. So it's a matter of whether the killing of animals is worth less than a person's pleasure in eating flesh.
Then again, as Lucky noted earlier in the thread, if people did not eat meat many of these animals would not live at all. On the other hand, is it better to live a life of horror and agony, or not to live at all?
In context, factory farming is clearly unethical. Sheer torture for countless animals for the sake of people's taste preferences.
With other forms of farming, the issue is less cut-and-dried. Given the usual horrors meted out to wild animals (especially in the violent, degraded environments they live in today, with some experiencing what, to them, would be a post-apocalyptic world), the best free range farms would provide a better life and death for their animals who, as mentioned, would not have lived at all.
However, they are in the minority, and their meat would not be available to the poor. Generally, when considering populations, it would seem more ethical for people to be vegan or vegetarian than to remain omnivorous.
It should be said that there are many irrational and superstitious views about meat. Some believe that eating a wild animal is better than eating domesticated ones (a common view in China, hence their disease-fostering wet markets).
Others cannot bear the thought of eating laboratory-grown meat, and would only want their meat from a dead animals. I am as repulsed by this (remarkably common) view as much as those people are repulsed by victim-free meat. Why eschew the chance to enjoy meat without the torture? It appears that the sterile conditions of a laboratory are less appetising to them than, say, cramped pig sties soaked in antibiotics and hormones to protect against problems caused by animals living in their own faeces and urine.
LuckyR wrote: ↑March 20th, 2020, 11:00 am
Certain meat eaters do have to justify culling from the wild in this era of domesticated animal husbandry. COVID 19 is only the most recent argument against the practice.
I think that is still speculation which links COVID with animals.
Since COVID is a mutation of the common cold, the likelihood is the humans gave it to animals in the first place.
People like to run with this story since it gets all their racist juices flowing. Trump is calling it the "Chinese Virus".
Not so much. The types of corona virus that cause colds in humans are either alpha corona viruses or type 1 beta corona viruses. COVID 19, of course is a type 2B beta corona virus. The closest known wild type was isolated from bats in 2003 from a cave in Wuhan province.
I think that is still speculation which links COVID with animals.
Since COVID is a mutation of the common cold, the likelihood is the humans gave it to animals in the first place.
People like to run with this story since it gets all their racist juices flowing. Trump is calling it the "Chinese Virus".
Not so much. The types of corona virus that cause colds in humans are either alpha corona viruses or type 1 beta corona viruses. COVID 19, of course is a type 2B beta corona virus. The closest known wild type was isolated from bats in 2003 from a cave in Wuhan province.
It all depends on hunger and what available food there is. When conditions are bad, people facing starvation, some have turned to cannabalism - is that ethecally wrong? People do what they have to, to survive.
There is a movement to create a better life for animals, cage free chickens, etc. so they do live a better life than they would in the wild. Death for an animal in the wild would be far worse than the quick death that meat producers provide.
As long as we have capitalism, and a market for meat, we will have the meat industry.
It might seem ethically wrong, but it can provide a better life for these animals if they are treated ethically.
gater wrote: ↑March 21st, 2020, 5:20 pm
It all depends on hunger and what available food there is. When conditions are bad, people facing starvation, some have turned to cannabalism - is that ethecally wrong? People do what they have to, to survive.
There is a movement to create a better life for animals, cage free chickens, etc. so they do live a better life than they would in the wild. Death for an animal in the wild would be far worse than the quick death that meat producers provide.
As long as we have capitalism, and a market for meat, we will have the meat industry.
It might seem ethically wrong, but it can provide a better life for these animals if they are treated ethically.
Sounds logical at first glance but domesticated farm animals don't have the option of living in the wild (since they're not wild animals).
gater wrote: ↑March 21st, 2020, 5:20 pm
It all depends on hunger and what available food there is. When conditions are bad, people facing starvation, some have turned to cannabalism - is that ethecally wrong? People do what they have to, to survive.
There is a movement to create a better life for animals, cage free chickens, etc. so they do live a better life than they would in the wild. Death for an animal in the wild would be far worse than the quick death that meat producers provide.
As long as we have capitalism, and a market for meat, we will have the meat industry.
It might seem ethically wrong, but it can provide a better life for these animals if they are treated ethically.
Sounds logical at first glance but domesticated farm animals don't have the option of living in the wild (since they're not wild animals).
No, they would still be domesticated, but living in a healthier environment. Living a better life than they would in the wild - they are fed, watered, sheltered.
