And a male lion after defeating and taking over the pride has every right to kill the children of the former leader, because they’re animals and act on instinct and can’t make moral decisions. Humans can.
You can make other arguments about eating meat but appeals to nature like this don’t work in a modern enlightened era where we have more decisions and understand the consequences of them.
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.
Who says the lion is just needlessly cruel? Fundamentally neither of us can know what’s happening in the lions head so there is no empirical evidence to be had. With passing judgement I tend to work on innocent until proven guilty so I’m just gonna assume the lion is acting on instinct.
As for your main argument of “all animals have a right to kill other animals in order to defend or feed themselves” if you combine that with your other argument of humans and animals are equal, can a human kill another human for food? Can a human kill another human in defense of a slap? This right your proposing is missing a key part and that’s necessity. If it is necessary, or the animal thinks it’s necessary for its survival, then that animal has a right to kill for food or defense. This is where modern humans and animals are different, humans are far more aware of what is and isn’t necessary for survival. A chimp doesn’t know whether it will or even can get enough food from just plants. Your average human, at least in the developed world, is aware that you can survive off a vegetarian diet and there is food available to do so. They wantonly choose to kill animals because they taste good. I also don’t judge people close to subsistence eating meat because they need every calorie they can get.
Your first point is exactly my point, but extended to humans. The idea that we are above instinct is so absurd, it requires putting us on a pedestal of rationality for which there is little evidence of. Is it more logical to think that all animal mental processes operate in much the same way or that for some reason humans simply are built different? There is some evidence that rationality is simply us justifying things we already decided instinctually.
My argument is not, “it is natural therefore it is right”, my argument is only and absolutely only about the morality of killing animals for food and is centered on the right to live of every animal. There’s other scaffolding about the insignificance of death but it’s unlikely to change your mind so I won’t go into it. Anyways should be obvious that Intra species relationships are different from interspecies relationships, human moral judgements are almost purely intra-species regulations. We don’t need to extrapolate my argument to make a universal claim about other things when I’ve been very clear that I’m simply talking about this issue specifically.
But to not sidestep around your argument yes there are instances in which humans may kill humans for food. Because survival overwrites any moral principles due to the right to live of every being which includes the right to kill for your own survival. How can you judge someone in a position in which there is only enough food to sustain 1 person as immoral if they are both thinking the same thing and one decides to take action? Should they both let themselves starve? Or how would you mediate it?
Now I may be predisposed to not do it due to social conditioning but I will not rationalize it by saying that it is because I’m more moral or ethical, I’m simply programmed differently and would not be able to kill another human for food. Or at least I do not think so, I don’t know what happens when my very life is on the line. I’m not sure that I would even be capable of killing an animal to be honest.
But again, that’s not really related to my argument in any direct way except that you are trying to turn it into a universal claim, which it isn’t.
I’m not saying humans are above instinct or lions have no rationality. I’m saying humans use rationality way more because of our far greater understanding of the world. Rationality requires knowledge of the world in order to form decisions, and humans have far more knowledge of the world then a lion.
I’m sorry for misunderstanding your claim as universal, but if it’s not you shouldn’t use universalist language: “all animals have a right to kill other animals in order to defend or feed themselves.”, rights, as I understand them, are universal as the more exceptions you have to a right the less it becomes a right.
I don’t understand them intra species vs inter species distinction, is cannibalism more wrong then inter species carnivory?
Back to the main point though, your initial claim that it’s fine to kill for food if you do it yourself and aren’t alienated from it, you said this is one requirement, are there any others? I’m saying that the necessity for survival is one of them. I think we agree on this as you base your claim for this “right” on the right to live of every animal, therefore an animal should not encroach on that right unless it feels its own life is threatened. If you live in the developed world with ample access to plant based foods and access to knowledge of how to eat a vegetarian diet, then it doesn’t matter if you go out into the woods naked armed only with a spear, your still wantonly killing. Your not killing to protect your right to life, your killing for the taste of the animals flesh, or sport, or to prove your masculinity etc. Those are not valid reasons to kill.
And a male lion after defeating and taking over the pride has every right to kill the children of the former leader, because they’re animals and act on instinct and can’t make moral decisions. Humans can.
You can make other arguments about eating meat but appeals to nature like this don’t work in a modern enlightened era where we have more decisions and understand the consequences of them.
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.
Who says the lion is just needlessly cruel? Fundamentally neither of us can know what’s happening in the lions head so there is no empirical evidence to be had. With passing judgement I tend to work on innocent until proven guilty so I’m just gonna assume the lion is acting on instinct.
As for your main argument of “all animals have a right to kill other animals in order to defend or feed themselves” if you combine that with your other argument of humans and animals are equal, can a human kill another human for food? Can a human kill another human in defense of a slap? This right your proposing is missing a key part and that’s necessity. If it is necessary, or the animal thinks it’s necessary for its survival, then that animal has a right to kill for food or defense. This is where modern humans and animals are different, humans are far more aware of what is and isn’t necessary for survival. A chimp doesn’t know whether it will or even can get enough food from just plants. Your average human, at least in the developed world, is aware that you can survive off a vegetarian diet and there is food available to do so. They wantonly choose to kill animals because they taste good. I also don’t judge people close to subsistence eating meat because they need every calorie they can get.
Your first point is exactly my point, but extended to humans. The idea that we are above instinct is so absurd, it requires putting us on a pedestal of rationality for which there is little evidence of. Is it more logical to think that all animal mental processes operate in much the same way or that for some reason humans simply are built different? There is some evidence that rationality is simply us justifying things we already decided instinctually.
My argument is not, “it is natural therefore it is right”, my argument is only and absolutely only about the morality of killing animals for food and is centered on the right to live of every animal. There’s other scaffolding about the insignificance of death but it’s unlikely to change your mind so I won’t go into it. Anyways should be obvious that Intra species relationships are different from interspecies relationships, human moral judgements are almost purely intra-species regulations. We don’t need to extrapolate my argument to make a universal claim about other things when I’ve been very clear that I’m simply talking about this issue specifically.
But to not sidestep around your argument yes there are instances in which humans may kill humans for food. Because survival overwrites any moral principles due to the right to live of every being which includes the right to kill for your own survival. How can you judge someone in a position in which there is only enough food to sustain 1 person as immoral if they are both thinking the same thing and one decides to take action? Should they both let themselves starve? Or how would you mediate it?
Now I may be predisposed to not do it due to social conditioning but I will not rationalize it by saying that it is because I’m more moral or ethical, I’m simply programmed differently and would not be able to kill another human for food. Or at least I do not think so, I don’t know what happens when my very life is on the line. I’m not sure that I would even be capable of killing an animal to be honest.
But again, that’s not really related to my argument in any direct way except that you are trying to turn it into a universal claim, which it isn’t.
I’m not saying humans are above instinct or lions have no rationality. I’m saying humans use rationality way more because of our far greater understanding of the world. Rationality requires knowledge of the world in order to form decisions, and humans have far more knowledge of the world then a lion.
I’m sorry for misunderstanding your claim as universal, but if it’s not you shouldn’t use universalist language: “all animals have a right to kill other animals in order to defend or feed themselves.”, rights, as I understand them, are universal as the more exceptions you have to a right the less it becomes a right.
I don’t understand them intra species vs inter species distinction, is cannibalism more wrong then inter species carnivory?
Back to the main point though, your initial claim that it’s fine to kill for food if you do it yourself and aren’t alienated from it, you said this is one requirement, are there any others? I’m saying that the necessity for survival is one of them. I think we agree on this as you base your claim for this “right” on the right to live of every animal, therefore an animal should not encroach on that right unless it feels its own life is threatened. If you live in the developed world with ample access to plant based foods and access to knowledge of how to eat a vegetarian diet, then it doesn’t matter if you go out into the woods naked armed only with a spear, your still wantonly killing. Your not killing to protect your right to life, your killing for the taste of the animals flesh, or sport, or to prove your masculinity etc. Those are not valid reasons to kill.
Morality isn’t some special thing humans have. Morality is what makes us succesful as a species, put through a filter of language and culture.