Submitted by phileconomicus t3_ycisnw in philosophy
After_Kick_4543 t1_itmy5rs wrote
Reply to comment by Dejan05 in Lab-grown meat could let humanity ignore a serious moral failing by phileconomicus
Bro chill my point is that not every animal rapes their young and we are clearly not a species of animal that rapes their young like I said just because one animal does something doesn’t mean all of them do it. I feel like I expressed that clearly earlier though I may not have, I just hope you’re taking the time to seriously consider my difference of opinion here.
Dejan05 t1_itmycve wrote
Ok and not every animal eats meat so why should we do so? An appeal to nature isn't gonna get you very far
After_Kick_4543 t1_itmys8c wrote
Dude again in the particular case of humans, humans eat meat my exact point is that it’s not about looking at animals in general but humans in specific. It doesn’t matter what other animals do it’s about what the human animal does and what it evolved to do and be capable of.
Dejan05 t1_itmz0o8 wrote
Ok humans can also not eat meat, we aren't carnivores. If it doesn't matter what animals do then why are you using animals as an argument in the first place?
After_Kick_4543 t1_itmzjj8 wrote
Bro my whole point is that humans fit inside the category of animal. That doesn’t mean we do everything every other animal does. Furthermore as the human animal also fits inside the category of omnivore we cannot choose to stop being omnivores and not eat meat.
Dejan05 t1_itmzqup wrote
If we don't do as animals do then it's irrelevant what they do. We can choose not to eat meat, it's irrelevant that we're omnivores since we can choose not to
After_Kick_4543 t1_itn2f24 wrote
Bro do squirrels do what every animal does? No, but they’re still animals. You see what I mean? Squirrels have intrinsic parts of their nature some parts overlap with some animals and some parts don’t. Humans have intrinsic parts of their nature some overlap with some animals some don’t. The point is that like other animals we have intrinsic aspects to our nature, one of which is that we are omnivores we should then not use the intelligence of our nature to deny the fact we are omnivores and stop eating meat.
Dejan05 t1_itn2k97 wrote
This is ignoring we have morals and eating meat has moral implications which is enough of a reason to not eat meat
After_Kick_4543 t1_itn3lay wrote
Well unless you believe in universal morality, morality is based in part on your nature. For a tiger eating meat has no moral implications because it has neither the option to choose or the ability not to eat meat. Humans are omnivores and therefore eat plants and meat, despite being intelligent enough to choose I would say it is not moral to reject your nature and therefore the choice to eat meat is not a moral one because it is a part of our nature.
How you treat the animals you choose to eat in life and in killing them is moral however.
Dejan05 t1_itn3uwx wrote
Why isn't it moral? By that logic surely curing disease isn't moral either? If you get a natural tumour then by getting rid of it you're rejecting your nature.
Why is how you treat them a moral question but not killing them when you don't have to?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments