Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
Those same people do not actually kill animals. They eat meat, there is a disconnect here. I would wager if everyone had to kill and process the meat they eat that consumption would go down considerably.
A sufficient majority of people want to eat animals, but not a sufficient majority of people want to fuck them. Morality is indeed completely subjective and defined only by culture
My theory on ethics is that it’s survival tools for hunter gatherer societies.
Eat meat, be strong. Good.
Fuck animal? Animal might bite, give you disease, and you are not making baby. Bad.
But if make baby good?
Because ~90% of people don’t actually think about morality deeper than ‘gross, icky.’ If that seems high I’m also including in that people who start with the reaction and work backwards looking for justifications.
“It’s called ‘inter-species erotica’, Fuck-o.”
Kelly can be a guy’s name too! Hooooo
The question is on social acceptance of killing innocent animals while condemning zoophila. How come murder of innocent accepted but rape is considered a sin? Should we not come to an ideal conclusion and stop both?
They weren’t replying seriously. It’s a reference to the film “Clerks II.”
Both groups can emphatically agree on something - that they love the taste of animal meat.
I guess because animals (eg tigers) eat other animals (e.g deer) and have evolved exactly towards that purpose. That’s how their species survives.
It’s not often that I see a tiger performing sexual assault on a deer. That’s not required for the tiger’s survival.
Now whether humans are “naturally” meat eaters and therefore we should feel “better” about eating animals I don’t know. Nutritionally I think the evidence probably leans towards being omnivore, similar to many other apes and monkeys.
Sexual morality is rooted in consent. Mortal morality is not.
So Killing animal without their permission is right. But Sex with animal without their permission is wrong. It isn’t consistent. It feels like we are just giving justifications for far worse crime because we have benefits associated with it.
The moral standing of a killing is completely unrelated to consent for most people. Most would say murder doesn’t become moral because the victim was suicidal. The killing itself is the basis for the moral stance, not the desires of the victim. The act is valued. Consent is neutral.
Sexual interaction is different. It does not necessitate a state change. It can be done to positive effect if done with consent. But animals, much like children, are viewed as insufficiently capable of granting consent. The consent is the basis for the moral stance, not the act itself. Consent is valued. The act is neutral.
Consent is the core concept which makes assisted suicide different from murder. So, consent is eligible in both sexual manner and matter of existence. We didn’t ask for animals’ consent before raping or killing them.
Assisted suicide is suicide, performed by the dying individual. Assisting in a suicide is enabling a killing, but is not murder if done correctly. The one performing suicide is the active party, not simply granting consent to the actions of another.
To bring things back to the original point, rape and murder are covered by different ethical principles. Consent has no bearing on murder. Consent is definitive for rape.
In assisted suicide, people consent to die a dignified death on paper and after government’s approval further medical procedures are performed by the professionals. I don’t see any problem here. Similarly I would have no problem with humans killing animals if animals start consenting to be killed. That’s not the case. Whole social acceptance of killing of innocent animals and condemnation of rape feels like a show were Murderers are pointing out fingers at the rapists with the sense of moral superiority.
Assisted suicides do not consent to die. They request to die. They initiate the process themselves rather than allow the desire of others to dictate events. There is a subtle but important distinction.
Both acts have never been about consensus. They are defined morally and legally by culture and tradition. There are societies where eating meet is illegal and zoophilia is legal.
If life is to continue on this planet simultaneously with ethics, there must be an exception for living beings to morally participate in the food chain as their bodies evolved. This does not excuse our modern industrial system or domesticating animals, it excuses carnivory as it evolved only.
Now you might say “but humans are meant to eat plants” or “humans are omnivores meant to eat a large variety”. No, you’re deluded. No animal on Earth has every evolved to eat a large variety of foods, plant toxins are too numerous and varied too allow this, that’s why humans cook and process most (non-fruit) plants before eating them. Animals we call omnivores are really flexible carnivores that would die on an all plant diet that wasn’t fortified or selected by humans from plants outside of the animal’s habitat.
Most of the plants we eat today did not exist in our specie’s early days, we’ve bred almost the entire produce section at the grocery store, taking toxic barely digestible plants and changing them into broccoli and such. The plants we eat that did exist only existed in their native habitat, which was not necessarily where humans were. A human in Africa was not eating oranges from China 300k years ago.
Animals that evolved to eat plants have digestive systems oriented around providing an environment for bacteria to break down cellulose, they have adaptations to withstand the specific toxins in the specific plants they evolved to eat. Rabbits have to eat their shit and re-digest it get enough nutrition from plants. Cows have a multi-chambered stomach without an acid barrier in front, horses have to eat constantly. Gorillas are “hind gut digesters” that fart constantly and have massive barrel torsos to fit a digestive system large enough to support the rest of their bodies. Human digestive systems are clearly oriented around digestion of meat and using high-energy density fat to provide the massive amount of energy our brain needs.
But why don’t we have claws and fangs like other carnivores? Well, first, many carnivorous animals don’t fit this mental image. Second, human ancestors were frugivores going back like 5+ million years that started eating meat via scavenging, this explains our stomach acid on par with buzzards and condors, an acidic stomach is an “acid barrier” bacteria cannot pass. Then we evolved to eat large prey with lots of fat that we hunted by group coordination, ability to throw, and ability to create weapons, ability to direct an animal to fall to it’s death. Humans didn’t evolve to directly chase and kill animals with our hands and teeth, we’re tool masters.
Our bodies do poorly with chronic carb intake, this is the cause of most modern maladies. Our bodies evolved to fuel themselves with saturated fat we eat, small animals with little fat are inappropriate human food (e.g. “rabbit starvation”). In fact, almost all animals are “powered by fat”, not by sugar as we’re told. Cows are powered by short chain fatty acids produced by bacteria eating the plants the cow consumes.
This is really well written!
You are saying that humans killing animal for their benefits is right. Then you should also appreciate humans having sex with other animals. Because in both cases we are neglecting the Animal’s consent in its entirely. As we are far more intelligent and strong, we should do whatever we please (Killing or Raping) with other animals. It’s logically consistent.
If by benefit you mean survival, then yes. Fucking animals is not what humans evolved to do for survival.
If Killing is considered right then Raping should be right because both persons are getting away with doing wrong to “innocent victims”. Here, Killer should not be judgmental of Rapist’s actions because Killing is a far bigger crime.
I was talking about food, not rape and murder. I never said killing is right in general. Stop with the straw men.
- We are gaining the meat by killing innocent animals.
- We are gaining pleasure by raping innocent animals.
How are you not able to see the similar patterns within these systemic injustices against innocents?
You’re a crazy one, nobody is talking about raping animals.
Life eats life.
- Interspecific sex is a common occurrence within nature and this behavior is also present in humans (zoophilia). As animals can’t consent. So any sexual activity becomes a Rape.
Again the point was similarities in non-consensual killing and raping. Don’t you think that killing and raping are both great injustices against innocent animals? If we think killing is ok then Raping also becomes ok as it’s a smaller crime than killing.
An idea that species can “be meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy. Aincent Greeks believed that gods designed and meant us to live a certain way, this approach was adapted by other religions. It cannot be applied to evolution as evolution is a sequence of random events, some more likely than other.
We have evolved to, under certain conditions, when it increases our or our relatives’ chances of survival or recreation, kill others of our species or enact violence against them, including the type of violence that increases the expected number of offsprings of the person enacting it, but nobody argues we should build ethics around it.
but nobody argues we should build ethics around it
I argue that we should build ethics around it.
An idea that species can “be meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy.
People, even those that understand evolution often speak this way because it’s easier, this is Lemmy, not a research paper.
I claim that what we call morality and ethics is human cultural interpretation of what we call game theory. My foundation for morality is respect for consent, except in cases of self/community defense and participation in the food chain as evolution has produced my body in this way due to natural selection to operate at a particular trophic level.
If it were for pure game theory, slavery would still exist in some form (legally, because illegal slavery is still wide-spread IRL). Why would we care to liberate a useful caste of human servants if they would lose all means to rebel against a modern army? Granted, they could kill someone in an uprising, but so does cattle occasionally injure and kill farmers. Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.
Morality, whether based on game theory or not, has little to do with law.
Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.
You should learn more about game theory.
Game theory is about extracting personal good from cooperation. Game theory has nothing to say against boiling your cat alive as it has no leverage on you.
In societies where things like slavery existed for centuries or even millennias, owners had great evolutionary benefit from owning slaves. Their descendants hold some privileges to this day. Game theory was on their side.
Did you watch “86”? In this show, San-Magnolia was a country populated exclusively with blonde people, referred as “alba”. People with non-white hair (referred as “colorata”) were sent to internment camps outside the state walls and conscripted to fight in a war in a hope to regain at least some rights.
It was later revealed that over 10 million colorata and zero alba were killed in the later stage of the war, and if original prognosis on enemy forces ceasing to operate in a few years would be correct, alba people would totally win the evolutionary race and no game theory would bring justice. Doesn’t sound great if your hair happens to be brown or red.
So far every response to be has been straw man args.
Nobody is talking about boiling cats alive, I’m not arguing for the morality of that.
alba people would totally win the evolutionary race and no game theory would bring justice. Doesn’t sound great if your hair happens to be brown or red.
I’m not saying game theory can be used to justify anything, I’m saying it’s the basis for morality, it’s how morality came to be in our species IMHO. I think agents (things with agency, which are subject to game theory) develop strategies, and morality is based on these strategies. Harming other beings unnecessarily often puts one at risk, therefore harming other beings without need is often bad strategy. I’m not saying that anything that can create benefit is morally OK, this is a straw man, know what that is?
You’re speaking as if there’s a global, cosmic morality in which harming others is wrong, this is a religious belief, I’m not talking about religion. There are many moralities with different foundations, I explained the basis for mine.
I’m sure you would hear more than a few say something along the lines of 1) ending their life can be done relatively humanely. And it serves a fundamental purpose, for sustenance. While meat for sustenance is not actually necessary, it is considered a basic staple of our diets and generally acceptable. 2) Having sex with animals, though, harms them in a way and leaves them to live with that harm. It can traumatize the animal. It is inherently inhumane. And it serves no purpose but to satisfy a carnal desire, a morbid curiosity, or a sadistic appetite.
I’m not saying that it is an altogether consistent or sound argument. It is something some can rationalize though. But, frankly, I would call either explanation at least a little bit bullshit.
The answer to either their desire for meat or their revulsion to animal molestation is that their instincts give them those feelings. It is evolution. Animal meats and fats are a calorie dense and nutritionally valuable food source that our ancestors have eaten since before humans existed, and we’re mostly wired to enjoy the taste and crave it. A revulsion for sex outside of species helps make sure that we continue to make babies. It’s as simple as that.
Some very few people don’t have one, the other or both of these instincts, but the vast majority do. Most of those people will happily rationalize the feeling that isn’t based in rationality, like above. Some will examine those feelings and rationalize themselves into changing/recontextualizing their feelings or choosing to not act upon them in light of their viewpoint or some virtue they’ve applied to the question. But most just do what feels right and is normalized and don’t ever really truly question it.
And even if you are one of those people who has rationalized themselves into a rationally/morally superior position regarding meat eating, or maybe you never even had an instinctual desire for it, you almost certainly have other habits, values, opinions, etc. that go against every rationality too that just come with human nature.
We’re people. We’re animals. We have intelligence. We have primal drives. Nobody is morally perfect. Nobody can even agree on what moral perfection is. Morality is both subjective on the whole, and objective for each and every one of us. We just gotta get along.
Really enjoyed this thread.
This is one of the threads of all time!
Everybody’s gotta eat, but not everyone’s gotta fuck a dog
No one has to eat meat, in fact with all the space used for animals we could produce way more food instead.
Cool idea: don’t presuppose what literally every human needs based on your narrow worldview. Without significant animal fat and protein I wouldn’t be able live.
No, I’m not going to get into specifics, but also, no, I cannot get my current nutritional needs (and still desire to eat) by cutting animal products and biproducts in my diet.
No one has to eat meat
People with crohn’s or colostomy bags would disagree.
in fact with all the space used for animals we could produce way more food instead.
The space used for animals is grassland and doesn’t have the right soil to be cropland. i.e. if all animals disappeared tomorrow we wouldn’t get any more cropland at all.
With one exception being the animals that are fed with crops.
We wouldn’t grow more crops in total, but more would be available for human consumption.
We wouldn’t grow more crops in total, but more would be available for human consumption.
The bulk of animal food from crops isn’t human edible, i.e. the leftover waste. Cows have an amazing ruminant digestive system that can process plant food that humans can’t!
I think their point is that there are options to not eat the dog either.
Then who has to fuck a dog? Didn’t you mean noone has to fuck a dog?
Paging lemmy.world/u/noone
what do you have to say for yourself?
Are there more people then having sex with dogs than there are those who eat them?
Most people don’t use critical reasoning to make their decisions, hence why most people live their lives in a state of constant contradictions.
My old philosophy professor once told us that the most effective way to expose somebody’s lack of critical reasoning about an issue is to just respond with, “who says?”
Basically the Socratic method, ask them to justify the statements they make, and see how they respond. The vast majority of the time, you’ll quickly find out that they don’t have any good reasons to support their statements. They haven’t given them much thought at all, nor much thought to differing views/positions. They live their lives in ways that feel generally “correct” or pleasurable to them, and that’s it.
Why do they think it’s alright to eat factory farmed meat? Because they like the taste, the thought of billions of animals living short, miserable lives, then being slaughtered and processed for us to consume doesn’t horrify or disgust them, so they keep doing it.
Most people when challenged on it will put up some vague attempt to support their actions, “Other animals do it to each other, so why not us?” “Animals don’t have sophisticated minds, so it doesn’t actually cause them real suffering.” “Humans need animal protein to be healthy.” etc. All terribly weak arguments that are easily refuted. But most people don’t care, because most societies normalize meat consumption and factory farming. They grew up eating meat with other people eating meat all around them, and they never gave it any thought.
Hence why most pet owners who eat meat would be absolutely horrified and disgusted if their dog or cat had a litter and somebody bought all of the puppies/kittens, only to torture, slaughter, and eat them. A completely inconsistent reaction given the fact that the pet owner happily eats other animals that are treated in the same way. But again, they didn’t reason themselves into their viewpoint, so they don’t worry about being consistent.
This is further confirmed by anecdotes from vegetarians/vegans, who will tell you about all the awkward, unprompted reactions from meat-eaters when they find out they don’t eat meat. Many people get very defensive, often making snide or accusatory remarks about vegetarianism/veganism. They don’t like the idea that eating factory meat is morally wrong, because they like the taste and don’t want to make to effort to change their lifestyle to confirm with that moral principle. So they mock, tease, or try to “expose” inconsistencies in the vegetarian/vegan’s own worldview as a defense mechanism.
If they can make the vegetarian/vegan look foolish, then that feels like a win psychologically to them, which provides mental and emotional comfort and allows them to slip back into their lifestyle without needing to confront their own moral failings.
“Other animals do it to each other, so why not us?” “Animals don’t have sophisticated minds, so it doesn’t actually cause them real suffering.” “Humans need animal protein to be healthy.” etc. All terribly weak arguments that are easily refuted.
if you care to articulate these refutations, i’d be fascinated to see how strong your arguments are.
- The first argument is just another version of the “it’s natural/unnatural, therefore it’s right/wrong.” Many animals also eat their own young, rape each other, etc. Does that make it acceptable for humans to do it also? Of course not. Some homophobes will point out that homosexual relationships are evolutionarily disadvantageous, (“unnatural”) and therefore that means it’s wrong for humans to form homosexual relationships. Obviously a ridiculous argument, but it’s just the inverse form of the one above.
- Is it alright to torture a human infant or a severely developmentally disabled person? What about a person with very advanced Alzheimer’s? All three examples have little to no mental self-awareness, certainly less than a dog, pig, dolphin, etc. At what point is self awareness sufficiently low enough to make it morally acceptable to cause deliberate pain to that person for your own enjoyment? Second, there is a growing body of evidence that a large portion of animals, including many that are currently farmed/fished for consumption, demonstrate sentience beyond simple reflexes. Beyond the scientific studies, everyday experience indicates this in many animals. Dogs, pigs, birds, octopus, can all solve simple puzzles, demonstrate various apparent emotions like curiosity, fear, joy, confusion, anger, etc. Clearly some level of sentience is present, even if it’s quite simple.
- All essential nutrients humans need can be found in plants. You need to adjust your diet obviously, some nutrients like B12 and Iron are harder to get from a plant-based diet. While others, like Vitamin C and Fiber are easier. The old stereotype that vegetarians/vegans are all malnourished weaklings, is a myth. There are many vegetarian/vegan elite athletes, including Olympic medalists and world record holders, (Alex Morgan, Scott Jurek, Dotsie Bausch, Fiona Oakes, Meagan Duhamel). So at least in the developed world, (where factory farming is the most pervasive,) there is no nutritional need for the general population to eat animals.
All essential nutrients humans need can be found in plants. You need to adjust your diet obviously, some nutrients like B12 and Iron are harder to get from a plant-based diet. While others, like Vitamin C and Fiber are easier.
If you eat 100% plant based you will need to supplement which contradicts the first sentence.
Reading on this a bit more, it looks like I was off on B12 specifically. Vegetarians can get this from eggs and milk, but full vegans need to either eat plant-based foods that are fortified with B12, or directly take a B12 supplement.
So my first sentence should actually be, “All essential nutrients humans need can be provided by a plant-based diet.” That is accurate because it includes fortified plant-based foods, plant-based direct suppliments, and vegetarians.
the distinction between food and supplements is purely regulatory and semantic. at what point does something become a food or a supplement? if i lack vitamin c and i eat an orange, have i supplemented with vitamin c? b12 supplements are made through microbial fermentation, like alcohol or vinegar or lactic acid. if i need iron and i take a pill, i’ve supplemented with iron, but if need sodium and i eat salt, have i supplemented? starch and sugar are simple chemicals extracted from whole foods, yet they are still considered foods. my point is that there is no true objective distinction between food and supplements, it’s just a vague label like “natural/unnatural”
Like some here who have said it before, it’s about survival.
There’s no survival issue when it comes to zoophilia.
There still is with eating meat.To say that most people don’t need meat is to ignore more than half the planet.
I thought this place was aware that not everyone can afford a diet,
let alone a healthy vegan diet.I’m not a big fan of pulling the ladder up behind oneself and start demanding
everyone else to follow suit when they’re living in either developing nations or
nations that are in a state of collapse or both.That said, since natural meat production is theoretically more expensive
than growing meat in a lab,
we’ll be heading towards the dissolution of eating farm animals soon
and with it, most farm animals themselves.The wealthier a country becomes, the more meat they eat. The vast majority of the world could survive on a vegan diet. Thrive, even. This isn’t about survival, it’s about taste.
Some of the countries with the large percentages of vegetarians, vegans or predominantly plant forward diets such as India or South East Asia are not wealthy by Western standards. Eating a ‘healthy’ plant forward diet does not have to be an expensive affair.
The perception that a plant based diet is a wealthy western modern invention is white washing its unglamorous origins as a traditional eastern diet, especially in Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, etc cultures.
To dismiss a plant forward diet because not everyone can afford to eat impossible burgers 7x a week is disingenuous, as people were eating diets with little to no meat for centuries before faux ‘beuf’ plant minces were invented.
Vegetarianism in India is more nuanced then that; I personally see it in 4 different facets.
one is that it is the Upper Caste’s(who traditionally have more access to wealth) enforcing their values(religious requirement to be a vegetarian) on people who they see as below them.
Many poor people in India disproportionately eat more meat than their richer counter parts.
Animal protein is just cheaper and more dense than plant based protein, and plant based protein is also seasonal as compared to animal based protein.
It also doesn’t help that vegetarianism has become a political issue in India, and is part of the ongoing culture wars happening in the country.
I agree. Just a comment on lab-grown meat. I’m not sure if that is going to help in developing markets. Maybe a big lab can produce meat that you can buy for less money than you’d need for a real steak in an advanced economy. That doesn’t mean that someone in the Philippines countryside can start their own meat-lab instead of raising chicken.
