I’m with you about the meat industry and mass-production. If we all cut down on meat consumption significantly, we’d be more healthy and it would be possible to raise lifestock in a species-appropriate manner.
I’m not with you about humanizing animals. Eating animals is natural. Our species has evolved doing so (far more rarely than nowadays of course). And animals in nature are eaten far more brutally and painfully than even our mass-produced lifestock.
I’m not humanizing animals. I just acknowledge the fact that they are sentient beings that are capable of feeling pain, physically and emotionally. That enjoy certain things and dislike other things. Is it okay to torture a dog because wild dogs get into fights where they get hurt terribly?
Of course animals in nature are killed brutally, but so are humans. It’s totally natural for bears to kill humans. Does that mean we can also kill humans? See how this doesn’t mean anything for the question whether it’s immoral to kill animals or not? I wouldn’t even necessarily disagree that it can be morally okay to kill an animal, given certain circumstances. The argument “in nature, animals are killed brutally” just has absolutely no implications for human ethics. Animals and “nature” have no concept of morality. Humans do.
How about accepting that your argument was wrong? Your first paragraph had nothing to do with it. I agree with your first paragraph, but we must still ask the question whether it is moral or not to kill animals for food even if they didn’t suffer. It’s not clear and people have different opinions on it and that’s okay. In any way, a lot would have to change compared to the status quo.
If we would base that on the nature of animals, we would have to let them roam freely and not actively breed or kill them. Consider for example how short the lifespan of cattle has become. In nature about 20 years iirc and now 5 years tops.
Doing so would collide with an efficient meat industry and in the end raise prices. Nobody would want that who isn’t a vegan, vegetarian or someone who has other reasons not to eat meat or consume animal products in general.
I wonder how far more advanced aliens would decide to raise us in a species-appropriate manner if they would visit us and came to the conclusion that there is no reason to respect our free will.
We are basically doing the same with animals and I find it curious how we as humans come to decide what the best way to captivate, breed and kill animals is.
Eating animals is natural
And if something is natural, does that always create virtue?
It is also natural not to brush one’s teeth, or to have sexual needs or not to wear pants. Does that imply that it’s okay to go around and rape people or flash them?
It’s also only natural to have the urge to kill someone sometimes if one is especially angry. Why are we stopping them?
We as humans are at the capacity to derive ethical values and decide whether something natural is also “good”.
And animals in nature are eaten far more brutally and painfully than even our mass-produced lifestock.
How is this relevant?
Yes they die in nature and get killed by predators who need them to survive, which can help to stabilise ecosystems (see for example how the reintroduction of wolves has helped in some problematic regions).
But:
Do we need them to survive? Are we stabilsing eco systems by breeding and killing animals? Are we living in the wild nature like those predators or do we have gained a lot of control over it and have the privilege to live in an established society?
I’m with you about the meat industry and mass-production. If we all cut down on meat consumption significantly, we’d be more healthy and it would be possible to raise lifestock in a species-appropriate manner.
I’m not with you about humanizing animals. Eating animals is natural. Our species has evolved doing so (far more rarely than nowadays of course). And animals in nature are eaten far more brutally and painfully than even our mass-produced lifestock.
I’m not humanizing animals. I just acknowledge the fact that they are sentient beings that are capable of feeling pain, physically and emotionally. That enjoy certain things and dislike other things. Is it okay to torture a dog because wild dogs get into fights where they get hurt terribly?
Of course animals in nature are killed brutally, but so are humans. It’s totally natural for bears to kill humans. Does that mean we can also kill humans? See how this doesn’t mean anything for the question whether it’s immoral to kill animals or not? I wouldn’t even necessarily disagree that it can be morally okay to kill an animal, given certain circumstances. The argument “in nature, animals are killed brutally” just has absolutely no implications for human ethics. Animals and “nature” have no concept of morality. Humans do.
Lifestock doesn’t need to suffer. How about not completely ignoring my first paragraph?
How about accepting that your argument was wrong? Your first paragraph had nothing to do with it. I agree with your first paragraph, but we must still ask the question whether it is moral or not to kill animals for food even if they didn’t suffer. It’s not clear and people have different opinions on it and that’s okay. In any way, a lot would have to change compared to the status quo.
Who decides what “species-appropriate” is?
If we would base that on the nature of animals, we would have to let them roam freely and not actively breed or kill them. Consider for example how short the lifespan of cattle has become. In nature about 20 years iirc and now 5 years tops.
Doing so would collide with an efficient meat industry and in the end raise prices. Nobody would want that who isn’t a vegan, vegetarian or someone who has other reasons not to eat meat or consume animal products in general.
I wonder how far more advanced aliens would decide to raise us in a species-appropriate manner if they would visit us and came to the conclusion that there is no reason to respect our free will.
We are basically doing the same with animals and I find it curious how we as humans come to decide what the best way to captivate, breed and kill animals is.
And if something is natural, does that always create virtue?
It is also natural not to brush one’s teeth, or to have sexual needs or not to wear pants. Does that imply that it’s okay to go around and rape people or flash them?
It’s also only natural to have the urge to kill someone sometimes if one is especially angry. Why are we stopping them?
We as humans are at the capacity to derive ethical values and decide whether something natural is also “good”.
How is this relevant?
Yes they die in nature and get killed by predators who need them to survive, which can help to stabilise ecosystems (see for example how the reintroduction of wolves has helped in some problematic regions).
But:
Do we need them to survive? Are we stabilsing eco systems by breeding and killing animals? Are we living in the wild nature like those predators or do we have gained a lot of control over it and have the privilege to live in an established society?
The scientists who research the matter, just like they did with zoo enclosures
cattle don’t live to 20 years without veterinary care, protection from predators and elements, and access to sufficient clean food and water.
deleted by creator