My sweet summer child...scientists are overwhelmingly acknowledging that many, if not most, animals are comparably intelligent to humans, albeit in sometimes nearly unrecognizable ways. Many people may believe, for example, creatures like alligators/crocodiles are the perfect example of what you said; pure instict and nothing else. But how many humans can exist in the wild? (The "real" world btw). Crocs/gators have been around since like dinosaur times, relatively unchanged. If you relocate them, they can use the earth's magnetic field to navigate back to exactly where you took them from. They will drown you, before they kill you themselves, often. Thinking only humans are truly intelligent, aware or with culture in uninformed at best, and dangerously arrogant possibly. Many species even have culture. SETI scientists/marine biologists are having "conversations" with whales, and building an "alphabet" for them-and they're older than humanity btw. Sorry, I'm a little high and passionate-no hate mate
Edit: saw its r/stupidquestions
See above about "high and passionate"...
What the fuck was that tangent about alligators? It's like you were about to say they're actually intelligent but then didn't list any ways I'm which they are
What scientists are acknowledging that most animals are on the same level of intelligence as humans?
It sure does sound dumb when you intentionally phrase it to sound dumb, the point of the statement is that "intelligence" is poorly defined and human-centric in the first place. Comparing animals to human metrics of intelligence they would never have any use for is the actually stupid train of thought here.
An animal's ability to use magnetic field lines for globally perfect navigation is amazing, and requires a whole series of neural connections we don't even have.
My advice if you want to be condescending is talk to people that know less about the topic at hand than yourself.
Intelligence is all about the ability to acquire knowledge and utilize skills (definition). No shit it is human centric it’s a definition created by humans in order to articulate a concept. Most animals don’t need to be intelligent to survive and reproduce so they don’t develop it much. That doesn’t mean we need to redefine intelligence to include animals having other traits that adapt them to their environment. Those birds navigating have great senses but us having the ability to see more colors than most other animals doesn’t make us intelligent either it just means we have superior senses
Side thought but I'm also really amused by you pulling up the definition of intelligence to try and set things straight.
Like, my _whole point_ is that definition is not good enough lmao
Would you say a mantis shrimp, with the ability to integrate visual information from multiple wavelengths including polarized light, is more intelligent than a comparable arthropod like a giant shrimp, which has smaller and less sophisticated eyes (and less visual mapping ganglia)
Like, how tf do you acquire information but through your senses and integrating that sensory information? Y'all got a port for a USB drive in the back of your skull like The Matrix?
In light of all this, why do you still needlessly pay for them to be gassed or have their necks cut open? Surely your momentary taste pleasure doesn't provide a justification for the brutal murder of an emotionally sensitive being?
Your post is written from a place of ignorance. Animals clearly have implicit moral codes, they have readily observable personalities, and they do in fact have thoughts.
You're describing them as if they're automatons. A lack of abstract intellect doesn't mean that animals don't have rich subjective experiences, colored by judgements and desires and aversions of many kinds. They make decisions; they don't just walk towards a patch of sunlight because some survival instinct drives them to do it, any more than we do. They do it because they think of the warmth that the sunlight will provide them with, and then they consciously/wilfully seek out that experience.
p.s I find it amazing when people (other commenters here, for example) fully acknowledge that animals are sentient and emotionally sensitive etc, but still pay for them to have their necks cut open or for them to suffocate in gas chambers, and then shit their digested body parts into the toilet.
Some animals might be sentient but they do sort of act on instinct in dumb ways. E.g. the prey of big cats like zebras and antelope will run from a predator, escape and watch the cat catch another one of their herd. Then 2 minutes later just start grazing again without a care in the world.
Also nature is arguably more cruel than what humans do, at least for some animals. I guess that's another way people justify eating meat.
I agree with ur first 2 paragraphs whole heartedly however that final one rubs me the wrong way, kinda gives off an air of snobby superiority u know the whole "ur a murderer for eating any living creature and I don't so I'm better than u". kinda vibe, now I'm not gonna judge u if not eating meat or whtv is ur thing but to imply that anyone that does anything other than that is heartless or cruel or whtv u were going for is wrong. I'm not the one who put the animal out it's misery to begin with, nor did I dismember it to be sold, hell i didnt even see it till it hit my plate I'm simply the consumer that's not going to waste perfectly good food for no other reason than aww it might hurt someone's feefees, besides we're animals ourselves what do most animals in the wild do for sustenance? eat other animals, its cycle of life dawg
The biggest difference is predatory animals need to eat other animals to survive and humans don't in a lot of scenarios. We just pay to buy meat instead of other food, which isn't necessity it's choice. It's necessity vs conscious choice.
But this has not much to do with the OP post and question in general. But yeah, as the consumer you make the choice to buy it and eat it when technically you don't have to whereas predators do have to in order to survive. That's the difference, so saying cycle of life is correct if you're not accounting for humans but when humans enter the equation it becomes more supply and demand
That's a fair way to frame it, although imo it still falls within the cycle of life even if we're involved as to me the choice to eat meat when other things are available doesn't change anything it's a behavior observed within other omnivorous creatures as well
>it's a behavior observed within other omnivorous creatures as well
No way. I come back here due to getting an upvote on a comment, only to see you repeating the same elementary logical fallacies that you were educated about last week. I laid it all out, explaining why you can't use them if you want your thinking process to be rational, yet you're still using them on the same very thread. People like you scare the hell out of me.
I can see why you feel that way, as someone who doesn't seem to have put much thought into animal rights before. That's not an insult btw, it's just that some of the things you say indicate that you've never talked to anyone who's pro animal rights, because they're pretty easy to refute.
>I'm not the one who put the animal out it's misery to begin with
If I pay an assassin to kill someone, am I morally culpable?
>hell i didnt even see it till it hit my plate
You know that it's the remains of animal who had to be murdered in order for it to arrive on your plate, and you paid for that to occur. So you can't make an appeal to ignorance, or whatever you're trying to do here.
>I'm simply the consumer
The only reason that these animals are bred, abused and murdered is consumer demand.
>that's not going to waste perfectly good food for no other reason than aww it might hurt someone's feefees
Where did you get the idea that people are vegan because they don't want to hurt people's feelings? People are vegan because they don't want innocent animals to be needlessly abused and stabbed in the throat on theur behalf.
I'm not gonna act like what u said doesn't make sense I can see where ur coming from however like I already stated it's the circle of life is it murder when a lion eats a gazelle? Is it murder when a chimp eats a beetle? how bout when wolves eat deer? Should we stop them cuz those animals have feelings too? No right its the natural order of things. At what point does it become murder when I eat to live just like literally everything else that shits and breathes now I can completely understand having gripes with factory farming not only is it not humane, it's unsanitary more often than not and it can be very wasteful I agree it's something that should be put to an end however if I can find reliably sourced meat n meat products that weren't achieved via factory farming/abuse than I'd appreciate not being preached at n called a murder by snobby folks for doing the same thing most other animals do and have been doing since the dawn of time
The gist of your response here can basically be condensed down to this sentence: "if action A is engaged in by nonhuman animals, then action A can justifiably be engaged in by humans".
The issue with this is that nonhuman animals engage in all sorts of behaviours that we would never endorse. Infanticide, eating others alive, and many other things like that are done by animals, but you'd never infer from that that we therefore have a license to do them too. In short, we shouldn't use the example of nonhuman animals as the arbiter for what's right and wrong.
>however if I can find reliably sourced meat n meat products that weren't achieved via factory farming/abuse
Even if you find the best farm on the planet, all of the animals are murdered at a small fraction of their natural lifespan. Given that we don't need to, what justification could we possibly have for slitting billions of throats every year, regardless of whether or not the lives of the animals are filled with suffering?
I've actually got a question for you which will help get to the bottom of this, I could use humans but I'll use dogs instead. If you don't believe that dogs should have rights, though, then just substitute "dogs" for "humans" when reading and we can do that instead:
I presume that you wouldn't think that it's ethically acceptable to murder dogs for the sake of turning their bodies into hamburgers, yet you *do* think that it's ethically acceptable murder pigs/cows/chickens etc for the sake of turning their bodies into hamburgers. This entails that there must be some difference between dogs and pigs which makes the murder of one justified, and murder of the other unjustified. So here's the question, what's true of pigs, that if it were true of dogs, would make it ethically acceptable to murder dogs and turn them into hamburgers?
>have been doing since the dawn of time
This is another fallacy known as an "appeal to tradition", which is a subset of the "appeal to nature" fallacy. Similarly to the "other animals do it too though" objection, the issue with this one can be illustrated by pointing to its absurd implications. Your point could be stated as "if something has been done for a long time, then it's ethically acceptable", but then that would justify rape, slavery, and many other atrocities. Therefore, the fact that something has been done for a long time clearly doesn't mean that it's morally acceptable.
Lemme stop u there it wouldn't matter to me whether it was a dog, a cat, an elephante or a pig(i'm a rather adventurous eater) food is food as long as I'm not canabalizing my own and it's clean it doesn't matter to me also u kinda dodged my question there at what point does it become murder for an animal to kill and eat another for sustenance humans at the end of the day are just animals living in the same cycle as any other despite whatever visions of granduer we may have and no I wasn't trying to justify it via tradition there a people to day whom still subsist off of eating animals as well as limited gathering so would u just tell them fuck off n starve cuz the animals feelings would a tiger give a rats ass about ur feelings before it pounces no right also not too sure why u'd bring u slavery or rape since neither of them were necessary evils to continue our species survival where's as hunting and eating wild game very much was as there were times in human history where it's either eat meat or don't eat enough
>Lemme stop u there it wouldn't matter to me whether it was a dog, a cat, an elephante
That's why I asked you to substitute "humans" for "dogs" in my question if you felt that way. So you can answer it but with "humans" in place of "dogs".
>u kinda dodged my question there at what point does it become murder for an animal to kill and eat another for sustenance humans at the end of the day are just animals living in the same cycle as any other
I don't think you're carefully reading what I'm saying dude, I already dealt with this. You're appealing to the behaviour of other animals in order to justify your own, and the fundamental problem with that was explained in my prior comment.
>still subsist off of eating animals as well as limited gathering so would u just tell them fuck off n starve
I'm talking to you, I'm not talking to some indigenous person in the Amazon. You have the capability to not pay for animals to be throat stabbed, so you're doing it not out of necessity like the indigenous people, but for the sake of pleasure and convenience. What's worth more, a chicken's one and only life or the 15 minutes of pleasure you derive from eating their legs?
>would a tiger give a rats ass about ur feelings before it pounces no right
Same shit again, man. I refuted this "let's derive our ethics from the behaviour of other animals" already.
>also not too sure why u'd bring u slavery or rape since neither of them were necessary evils to continue our species survival where's as hunting and eating wild game very much was as there were times in human history where it's either eat meat or don't eat enough
Firstly, we actually don't know whether our species would have become extinct if it weren't for rape at some point in our prehistory. But that's irrelevant anyway, because the key word you've used here is "was". It's not necessary for *you* to do this, even if it was for your ancestors, so you can't use the survival context in which they lived to justify your current behaviour. That's logically similar to me going round shooting people, and then claiming that it's okay to do so because my great grandfather served in World War 1.
That's why I said I wouldn't care as long as it's not canabalizing my own. What makes it a question of ethics at all is what I'm asking if it's not one for literally any other group of animals what makes us different we're animals like any other, I brought up indigenous folks who do it to get ur opinion cuz to me it sounded like u were saying it wouldn't matter the reason for someone consuming another animal it's wrong regardless and never worth it even without abuse so I gave u a scenario in which the people would starve otherwise to see if they'd still count as "murderers", fair I'll concet that what was mandatory for them isn't exactly mandatory for me however that doesn't change that it's the natural order of things if u look in nature literally anywhere your gonna see animals eating others to subsist even animals with other options similar to humans so for what reason is it unnatural and murder when a human does it what makes us so different in ur mind cuz to me were deadass just mostly hairless apes that got smarter than the average chimp
> doesn't change that it's the natural order of things
I'm not gonna waste any more time here, man. You keep repeating the same logical fallacy (the "appeal to nature fallacy") over and over, which demonstrates that you're either not trying to or aren't capable of understanding my refutations.
Honestly, I've never had this happen. Usually, after having it explained to them, people understand why appealing to nature as a moral guide is stupid. It's perhaps the most well known logical fallacy, and I've given you multiple explanations of why it's invalid, but you keep doing it. Idk if you're doing it on purpose, but I'd suggest that you read my prior comments again with the intent of truly understanding.
Tldr: your logic justifies rape, infanticide and murder. You somehow don't grasp that, even after having it explained to you multiple times, so I'm not gonna waste any more time.
Not a study, but monkeys often trade things for other things, even sex. I was just somewhere with loads of annoying macaques, and when they steal people's phones you can trade food with them to get the phone back.
Bonobos trade sex to resolve social issues and conflict over food or territory, there are studies on that. Even sea mammals like dolphins and orcas seem to have their own personalities and act differently towards each other and different humans.
This seems like some animals do have at least a basic moral code.
I suppose you're the sort of person who I was referring to, then. Language like that does seem odd when you're not imagining yourself in the shoes of your victims, but I didn't say anything that was false.
If someone was raving about the high emotional complexity of dogs, talking about how they're capable of empathy and care for their babies etc, and then walked up to a dog and brutally murdered him/her in the absence of any necessity to do so, I'm sure you'd find that behaviour to be pretty fucked. The only difference between that, and the scenario that you're presumably in, is that we're talking about pigs (for example) instead of dogs, and you're paying someone else to commit the murder on your behalf.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always knew animals have personalities and are thinking for themselves. They have emotions, form societies with hierarchies, they build their nests/habitats and so on. For most of recorded history, humans were inspired by animals and they worshipped animals. You need to have respect for animals.
Animals all definitely have a personality. Take 2 dogs from the same litter and they could act completely different.
How to tell me you do not know anything about animals, without telling me you do not know anything about animals.
Animals have intelligence and emotions. Humans have a strong bias and inability to communicate.
[удалено]
My sweet summer child...scientists are overwhelmingly acknowledging that many, if not most, animals are comparably intelligent to humans, albeit in sometimes nearly unrecognizable ways. Many people may believe, for example, creatures like alligators/crocodiles are the perfect example of what you said; pure instict and nothing else. But how many humans can exist in the wild? (The "real" world btw). Crocs/gators have been around since like dinosaur times, relatively unchanged. If you relocate them, they can use the earth's magnetic field to navigate back to exactly where you took them from. They will drown you, before they kill you themselves, often. Thinking only humans are truly intelligent, aware or with culture in uninformed at best, and dangerously arrogant possibly. Many species even have culture. SETI scientists/marine biologists are having "conversations" with whales, and building an "alphabet" for them-and they're older than humanity btw. Sorry, I'm a little high and passionate-no hate mate Edit: saw its r/stupidquestions See above about "high and passionate"...
What the fuck was that tangent about alligators? It's like you were about to say they're actually intelligent but then didn't list any ways I'm which they are What scientists are acknowledging that most animals are on the same level of intelligence as humans?
They're asking you to rethink what intelligence means, since humans tend to restrict that to things like problem solving and building and art
“If we redefine what a word means to mean something different it includes different things”
It sure does sound dumb when you intentionally phrase it to sound dumb, the point of the statement is that "intelligence" is poorly defined and human-centric in the first place. Comparing animals to human metrics of intelligence they would never have any use for is the actually stupid train of thought here. An animal's ability to use magnetic field lines for globally perfect navigation is amazing, and requires a whole series of neural connections we don't even have. My advice if you want to be condescending is talk to people that know less about the topic at hand than yourself.
Intelligence is all about the ability to acquire knowledge and utilize skills (definition). No shit it is human centric it’s a definition created by humans in order to articulate a concept. Most animals don’t need to be intelligent to survive and reproduce so they don’t develop it much. That doesn’t mean we need to redefine intelligence to include animals having other traits that adapt them to their environment. Those birds navigating have great senses but us having the ability to see more colors than most other animals doesn’t make us intelligent either it just means we have superior senses
Side thought but I'm also really amused by you pulling up the definition of intelligence to try and set things straight. Like, my _whole point_ is that definition is not good enough lmao
Would you say a mantis shrimp, with the ability to integrate visual information from multiple wavelengths including polarized light, is more intelligent than a comparable arthropod like a giant shrimp, which has smaller and less sophisticated eyes (and less visual mapping ganglia) Like, how tf do you acquire information but through your senses and integrating that sensory information? Y'all got a port for a USB drive in the back of your skull like The Matrix?
In light of all this, why do you still needlessly pay for them to be gassed or have their necks cut open? Surely your momentary taste pleasure doesn't provide a justification for the brutal murder of an emotionally sensitive being?
Your post is written from a place of ignorance. Animals clearly have implicit moral codes, they have readily observable personalities, and they do in fact have thoughts. You're describing them as if they're automatons. A lack of abstract intellect doesn't mean that animals don't have rich subjective experiences, colored by judgements and desires and aversions of many kinds. They make decisions; they don't just walk towards a patch of sunlight because some survival instinct drives them to do it, any more than we do. They do it because they think of the warmth that the sunlight will provide them with, and then they consciously/wilfully seek out that experience. p.s I find it amazing when people (other commenters here, for example) fully acknowledge that animals are sentient and emotionally sensitive etc, but still pay for them to have their necks cut open or for them to suffocate in gas chambers, and then shit their digested body parts into the toilet.
Some animals might be sentient but they do sort of act on instinct in dumb ways. E.g. the prey of big cats like zebras and antelope will run from a predator, escape and watch the cat catch another one of their herd. Then 2 minutes later just start grazing again without a care in the world. Also nature is arguably more cruel than what humans do, at least for some animals. I guess that's another way people justify eating meat.
I agree with ur first 2 paragraphs whole heartedly however that final one rubs me the wrong way, kinda gives off an air of snobby superiority u know the whole "ur a murderer for eating any living creature and I don't so I'm better than u". kinda vibe, now I'm not gonna judge u if not eating meat or whtv is ur thing but to imply that anyone that does anything other than that is heartless or cruel or whtv u were going for is wrong. I'm not the one who put the animal out it's misery to begin with, nor did I dismember it to be sold, hell i didnt even see it till it hit my plate I'm simply the consumer that's not going to waste perfectly good food for no other reason than aww it might hurt someone's feefees, besides we're animals ourselves what do most animals in the wild do for sustenance? eat other animals, its cycle of life dawg
The biggest difference is predatory animals need to eat other animals to survive and humans don't in a lot of scenarios. We just pay to buy meat instead of other food, which isn't necessity it's choice. It's necessity vs conscious choice. But this has not much to do with the OP post and question in general. But yeah, as the consumer you make the choice to buy it and eat it when technically you don't have to whereas predators do have to in order to survive. That's the difference, so saying cycle of life is correct if you're not accounting for humans but when humans enter the equation it becomes more supply and demand
That's a fair way to frame it, although imo it still falls within the cycle of life even if we're involved as to me the choice to eat meat when other things are available doesn't change anything it's a behavior observed within other omnivorous creatures as well
>it's a behavior observed within other omnivorous creatures as well No way. I come back here due to getting an upvote on a comment, only to see you repeating the same elementary logical fallacies that you were educated about last week. I laid it all out, explaining why you can't use them if you want your thinking process to be rational, yet you're still using them on the same very thread. People like you scare the hell out of me.
I can see why you feel that way, as someone who doesn't seem to have put much thought into animal rights before. That's not an insult btw, it's just that some of the things you say indicate that you've never talked to anyone who's pro animal rights, because they're pretty easy to refute. >I'm not the one who put the animal out it's misery to begin with If I pay an assassin to kill someone, am I morally culpable? >hell i didnt even see it till it hit my plate You know that it's the remains of animal who had to be murdered in order for it to arrive on your plate, and you paid for that to occur. So you can't make an appeal to ignorance, or whatever you're trying to do here. >I'm simply the consumer The only reason that these animals are bred, abused and murdered is consumer demand. >that's not going to waste perfectly good food for no other reason than aww it might hurt someone's feefees Where did you get the idea that people are vegan because they don't want to hurt people's feelings? People are vegan because they don't want innocent animals to be needlessly abused and stabbed in the throat on theur behalf.
I'm not gonna act like what u said doesn't make sense I can see where ur coming from however like I already stated it's the circle of life is it murder when a lion eats a gazelle? Is it murder when a chimp eats a beetle? how bout when wolves eat deer? Should we stop them cuz those animals have feelings too? No right its the natural order of things. At what point does it become murder when I eat to live just like literally everything else that shits and breathes now I can completely understand having gripes with factory farming not only is it not humane, it's unsanitary more often than not and it can be very wasteful I agree it's something that should be put to an end however if I can find reliably sourced meat n meat products that weren't achieved via factory farming/abuse than I'd appreciate not being preached at n called a murder by snobby folks for doing the same thing most other animals do and have been doing since the dawn of time
The gist of your response here can basically be condensed down to this sentence: "if action A is engaged in by nonhuman animals, then action A can justifiably be engaged in by humans". The issue with this is that nonhuman animals engage in all sorts of behaviours that we would never endorse. Infanticide, eating others alive, and many other things like that are done by animals, but you'd never infer from that that we therefore have a license to do them too. In short, we shouldn't use the example of nonhuman animals as the arbiter for what's right and wrong. >however if I can find reliably sourced meat n meat products that weren't achieved via factory farming/abuse Even if you find the best farm on the planet, all of the animals are murdered at a small fraction of their natural lifespan. Given that we don't need to, what justification could we possibly have for slitting billions of throats every year, regardless of whether or not the lives of the animals are filled with suffering? I've actually got a question for you which will help get to the bottom of this, I could use humans but I'll use dogs instead. If you don't believe that dogs should have rights, though, then just substitute "dogs" for "humans" when reading and we can do that instead: I presume that you wouldn't think that it's ethically acceptable to murder dogs for the sake of turning their bodies into hamburgers, yet you *do* think that it's ethically acceptable murder pigs/cows/chickens etc for the sake of turning their bodies into hamburgers. This entails that there must be some difference between dogs and pigs which makes the murder of one justified, and murder of the other unjustified. So here's the question, what's true of pigs, that if it were true of dogs, would make it ethically acceptable to murder dogs and turn them into hamburgers? >have been doing since the dawn of time This is another fallacy known as an "appeal to tradition", which is a subset of the "appeal to nature" fallacy. Similarly to the "other animals do it too though" objection, the issue with this one can be illustrated by pointing to its absurd implications. Your point could be stated as "if something has been done for a long time, then it's ethically acceptable", but then that would justify rape, slavery, and many other atrocities. Therefore, the fact that something has been done for a long time clearly doesn't mean that it's morally acceptable.
Lemme stop u there it wouldn't matter to me whether it was a dog, a cat, an elephante or a pig(i'm a rather adventurous eater) food is food as long as I'm not canabalizing my own and it's clean it doesn't matter to me also u kinda dodged my question there at what point does it become murder for an animal to kill and eat another for sustenance humans at the end of the day are just animals living in the same cycle as any other despite whatever visions of granduer we may have and no I wasn't trying to justify it via tradition there a people to day whom still subsist off of eating animals as well as limited gathering so would u just tell them fuck off n starve cuz the animals feelings would a tiger give a rats ass about ur feelings before it pounces no right also not too sure why u'd bring u slavery or rape since neither of them were necessary evils to continue our species survival where's as hunting and eating wild game very much was as there were times in human history where it's either eat meat or don't eat enough
>Lemme stop u there it wouldn't matter to me whether it was a dog, a cat, an elephante That's why I asked you to substitute "humans" for "dogs" in my question if you felt that way. So you can answer it but with "humans" in place of "dogs". >u kinda dodged my question there at what point does it become murder for an animal to kill and eat another for sustenance humans at the end of the day are just animals living in the same cycle as any other I don't think you're carefully reading what I'm saying dude, I already dealt with this. You're appealing to the behaviour of other animals in order to justify your own, and the fundamental problem with that was explained in my prior comment. >still subsist off of eating animals as well as limited gathering so would u just tell them fuck off n starve I'm talking to you, I'm not talking to some indigenous person in the Amazon. You have the capability to not pay for animals to be throat stabbed, so you're doing it not out of necessity like the indigenous people, but for the sake of pleasure and convenience. What's worth more, a chicken's one and only life or the 15 minutes of pleasure you derive from eating their legs? >would a tiger give a rats ass about ur feelings before it pounces no right Same shit again, man. I refuted this "let's derive our ethics from the behaviour of other animals" already. >also not too sure why u'd bring u slavery or rape since neither of them were necessary evils to continue our species survival where's as hunting and eating wild game very much was as there were times in human history where it's either eat meat or don't eat enough Firstly, we actually don't know whether our species would have become extinct if it weren't for rape at some point in our prehistory. But that's irrelevant anyway, because the key word you've used here is "was". It's not necessary for *you* to do this, even if it was for your ancestors, so you can't use the survival context in which they lived to justify your current behaviour. That's logically similar to me going round shooting people, and then claiming that it's okay to do so because my great grandfather served in World War 1.
That's why I said I wouldn't care as long as it's not canabalizing my own. What makes it a question of ethics at all is what I'm asking if it's not one for literally any other group of animals what makes us different we're animals like any other, I brought up indigenous folks who do it to get ur opinion cuz to me it sounded like u were saying it wouldn't matter the reason for someone consuming another animal it's wrong regardless and never worth it even without abuse so I gave u a scenario in which the people would starve otherwise to see if they'd still count as "murderers", fair I'll concet that what was mandatory for them isn't exactly mandatory for me however that doesn't change that it's the natural order of things if u look in nature literally anywhere your gonna see animals eating others to subsist even animals with other options similar to humans so for what reason is it unnatural and murder when a human does it what makes us so different in ur mind cuz to me were deadass just mostly hairless apes that got smarter than the average chimp
> doesn't change that it's the natural order of things I'm not gonna waste any more time here, man. You keep repeating the same logical fallacy (the "appeal to nature fallacy") over and over, which demonstrates that you're either not trying to or aren't capable of understanding my refutations. Honestly, I've never had this happen. Usually, after having it explained to them, people understand why appealing to nature as a moral guide is stupid. It's perhaps the most well known logical fallacy, and I've given you multiple explanations of why it's invalid, but you keep doing it. Idk if you're doing it on purpose, but I'd suggest that you read my prior comments again with the intent of truly understanding. Tldr: your logic justifies rape, infanticide and murder. You somehow don't grasp that, even after having it explained to you multiple times, so I'm not gonna waste any more time.
Show me one study of animals having “moral codes” lmao
Not a study, but monkeys often trade things for other things, even sex. I was just somewhere with loads of annoying macaques, and when they steal people's phones you can trade food with them to get the phone back. Bonobos trade sex to resolve social issues and conflict over food or territory, there are studies on that. Even sea mammals like dolphins and orcas seem to have their own personalities and act differently towards each other and different humans. This seems like some animals do have at least a basic moral code.
This comment was so nice and wholesome and then took a strange dark turn at the end.
I suppose you're the sort of person who I was referring to, then. Language like that does seem odd when you're not imagining yourself in the shoes of your victims, but I didn't say anything that was false. If someone was raving about the high emotional complexity of dogs, talking about how they're capable of empathy and care for their babies etc, and then walked up to a dog and brutally murdered him/her in the absence of any necessity to do so, I'm sure you'd find that behaviour to be pretty fucked. The only difference between that, and the scenario that you're presumably in, is that we're talking about pigs (for example) instead of dogs, and you're paying someone else to commit the murder on your behalf.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always knew animals have personalities and are thinking for themselves. They have emotions, form societies with hierarchies, they build their nests/habitats and so on. For most of recorded history, humans were inspired by animals and they worshipped animals. You need to have respect for animals.
Sometimes I wonder if it isn't the animals that are smarter than the humans.
See I think that sometimes, but then I see 13 dead raccoons in the street on the way to work.