A legislative move to ban the consumption of dog meat is losing steam as rival parties have yet to reach a consensus over the issue amid fierce opposition from dog meat traders.
living things are in competition and killing is a matter of course. it is natural.
And?
i think a special case must be made against killings. among humans, there are many (distinct) arguments against killing. among the ones i’ve heard, the ones which would also apply to animals are not ones that i personally believe.
What do you believe? From what I’ve been able to gather from your replies to me and others, you put hold the following two beliefs:
That ‘human’ is a distinct category of being that makes us the only thing worthy of moral consideration;
That the practice of killing animals is so widespread, so normalised, that it must be morally OK, because if it were wrong, we wouldn’t practice it so widely;
That the practice of killing animals is so widespread, so normalised, that it must be morally OK
again, not quite. the practice of killing animals is near-universal among all life-forms. bacteria kill animals. fungi kill animals. animals kill animals. if causing the death of animals is to be believed to be bad, a case needs to be made for that.
and so a case must be made that this obviously natural phenomenon is immoral. i think it is probably usually amoral,but there may be conditions where it is a moral duty.
OK, so this is literally an appeal to nature. I seriously don’t see why behaviour should get a free pass just because it’s ‘natural,’ except the very natural phenomenon of humans killing each other.
i suppose it depends on whether it benefits people. if a disease started spreading that killed mosquitos with no impact on people, i think that’s amoral (even if i would be personally elated)
That ‘human’ is a distinct category of being that makes us the only thing worthy of moral consideration;
close. human is a distinct category of being. we are the only beings to whom moral consideration is due. this may be a vestigial belief: i’m not sure i buy into deontology anymore. currently, i think i’m a virtue ethicist but i’m not even sure about that. my doubt about deontology comes from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience that most people seem to just sort of do what they want, and then make up a reason why it was the right thing to do. but this is sort of rambling. to be concise on this point, the categorical imperative implies, to me, that people ought to be treated as well as i would like to be treated. i don’t know what it’s like to be a chicken or a pig, but i can’t imagine that, as a pig, i’d expect any standard of behavior from people. as a person, i have no standard of behavior for the animals that prey on people.
i don’t know what it’s like to be a chicken or a pig
But you do know what it’s like to suffer. And you know pigs, chickens, and other farm animals can suffer. Does that not count for anything? Or do you not consider suffering to be an inheriently bad thing?
trying to prevent suffering might be laudable but i don’t think indifference in this respect is immoral.
edit, i read too fast. i missed that you were asking about causing ME, A PERSON suffering. yea. you should be cognizant of that and avoid it when you can.
I think being indifferent to the suffering you cause on those around you is a moral failing. You said yourself you aim to treat people how you want to be treated, do you not care if those around you inflict suffering on you? I don’t see how indifference to suffering can be universalised.
Edit: didn’t see your edit before posting, I still don’t think you’ve justified why the unnecessary killing/causing suffering of a person and animal are different. Your argument seems very circular on this, killing humans and animals are different because they are different.
And?
What do you believe? From what I’ve been able to gather from your replies to me and others, you put hold the following two beliefs:
I don’t think these are sound arguments.
again, not quite. the practice of killing animals is near-universal among all life-forms. bacteria kill animals. fungi kill animals. animals kill animals. if causing the death of animals is to be believed to be bad, a case needs to be made for that.
and so a case must be made that this obviously natural phenomenon is immoral. i think it is probably usually amoral,but there may be conditions where it is a moral duty.
OK, so this is literally an appeal to nature. I seriously don’t see why behaviour should get a free pass just because it’s ‘natural,’ except the very natural phenomenon of humans killing each other.
this isn’t an argument against killing animals.
a phenomenon being common in nature is a good reason to think it’s amoral.
No it’s not. Disease is a natural phenomenon and is bad.
disease is amoral. e. coli isn’t evil. it’s just a bacteria.
Is disease prevention also amoral?
i suppose it depends on whether it benefits people. if a disease started spreading that killed mosquitos with no impact on people, i think that’s amoral (even if i would be personally elated)
close. human is a distinct category of being. we are the only beings to whom moral consideration is due. this may be a vestigial belief: i’m not sure i buy into deontology anymore. currently, i think i’m a virtue ethicist but i’m not even sure about that. my doubt about deontology comes from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience that most people seem to just sort of do what they want, and then make up a reason why it was the right thing to do. but this is sort of rambling. to be concise on this point, the categorical imperative implies, to me, that people ought to be treated as well as i would like to be treated. i don’t know what it’s like to be a chicken or a pig, but i can’t imagine that, as a pig, i’d expect any standard of behavior from people. as a person, i have no standard of behavior for the animals that prey on people.
But you do know what it’s like to suffer. And you know pigs, chickens, and other farm animals can suffer. Does that not count for anything? Or do you not consider suffering to be an inheriently bad thing?
suffering isn’t inherently immoral, and almost no ethical system treats it as such (there is one that comes to mind but it’s got big problems)
Do you think we shouldn’t try to minimise unnecessary suffering?
i think minimizing unnecessary suffering is probably a moral good, but not a moral duty.
Why not? If actions I take cause you suffering, shouldn’t I try my best to prevent that?
trying to prevent suffering might be laudable but i don’t think indifference in this respect is immoral.
edit, i read too fast. i missed that you were asking about causing ME, A PERSON suffering. yea. you should be cognizant of that and avoid it when you can.
I think being indifferent to the suffering you cause on those around you is a moral failing. You said yourself you aim to treat people how you want to be treated, do you not care if those around you inflict suffering on you? I don’t see how indifference to suffering can be universalised.
Edit: didn’t see your edit before posting, I still don’t think you’ve justified why the unnecessary killing/causing suffering of a person and animal are different. Your argument seems very circular on this, killing humans and animals are different because they are different.