Aesir
Smash Master
I think we all need to realize one thing. This place is ****ing dead.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Debate Hall Social Thread
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
i blame aesir
Thanks for clarifying, I hadn't realised.
Here's a couple of debates I'm brewing in my head we could do-
Whether we should eat meat or not (health and/or ethics).
Ethics of gender selection in babies.
Artificial enhancement of humans.
Genetically modifying babies.
Value of environmental conservation.
That's all I got for now homies.
Claire Diviner
President
Haven't we already beaten the meat issue into the ground already before? I mean, I can always debate it still, but it just feels like the DH has already done this many times. The other ones, however, I don't recall debating, so I'll be more than happy to offer my input on those.
I have yet to introduce a debate myself since my SOPA thing in the Center Stage, so I'm going to try my hand at bringing something into the PG. I'm thinking along the lines of the following two:
- Children being tried as adults
- How far is too far for self-defense?
I may do the latter, and if so, I'll put something up soon today by early afternoon.
Dead? This place is the picture of life. Couldn't be livelier. Statistics show the DH is more active now than it's ever been.*
*These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. Consume undercooked posts at your own risk.
*These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. Consume undercooked posts at your own risk.
I like all of these.
GwJ
Smash Hero
I like the latter 2 the most.
Aesir
Smash Master
Last two are meh.
Meat was done in the PG the others we've had before. But a rehash is always welcomed. Especially for some of us who have evolved our thinking.
In terms of meat eating though we're better off just using meat for flavoring rather than as food.
Meat was done in the PG the others we've had before. But a rehash is always welcomed. Especially for some of us who have evolved our thinking.
In terms of meat eating though we're better off just using meat for flavoring rather than as food.
Claire Diviner
President
That would be interesting. I don't know much of the conflict, but I can always read up on it, and give my views.
GwJ
Smash Hero
Yeah, just make it. It might seem like a waste to type it up and give your argument/opinion and have no one reply, but that's the only way to find out.
Aesir
Smash Master
Are we talking about just killing animals in general? or do you want to get more specific with Factory Farms and Feed Lots?But that's ignoring the ethical question of killing animals.
I'm happy to go as broad as people like really. People do believe that it is unethical to kill animals at all, which is as broad as it gets really, so we might as well start there.
Also, another topic I forgot to mention before is the legality/morality of zoosexuality.
Aesir
Smash Master
Well my stance is this:
It would be wrong to kill something when there's no justifiable end result. That is if you're intentionally going out to kill an animal for no reason, other than to kill it, than it is unethical. However, if you're killing an animal for population control/food than I say it could be ethical I say could because I could be swayed one way or another.
We shouldn't allow species to over populate as that's generally bad for everyone involved. Hence population control can fall under the greater good; Mostly because over population takes a huge toll on the ecosystem and environment. (provided there's a over population of a species.)
Now, if we're talking about food it's ethical; Only if the animal didn't suffer during in it's life. IE No Feed lot raised animals. A food writers who's name I forgot wrote (i"m paraphrasing): "I refuse to contribute to the misery of other living things." Basically, he was arguing that if an animal suffered in life to be sold as packaged meat it's unethical to eat it. Only way eating another animal is ethical if it was killed humanely and lived a happy life. I agree with this.
EDIT: I saw Israel and Palestine mentioned earlier. If there is a debate on this I would be curious to see how many people argue in favor of Israel.
Ok before we do this, I just want to point out that I don't believe in morality, but my argument was for those who do, I don't think meat-eating can be justified from a moral standpoint.
Is it ok to kill humans for population control?
Is it ok to kill humans for food as long as they don't suffer?
I'm going to go ahead and assume that you would say no. What this shows is that your argument has an underlying speciesism. The question is whether speciesism is justified or not.
Speciesism is just an extension of racism. It's the discrimination against those that are different to us. People have different boundaries for discrimination. Generally, the less you discriminate against, the more moral you are perceived as a person. Psychopaths are considered the least moral people, because they discriminate against everyone who is different to them, so basically everyone except themselves. Racists discriminate against those who are of a different race, and so on.
Speciesism isn't really any different. You may say that the difference is that they're not out species, well then explain to me why 'species' is the non-arbitrary line where discrimination is allowed, and why 'race' isn't.
Ok, now let's apply this logic to humans-
Is it ok to kill humans for population control?
Is it ok to kill humans for food as long as they don't suffer?
I'm going to go ahead and assume that you would say no. What this shows is that your argument has an underlying speciesism. The question is whether speciesism is justified or not.
Speciesism is just an extension of racism. It's the discrimination against those that are different to us. People have different boundaries for discrimination. Generally, the less you discriminate against, the more moral you are perceived as a person. Psychopaths are considered the least moral people, because they discriminate against everyone who is different to them, so basically everyone except themselves. Racists discriminate against those who are of a different race, and so on.
Speciesism isn't really any different. You may say that the difference is that they're not out species, well then explain to me why 'species' is the non-arbitrary line where discrimination is allowed, and why 'race' isn't.
Claire Diviner
President
Well, killing an animal just to kill it is technically population control, despite said control not being the reason behind the slaying.
What about the human race? Forgive me if this sounds "tree hugger-ish", but humans are the ones over populating and ruining the ecosystem by killing off predators that would otherwise keep their prey in check and introducing foreign animals to an environment they're not supposed to be in (like pigs in Australia).
The vast majority of animal meat packaged and sold at stores are usually from animals that were raised in a less than happy environment and oftentimes slaughtered in a messed up way, from what I understand and even seen in videos (usually vegan propaganda nonsense... no offense to vegans, of course).
Aesir
Smash Master
Before I get started I just want to say I can be swayed one way or another. It's the first time you might actually be able to convince me mid way through!
If you're someone who doesn't and believes that survival and preservation are the governing rules than it is justified.
Like I mentioned before. If you follow the "golden rule" you should at least be a vegetarian. You would not want an alien race to come here hunt us down and use us as population control and food. However, if you believe in survival and preservation than you may not be okay with the alien race coming down and hunting us, but you should be able to accept your fate so to speak.
[/QUOTE]
No because like you mentioned below we're wired to be concerned about our species more than others.
That depends on who you ask. If you ask someone who believes firmly in the "Golden Rule" Than no it's not justified. (The golden rule is treating others how you wish to be treated.)
If you're someone who doesn't and believes that survival and preservation are the governing rules than it is justified.
I don't have a problem with this definition.
No I see the argument, like I said when I first responded I can swayed either way.
Like I mentioned before. If you follow the "golden rule" you should at least be a vegetarian. You would not want an alien race to come here hunt us down and use us as population control and food. However, if you believe in survival and preservation than you may not be okay with the alien race coming down and hunting us, but you should be able to accept your fate so to speak.
There's a reason when you kill it for population control. Killing just to kill is not a reason.
Mentioned this above in Dre's you'll find I'm on the fence again now.
You have to know where to look. The alternatives are usually local farms that do it themselves. There are some companies that have responded to a "moral" approach of meat production; However, they're not very big companies.
[/QUOTE]The main problem I'm finding in creating the Israel / Palestine thread is that nearly all the reliable sources I read are not in english but in german. I'd have to find other sources first before I can open a discussion about it.
Claire Diviner
President
My issue with this is that technically, vegetables are living things, albeit with no feelings or sentience that we know of. That said, whether carnivorous or herbivorous, something needs to die to sustain life. The only things separating meat-based creatures from vegetation are their brains. Also, history has shown that mankind has been eating meat since time immemorial; even before biblical times, so why some people question the morality of eating the flesh of other animals now is beyond me, wouldn't one say?
Couldn't you use one of those high grade translators online to translate the pages to English? I mean, I suppose we'd ought to be careful with those, seeing as they oftentimes don't take grammar into account.
Aesir
Smash Master
I think it comes down to not wanting something to suffer for your own benefit. We can slaughter animals with minimal suffering to the animal. Many animal rights people will argue if you're going to kill an animal for food at least do it humanely.
Let me perhaps persuade Aesir more towards his original position. Let’s deal with the two questions presented.
However, this leaves open the question as to whether killing animals for consumption is morally acceptable when vegetarianism is an option, which is a much harder case to make. The case would probably be that humans don’t contribute to any additional suffering since if we didn’t hunt it, then its fate would have ended similarly, or even worse by the hands of nature. Whether it’s the human that eats the deer to survive or the coyote, it’s morally indifferent to the animal. Since humans are at the top of the food chain, this reasoning doesn’t apply to us or other animals in similar situations. This gives a plausible starting point for hunting for consumption. However, I can’t seem to think of any sort of moral justification for factory farming. As with all moral dilemmas, you need to look at what options are available to you and calculate the opportunity costs.
No. One of the reasons why this is a no brainer is that we have a less harmful means of population control available to us: birth control. This method easily allows us to plan pregnancies so if we are ever serious about population control, this would be the moral path to take. This is simply due to the fact that when you have a less harmful method to the end result, ceteris paribus, you have a moral obligation to use that method. We don’t have the same option with regards to animals. Also, humans are unique in when we increase our population; we also increase our food supply to accommodate the extra people via agricultural technology. This is why population control is seen as a good thing, we either kill a couple deer now or else they will overpopulate, decimate their food source and then an even greater number that would’ve been killed will die from starvation. The former causes less suffering in the long run than the latter. This simply doesn’t happen with humans since we control our food sources better.
We can partially apply the principle from the first question to this one as well. All else being equal, when we have an option that causes less suffering, we are obligated to take it (also the reason for humane treatment). This initially doesn’t bode well for advanced civilizations that can customize their diet, but it would be an easy moral defense for those in remote locations (e.g. Inuits). Also, since we need to factor in the animals propensity for pleasure and pain, it would mean, ceteris paribus, that we would pick out the animals that have a less advanced nervous system. So, when do humans enter the picture? By this line of reasoning, it would be moral to kill a human when there is no other food source around, so basically only in survival scenarios. Even then, it’s not so clear cut since one person is guaranteed to die, you can always wait until one person dies and then the survivor can eat the other to increase their time for being rescued. The only time it would be morally beneficial to kill the other is if they are both dying and waiting would ensure that the other is too weak to harvest the other. This is such an extreme scenario that it hardly ever happens which is why we say that it is not OK to kill humans for food.
However, this leaves open the question as to whether killing animals for consumption is morally acceptable when vegetarianism is an option, which is a much harder case to make. The case would probably be that humans don’t contribute to any additional suffering since if we didn’t hunt it, then its fate would have ended similarly, or even worse by the hands of nature. Whether it’s the human that eats the deer to survive or the coyote, it’s morally indifferent to the animal. Since humans are at the top of the food chain, this reasoning doesn’t apply to us or other animals in similar situations. This gives a plausible starting point for hunting for consumption. However, I can’t seem to think of any sort of moral justification for factory farming. As with all moral dilemmas, you need to look at what options are available to you and calculate the opportunity costs.
GwJ
Smash Hero
rvkevin, what if the population was so out of control that if you didn't lower the population dramatically (several billion) very quickly (single-digit years), the shortage of food would lead to the death of billions, just as much or maybe more than the number that would need to be euthanized?
I would like to first point out that this question presumes a privileged epistemic perspective (e.g we don’t know about future advances in agriculture or the lack thereof ahead of time) and as such, it is not a real-world scenario. However, I will try to address it as if we could reasonably predict to a high degree of certainty that we are at or above the Earth’s carrying capacity and that carrying capacity can’t be changed. This can’t be known, but the following is predicated on the assumption that it is.
In the event that the number of people that exceed the food source, the food should be split in such a way that it grants the survival of the greatest number of people. It doesn’t make sense to split enough food for 5 people between six people six ways such that everybody starves to death. Again we are talking about a long-term situation here. If it was only a temporary problem, such as a single bad harvest, then you could split it six ways, each person would lose a bit of weight, survive the hardship and thrive on the next harvest. If there is a lack of food, then some portion of the population will necessarily starve to death. They have this option or they can be euthanized. In terms of animals, we decide for them since they can’t communicate or do it themselves (we basically make the decision in their best interest). Since we tend to believe that euthanasia is preferable to starvation, we tend to choose that. For humans, we let them choose for themselves since they can communicate their preferences.
This is kind of similar to the patients in a hospital with a hurricane on its way scenario. You have 100 patients that can’t move unassisted. You have enough manpower to move 50 before you have to evacuate. What do you do with the rest? Do you see if they survive the storm? Given that the hospital is on the river smack dab in the middle of the path, it is nearly certain that they will drown as the surge fills the room with water. Should we euthanize them to ease their impending suffering? I suppose the best answer is the same as above, for humans, we let them choose for themselves, but if it were animals, we would euthanize them before evacuating.
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
I've finished High School! Yay! And after a period of degeneracy, I'm back.
I'm going to weigh in on the speciesism thing. I think it's justified to discriminate against groups when there are genuine significant and relevant differences between them. Humans are not very genetically diverse, we're almost 99.9% genetically the same (though that depends how you measure genetic diversity). So racism within humanity is generally unscientific and wrong.
Speciesism is different, because there is a comparatively huge difference between humans and our closest living relatives, Chimpanzees. Chimps share something like 99% of their DNA with us. This represents a tenfold increase in the genetic difference from human-human to human-chimp. They're actually significantly different from us in many different ways.
As for why killing animals is justified in more circumstances than for humans, many of them do not have the capacity to suffer as we do, and I think it is this which would influence when it is admissible to kill beings. This is why I'm against killing whales, great apes and so forth, but I'm more okay with killing fish, cows, pigs, prawns etc.
I'm going to weigh in on the speciesism thing. I think it's justified to discriminate against groups when there are genuine significant and relevant differences between them. Humans are not very genetically diverse, we're almost 99.9% genetically the same (though that depends how you measure genetic diversity). So racism within humanity is generally unscientific and wrong.
Speciesism is different, because there is a comparatively huge difference between humans and our closest living relatives, Chimpanzees. Chimps share something like 99% of their DNA with us. This represents a tenfold increase in the genetic difference from human-human to human-chimp. They're actually significantly different from us in many different ways.
As for why killing animals is justified in more circumstances than for humans, many of them do not have the capacity to suffer as we do, and I think it is this which would influence when it is admissible to kill beings. This is why I'm against killing whales, great apes and so forth, but I'm more okay with killing fish, cows, pigs, prawns etc.
GwJ
Smash Hero
How do you define suffering?
Chimps can also contract diseases from us, can undergo blood transfusions with us, and are the only other known animal apart from humans that perform para-military operations.
That's irrelevant though. All you're really doing is pointing out the differences between us and them. You're not pointing out why the cut-off point in terms of discrimination isn't arbitrary.
If you're going to take the naturalistic avenue and say that it's natural to only care about your own species, remember that other species kill other clans of the same species. From a survival perspective, other human clans can pose just as much of a threat to our survival as other species, so we would be justified in assaulting them as well.
Basically my point is that the distinction is arbitrary.
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
I probably should be a bit clearer, but I'm saying that it's not as if the species line, is hazy or anything like that.
What I'm also trying to say is that many other species have less of a capacity to suffer than we do, so there are more situations where it is justified in killing them. This is precisely because of the fact that they are of less intelligent species than us. Of course there are exceptions to this, people in a coma, unborn foetuses which don't have the same capacity to suffer as we do etc. So I would say that there isn't really a line in my moral philosophy, it varies according to the situation and the species.
As for the definition of suffering, I would say that the severity of the nervous pain response in a being.
Although, for some reason I'm really brain-dead so this probably isn't too well thought out.
Edit: I see what you're getting at, the level of "acceptable suffering" is somewhat arbitrary. You could weigh it up against the gain for all sentient beings, I guess and if it comes up as greater than that gain, it would be not okay.
Pr0phetic
Dodge the bullets!
This depends on whether you value natural selection or humanity more. Personally killing people would be inhumane as compared to allowing those who can survive make their due and letting things sadly take their course. How would one go about choosing who to euthanize as well?
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
I have been absent for too long. I blame reddit, video games, going on holidays and myself. But boy has this place changed. And I do not feel the same; growing up has made me less argumentative and less interested in seeking out debate.
I have been considering this for some time, what forms of speech are acceptable and what/who deems them acceptable.
I understand the importance of free speech in protecting our political system and way of life. However, things such as libel and defamation are illegal in most jurisdictions. The possession of child pornography is also illegal. And I believe that it is important that these things remain illegal for the sake of individuals and businesses in the case of libel and defamation and children in the case of child pornography. How do we reconcile the importance of freedom of expression as a universal human right and the illegality of things such as libel and defamation and child pornography? Where do we draw the line between the kinds of speech are protected and those that are deemed illegal?
I actually don't really have an an answer to these questions, other than, "sometimes the protection of individuals is more important than freedom of speech", so I'd really like to hear different perspectives on these issues.
I also begin all my paragraphs with "I".
I have been considering this for some time, what forms of speech are acceptable and what/who deems them acceptable.
I understand the importance of free speech in protecting our political system and way of life. However, things such as libel and defamation are illegal in most jurisdictions. The possession of child pornography is also illegal. And I believe that it is important that these things remain illegal for the sake of individuals and businesses in the case of libel and defamation and children in the case of child pornography. How do we reconcile the importance of freedom of expression as a universal human right and the illegality of things such as libel and defamation and child pornography? Where do we draw the line between the kinds of speech are protected and those that are deemed illegal?
I actually don't really have an an answer to these questions, other than, "sometimes the protection of individuals is more important than freedom of speech", so I'd really like to hear different perspectives on these issues.
I also begin all my paragraphs with "I".
GwJ
Smash Hero
Isn't the general explanation behind this something like the following? "You have the freedom to say whatever you want until it infringes upon the rights of somebody else."
In this case, the existence of exceptions of free speech or libel and defamation mean that, under law, people have a right not to have their image falsely smeared. In order for it to truly be libel, the person who was affected must be able to prove that whatever was stated is false, so it doesn't protect against people just being mean to each other. Our constitution tells us what our rights are. So, at least somewhat, our rights are defined by other men. In this case, one of the rights we have is the above.
In this case, the existence of exceptions of free speech or libel and defamation mean that, under law, people have a right not to have their image falsely smeared. In order for it to truly be libel, the person who was affected must be able to prove that whatever was stated is false, so it doesn't protect against people just being mean to each other. Our constitution tells us what our rights are. So, at least somewhat, our rights are defined by other men. In this case, one of the rights we have is the above.
Claire Diviner
President
You pretty much answered your own question with that quote, and as GwJumpman said, the Constitution does define our rights in terms of free speech, and there are also clear exceptions to that right in the following link below:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Hope this helps to clear things up, if only a bit.
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
That is interesting. Thanks folks, so it's really about ensuring that we don't infringe upon the rights of others and so forth. I guess in some situations some things are more important than the following of certain rules. For example, keeping state secrets secret (eg. the launch codes to the nukes).
I know I'm late to the conversation but rvkevin made some good clarifications on the veggie vs meat debate. Personally I believe whole heartily that abstaining from meat is the best choice. If you HAVE to eat meat, then at least eat meat that is organically raised.
Do I live by this principle? Hell no, lol. I eat all kinds of mass produced meat -and- veggies. Everything I buy or ingest is processed at least twice (harvesting, then packaging). In many cases there are even 2 or 3 more processes, especially if it's canned food, or something like sausage.
Why this hypocrisy? Total and unrepentant laziness. If the average American citizen had to go back to farming their own meat and veggies, yes they'd be (typically) doing the "better" thing (in the scope of this discussion) ... but they'd also be spending about 7-10 hours/day up-keeping their farm. Today's busy body just doesn't have time to do things the "right" way. Without TV dinners and take out they'd starve to death. So while I cringe at the thought of massive slaughter houses and feed lots filled with near brain-dead cattle all beefed (ha!) up on chemicals, I appreciate the necessity of the mass-produced meat industry. Without it, you lose not only the convenience of being able to purchase already slaughtered and butchered slabs of various meats, but you also have giant restaurant chains all able to do business thanks to widely available products.
Do I live by this principle? Hell no, lol. I eat all kinds of mass produced meat -and- veggies. Everything I buy or ingest is processed at least twice (harvesting, then packaging). In many cases there are even 2 or 3 more processes, especially if it's canned food, or something like sausage.
Why this hypocrisy? Total and unrepentant laziness. If the average American citizen had to go back to farming their own meat and veggies, yes they'd be (typically) doing the "better" thing (in the scope of this discussion) ... but they'd also be spending about 7-10 hours/day up-keeping their farm. Today's busy body just doesn't have time to do things the "right" way. Without TV dinners and take out they'd starve to death. So while I cringe at the thought of massive slaughter houses and feed lots filled with near brain-dead cattle all beefed (ha!) up on chemicals, I appreciate the necessity of the mass-produced meat industry. Without it, you lose not only the convenience of being able to purchase already slaughtered and butchered slabs of various meats, but you also have giant restaurant chains all able to do business thanks to widely available products.
Whether an animal is "happy" or "sad" is impossible to determine I think, but EKG studies have shown that modern "stunning" methods do in fact cause severe pain to the animal just before they lose consciousness.
Claire Diviner
President
One also must ask how much of the population have ethical views in regards to eating meat. Given the acceptance of slaughterhouses and name brand processed foods, I'll hazard a guess that not very many people think much of it, or even care. I'm included in the category that doesn't think much of meat ethics myself.
-Sucumbio your argument ignores the biggest point of contention in animal debates. which is speceism.
I'm going to assume that you wouldn't be so lazy about what you consume if what you were consuming were humans.
Secondly, all these claims of 'it's ok to do it if we're not wasting the resources (ie. eating it) and the animal endures minial suffering' would not be applied to humans.
Secondly, this stuff about 'killing for the right reasons, and in the right way' is actually just a case of humans caring for their moral conscience, not the animals. Animals don't care why they're killed. If someone said to me 'I'm going to kill you, but it's ok, you won't go to waste, I'll eat your flesh and use your skin for clothing' I wouldn't care and would still take aversive action.
People who say this stuff really only care about themselves and about the animals, as evidenced by the fact that they would not use the same logic for humans. Principles are primitive and self-fulfilling methods of determining values and actions, I'd like to think in this day an age we'd be past that.
So what we have here is a case of speceism. And that is the real question, whether or not we should be speceist.
Also, saying 'animals have a lesser capacity for suffering' doesn't really stick either. Babies, people with nerve damage, and people who are asleep or in a coma also have a lesser capacity for suffering but that doesn't give us a right to kill them. The only time where an animal's lesser capacity for suffering comes into play is whether you have to choose to sacrifice one of two creatures.
It seems to me that no one can justify speceism, they're arguments just seem to imply it.
We don't need to kill animals, we just do it simply because we can, and our society is currently insensitive to them. Hundreds of years from now, we'll be called biggots for the way we treat them, and will be likened to white slavers.
I'm going to assume that you wouldn't be so lazy about what you consume if what you were consuming were humans.
Secondly, all these claims of 'it's ok to do it if we're not wasting the resources (ie. eating it) and the animal endures minial suffering' would not be applied to humans.
Secondly, this stuff about 'killing for the right reasons, and in the right way' is actually just a case of humans caring for their moral conscience, not the animals. Animals don't care why they're killed. If someone said to me 'I'm going to kill you, but it's ok, you won't go to waste, I'll eat your flesh and use your skin for clothing' I wouldn't care and would still take aversive action.
People who say this stuff really only care about themselves and about the animals, as evidenced by the fact that they would not use the same logic for humans. Principles are primitive and self-fulfilling methods of determining values and actions, I'd like to think in this day an age we'd be past that.
So what we have here is a case of speceism. And that is the real question, whether or not we should be speceist.
Also, saying 'animals have a lesser capacity for suffering' doesn't really stick either. Babies, people with nerve damage, and people who are asleep or in a coma also have a lesser capacity for suffering but that doesn't give us a right to kill them. The only time where an animal's lesser capacity for suffering comes into play is whether you have to choose to sacrifice one of two creatures.
It seems to me that no one can justify speceism, they're arguments just seem to imply it.
We don't need to kill animals, we just do it simply because we can, and our society is currently insensitive to them. Hundreds of years from now, we'll be called biggots for the way we treat them, and will be likened to white slavers.
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
But if you take this "speceism is completely unjustified" issue to a reasonable end, would we not be allowed to kill vermin if they're infecting our food supplies? Or perhaps kill termites if they're are eating our houses? Or what about killing locusts if they're eating our food supplies?
I'm not really sure how this can really be practically applied outside of vegetarianism/veganism.
I'm not really sure how this can really be practically applied outside of vegetarianism/veganism.
What I said was that no one is justifying it.
I never said that we should never take a life no matter what the circumstance. In cases like those you mentioned you use a common sense utilitarian approach. If our crops are being affected by very low sentience creatures, then there's nothing wrong killing them because of their minimal capacity for suffering.
I never proposed a rigid principle system, that's exactly they type of thing I'm against. Humans, no matter what they did in their history on this planet, were always going to harm animals in some way. Whether it be hunting them directly, or outcompeting them for habitat and resources. I get that, that's why I don't believe it's 'immoral' to harm animals. I don't believe in morality anyway, but even if I did, it wouldn't be immoral because not harming animals would have always been an impossible goal.
What I don't like is that we're not attempting to minimise the amount of suffering and harm we cause. Every year we harm millions and millions of high sentience creatures that we don't need to. Honestly it's disgusting, and people will realise that in a few centuries. It's amazing what you will accept or turn a blind-eye to if your society does the same.
I don't see how you could justify it without admitting that one thinks they're better than animals. No? I mean, let's be real. If you eat a hamburger at McDonald's you're eating a factory-raised/slaughtered animal. You claim to have abandoned morality but I assure you, you posses a sense of "right" and "wrong" the same as everyone that isn't defunct. It's that you don't care (ambivalence) which can spread and could force you to become a sociopath - but that aside 
There's people who have a higher sense of emotional attachment to animals, but the majority of people don't give two ****s. Turning a blind eye is easy, I mean do you inspect your food and watch it grow from calf to ribeye?
HAHAHA actually! Great story, my mother was a little girl and a swan came her way with a wounded wing, and she took it home and grandpa (her dad) helped nurse it back to health and she named him and so on and then she came home from school one day and it was sitting on table, half eaten.
traumatic? probably.
But totally acceptable. I mean what the **** are animals here on earth for except to serve as our food? Sure there's plenty we won't eat, but if you trace food chains you'll see that just about every species is important in the chain that links all the biology on Earth. So, I guess my point is there's no sense crying over the poor cows, cause we've got a lot of people to feed, and I'd much rather we be fed by controlled livestock and produce rather than having to fend for ourselves on the open prairie.
There's people who have a higher sense of emotional attachment to animals, but the majority of people don't give two ****s. Turning a blind eye is easy, I mean do you inspect your food and watch it grow from calf to ribeye?HAHAHA actually! Great story, my mother was a little girl and a swan came her way with a wounded wing, and she took it home and grandpa (her dad) helped nurse it back to health and she named him and so on and then she came home from school one day and it was sitting on table, half eaten.
traumatic? probably.
But totally acceptable. I mean what the **** are animals here on earth for except to serve as our food? Sure there's plenty we won't eat, but if you trace food chains you'll see that just about every species is important in the chain that links all the biology on Earth. So, I guess my point is there's no sense crying over the poor cows, cause we've got a lot of people to feed, and I'd much rather we be fed by controlled livestock and produce rather than having to fend for ourselves on the open prairie.