[jdavis703]

I see nothing immoral in a bear eating a human. It’s just being a bear. But just like any other social animal, as humans we’re of course going to kill that bear so it stops eating us. It has nothing to do with us being superior than a bear. We just don’t want to die like any other animal!

And as humans I see nothing wrong with eating other animals (outside of animal cruelty, e.g. factory farms). As animals, we naturally eat each other. If there is something immoral about this, does that mean a rabbit is morally superior to a fox?

[meowface]

>I see nothing immoral in a bear eating a human. It’s just being a bear. But just like any other social animal, as humans we’re of course going to kill that bear so it stops eating us. It has nothing to do with us being superior than a bear. We just don’t want to die like any other animal!

Right.

>And as humans I see nothing wrong with eating other animals (outside of animal cruelty, e.g. factory farms).

Bears can't have moral culpability because they aren't intellectually sophisticated enough, much like how a theoretical profoundly mentally disabled human, or an infant human, wouldn't be morally culpable for killing someone. The "mens rea" can't be established. However, nearly all adult humans do possess the capacity for moral reasoning.

>As animals, we naturally eat each other.

Even though bears and humans are animals, and animals often eat each other, we're the only animals blessed/cursed with the knowledge that if we were to maul someone to death, they'd experience terrible pain and suffering, their life would be cut short, and their family would mourn their death and lose resource support and potentially suffer and die themselves. If a bear had those thoughts, they would be morally culpable, but they almost certainly don't.

>If there is something immoral about this, does that mean a rabbit is morally superior to a fox?

No, because a rabbit's moral reasoning is in the same class as a bear's and a fox's, and not a human's.

[cowninja]

Individual beings who have a moral sense of personhood engage in behavior that can be classified as moral or immoral, right or wrong, permissible or impermissible. Their actions can be categorized as either condemnable or commendable. It makes sense to hold them morally responsible for their intentional actions.

In contrast to humans, animals such as dogs, cats, birds, and fish are commonly held NOT to be moral agents or moral persons. In the jungle, a lion eating another animal or killing a human for any reason is not considered morally wrong or blameworthy.

Pet owners frequently chastise their pets for undesirable behaviors such as urinating on the carpet, digging in the garden, or failing to obey a command, but yelling "bad dog" is not usually interpreted as moral agency. One could argue, however, that the owner is engaging in moral expectation or anthropomorphism.

[blacksmith_tb]

Though I do agree with the general principle that humans are animals, when it comes to eating each other, it's clear that our greater flexibility (and understanding of our own biology) allows us to choose our diets to a greater degree than other animals. Given that, us eating fewer animals (for ecologocial, health, and/or ethical reasons) seems like the best approach.

[cjrd]

A fox eats a rabbit out of necessity. In our modern economy, people don't need to eat animals; it's usually a matter of convenience, taste, and tradition. But in all reality, we can get by quite comfortably without doing so.

[wcarron]

There is no moral obligation to abstain from meat, whatsoever.

[etcet]

Speak for yourself, I feel a strong moral obligation not to eat meat or otherwise support industries which exploit animals. Reducing suffering is a moral imperative.

[jdavis703]

If you believe you should reduce suffering, it would be better for you to quickly kill a chicken and eat it. Otherwise, a cat, bird of prey or other animal might kill that chicken. And cats are cruel killers that slowly torture their prey before eating them.

[meowface]

This is the primary argument I see hunters use to justify hunting as an ethical form of killing, in contrast to factory farming. Obviously it's better to kill someone or something quickly and painlessly than slowly and painfully, but I don't buy this argument. If you truly had that motivation, you would be saving that chicken from predation and finding a sanctuary or home for it, and/or you'd be encouraging mass human euthanization campaigns across various parts of the world to reduce suffering and slow, painful deaths.

If there were a human serial killer killing people via a projectile energy weapon that always instantly killed someone from a long distance before they had any idea what was happening, I don't think you'd argue for a greatly reduced sentence due to their humane method of disposal. If there were an ancient human civilization that went on hunting trips to kill and eat humans in other villages because they believed human flesh was the most prized meat, and they defended it by saying that they were probably all going to soon die of war or starvation or disease anyway, I don't think you'd just go "oh yeah true" without batting an eye.

The sole reason - the necessary and sufficient reason - hunters find hunting justifiable is they attribute no moral value to the lives of non-human animals. Anything else is self-serving rationalization. If you attribute no moral value to them, that puts you in the company of almost everyone who's ever lived, but just state it plainly instead of trying to wiggle around it with mental gymnastics.

[wcarron]

Boom, someone finally said it. However, I think you can just turn this:

> The sole reason - the necessary and sufficient reason - hunters find hunting justifiable is they attribute no moral value to the lives of non-human animals.

Into this:

> The sole reason meat-eaters find eating meat justifiable is they attribute no moral value to the lives of non-human animals.

[michaelmrose]

Based on that logic I should suffocate you now in your sleep so you don't have to get old and die of cancer. Don't look out for me with my pillow I don't buy that logic either.

[etcet]

We can just stop breeding chickens for the slaughter?

[xxpor]

Is it better to have lived and die, or not live at all?

[boston_clone]

This is ignorant of so much contemporary philosophy / analytical ethics.

The amount of convincing arguments for needlessly causing suffering in beings that clearly experience it are vanishingly small.

[wcarron]

Your attempt to bend my morality to yours doesn't register with me, bud.

Some things die so others may live. That is the way it always has been, and always will be, regardless if some subset of humans decides that "that's immoral". I will continue to eat meat and hunt animals and feel zero guilt. I do not care that something was killed for food when... I dunno, grass juice and pitaya could theoretically sustain me instead (lol). Animals taste good and are calorically dense. That's 100% convincing enough for me.

[boston_clone]

You stated "[t]here is no moral obligation to abstain from meat, whatsoever." Hand-wavy attempts at dismissing entire bodies of study within philosophy won't work with most intelligent people, either.

Peter Singer is an excellent starting point for exploring the dimensions of morality for eating animal flesh.

I can't argue against your own sense of guilt, since it's possible for some people to feel not at all [0]. Your other comment about willingly and guiltlessly drowning mice [1] in a bucket is not indicative of a healthy mind.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29871272#29877761

[wcarron]

It is exceedingly hilarious that you took:

1. I drowned two rodents that lived, shit, probably bred, and carried diseases through my walls and attic

2. I eat meat and feel no guilt

And then used that to call me a psychopath. Thank you for the amusement. Goodbye.

[baq]

Morality is like an ass: everybody has their own.

[boston_clone]

to try and extend this weird turn of phrase, human progress is the equivalent of making sure everyone's ass is clean.

[seph-reed]

Suffering is bad. Abuse is bad. Enjoyment is good.

Suffering is inevitable, abuse is not. The best we can do in life is minimize abuse while maximizing enjoyment.

Meat is not immoral, abuse is. It's really that easy. Unfortunately, most meat comes from abused beings.

[adamc]

We have options, and options imply choices and therefore morality.

I see lots wrong with it, since it creates pain and bad life experiences. This bothers me. But that's also a choice, of what kind of morality you embrace.