[redidas]

The animal as people logic doesn't hold up. With this reasoning what do we do about animals that hunt and kill other animals for food. Are they behaving immorally because they must kill to survive?

[onedognight]

> The animal as people logic doesn't hold up.

Likewise with slavery and Human Rights. Human's have been enslaving people for eons, why stop now? Power dynamics are inevitable. Who cares if you are enslaved, or eaten for that matter? The logic simply doesn't hold up.

[timje1]

Animals are not usually described as having immoral / moral actions. However, to foolishly continue your strawman: by allowing the animals to kill one another, are their keepers acting immorally?

[vijayr]

There is a difference between animals killing animals for food, and humans killing animals for food.

Animals kill other animals, only when they are hungry. They also don't raise animals in a confined, cruel environment, pump them with drugs, don't beat them, treat them like crap etc. Humans do all of these. Animals also don't waste - every inch of meat is eaten, while we liberally waste.

[jules]

> Animals kill other animals, only when they are hungry.

False. I've seen cats killing birds and then not eating them many times.

> They also don't raise animals in a confined, cruel environment, pump them with drugs, don't beat them, treat them like crap etc.

Strawman. He didn't say that we should treat animals like crap. It is possible to treat animals well, except for the killing part, and that's what this discussion is about.

> Animals also don't waste - every inch of meat is eaten, while we liberally waste.

Also false. Lions kill animals and then only eat a small part of it. Sure, later other animals & bacteria eat the rest, but the same applies for humans.

[dublinben]

Animals are only moral actors when we're the ones causing them harm. When they're causing other animals harm, they're not moral actors, just animals doing what they do.