Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
It is unethical to kill fish. If one must eat fish, wait for it to be in a position like death where it won't get in the way of anything. Fish are no different from other animals.
He's my conundrum with that. Other species will not go after animals that are close to death. I've worked with a lot of wild animals. The thinking is that if it is dead or close to death they will leave it to the scavengers since they don't want to risk contracting whatever killed it. Bears, eagles, so many animals are going to hunt healthy fish - bears specifically go after the salmon about to spawn and pass on their genes.
Hunting is part of nature, and not just with fish.
I understand the issue with industrialized/commercial kills, but is hunting also off the table in your train of thought? I mean this as a genuine question, not an attack, I know tone of voice is often lost through text.
Is hunting/fishing off the table for us as the species with higher intellect? We do not have as robust immune systems as the scavengers of nature do, so waiting for things to be in a position near death is worrisome to me. Whereas hunting/fishing (again, not the industrialized practice, but individual) is how conservation of species was born by developing species limits and it's how some species levels continue to be kept in check (for instance, invasive lion fish in the US South East)
There is necessity but there is also ethics. Do they clash? Of course. But this clash isn't unique to the world of the food chain, and in these other situations, there is at least substantial acknowledgement and regret that ethics is being sacrificed. I am not a vegetarian elitist like many people are (I encountered quite a few of those here where I faced the opposite criticism), but I still quietly frown upon the idea of me descending to the mindset of survival at all costs. Keep in mind we live in a world where it's normal to go from "we need meat to survive" to "let's eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn't have to be the one to sustain us".
Ok, but what you said tried to toe the line while actually using absolute hyperboles to prove neither point.
We actually don't need meat to survive. While there are species that are indeed obligate carnivores or ones that whose digestive system is more efficient with meat proteins, we are omnivores. It's even been shown that body builders and athletes can sustain themselves on a vegan diet.
While some people get a thrill out of eating the highly illegal species, turning new species into a new food item can be a boon to conservation. Lionfish never used to live in the Florida Keys, then one popped up, then a handful, then all the sudden they were taking over whole reefs and the native species had no where to live. There was no way to get rid of them, they hide under the outcroppings of the reefs, they can't be caught on a line, no gillnetting, they have to be speared which is NOT easy as government operation or some sort of eradication program. Finally, it caught on how delicious they are and the area started teaching people how to handle the spines and the filet around the venom glands in order to cook them, and it took off like crazy and everyone was in the water to get them! The population hasn't declined, but it's somewhat leveled so the local marine species can at least get a toehold again.
And this isn't the only species with a story like this. So taking on exotic species (plant and animal) in your diet can indeed be a good thing for conservation.
But, the point is I asked if hunting was off the table for us as a species despite it occurring in nature, and if so was it due to our intellect? You responded with hyperboles on both ends that don't provide an answer.
I'm confused then, what are you trying to say? I was saying spare the fish, you argued against that, but now veganism is ideal? Nothing against you, but I'm lost.
I did answer whether or not hunting is off the table. The first few sentences alludes to hunting (a necessity) versus abstaining (ethics). It is ethical not to kill (which hunting is), no? Even farming, though often not great, is morally superior to hunting. You can live off farming, you don't need hunting. Hunting exotic animals can have good aspects, but it's still killing, not always necessary anyways, and these good aspects don't apply to, say, going to a Korean restaurant and lo and behold they have live octopus. If by any chance there are no invasive species, you can do just fine with everyday farm animals (supposing one absolutely had to eat meat). Everyday life isn't Survivor and deliciousness shouldn't/doesn't have to be someone's whole ideal.
I was showing that your statements are incorrect. That hunting is not a necessity because we are omnivores. But it's not a necessity for the bear either, they are also omnivores.
Therefore, is hunting off the table for us? Both of your statements "eat meat to survive" and "eat x exotic animal" have been proven extreme false hyperboles that don't relate to the question at hand.
For the third time, yes. I am baffled as to why hunting would be necessary if meat eating isn't.
So the bears, foxes, deer, egrets, etc are also being unethical and should be damned? Because they absolutely can live without meat but chose to hunt.
If they can live without meat, they should, and so yes, it would give their actions a morally questionable aspect by definition. Never really had damning in mind though, I'm devoted to honoring the ideal when possible but am not extremist about it.
I truly have never heard that response!
What power holds these species' moral compasses? For many people it's their god or their religion (which could be Gaia/earth), for others it's others around them, for others including me it's themselves.
Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Do they hold themselves to your morals (ie, others comparing themselves to those around them), or are you holding your morals up to them?
If someone believes in God, it can serve as one's inspiration for ethics, but it's not necessary, nor is anything else. Relatedly, if something doesn't have a concept of ethics, that doesn't make its unethical actions unethical. If it did, teaching ethics would be unnecessary on the basis that someone who doesn't know it is automatically universally justified in anything they do. Ethical validity reveals itself in how applicable a point is with different situations as well as other points. If an animal considers nature its model, it hopefully isn't surprised when something/someone gets the same idea about it, but at the same time, hopefully the same can be said about us.
Have you taken an Ethics class? You don't learn one set of rules for life and then you are done (boy, life would be so easy if that were the case!!). You learn Kantian philosophy, Consequentialism, Deontology, Utilitarianism....just to name a few. You learn how philosophy comes in to play and how to recognize the patterns. Knowing these can relate to understanding where someone (or in this discussion, the bear/fox/deer/etc) places it's moral compass to better understand it's viewpoint. The bear may not understand ethics, but it still has a moral compass that you can tease out.
So the question remains: What power holds these species' moral compasses? Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Or are you holding your morals up to them?
That's what I was saying when I said "if an animal considers nature its model, it hopefully isn’t surprised when something/someone gets the same idea about it". They get their modus operandi from nature. But nature, Kant, utilitarians, etc. cannot be reconciled hence why I said "ethical validity reveals itself in how applicable a point is with different situations as well as other points". The wish to kill is not reconcilable with the drive to survive.