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
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.