Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
Those same people do not actually kill animals. They eat meat, there is a disconnect here. I would wager if everyone had to kill and process the meat they eat that consumption would go down considerably.
A sufficient majority of people want to eat animals, but not a sufficient majority of people want to fuck them. Morality is indeed completely subjective and defined only by culture
Because ~90% of people don’t actually think about morality deeper than ‘gross, icky.’ If that seems high I’m also including in that people who start with the reaction and work backwards looking for justifications.
My theory on ethics is that it’s survival tools for hunter gatherer societies.
Eat meat, be strong. Good.
Fuck animal? Animal might bite, give you disease, and you are not making baby. Bad.
But if make baby good?
“It’s called ‘inter-species erotica’, Fuck-o.”
Kelly can be a guy’s name too! Hooooo
The question is on social acceptance of killing innocent animals while condemning zoophila. How come murder of innocent accepted but rape is considered a sin? Should we not come to an ideal conclusion and stop both?
They weren’t replying seriously. It’s a reference to the film “Clerks II.”
Both acts have never been about consensus. They are defined morally and legally by culture and tradition. There are societies where eating meet is illegal and zoophilia is legal.
Sexual morality is rooted in consent. Mortal morality is not.
So Killing animal without their permission is right. But Sex with animal without their permission is wrong. It isn’t consistent. It feels like we are just giving justifications for far worse crime because we have benefits associated with it.
The moral standing of a killing is completely unrelated to consent for most people. Most would say murder doesn’t become moral because the victim was suicidal. The killing itself is the basis for the moral stance, not the desires of the victim. The act is valued. Consent is neutral.
Sexual interaction is different. It does not necessitate a state change. It can be done to positive effect if done with consent. But animals, much like children, are viewed as insufficiently capable of granting consent. The consent is the basis for the moral stance, not the act itself. Consent is valued. The act is neutral.
Consent is the core concept which makes assisted suicide different from murder. So, consent is eligible in both sexual manner and matter of existence. We didn’t ask for animals’ consent before raping or killing them.
Assisted suicide is suicide, performed by the dying individual. Assisting in a suicide is enabling a killing, but is not murder if done correctly. The one performing suicide is the active party, not simply granting consent to the actions of another.
To bring things back to the original point, rape and murder are covered by different ethical principles. Consent has no bearing on murder. Consent is definitive for rape.
In assisted suicide, people consent to die a dignified death on paper and after government’s approval further medical procedures are performed by the professionals. I don’t see any problem here. Similarly I would have no problem with humans killing animals if animals start consenting to be killed. That’s not the case. Whole social acceptance of killing of innocent animals and condemnation of rape feels like a show were Murderers are pointing out fingers at the rapists with the sense of moral superiority.
Assisted suicides do not consent to die. They request to die. They initiate the process themselves rather than allow the desire of others to dictate events. There is a subtle but important distinction.
I guess because animals (eg tigers) eat other animals (e.g deer) and have evolved exactly towards that purpose. That’s how their species survives.
It’s not often that I see a tiger performing sexual assault on a deer. That’s not required for the tiger’s survival.
Now whether humans are “naturally” meat eaters and therefore we should feel “better” about eating animals I don’t know. Nutritionally I think the evidence probably leans towards being omnivore, similar to many other apes and monkeys.
Both groups can emphatically agree on something - that they love the taste of animal meat.
If life is to continue on this planet simultaneously with ethics, there must be an exception for living beings to morally participate in the food chain as their bodies evolved. This does not excuse our modern industrial system or domesticating animals, it excuses carnivory as it evolved only.
Now you might say “but humans are meant to eat plants” or “humans are omnivores meant to eat a large variety”. No, you’re deluded. No animal on Earth has every evolved to eat a large variety of foods, plant toxins are too numerous and varied too allow this, that’s why humans cook and process most (non-fruit) plants before eating them. Animals we call omnivores are really flexible carnivores that would die on an all plant diet that wasn’t fortified or selected by humans from plants outside of the animal’s habitat.
Most of the plants we eat today did not exist in our specie’s early days, we’ve bred almost the entire produce section at the grocery store, taking toxic barely digestible plants and changing them into broccoli and such. The plants we eat that did exist only existed in their native habitat, which was not necessarily where humans were. A human in Africa was not eating oranges from China 300k years ago.
Animals that evolved to eat plants have digestive systems oriented around providing an environment for bacteria to break down cellulose, they have adaptations to withstand the specific toxins in the specific plants they evolved to eat. Rabbits have to eat their shit and re-digest it get enough nutrition from plants. Cows have a multi-chambered stomach without an acid barrier in front, horses have to eat constantly. Gorillas are “hind gut digesters” that fart constantly and have massive barrel torsos to fit a digestive system large enough to support the rest of their bodies. Human digestive systems are clearly oriented around digestion of meat and using high-energy density fat to provide the massive amount of energy our brain needs.
But why don’t we have claws and fangs like other carnivores? Well, first, many carnivorous animals don’t fit this mental image. Second, human ancestors were frugivores going back like 5+ million years that started eating meat via scavenging, this explains our stomach acid on par with buzzards and condors, an acidic stomach is an “acid barrier” bacteria cannot pass. Then we evolved to eat large prey with lots of fat that we hunted by group coordination, ability to throw, and ability to create weapons, ability to direct an animal to fall to it’s death. Humans didn’t evolve to directly chase and kill animals with our hands and teeth, we’re tool masters.
Our bodies do poorly with chronic carb intake, this is the cause of most modern maladies. Our bodies evolved to fuel themselves with saturated fat we eat, small animals with little fat are inappropriate human food (e.g. “rabbit starvation”). In fact, almost all animals are “powered by fat”, not by sugar as we’re told. Cows are powered by short chain fatty acids produced by bacteria eating the plants the cow consumes.
This is really well written!
An idea that species can “be meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy. Aincent Greeks believed that gods designed and meant us to live a certain way, this approach was adapted by other religions. It cannot be applied to evolution as evolution is a sequence of random events, some more likely than other.
We have evolved to, under certain conditions, when it increases our or our relatives’ chances of survival or recreation, kill others of our species or enact violence against them, including the type of violence that increases the expected number of offsprings of the person enacting it, but nobody argues we should build ethics around it.
but nobody argues we should build ethics around it
I argue that we should build ethics around it.
An idea that species can “be meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy.
People, even those that understand evolution often speak this way because it’s easier, this is Lemmy, not a research paper.
I claim that what we call morality and ethics is human cultural interpretation of what we call game theory. My foundation for morality is respect for consent, except in cases of self/community defense and participation in the food chain as evolution has produced my body in this way due to natural selection to operate at a particular trophic level.
If it were for pure game theory, slavery would still exist in some form (legally, because illegal slavery is still wide-spread IRL). Why would we care to liberate a useful caste of human servants if they would lose all means to rebel against a modern army? Granted, they could kill someone in an uprising, but so does cattle occasionally injure and kill farmers. Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.
Morality, whether based on game theory or not, has little to do with law.
Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.
You should learn more about game theory.
Game theory is about extracting personal good from cooperation. Game theory has nothing to say against boiling your cat alive as it has no leverage on you.
In societies where things like slavery existed for centuries or even millennias, owners had great evolutionary benefit from owning slaves. Their descendants hold some privileges to this day. Game theory was on their side.
Did you watch “86”? In this show, San-Magnolia was a country populated exclusively with blonde people, referred as “alba”. People with non-white hair (referred as “colorata”) were sent to internment camps outside the state walls and conscripted to fight in a war in a hope to regain at least some rights.
It was later revealed that over 10 million colorata and zero alba were killed in the later stage of the war, and if original prognosis on enemy forces ceasing to operate in a few years would be correct, alba people would totally win the evolutionary race and no game theory would bring justice. Doesn’t sound great if your hair happens to be brown or red.
So far every response to be has been straw man args.
Nobody is talking about boiling cats alive, I’m not arguing for the morality of that.
alba people would totally win the evolutionary race and no game theory would bring justice. Doesn’t sound great if your hair happens to be brown or red.
I’m not saying game theory can be used to justify anything, I’m saying it’s the basis for morality, it’s how morality came to be in our species IMHO. I think agents (things with agency, which are subject to game theory) develop strategies, and morality is based on these strategies. Harming other beings unnecessarily often puts one at risk, therefore harming other beings without need is often bad strategy. I’m not saying that anything that can create benefit is morally OK, this is a straw man, know what that is?
You’re speaking as if there’s a global, cosmic morality in which harming others is wrong, this is a religious belief, I’m not talking about religion. There are many moralities with different foundations, I explained the basis for mine.
You are saying that humans killing animal for their benefits is right. Then you should also appreciate humans having sex with other animals. Because in both cases we are neglecting the Animal’s consent in its entirely. As we are far more intelligent and strong, we should do whatever we please (Killing or Raping) with other animals. It’s logically consistent.
If by benefit you mean survival, then yes. Fucking animals is not what humans evolved to do for survival.
If Killing is considered right then Raping should be right because both persons are getting away with doing wrong to “innocent victims”. Here, Killer should not be judgmental of Rapist’s actions because Killing is a far bigger crime.
I was talking about food, not rape and murder. I never said killing is right in general. Stop with the straw men.
- We are gaining the meat by killing innocent animals.
- We are gaining pleasure by raping innocent animals.
How are you not able to see the similar patterns within these systemic injustices against innocents?
You’re a crazy one, nobody is talking about raping animals.
Life eats life.
- Interspecific sex is a common occurrence within nature and this behavior is also present in humans (zoophilia). As animals can’t consent. So any sexual activity becomes a Rape.
Again the point was similarities in non-consensual killing and raping. Don’t you think that killing and raping are both great injustices against innocent animals? If we think killing is ok then Raping also becomes ok as it’s a smaller crime than killing.
Outside the “food for survival” aspect (which I won’t touch on because everyone else already has)…Rape vs Murder is essentially the topic here.
I’m in the camp that murder (as in intentional cold blooded murder) is comparatively worse. Culturally, I think the overwhelming majority of people disagree.
I think there are people out there that would much rather be around someone who has killed in cold blood. I think there are far more people willing to accept that a former murderer has reformed. There is a certain degree of sanctity people give sex that they don’t even give life itself.
Both are extraordinarily heinous crimes and i am in no way defending either.
Zoophilia imparts trauma.
Death relieves a being of trauma. There ain’t more trauma when you are dead. And when done correctly, death in an abattoir is largely instantaneous.
Of the two, the former is more immoral when focusing on lingering or ongoing trauma.
Killing is a bigger crime than non-consensual sex because killing eradicates said animal from gene-pool and ends its potential progeny/generation. We try to justify killing of innocent animals because we are beneficiaries of that injustice. Benefits is corrupting our sense of morality. As for Zoophilia, it’s non-censensual sex, less harmful than killing. Killing is also considered a bigger crime (than rape) in jurisdiction of humans.
I’m sure you would hear more than a few say something along the lines of 1) ending their life can be done relatively humanely. And it serves a fundamental purpose, for sustenance. While meat for sustenance is not actually necessary, it is considered a basic stable of our diets and generally acceptable. 2) Having sex with animals, though, harms them in a way and leaves them to live with that harm. It can traumatize the animal. It is inherently inhumane. And it serves no purpose but to satisfy a carnal desire, a morbid curiosity, or a sadistic appetite.
I’m not saying that it is an altogether consistent or sound argument. It is something some can rationalize though. But, frankly, I would call either explanation at least a little bit bullshit.
The answer to either their desire for meat or their revulsion to animal molestation is that their instincts give them those feelings. It is evolution. Animal meats and fats are a calorie dense and nutritionally valuable food source that our ancestors have eaten since before humans existed, and we’re mostly wired to enjoy the taste and crave it. A revulsion for sex outside of species helps make sure that we continue to make babies. It’s as simple as that.
Some very few people don’t have one, the other or both of these instincts, but the vast majority do. Most of those people will happily rationalize the feeling that isn’t based in rationality, like above. Some will examine those feelings and rationalize themselves into changing/recontextualizing their feelings or choosing to not act upon them in light of their viewpoint or some virtue they’ve applied to the question. But most just do what feels right and is normalized and don’t ever really truly question it.
And even if you are one of those people who has rationalized themselves into a rationally/morally superior position regarding meat eating, or maybe you never even had an instinctual desire for it, you almost certainly have other habits, values, opinions, etc. that go against every rationality too thay just come with human nature.
We’re people. We’re animals. We have intelligence. We have primal drives. Nobody is morally perfect. Nobody can even agree on what moral perfection is. Morality is both subjective on the whole, and objective for each and every one of us. We just gotta get along.
Like some here who have said it before, it’s about survival.
There’s no survival issue when it comes to zoophilia.
There still is with eating meat.To say that most people don’t need meat is to ignore more than half the planet.
I thought this place was aware that not everyone can afford a diet,
let alone a healthy vegan diet.I’m not a big fan of pulling the ladder up behind oneself and start demanding
everyone else to follow suit when they’re living in either developing nations or
nations that are in a state of collapse or both.That said, since natural meat production is theoretically more expensive
than growing meat in a lab,
we’ll be heading towards the dissolution of eating farm animals soon
and with it, most farm animals themselves.The wealthier a country becomes, the more meat they eat. The vast majority of the world could survive on a vegan diet. Thrive, even. This isn’t about survival, it’s about taste.
Some of the countries with the large percentages of vegetarians, vegans or predominantly plant forward diets such as India or South East Asia are not wealthy by Western standards. Eating a ‘healthy’ plant forward diet does not have to be an expensive affair.
The perception that a plant based diet is a wealthy western modern invention is white washing its unglamorous origins as a traditional eastern diet, especially in Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, etc cultures.
To dismiss a plant forward diet because not everyone can afford to eat impossible burgers 7x a week is disingenuous, as people were eating diets with little to no meat for centuries before faux ‘beuf’ plant minces were invented.
Vegetarianism in India is more nuanced then that; I personally see it in 4 different facets.
one is that it is the Upper Caste’s(who traditionally have more access to wealth) enforcing their values(religious requirement to be a vegetarian) on people who they see as below them.
Many poor people in India disproportionately eat more meat than their richer counter parts.
Animal protein is just cheaper and more dense than plant based protein, and plant based protein is also seasonal as compared to animal based protein.
It also doesn’t help that vegetarianism has become a political issue in India, and is part of the ongoing culture wars happening in the country.
I agree. Just a comment on lab-grown meat. I’m not sure if that is going to help in developing markets. Maybe a big lab can produce meat that you can buy for less money than you’d need for a real steak in an advanced economy. That doesn’t mean that someone in the Philippines countryside can start their own meat-lab instead of raising chicken.
Zoophilia is banned because it’s gross. Killing animals is okay because it’s delicious. Lol jk but actually I’d be fine with being more vegetarian. But probably not vegan yet.
Raping animals is illigal, except when you becme a farmer
