Quote (J-Breakz)
I think morals should only be applied to humans. I mean, if we didn't eat meat then we wouldn't have even been able to come up with our ideas of morality.
That's too much of an assumption. It's not worth considering. There's no way of knowing such a thing.
Quote (J-Breakz)
Also, in a lot of cases hunting is good to prevent the overpopulation of certain species or even killing insects or rodents. If one species of animal is overpopulated then a bunch of diff kinds of species are affected by it. Would it then be okay to kill certain animals if we are trying to ensure the sustainability of the world we know it as today?
We don't know how to ensure the sustainability of nature. We have evolved to have too much mind. The best way to ensure the sustainability of nature is to leave it alone completely and isolate ourselves. Human tampering will never fix anything. I need not go into the exploitation that humans engage in which definitely does not assist sustainability.
Quote (J-Breakz)
adding to this I think it would only make sense if the consequences of killing animals are equal to the consequences of killing people if morals are being put in place. Whether that be prison or heavy rehabilitation (the type of stuff I_Guy would want ppl to go thru instead of bein put in prison).
That would be logically consistent and I would advocate it if society was ready. The rehabilitation would be a rehabilitating out of speciesism and anthropocentrism.
Quote (J-Breakz)
And this means every animal, from people to insects. Also, if this is the case, why should ppl be allowed to abuse plant life? Cutting down trees is morally wrong could work in your argument, couldn't it?
Your right, by the logic I am using, killing anything that is considered "life" would be unethical. And even then, when we realize that even molecules of life are made of inorganic non-life elements we can conclude that we have no right to disturb anything in existence. But this whole deconstruction reveals something essential. This ethical issue is on a continuum. Destroying non-life is less unethical than destroying plants. Destroying plants is less unethical than destroying bacteria. Destroying bacteria is less unethical than destroying insects. Destroying insects is less unethical than destroying animals. Destroying animals is less unethical than destroying human animals. Destroying humans is less unethical than destroying an entire planet with all life on it. And there are is billions of levels in between. And if there was something more intellectually effective than humans we would plug them in also. The idea of such a continuum challenges any absolute solution that we may posit. Facing this difficult continuum, we have to locate the bare minimum that will maintain and sustain our own existence and yet at the same time "lessen the pain" of the moral issue at hand. Sadly we are not attempting to locate that minimum.
Their is a philosophy here that is essential to understand. We have to understand that the universe is absurd. And when our logic breaks things all the way down we discover this dismal absurdity. Finding the bare minimum is key though, because once we find it, we can say "well we can do no more." And we would be justified, for our capabilities as humans will not allow us to do anymore (unless we someday merge with technology). Realizing this universal absurdity, the location of the bare minimum allows us to keep our own existence and also do all we can do to obey the logic that we employ. We can then abide the best of ethics the best we can, and live in spite of the absurdity. It is a difficult way of life to master, and I doubt we ever will.......due to CAPITALISM and religion, both inherently being anti-life, or as Fromm would say "necrophilious," haha.
So please don't judge what you don't understand .
