Wallener

Lions don't farm.

Gawdzila

:funny: True dat! But would it really change anything
if we went hunting our cows with knives and spears?

Note that I am not supporting our current farming industry;
I buy free-range organic meats. I find cruelty intolerable.
I just don't think that it is necessarily immoral to eat meat.

Wallener

Wrong counterexample. We raise cows that wouldn't otherwise be alive for the purpose of having them die in fulfill our eating needs. Now replace "cows" with "humans" and "eating" with "military" and let us know how much interspecial equivalence you're still willing to posit.

There is a difference between farming and culling.

MagiNoir

You are right. After we kill off all our cattle, sheep, pigs and chicken we should then get rid of Lions, Eagles, Cats and dogs. After that we should ban antiseptics because they murder bacteria. Oh and spiders and poisonous mushrooms.
We'll be over run by mice and flies but the extinction of a large number of creatures which eat flesh it is a small price to pay. :thumbs:

Danielboy

We generally don't blame Lions. They are big, strong and don't take guilt well. Instead we stop to ponder why we will save humans from animals but not animals from animals. You know like what Alonzo said?

Lion killing antelope is amoral. Lions are not moral agents. We letting the lion kill the antelope in a less then merciful way could be taken to be immoral though. We could then prevent the antelope from being killed but not because we are punishing the lion for being naughty but really to stop any harm from befalling the antelope. Of course such action may have to include feeding the lion and taking care of the antelope over-population. Alonzo suggests that we could kill antelopes mercifully and feed them to the lions. If you agree, then we have a lot of work to get to doing.

Human killing cow could be immoral. That depends on how we view animal suffering (i.e. do we put it on the same level as human suffering).

Hence what you did was a naturalistic fallacy. Not that you can't tweak the argument to work.

It's all about the the worth of animal life and the worth of human life. Inherently I think they are not the same. No one will save a dog in a fire if they have to save a baby instead.

Alonzo Fyfe

Except, inherent value does not exist. It is a fiction.

We can say that we do not care about the lives of animals as much as about the lives of humans. But it is not because of some inherent quality in each.

atechnie

I don't believe that there's any inherent worth to people. The reason that nobody will save a dog if they have to save a baby instead is because the baby is human and the savior is human. I sincerely doubt that an ostrich would do the same thing.

-atechnie

Danielboy

Nope it isn't inherent. The value is what we 'merely' award them. All I'm saying is that the value that most people award fellow humans is definitely more than that we award animals.

Sorry if the 'inherently' alluded to inherent value. What i mean was probably more like 'as it stands'.

premjan

I doubt cows are too thrilled about being raised as meat animals and slaughtered without even the opportunity to run away or defend themselves. This is virtually like human slavery. Why would a human being accept slavery?

Danielboy

Human being's don't accept human slavery. Animal slavery is arguably another thing if even such a thing exists. You must have human rights first to be a victim of human slavery.