• Surface_Detail
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait, fish can eat other fish, but I can’t? How’s that fair?

      • Surface_Detail
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Monsters, all of them. Someone should eat them, just to keep the others safe.

    • FIST_FILLET
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      i know this may be a shock but fish haven’t reached the industrialization part of civilization yet. they do not have the capabilities to grow crops and harvest them and make dishes

    • r1veRRR@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Think about the argument you’re making here: “Wild animals do X, therefore humans should be allowed to do X”. I hope you understand how horrible this argument is. Here’s a fun little list of things animals do:

      • Eat their young
      • Grape
      • Murder each other for status or access to women
      • shit on the floor in public
      • Surface_Detail
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s your take on my argument. I haven’t extended it beyond the ethics of meat eating.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Than why am I not allowed to eat other humans? They are made out of meat, too. And why do we not allow animals to eat humans?

          • Surface_Detail
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We do actually allow animals to eat humans. There is no law anywhere that forbids a shark from eating a person.

            As for people eating people, it’s a cultural taboo, like putting your elbows on the dinner table.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why do you think I was talking about the legal framework? We take active measures in stopping animals from eating humans. You could make an argument that we even punish animals when they do eat a human, granted we have a chance to do that. Bears, wolves and dogs are shot regularly, after they have attacked a human. Sharks also have been killed when it was thought that they actively prey on humans. We do not allow it.

              When you want to talk about laws it is considered murder to slaughter a person as feed for animals. It is also considered murder to kill a person to eat them. Murdering people is forbidden by law.

              • Surface_Detail
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean, animals take active steps to stop humans eating them too. We even have laws to protect species of animals that have killed humans. Tiger hunting, as an example, is illegal.

                Honestly, we’re much nicer to animals than animals are to us or they are to other animals.

                • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t see how the way animals treat humans or other animals is relevant for the discussion about the ethics of meat eating. They aren’t nice so we can kill them to eat their meat is certainly not an ethical argument.

                  Animals try to stop humans from eating them because they do not want to get hurt. Or, if you want to be more precise, hurting and frightening them is a stimulation that induces intense negative emotions in animals which leads them to defend themselves. That is to distinguish them from plants, which also defend themselves, but without having emotions in between. The negative emotions in between is what we call suffering. And even in the ethics of hedonism, less suffering is better.

                  We have laws to protect animals because most humans agree that animals are in a weaker position when compared to humans. They are very much at our mercy.

                  • Surface_Detail
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The way humans treat animals is the same as how animals treat animals because humans are animals. Just because we are smarter doesn’t make us any less a part of the natural world.

                    A dolphin is smarter than a mackerel, it doesn’t make the dolphin immoral for eating them.