If humans were purely carnivorous then vegetarians wouldn't even really be a thing... 'cause like... they'd all be dead.

Seeing as we don't consider a lion immoral for eating a wild gazelle, why would the morality of the consumption of meat by humans even be questioned?

We are more intelligent than lions and can question whether what we do is wrong or not, for one.

And assuming we were a purely carnivorous race we should just remove ourselves from existence based on that alone? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Well.

You know, I remember reading an article a little while back, either on here or Bungle. Some scientists found a way to turn human shit into meat.

So, assuming that one day when shit patty steaks go on the market, if we were carnivores then we'd have a moral choice about things.

Quote from: Snake Wilson on July 04, 2015, 09:42:54 PM

We are more intelligent than lions and can question whether what we do is wrong or not, for one.

And assuming we were a purely carnivorous race we should just remove ourselves from existence based on that alone? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Well, yes. If our surviving is based upon lesser creatures dying, some could consider that immoral. It's not senseless. Counter-intuitive, maybe.

How would it be immoral? It would be eat or die, there would be no question.

We are taking lives from lesser creatures to encourage our own survival. Which is selfish, and could be considered immoral.

...would that make the consumption of animals moral?

of course not

See this is where i find the idea of morality a little silly. Survival should really be your number 1 goal. This idea that it's "morally wrong" to survive makes absolutely no sense to me.

Quote from: TBlocks on July 04, 2015, 11:16:35 PM

See this is where i find the idea of morality a little silly. Survival should really be your number 1 goal. This idea that it's "morally wrong" to survive makes absolutely no sense to me.

it's not that it's morally wrong to survive--it's futile to survive
there's no point in survival--you're gonna die either way

and whether you die when you're eighty or when you're forty, it doesn't really make that much of a difference

the only thing that's "wrong" by any measure is the system itself

So why care that the system is wrong? Who are you to judge this system?

Quote from: TBlocks on July 04, 2015, 11:21:00 PM

So why care that the system is wrong? Who are you to judge this system?

what do you mean

if i realize that the game i'm playing is rigged or broken in some fashion, i shouldn't care about that?

why can't i judge the system? i see bad stuff happening everywhere--i'm not just gonna accept it

If the system is natural then it's really only broken to you. Maybe this is the way it's supposed to be in which case I don't see how anything could be "broken"
Basically the system will carry on with or without you.

Quote from: TBlocks on July 04, 2015, 11:26:48 PM

Maybe this is the way it's supposed to be

maybe it isn't

you can't prove that this is the way it's "supposed" to be

And I suppose you think you can change it?

In the end I suppose it relies on how we evaluate the value of what we take and what we contribute back. For what we take from livestock we provide them back in stable supplies of food, water, and protection. Now there are still many ways we can improve our contributions, and what we consider as necessity to survive is muddy.

Right now humans are definitely consuming too fast and could be viewed similar any other invasive species a DNR rep would be putting bounties on to cull because of the disruption of the environment, IMO.

If the system is natural then it's really only broken to you. Maybe this is the way it's supposed to be in which case I don't see how anything could be "broken"
Basically the system will carry on with or without you.

Broken =/= "doesn't work" in this context. It means "could be working a lot better".

I guess what I'm trying to ask is "Do you think you can make the universe work "better" with your small and relatively insignificant view of how life should be?"

I don't know what you mean by "relatively insignificant view".

If you mean that it isn't a view held by most people, well, that's exactly the problem. We need to speak out and challenge irrational views, not sit back and let people continue to hold them.

Relatively insignificant in the way of how truly small we are compared to the universe.

I don't see how the size of  the universe is relevant. Would stabbing you in the foot be more significant if the universe were smaller? How?

The only way we are insignificant in comparision to the universe is spatially. Saying that the universe's size has any bearing on our moral significance is a non-sequitur, because you'd be implying that the universe is significant in some way that both requires our existence yet doesn't require it at the same time. Which is impossible.

What I believe you and others have proposed is that ending another organism's life is morally wrong even if for survival yet there are organisms whose sole purpose is to do just that. Are they morally wrong in living the way they live?

Such as, say, a lion? Well, no, not intentionally, because they can't comprehend the weight of their actions. So it would be incorrect to call them immoral on those grounds. But their actions are inflicting suffering on their prey, so they are definitely broken (in the sense used above). The term "biological bad egg" is probably more suitable.

It seems to be a totally counter intuitive idea than what most of the universe already lives by.

I really don't know what this means.

I think the real problem here is that you're not only saying that nature "works" -- you're saying it's infallible and shouldn't work any other way. So not only is killing for survival okay because of nature, but there's no point even trying to look at it rationally and determine whether it's justified and/or whether there are preferable alternatives.

That doesn't hold up very well considering we've spent the last six thousand years or so trying to get as far away from nature as possible. In fact the only reason we are able to sit here at our computers, in a generally civilized society,  and have this discussion is because our ancestors were able to move beyond their apish tendencies and behave logically and morally. So it seems like you're arbitrarily picking which of our actions should be moral and which should be "natural" based on which stand to benefit you.

One last point: you seem to be under the impression that while our ancestor's choices to kill and eat animals were just "part of the natural process", our choices from here on are not, and by choosing to stop eating animals we are rebelling against the process and therefore it is wrong.* I don't know how you could logically draw a line in the sand where nature ends and rebelling against it begins. And nature never followed any preordained path; we simply evolved according to our environments and how we chose to behave in them. At no point did nature tell our ancestors "you will eat animals". They chose to do it, and evolution jumped on board.

*Another non-sequitur; there is no logic explaining why rebelling against nature could be wrong, unless you want to argue that medicine is wrong, because that's exactly what most medicine does.

I think we are the endpoint, to be honest.