Only because something is not of any use for you, does not mean that everyone else is sharing the same experience. You could go out there and talk with hunters why they hunt and what they get out of it. I would not hunt, because I don’t like guns - but fishing can be a really neat experience, especially a neat bonding experience with your father.
No one calls a lion hunting violence. it’s the circle of life. If the argument is it’s violence because it’s unnecessary well we need to bring back the wolves and solve world hunger before ill be on your side of that argument.
I remember the scene in the Orville where the guy felt eating animals akin to murder. Yeah in that kind of universe i can support it but we are not there yet.
Anyone hunting for sport alone should do so with a blade, its only more sportsman. It’s not like the deer has a projectile weapon.
A lion hunting is violence. The circle of life is violent. I agree hunting isn’t the top priority of problems to solve, but people should at least be able to call it what it is and recognize it’s not a good thing
I like to consider plant eating an act of violence. I Just ripped and tear into those yummy plant heads that were just living thier best life.
If we go with this definition, then violence is a part of life and we just accept it as a necessity. It also means it is our moral duty to ensure the animals we eat are not wasted, not suffer unnecessarily, and appreciate the life that was taken so we can do more with our own.
It’s only bad if it serves no purpose and is wasteful.
In some sense it is violence, but in another sense violence against a baby doll is fine while violence against a live baby is not. One of the key differences is the baby is sentient, the doll is not. The doll can not experience the violence, so it’s morally irrelevant. The baby can experience the violence, so it is morally unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge plants can’t feel pain, so violence to them is morally irrelevant.
But I still accept that harm is unavoidable (at least in our time), but our response should be to minimize harm, not throw up our hands and give up and perpetuate the injustice
we agree violence should be minimized but I think it’s a hard sell to call the natural order injustice. Injustice for me is unnecessary harm. Justice can cause harm but only when necessary. Predators have to eat. Wiping them out is injustice and forcing unnatural foods alternatives is probably violating thier freedoms and damaging the ecosystem which I would also consider injustice.
why wouldn’t the natural order be unjust? Survival of the fittest doesn’t give two shits about justice, that’s not samething that gets selected for at all except in social species, and even then usually it’s only really selected for within the species
Well that’s a massive question that we certainly won’t see answered in our lifetime - we haven’t even figured out justice between humans, and we still have a long ways to go on just that front. I have some ideas on what a more just world might look like, but some are not feasible with the current state of the world. But I think a good place to start is with the original position/veil of ignorance thought experiment
Continue killing unnecessarily. Continue needless violence
Only because something is not of any use for you, does not mean that everyone else is sharing the same experience. You could go out there and talk with hunters why they hunt and what they get out of it. I would not hunt, because I don’t like guns - but fishing can be a really neat experience, especially a neat bonding experience with your father.
you can bond, get out in nature, etc, all without hurting fish
Or you can do it with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_N7RJSmcNo
If you want to say something, say it - not watching some random YouTube videos.
The video says it better than I would, but in short: asking “what if it was you?” is a good heuristic on whether something is ok or not
Wow, never thought of that one before - going vegan right now.
No one calls a lion hunting violence. it’s the circle of life. If the argument is it’s violence because it’s unnecessary well we need to bring back the wolves and solve world hunger before ill be on your side of that argument. I remember the scene in the Orville where the guy felt eating animals akin to murder. Yeah in that kind of universe i can support it but we are not there yet.
Anyone hunting for sport alone should do so with a blade, its only more sportsman. It’s not like the deer has a projectile weapon.
A lion hunting is violence. The circle of life is violent. I agree hunting isn’t the top priority of problems to solve, but people should at least be able to call it what it is and recognize it’s not a good thing
I like to consider plant eating an act of violence. I Just ripped and tear into those yummy plant heads that were just living thier best life. If we go with this definition, then violence is a part of life and we just accept it as a necessity. It also means it is our moral duty to ensure the animals we eat are not wasted, not suffer unnecessarily, and appreciate the life that was taken so we can do more with our own. It’s only bad if it serves no purpose and is wasteful.
In some sense it is violence, but in another sense violence against a baby doll is fine while violence against a live baby is not. One of the key differences is the baby is sentient, the doll is not. The doll can not experience the violence, so it’s morally irrelevant. The baby can experience the violence, so it is morally unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge plants can’t feel pain, so violence to them is morally irrelevant.
But I still accept that harm is unavoidable (at least in our time), but our response should be to minimize harm, not throw up our hands and give up and perpetuate the injustice
we agree violence should be minimized but I think it’s a hard sell to call the natural order injustice. Injustice for me is unnecessary harm. Justice can cause harm but only when necessary. Predators have to eat. Wiping them out is injustice and forcing unnatural foods alternatives is probably violating thier freedoms and damaging the ecosystem which I would also consider injustice.
why wouldn’t the natural order be unjust? Survival of the fittest doesn’t give two shits about justice, that’s not samething that gets selected for at all except in social species, and even then usually it’s only really selected for within the species
If it is unjust how do you make it just?
Well that’s a massive question that we certainly won’t see answered in our lifetime - we haven’t even figured out justice between humans, and we still have a long ways to go on just that front. I have some ideas on what a more just world might look like, but some are not feasible with the current state of the world. But I think a good place to start is with the original position/veil of ignorance thought experiment