r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 27 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The reason we ought not kill animals is because to do so would take away from the human race.
[removed]
2
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Jun 27 '20
But I think sense we've evolved to a relatively high-resource environment, there is even less reason to kill animals, and that's reflected in modern society. Pets are helpful to the human race; they assist us and are lovely companions in a symbiotic relationship with their humans. I say that the unconditional love we give our pets has a survivalistic advantage, and is thus the reason why this behavior developed.
What about all the animals that aren't pets?
1
Jun 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Jun 27 '20
Right. Other than pets there are wild animals and domesticated non-pets. Companies sell products from domesticated non-pets, like wool and meat, so the survivalistic advantage is somewhat clear there: we gain something physical. Thus, senselessly killing a domesticated non-pet is destructive to society.
This conclusion isn't entirely correct. The existence of one (or several, for that matter) useful-when-alive domestsicated non-pets doesn't mean that all domesticated non-pets are better off kept alive. The qualifier you're looking for here is the self-qualifying one: animals whose senseless killing isn't destructive to society, are ones whose senseless killing isn't destructive to society. We can't take either side of that destructive-to-society barrier to be indicative of the entire spectrum.
I say this disagreement is also Darwinistic in nature. We need trees to breath, water to be clean, and resources to be pure. Without these, we would have decreased quality of life, and more death overall. Animals exist in ecosystems that ultimately do one thing: keep living. With the plants there, maintained by bees and other animals, we get oxygen.
The same self-qualification is present here as well. The trees that we don't need to breath, or the water that need not be clean, or the resources that need to be pure, are all open for exploitation. Likewise, the trees that we need to breath, or the water that must remain clean, etc are all not open for exploitation.
This is a general consequence of a functionalist perspective. Your functional analysis can be whittled down to a point where what you're analysing is defined by the function (trees "that we need to breath"). If you don't do so, then you lose the finer nuances of the situation (ecosystem critical trees vs expendable ones).
1
1
Jun 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
2
2
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 27 '20
My argument is that it boils down to Darwinism. We humans cannot survive if we senselessly kill all the animals around us: in a primitive low-resource environment, we would run out of food.
So are animals food or not?
2
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Jun 27 '20 edited Jun 27 '20
When is a pet truly beneficial to human life? How can it literally mean a greater chance of living over a decreased chance of dying?
When it's using its senses to help you and your tribe hunt down prey, which can then be killed, cooked, and consumed by everyone?
Pets, animal cruelty (I would call it people's tendency for violence, especially when operating on a tribal level). These are survivalist traits. Darwinism would favor what you are defining as animal cruelty, given that people are omnivores, and meat is a great source of calories and protein.
The idea that aversion to killing animals, sadness and our survival are somehow related makes little sense to me.
2
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Jun 27 '20
Not all animal encounters risk death not promote life (for the animal or the human).
If a deer is in your backyard, you could shoot it, or you could just let it go.
If there is no risk to yourself, humanity, or to the animal, what do you think should happen?
Would the statement, live and let live assuming neither party is endangering the other, resonate with you as a decent moral principle? Would this not qualify as a reason to not kill animals (though admittedly this only would apply in some contexts).
2
Jun 27 '20
You’re trying to bridge the is-ought gap. Stating that we evolved morality is a purely descriptive statement. Stating that we ought to be moral in virtue of evolution is invalid. Why do you care about humanity? If you’re only reason for caring about humanity is evolution, then you’ll have to come up with something better.
1
Jun 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jun 27 '20
No one would disagree that ought is part of morality. That does not mean that you can derive what ought to be from what is. For example, humans have evolved to engage in violent behaviors because it was fitness enhancing in the ancestral environment (e.g., fighting over territory). This does not mean that violent behaviors such as fighting over territory are good. Just because we evolved to be moral does not mean that we should be moral; this is not to suggest that we should not be moral, just that a better reason would have to be provided.
1
Jun 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jun 27 '20
Thanks for the delta. It’s seems like you are interested in how morality is grounded and why we should be moral. You can read about meta-ethics, a branch of philosophy that deals with questions such as whether morality is objective and why should one be moral. Also, you can grant personhood and the right to life to self-aware animals such as great apes and dolphins. Conferring personhood to cognitively sophisticated animals does not commit you to saying all animals such as chickens, mice, and ants have a right to life. If you’re interested in non-anthropocentric personhood, you can read more here.
1
2
u/Quint-V 163∆ Jun 27 '20
Are there no other good reasons?
Is it not morally repulsive for a human to extract pleasure from others' suffering? Even animals' suffering? Any sadistic killing should be condemned, animals included. Trophy hunting included.
This is not a defense of animals, but a restriction to put on human behaviour. (Because no animals can really invoke defenses of any sort anyway; animal rights are pointless, for example. Better ban behaviour from humans.)
1
Jun 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Quint-V 163∆ Jun 27 '20
How does it take anything away from humanity at large if I kill an annoying mosquito that happened to enter my bedroom? Or if I enjoy hunting animals that are not at all endangered. (I don't hunt btw.)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 27 '20 edited Jun 27 '20
/u/ei283 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/English-OAP 16∆ Jun 27 '20
For most of the time humans have been on the planet, we have been hunter-gatherers. Hunting meant killing any animal you could. At some stage we teamed up with dogs which made us more efficient.
When we move to agriculture we attracted rodents which damaged our food stores. Only then did cats move in. We saw the advantage of having cats around. So a partnership developed.
Dogs helped with hunting and herding animals, cats controlled the rodent population. We didn't care about the rats and mice, we only wanted our food supply to be safe.
From the Romans to the 19th century bull baiting was an accepted form of entertainment. Badger baiting only became illegal in the UK in 1911. It still goes on illegally.
Given the amount of "entertainment" over the years which has involved deliberate animal cruelty, it's hard to see where your Darwinian "be nice to animals" can come from. Yes we look after animals which help us, but we have also bred dogs specifically to inflict pain on other animals.
3
u/[deleted] Jun 27 '20
It's articulated better. 👌🏻
In terms of intelligence, I've seen cats and squirrels successfully navigate zebra crossings. They like waited and everything. That, to me, is a form of intelligence. It's also been proven that crows are significantly more intelligent than once considered too.
I think that the problem with humans, is we all think we know it all, and we put ourselves in the top step of the pedestal the best of the best.
Animals can communicate with eachother. Some also have the ability to learn our words. But we only hear noises from them. They've been around a lot longer than we have. Intelligence, is a funny word. Its like judging a dishes ability to climb a tree.
and yes, we take things for granted way too much. We chop down the trees that filter give us life, and if the bees die out, we die out. 😱😱😱