"Humans as god? Dunno, but no tiger or bear ever debated the other tigers and bears about whether it was wrong to eat people."
How do you know that? But I admit, it's unlikely. This is irrelevant, though.
Lets look at what morals intrinsically are:
Unless you believe in some supreme being that is right - just because they say it - that's all it is.
If you follow evolutationary theory, morals must thus bring some advantage. Which they tend to. This is also why different animals have different morals - if any.
Typical morals for humans work well for humans. Typical morals for wolfs work well for wolfs. Typical morals for deer work well for.. well, I think you get it.
So, from that perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing a seal in a tortorous way. Just like theres nothing wrong with me killing you in a tortorous way. Do you mind me doing that?
You proboably do. And the seal proboably doesn't like being killed in a tortorous way. And so there are morals; human morals and - proboably - seal morals.
Ok, so now that's done...
"Pain? This is the most retarded argument possible. All living things have pain, in one form or another. Trees scream when you chop them down, and I would expect wheat also to have something like this."
"Besides which, we tend to slaughter our animals in ways that reduce pain."
Yes. And I don't have a problem with a truly sustainable non-painful seal hunt.
"Sustainability? This is the second most retarded argument possible. It's not 1890, and they aren't carrier pigeons. We know better now. It's managed by a single governmental entity, unlike fish stocks, so there can't be any excuse for letting the population decline to a dangerous level."
We know better yes, but we still know shit on a whole ecosystem level. We just don't know how things are going to respond. It's a chaotic system.
As for there being no excuses, since when's that made a difference?
"The destruction? How can it be destruction?"
Well, it depends on what the land was in the beggining. But arable land tends to be much less richer in life than naturual land.
"If a songbird builds a nest, or a beaver dams up a stream, how the fuck is this not destruction?"
How is it destruction?
"Why is every animal on the planet allowed to get a free pass, but not us?"
Because, according to you at least, other animals are incapable of debating the issue.
"You seem to want to put us in the same category with all other animals, when it suits your purpose, that of claiming our own human lives are no more important than a seal's. Yet, when we step out of the slaughterhouse, and go to plow a field, suddenly we aren't allowed to? Suddenly, we're above all these other animals (or below, we might say, it's them that now have privileges we don't) ?"
Intellect and comprehension of pain are nearly totally unrelated!
Anyway, I don't believe we're above other animals. I think we show amazing intelligence, but even more amazing stupidity and apathy.
[ Parent ]