Maybe I’ll put it to paper and tag everyone here, it would at least make for some interesting discussion.

Yay! We could have ethical discussion part 2. I’m on the side of the tigers.

I don’t think what I said was intellectually disingenuous. I think I act according to my nature and the tiger acts according to it’s nature and there is no hierarchy of animals.

I guess my statement regarding moral agency is flawed since I guess our conceptions of morality can only apply to our own species and maybe even our own society.

I definitely don’t think I know better than the tiger tho. The tiger is not a child it is a being different from human and not lesser.

The tiger is not immoral to take life and neither are humans in certain circumstances in my opinion.

I certainly don’t want to kill animals and do my best to limit suffering.

You are judging a tiger from a human centric perspective and making a claim that we know better than it.

Even that article point out that unlike lions tigers are not a social species. Therefore our sense of morality is not applicable to the tiger. A disabled or strange Tiger cub can’t mature into an adult tiger.

For humans it is different. But there are examples, such as Spartans, killing disabled babies which was not immoral to them.

My point is you can’t make a universal claim to the morality of humans killing other animals to sustain themselves since it is evidently how we evolved and our nature.

We can intellecutalize and make moral and ethical decisions to not eat animals for the many valid reasons in this thread which I also subscribe to but that doesn’t mean the moral claim that killing animals is wrong can be applied to all human animals at all times.

For example to switch to vegan diets relies heavily on industrialized society. Arguably our contemporary society which facilities the adoption of vegan diets is more immoral than the behaviour of previous human civilizations since the latter is limited in scope and in inpact while the former destroys entire ecosystems, biodiversity and causes mass extinction.

You are placing a higher moral agency on humans because you make some special distinction between humans and other animals.

Humans are just other animals and they have diverse conceptions of morality and ethics. Rape and murder are not equivalent to killing for sustanance.

Comparing our moral behaviour to a ‘literal predator’ is a value judgement where you denigrate animal behaviour and elevate human behaviour as somehow superior.

Cool thanks for letting me know

I believe they are saying you can’t place a universal standard of behaviour or ethics onto the multitude of human animals that live on the earth

I have a mostly vegan diet but can’t updoot this enough.

Triangle Strategy 2 when

updoot cudder

Grandpa Simpson Onion Story (YouTube)