PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Killing Animals for Food [HD]
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this Wireless Philosophy video, Tyler Doggett (University of Vermont) asks why it is morally permissible to kill animals for food. He offers a few explanations that seem unsatisfactory. So, he asks you for help answering this question about animal ethics.
Subscribe!
bit.ly/1vz5fK9
More on Tyler Doggett:
bit.ly/29Vfu3Z
----
Wi-Phi @ TH-cam:
bit.ly/1PX0hLu
Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:
bit.ly/1nQJcF7
Twitter:
/ wirelessphi
Facebook:
on. 1XC2tx3
Instagram:
@wiphiofficial
----
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/Fn3W/
![PHILOSOPHY - Metaphysics: The Problem of Free Will [HD]](/img/n.gif)
WARNING: Reading the recent comments will make you lose your faith in humanity.
Omg you're so right :o
Yeah, comments here is cancer
The answer is NO!, it's not okay to kill animals for food... it's even illegal in some states..... you need a permit first... or better yet, get your meat at the supermarket and buy it already dead...
@@alejandropacheco7832 how come you guys let other animals eat other animals yet you don’t let us.
@@alejandropacheco7832 what if its your way of living or a family farm passed down to you?
Great video. But...
Spider-Man didn't say, "with great power, comes great responsibility." Uncle Ben did.
stalin said it first
Actually in the comic Uncle Ben never said that, we just read Peter quoting him
@@shaylempert9994 Savage
VOLTAIRE.
@Kelvin Klopper by that logic I can assign all quotes in the world to myself :D
I have eaten meat without a second thought for 37 years before seeing this video.
But I find that I can't disagree with any of his points! Guys, I think I need to change my life!
The number one regret of vegans is why didn't do it sooner 🙃
Mike, I feel the same way.😖
@@tochie-ugorji2021 I'll change if you will!
Going vegan is by far the most important decision I have ever made and like the previous comment said my only regret in life is not doing it sooner. Hope you align your increasing awareness of the ethics of food choice with your actions. It has never been easier to be a vegan. Grocery stores are packed with plant based options.
@@fragitude You're totally right. In fact, in the last 48 hours or so, it went from something-in-the-back-of-my-head-that-I-ought-to-do to something-in-the-forefront-of-my-mind-that-actively-disturbs me. At this very moment, I'm a "reducetarian" with the inclination to go all the way over time.
Vegans get unfairly maligned that they do it to feel morally superior to others (a claim that is a distraction from the central point, at best), when from every vegan I've met, it's about the painful realization of the suffering that comes with meat-eating.
I’ve been going back and forth on this for a while now. I’ve been vegan for almost a year but I’ve been having certain health issues that are freaking me out and making me think that I might have to change what I eat. I’m seeing a doctor soon, but until then I have a lot to think about.
Every creature fundamentally wants to live just as much as any other creature. Whether that be a human, a pig, a plant, a bug or a single celled organism.
No, plants don’t flail or scream when you pick them, but some will shrivel up to get away. Plants have thorns to protect themselves. They are designed to try and stay alive. Whether they WANT to live, I do not know. Where in evolution does WANT occur? Where does the drive to exist cross from mechanical to emotional?
I.e. is it alive or is it EXPERIENCING life? Does it have a point of view or is it just a fleeting expression of energy, vacant of anything remotely personal?
To identify this, we can only compare to our experience. That’s all we have. We measure a dog’s intelligence based on how well they obey us. We can recognize when a pig is playful or when a hamster is scared.
What is the difference between an animal running away in fear and a plant shriveling up, both to avoid danger? How can we really know?
I will never truly understand what it’s like to be a creature other than a human. Hell, I’ll never be able to understand what it’s like to be a human that isn’t me. I can empathize, I can theorize, I can relate it to my own experience. But I can never know. Maybe we would find that the standards we judge another being of worthiness to live are pure nonsense entirely if only we could look at the big picture.
One could even argue that my want to live and my enjoyment of life is simply a mechanism to motivate me to survive. We enjoy food to motivate us to eat. We enjoy sex to motivate us to procreate.
I am an expression of energy living in a mechanized world. When I die my body will no longer be myself. It will be a lump of meat shaped like myself. The suffering will be over. I will only be energy.
I don’t know quite what to make of it, honestly. Thoughts are very welcome.
Have you been watching/supplementing key nutrients? I've had no issues off of just cooking what I fancy *personally* but that is not at all a recommendation, most people take at least B12 supplements, people interested in a healthy lifestyle tend to try to watch what nutrients they are and aren't getting from which foods in general at least vaguely, vegan or not.
Plants are not meaningless objects, they are still alive, but it is currently simply the lowest form of life we can harm if we wish to survive, other than fruits I suppose.
Also, in order for a farm animal to be sustained, it needs to consume an incomparably larger volume of plants than the volume of the meat, or even other products we take from it.
You have an astounding mind, and an addicting writing ability, DJ, I deeply appreciate the introspection you brought to the table. YOU NEED MORE LIKES
This is one of the best comments i have seen. Thank you for that
Man you could write a successful book or something similar. Captivating read thank you
Ok man you are so far from the truth, animals are ok to eat you don’t need to feel guilty for eating an animal stop over thinking all this
I honestly feel that the main barrier is that humans find it easier to feel empathy for fellow humans due to experiencing similar things. Having said that animals are sentient as well & don't want die so it's wrong to deny them their life for things we don't even need.
they are not sapient
@@chozer1 ok, and?
@@chozer1 that doesn’t make it okay. If you were a pig, would you wanna be killed even if you were “dumb”? A baby is dumb and we don’t eat it because it’s human. Wow, very biased.
@@chozer1 See the entire part of the video about humans with handicaps severe enough to be at or below the mental capacity of a pig.
I fell more empathetic for animals its terrible thing to do but I still do it. I know how contradictive that sounds, I do think about what horrible conditions the animals live in on farms and all the mental anguish they go through. The terror in there hearts and they have no idea why this is happening. It keeps me up at night sometimes its a terrible thing, we humans are wretched creatures and I don't know how I live with myself.. I am being serious I am really torn up about eating animals but I can't stop. I love all animals but I fell like a monster for eating them and I fell like I'm living a lie when I say I care about animals....
I think that the reason why people find it morally permissible to eat pigs or other living creatures is a very simple one. Humans have the ability to easily communicate with each other, whereas inter-species communication is very difficult. The easier it is to communicate with an animal, the more difficult it is to put it on a menu. I don't necessarily agree with this idea, personally, however it would make sense that this is the reason why most people feel this way. Think of it this way: Nobody (in the audience) wants to see Wilbur the pig be killed or eaten in Charlotte's Web. Why? Because Wilbur has a personality and can readily communicate his desires and emotions to the audience in the the book/movie, similarly to why there is no impulse to squish Charlotte. The point I am making is that humans are not readily equipped to be able to relate to their animal food. Especially because the system that we have set up for the farming of these animals is very impersonal.
I think many people would make the decision that killing animals for food is undesirable if they had to kill them themselves, or if they met their future meal before it went to the slaughterhouse. The truth is that we can have relationships and
understanding with other humans, so we consider them to be our equals, but we cannot as readily do that (without effort) with animals, thus they are considered to be lesser, regardless of wherever they may be on the food chain in proximity to us.
I also believe that people actively avoid thinking about these scenarios, because it's simply inconvenient. If someone *does* think about these scenarios and decides that they don't care enough to stop exploiting their position in nature, I'd like to know what qualities could be attributed to that person.
If we could communicate with animals and somehow they would too, we would hear "Food, food, water, water, sleep."
On eid ul acha, those rams are killed which have been personally raised by the killer...... What about that
So can I kill babies for food? I can't communicate with them, they don't know how to talk, they don't have a personality at all, therefore I should be allowed to kill them the same way I'm allowed to kill pigs.
Although that is a major consideration, it does not at a base level make it morally permissable. I have killed my own food on a few occasions, and I am fully aware of what i eat. I am fully against factorization of all food, including meat and animal products, and make efforts to promote healthy, local, fresh, sustainably raised food. However, I am a stark defender of my right to eat meat, both for the cultural, societal, emotional, and artistic reasons that many vegans present as 'wake up calls' (violence, not neccesary etc, natural does not mean good), but they all rely on a basic principle mirroring that of sentience. It is in theory a philosophical and even theological mirror of the vegan argument. In order to accept this vegan argument as a vegan, it means acknowledging the existence of this rebutal argument, and thats a start of a discourse.
Funny thing is people know deep down to their core it’s wrong, they just choose not to care because it doesn’t affect them.
Oh, and why do we know, what it is that you believe, deep down in our cores?
Well... Yeah. It doesn't affect me, so I don't care.
I guarantee with 100% certainty you cannot give me a logical reason as to why I should care about something that doesn't affect me.
I also guarantee you cannot give me a logical reason as to why killing animals is wrong.
Theo Pana They are sentient beings are they not? So since killing animals isn’t wrong, could I kill your cat or dog? What makes our pets any different from the typical animals we are taught that it’s okay to eat? The way of thinking you have is harsh. So since people are dying and it doesn’t affect you is that okay too? Animals are slaughtered inhumanely simply because we are selfish and love the taste. There is no need for the consumption of animals. A vegetarian or vegan diet is a substantial amount of vitamins etc to sustain a human. Many cultures have adopted this diet. What do you think most farm animals eat? Plants. We have to produce more plants to feed the animals that we slaughter. Why not cut it out and focus on a plant based diet and let animals live their lives? If more people adopted this mentality, we wouldn’t need the abundance of farm animals. Ps prove to me we need meat to survive
Zack Toor Do you turn away when you see an animal being tortured and slaughtered for consumption?
@@karliegilbert3917 we don't need meat to survive. With that out of the way, let me address your points one by one.
"They are sentient beings are they not?" yes. You have not demonstrated why sentience matters.
"could I kill your cat or dog?" I actually have a dog. No, you cannot kill it. In the same way, I cannot go over to your house and smash your car. Pets are the same as property in my view.
"the way you have of thinking is harsh" sure, maybe. But I am using exclusively logic, and am therefore leaving out emotion completely.
"so since people are dying and it doesn't affect you is that okay too?" aha. Here lies the fundamentals of morality. Human suffering does affect me. For example, I wouldn't shoot a person in the face because I myself don't want to be shot in the face. If I am willing to shoot someone in the face, what's stopping someone from doing that to me? Nothing. Because of this, all humans have a universal agreement to not shoot eachother in the face. This agreement is called morality. I don't do something bad to you because I don't want that bad thing done to me. If I shoot an animal in the face, what will animals do to me? Nothing. So I have no reason to care.
"there is no need for the consumption of animals" I agree. There is also no need for not consuming animals. It is morally neutral in my view.
"if more people adopted this mentality, we wouldn't need the abundance of farm animals" same thing. We don't need it, but we enjoy it, so we do it.
To help you out a bit here, you need to explain why sentience itself is important. Why does it matter? I've already outlined my moral framework: I don't commit moral wrongs to others because I don't want moral wrongs committed to myself, and the only way to ensure moral wrongs are not committed to me is to enter an agreement not to commit moral wrongs to others.
I wish people would think about this issue with this level of detail and structure.
I difer. I see little to no detail in this. He just lists questions, and give answers without explaining why. By his logic he's just essentially "proved" that all animals that eat meat are immoral. "Can aliens kill humans for food. No." But why not? And why use aliens, there are plenty of other animals around (carnivorous and omnivorous) that kill humans for food (and there were even more in the past)? Are they immoral?
Philosophy is supposed to be more than just listing questions and handing out your prefered answers.
Remember, we have built new enviroments and found new ways of living. So definitely we are doing something that nature hasn't designed us for. E.g People people discriminating is actually a survival skill, we can get resources so easily that we learn how things are limited, we change our view of world through maths and science, the new ways how our society,... works, etc. We need education to learn modern skills or learn things that nature hasn't designed us for.
So yes, you are right about it.
I still am gonna eat animals
@@dutoilette animals have no concept of morality
@@charlie8344 How do we know this?
I spent 1 full hour reading the debates in the comments.
+
F
And?
what's your conclusions? should we go vegan or not?
@@princessofpower4862 We should not go vegan if human health is prioritized. And veganism doesn't prevent killing of animals in plantations of vegan foods.
i couldn't find the answar.. so I went vegan;)
me too
lovely answers
I did, and i kept eating meat 😋
Good job I’m vegetarian but I might go vegan later
Kenneth good for you bud
"The people who I disagree with are stupid" -the commenters that don't bother to offer philosophical input. Yo, whichever side you're on, explain yourself. So much back-patting and demonizing instead of debate
I agree.
True.
Hue hue
the comparison of pigs to humans was a strawman argument and false metaphor because pigs doont typically eat pigs, and we dont eat humans. Most mammals wont go straight to there own for food.
also some animals will always eat us, is it okay to kill this. Should i let snakes eat me in the name of ending animal suffering?
I eat meat because it's so damn tasty
there's my explanation
I will eat meat so I could get nutrients that I need which veggies doesn't have.
I will eat veggies so I could get nutrients that I need which meat doesn't have.
Get a multivitamin
Things I would have liked for you to cover that I am confused about:
1. WHY it is not morally permissible for aliens to eat us?
2. If not one of these reasons alone is enough to justify killing animals, what about multiple of them together?
3. If the life of an animal kept in a farm to eventually be killed is BETTER (safer with less to worry about) than its life would be if it weren't in captivity, is it morally justifiable then?
4. Is it morally permissible for other herbivores to kill animals for food?
5. Is it morally permissible to kill bugs for food?
6. Do animals have the same awareness or ability to contemplate their existence as humans and is that relevant?
I would agree with captivity point only with free range animals. Some have a terrible life worse than in the wild. But the alien idea is interesting except humans and other predators before humans existed have been killing animals since life evolved to become multi cellular and large enough to be visible
Because if aliens are intelligent to make contact with us, they are just as or more intelligent than humans, they will likely be intelligent to have a sense of morality and consciousness like we do and experience the same level of consciousness as we do while animals don’t have consciousness and no sense of morality and are driven by instincts, that’s separates us from animals and aliens would most likely realize this if they are intelligent enough to get this far in their civilization. It’s kinda like how slave owners didn’t view slaves as real people. But still didn’t canabalize them.
Bingo. Good questions.
The 6th question should be asked in the video
@@maaaaaaugh2323 There are humans without the awareness or ability to contemplate their existence, so to be morally consistent, you would have to be okay with killing and eating them if you want that reason to justify killing an eating nonhuman animals.
I had a dream I was eating a chicken leg, and the bird was still on it. It made me very sad.
This is poetic
Why you ain't take the rest of the chicken off
Charlotte Cady yum
Why? The chicken wouldn't have cared? He would have technically felt the pain but would never be able to properly process that information? If it wasn't you it just would be another predator.
Sad? God made chickens to eat
If your survival depends on it then
*YES*
if its for satisfaction, and you can live without it than
*NO*
Nah, either way I'll eat what I found delicious, lot of animals are born to be food, some of them are meant to be pets, Idk whats wrong with vegans smh
W.D Gaster so you're a vegan then, right?
@@mrvxsz9554 idiot
We do need protein
yes why not eat them for satisfaction somebody asked me to keep a cute pig as a pet or get a pound of bacon from it I'll choose bacon
I've been a vegan for 8 years. It was the best decision I've ever made!
Your body needs 20 amino acids
From which there are 8 amino acids that our body cannot produce, for that we need to eat meat!
And if you see the carnivorous animals have sharp teeth and the herbivorous animals have flat teeth, but we omnivorous have both- which means we can eat meat as well as veg. And we have 2 intestines for digesting meat another is for digesting veg.
So scientifically/logically it is totally permissible to kill animals for food.
@@ishmamabrar1897 pretty sure Mohammed married a 5 year old
@@anakawyker yeah
Understandable as long as u dont force others to be also vegan
@@DaDoge927 Can't you even see your own paranoid reaction? Who said anything about forcing it?
The movie "Defending Your Life" addresses this glancingly in a scene involving eating, the human souls, and the higher being/enlightened attorneys and judges.
Albert Brooks asks what his lawyer is eating and how it tastes. The lawyer replies that he shouldn't try it because it would be a very unpleasant experience for him, sensationally. He tastes it anyway and almost chokes. Consumption for preservation is a difficult problem to tackle for sentient beings.
I think that's more like a Budweiser drinker trying an IPA.
@@indef2def I get what you mean, but I *think* the gist of the scene was that those higher evolved (like his lawyer) eat because they have to - for nutrition, not for pleasure or sensation or umami.
The way I think about it is this:
The morality of killing pigs for food, vs killing people for food comes from a type of group morality. As a whole, people care about people. Or rather, we care about our people. This is why we feel that it's morally wrong for an alien to eat us, and why we feel it is morally right to eat pigs.
In example, let's say that tomorrow, you wake up and there was no law against killing people for food. Most of us wouldn't immediately devolve into human-eating monsters, because we care about others on a fundamental level. But a few people would, and others would still consider them morally wrong, even if they weren't doing anything illegal.
The day after, aliens start harvesting people. Some people wouldn't care, as long as it didn't affect them. Most would probably have an issue with it, though. Most people would consider it morally wrong, because as a group, humans care about other humans.
But what if we didn't.
He's my question to you: If humans didn't care about other humans on a fundamental level, an empathetic level of seeing other humans as the same as us, the group mentality of "I care about him, because he's like me", then would it be morally wrong to kill people for food?
In this scenario, there's no group morals to say that eating people is wrong. So, now, we're capable of being food, just like the pig.
Now another way of looking at it:
Let's say that three out of five people in a group have a pet pig. They all love their pigs, such that whenever they see bacon, all they can think about is "What if that's *my* pig?" So, this majority gets together and decides that it's wrong to kill pigs. The others in the group, I feel, would tend to agree because it's a decision of the group that they are a part of, and people are social animals.
Then, a new person comes in, and decides to kill a pig for food. The people of the group, I believe, would think that this new person is morally in the wrong. It's a rule of the group that pigs are not to be killed for food. Just as if an alien were to visit Earth and try to eat people, we would consider it to be wrong, because it is a rule of the group that people shouldn't be killed.
Now that this comment has gotten too long. Let me summarize:
The difference between a pig and person when it comes to food, is that there is a group morality in place that says it's wrong. This group morality occurs because most people have one person that cares about them, or that they care about, even if that person is just themselves. So, because of this, as a group, we've created rules (literally) that say it's wrong to eat people, but it's okay to eat pigs because the majority of the group doesn't have a pig that they care about. (I guess the best way to illustrate this would actually be to look at how dogs are viewed in the western world. It's considered morally wrong to eat a dog there, but in other groups, it's considered morally okay.)
The individual morality comes from the group morality, which comes from a majority of people who wouldn't want us to eat a person because it reminds them of someone they care about. So even if there is someone that no one cares about, (a sad scenario, indeed) it is still considered morally wrong because the group says that eating people is wrong.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Now, this is just my take on the situation. This may not be the right reason that we feel that killing pigs is morally right, and people morally wrong. And I haven't had any training in Philosophizing. I probably also could have found a better way to illustrate my point, but it's all typed up now, so I'm gonna post it and wait for the hate to pour in. If you actually read all of this: Wow... just wow... you have my thanks.
I’m sure aliens will say the same.
Humans when someone eats a dog: 🥺
Also humans while eating other animals: this is fine
Good point.
What u mean were Chinese are kind people but eat dog and cat for good health don't insult we Chinese are not bad
Tbh i agree with you on this one those ppl are just dumbasses who just wanna force their culture on everyone else
(I swear to god if YT deletes this cuz they said dumbass)
Because dog is man's best friend and other animals are just other creatures .
@@learningnew732 you are morally the worst . Although I like your country's concepts except that one .
Is it bad that this reminds me of "tokyo ghoul" and "the promised neverland"?
After I read this comment I went and watched the promised Neverland. An my I thank you from the bottom of my heart for introducing me to such a magnificent work of art. Holy shit, when I say the promise Neverland is too good, I mean I litteraly binge watched the whole series from about 11:00pm-6:00 am the next morning. I went to Bible study half sleep but it was worth every thrilling second I stayed up the night before!
@@notkrispy7763
The promised Neverland is such a good anime, I even read the manga
@@makaylahall2664 I LOVE "The promised Neverland"!!!
@@notkrispy7763 if you liked the promised neverland try Attack on Titan, it has a similar concept of humans being the hunted for food.
LMAO,SAME !!!
An interesting video. The thing with aliens and humans is a curious part. People often portray beings such as vampires as evil because they can kill and feed off humans (vampires are complex beings and I don't perceived them as evil). Yet, it's very similar and often worse when humans do so to animals.
Vampires aren't real, so this is bullshit
I mean...you still have the right to kill a vampire but nonetheless it's not morally wrong for a vampire to kill you.
Humans have ego's but do not want to think of ourselves as "victimizers" and others, our victims.
It simply isn't morally permissible to treat nonhuman animals in the way that we do today. The conditions they're kept in are often atrocious, they become incredibly stressed during transportation, and slaughters, even in secular slaughterhouses, go wrong on a significant proportion of occasions, equating to millions upon millions of animals dying in intense pain every year. In the United States, chickens aren't even legally required to be humanely slaughtered.
Very true but totally irrelevant to the topic of this video.
geniusofmozart its just humane bro
geniusofmozart what is a way to humanely slaughter an animal if you feel so bad about how it’s done now?
The first question is what is your morality based on?
How do you get to the conclusion that something is absolutely right or wrong? Should every culture then adapt to your moral standards? If morality can be different in the personal level why use it as a basis at all?
So following your logic, do I have the right to kill a person when they piss me off because I personally think is morally right to do so? (not talking about laws)
@@Saleenx yes if everyone agrees to that that's how laws are made
This video outlines the exact line of reasoning I used to decide it's wrong. I think there is one aspect to add to this, which that it is also natural for most people to be moral only some of the time - when it suits us, that is. When it doesn't, we say things like: "it's natural to eat meat" or that's just the way it is". The underlying question then seems to be: do I consider myself to be a moral being? And the follow-up: can I really consider myself a moral being, if I only act on my morals sometimes? Something to ponder.
What about this: Is it wrong to deny meat to an omnivore (humans, chimpanzees, bears, birds, and dogs)?
Interesting question :) With regards to humans, I would say it's not wrong to deny them meat. In fact, I'll go further and say I'd consider it the right thing to do, and I can imagine (maybe it's just wishful thinking) a future where we do exactly that and where meat eating and meat farming are seen as immoral by most people. Concerning animals, I can't really make up my mind. I guess logically the answer should be the same, but I think it's a bit more complicated, as animals are not moral beings in the same sense that we are. Yes, social animals have some semblance of moral behaviour, but not in the same way as humans, and I think there are other factors involved as well.
So sorry, but for now, I can only answer as for humans, but I'll think further on it.
If a lion eats a human? Is that moral? Think about it?
@@johnathanjackson7165 and would that lion even take a split second to ponder whether it's right or wrong? What about all the animals including lions that engage in surplus killing or killing for sport? I absolutely LOVE conversations like this.
Simply saying "that's not good enough" is not a counter argument.
Showing how it directly compares to issues we all agree on is good enough.
It's only not good enough if you agree with people being ok to eat in any of the circumstances presented.
I laughed throughout. This storyboard was essentially my thought process over the past couple of years, and I'm as stuck as you are.
Well I am in the same place as you. And I don't have an answer so I have chosen not too eat or use non human animal. We don't need to use them for transport or for fun like hunting or sport like horse riding. And especially not for eating we can get all the nutritional requirements to keep us growing and healthy from the plant kingdom. And I have never felt better :)
@@ninaxx123
You two need help seeing where the flaw in the video's arguments lie? It's simple, but you need to be totally honest with yourselves.
Just take the word "pig" in the arguments the speaker makes, and replace it with "corn".
@@zacktoor1591 what is the difference between corn and pigs?
@@ninaxx123
Now, now... That's breaking the rules. Although I suppose the difference you see between corn and pigs is the same one you see between corn and man.
You say you can't answer the questions laid out, so I supply a place to see the flaw in this video. Re-watch it and replace the word pig with corn, and you'll see the flaw.
Now, if you insist on breaking the rules, then when he get's to the argument of intelligence, then in addition to replacing pig with corn, replace intelligence with sentience.
My point is I could not find an answer to how we can justify harming sentient beings when we don't need to for over survival.
Thank you for the video. As someone who cares about animals, I really appreciate you putting this out there. It sounds like you might be vegan or vegetarian. I'd be curious to know. I recently read a book that explained that most people basically do what they want, and build their beliefs around that. In other words, the actions come first and the beliefs/justifications later. It was also explained in this book that the vast majority ethicists, philosophers, and professors...agree that it is wrong to kill animals for food, but still do it, as if philosophy is just an intellectual exercise. I like the idea that higher learning should extend into life and help humankind evolve. I consider you to be a good example of that, so thank you again.
You do know if you stop eating meat you will turn into a retard like all the vegans out there? Literally all the vegans are on anti depressants it's so cool to live like that lmaoo for animals that have no morality whatsoever
you know he never explicitly held a stance right? He simply asked questions and you assumed he was vegan. Also, search it up he's not even vegan lol.
It is ok to farm/eat animals for food. Humans come first. Our species must thrive. That said, it is always ok to live on vegetables. Indian vegetarian food are much tastier than many non-vegetarian foods. I like both.
No you can't eat anmill
@@siresirol3528 I eat. I can.
@@manjitmohan9492 yes thats true, but nowadays the amount of meat we eat in well developed countries is sticking. We now consider meat part of the everyday diet even though its bad for us to consume so much everyday along with what the industry does to them. And at the same time animals farmed are so malnurished that they contain less vital nutrients than wild animals. Meat is okay, wide production for indulgence of meat is bad.
@@bigblob2310 sounds like we need better farming methods and standards. Meat still sounds good to me.
@@manjitmohan9492 meat is shit, it is really hard to cook good chicken, dairy on the other hand
Is it morrally permissible to eat people? answer no.
why? what's the reasoning that makes it so?
Your question seems very valid. 100% of the premise of this video assumes that it is immoral to kill people for food. And that assumption is presented as an objective, non-debatable fact. The video maker is imposing one of his moral viewpoints (although one would be hard pressed to find a legitimate opposing view, such a viewpoint is capable of existing).
Not everything that I find despicable is inherently immoral, though I like to think so sometimes. I would find it interesting to see 'why' it is considered immoral to kill a human for food, before I fully dive into this topic, because if that question can't be answered by something other than 'Well isn't it obvious?' then the set up for this discussion is based entirely on an unstable foundation.
What would your answer be if someone was to ask you if they could kill you for food?
What would your reaction be if they continued to do it anyway?
Shouldn't really need to ask this question.
I'll entertain those hypothetical questions:
"No, I don't want to be eaten. I am a living social organism called a human, so I seek to benefit my species homo-sapiens by the cultivation of genes and/or memes (labor, inventions) that will benefit the survival of my family, friends, coworkers, society, and humanity by extension.
If you kill me, I will be unable to do said actions and thus humanity as a species will suffer the loss of my life; however, since you too are human, I assume you are asking to eat me so that you to may survive and benefit humanity in your own personal way.
Thus we need to solve a problem: will you eating me be of greater benefit to humanity than if I continue to live?
This is an impossible question to answer because the question and attempts to provide an answer to it are dependent upon ambiguous notions of 'worth', and 'humanity', which are opinions people develop based upon their exposures to specific philosophical reasoning, human knowledge, and spiritual belief systems.
So lets evade that headache and do a more practical approach. If I can help you find food so that you don't need to eat me, we will both benefit, because I would have assisted you in your survival, and I also get to survive myself. Its a win win, well for us at least.
See, acquisition of food for our species involves killing other living organisms like plants or mammals, and killing them will also kill the micro-fauna and flora that their bodies provide an environment for. So the deaths of all these organisms each have immediate and far-future; and global and local consequences that we can't possibly know in total absolute knowledge; and good and bad attribution of these consequences also depends on perspective, so its easier to say that there will just be consequences, at least so according to human knowledge and perception of reality.
However, since these organisms are not human we can assume that killing them will have generally less negative impact and more positive impact upon our species than if we were to kill other humans, since killing other humans would negatively impact humanity by removing genes and memes from the global human population; again consequences will happen. It maybe that cannibalism for homo sapiens is energetically unsustainable, but it maybe a good survival strategy in specific environmental and population dynamic consequences. Oh, and don't forget the potential issues with disease transmission. Also, the key word is assumption. It is possible that killing these organisms while have negative impacts upon humanity due to consequences on ecosystem dynamics.
However, we cannot escape the issue of killing because we are a multi-cellular organism, and multi-cellular organisms require large amounts of energy for survival, and for some reason multi-cellular organisms do this by consuming other organisms, which feed on other organisms, which ultimately feed on huge numbers of chemotrophic and photosynthetic organisms that create energy from the sun or earth. So death is inherited via the ecosystem food webs, and so is life. Again, consequences.
Now, if I cannot find any food that you can eat to acquire adequate nutrition for your survival, and thus your survival depends upon your ability to kill and eat me, then I understand your need to kill and then eat me, but do know that as a living organism myself I will try to prevent this. If I am unable to do this, and you do kill me then you can eat me because I'll be dead, and if you choose not to eat me when I dead, well chances are that something else in time will consume my corpse. If I kill you in self-defense, I also get to choose if I should eat or leave your corpse for something else to eat (and I'll choose the option that I think best benefits my survival). I guess that's just how life is, so lets see how things unfold and hope for the best"
When someone tries to bring ethics into the argument and you're having none of it
OdysseyHome So no. You would not want to be killed for food if there was a readily available alternative, such as plants and if they continued to do so it would be immoral. I didn't read everything you had to say, I think you got a bit carried away there champ.
The problem of morally examining diet is much more difficult when you consider the number of wild animals killed due to the nature of harvesting plants on a massive scale, which is not insignificant. Even when comparing the number of domesticated animals killed for human consumption against the number of mice, snakes, birds, fawns, small game which are devastated during both planting and harvesting periods; it's worth considering ethically. A habitat is destroyed in the spring to make way for a new habit, say, a corn field -- which is then occupied by a vast number of creatures -- and then that flourishing habitat is destroyed in days late in season. If you aren't growing your own food in your own garden, you're taking part in some form of widespread slaughter.
Firstly, the animals we farm eat the food we grow with that land we're clearing out. Hundreds of millions, trillions of animals are killed every year. I'd suppose if the factory that is used to kill animals doesn't just stop killing, there will be more and more animals killed while clearing out land is a one time thing. I wouldn't say 50 years of endless slaughtering won't outdo the number of animals killed for land, I don't even need statistics to solve this problem because it's clear a static number will eventually be exceeded by a growing one🕜
These plants are specifically planted to feed farm animals
THIS VID SHOULD HAVE WAAAAAAAY MORE VIEWS!!!
what is this drawing app called? i used to use it but i have forgotten the name
"If you want to see that episode you should skip this part because I'm going to give away something very important" .......**Doesn't say where the Twilight Zone spoilers end** --.--;
Plants want to stay alive too, don’t they?
Pigs aren't moral agents. They are moral patients, at best. Furthermore, pigs will never become moral agents.
Nonetheless, it may be a moral obligation to not cause unnecessary suffering in moral patients.
I feel like if we lived in a society where your neighbor could also be your lunch, then that would degrade the trust in society, which could slow down advancement.
pork and bacon tastes good idc
@@babyyodaguy1378 I bet human tastes phenomenal!
@@Karson_Phelps same
Personally when I dicided, years ago ( after watching the "war of the worlds") that I shouldn't complain if some day aliens would come and start harvesting us, I continued eating lots of pigs with a clear conscience.
Lmao "aliens tho"
Me too but I thought of it differently. If a different species was at the top of the food chain they would shown no mercy to us. So their is no reason to show mercy to the small end of the food chain.
@@beuh8752 yes, same line of thought here
@@andreaspolitakos7652 This may indeed be true, but it has nothing to do with whether or not it is right or wrong to take this course of action. You are saying "other species may be evil if given the chance, so I choose to be evil in the here and now". This is not morally permissible.
@@joel2112 I was partly jocking and I see that you have answered me in a more solemn way so I have to dignify your answer with a more serious one of mine. It wasn't "war of the worlds", that made me answer the dilema. It was the more general ethical aproach that I took in life : in moral dilemmas I have decided to let myself be guided by the effort to understant the ontological status of things. I mean is a man a carnivorus, a omnivorus, a herbivore. Is a fetus a person, a person to be, a collection of cells? Thats how I try to solve those problems. I believe humans are omnivores and fetuses at least at the begining are not humans. So that's why I continue eating animals and fetuses. (joke, so much for the dignifird answer)
Are we going to skip the idea of sentience??
if a potato put up a good argument would you still eat it?
HELL NO
THAT POTATO WOULD BE MAKING ME MILLIONS ON TH-cam
king james488 this is not about what victim says, this is about what perpetrator wants (and does)
thought the original comment was about sentience of the food in question?
Cut video short: we take care of our own species, and to others, eat or be eaten
+Penand_Paper Would it be wrong if I say -
we take care of our own colour(race) or gender, and to others, eat or be eaten
+John Love Go ahead and try. The challenge with killing people for food is people tend to fight back and kill. Not really a worth while exercise. Pigs don't have the means to defend themselves and happen to taste awesome. Bad combo for them. If pigs tasted like cardboard and could shoot and stab back, I doubt there'd be a single farm of them. We eat chickens, pigs, cows, fish and sea creatures. Non of them have a weapons program. We tend to ignore people, jaguars and lions as sources of food. Non taste particularly good (I've been told), tend to hire lawyers or just make the jump to killing us in defense.
I'm not even sure this is a question of morality. We kill people for less reasons than food.
Francis Bawasanta At least an honest answer. But anyways you know laws can always be changed.
We don't live in a world where we have to eat or be eaten. Why even argue that? You eat cows chickens and pigs who would not eat people but you don't eat lions and tigers who would hunt you down and eat you.
+Penand_Paper
We take care of our own race, and to others, enslave or be enslaved.
How would you feel? Question of the day
Coolmegananimallover H dead
I agree and sadly, in many cases, when we do bad things and harm other creatures, we don't think too much about morality, we think more about our gains (e.g: how convenient it is or how good the pig tastes). We even do the same things to our own specie with slavery back then. And it is worse when people around you consider it as a norm. I bet many slave owners back then thought it is black people's live mission to serve their white master, and it is the same how we think of animal today.
In order to end all animal killing, I think we need to improve our food technology and have good plans to remove all barriers when going vegan (money-wise, health-wise, convenience-wise, environment-wise, taste-wise) and then educate ourselves morally.
You call yourself educated person we kill animal for food
Because human are getting bigger and bigger and we need food so i think god allow us to kill animal for human need
Just my opinion
@@ZaroYuki but badly thats the thing
"It's either you or him Wallace" I understand that reference.
If ya don’t mind me asking where’s it from :)
Thank you for a great video! I keep coming back to this.
I eat meat but i really do see life and emotions in animals i really do i think i should stop eating meat
Be the change that you want to see. _mahatma Gandhi
I thought only i want to save animals but i m not alone
Well thought out, well reasoned, and well presented. Thank you
I mean how well thought out is an argument with many MANY fallacys?
@@DigitalAndInnovation can you please explain to me why that argument has fallacys in it? I'd like to understand that point of view a little better, since i don't want to just focus on people with the same opinions as mine (i'm mostly vegan).
The problem is we haven't adequately defined what is meant by "morally permissible." We must first define what makes it morally impermissible to kill humans for food. Then determine if pigs fall into the same conditions.
Well I have made it easy for my self. Do i need it for my Survival? Do I need and animals flesh or secretions to live a long and healfy life ? Nope.
If I can avoid hurting others I will, and it's so easy now Days.
The real question is Can we justify killing them when we have alternatives.
@@ninaxx123
Do we need to justify killing animals for food?
I was about to relapse from my one-week veg diet. Thank you.
Gayyyy
Stop eating my food's food
Ruski Bot / nah, because the farming of your food’s food is what’s causing all these climate change problems
@@theworthysoul huh? My food's food is causing climate change, so stop eating it?
@@ruskibot7745 He means that when you eat a steak, the cow that the stake was made from had to grow to become the cow, so she had to eat. When you eat a steak you're not only eating the cow but you're also passively eating everything the cow ate so you're wasting loads of energy in that process. Animals are efficient by a factor of less than 1%, so for every 100 calories they're fed, you can only get at most 1 calories from them by eating them
It’s such a tough situation where you don’t want to give up meat but you still feel bad for the animals.
There are a lot of fantastic plant-based alternatives that taste just like meat. You’d be surprised just how diverse a vegan diet can be in different tastes.
Yeah. I want to save the animals. But if everyone goes vegan, where would the meat go?
@@theorangedinosaur4098 Everyone won't go vegan in an instant, it will happen gradually. The only reason the meat exists is because we constantly breed these animals into existence. If we gradually transition into entirely plant based agriculture, there won't be a problem
@@eatyourvegetables87435 yes their will were omivores for a reason not to mention their would be a animal overpopulation. Nature will have to cull the herds evenchualy and we will be caught in it's crossfire.
I hope in the future we will instead grow our meats in labs.
I don't. I can't scientifcally explain it but for some reason "artificial" foods don't taste as good as regular ones, I also think it might be less healthy. Try eating blueberries from a grocery store and compare them to some you can find in a forest.
No.32 Onebad I'd be curious to see if you could differentiate blindly.
We'll still have to kill animals to control populations.
Only in rare cases. And even then, probably not.
Thousands of years? I think you are underestimating the human potential for adaptation. Food shortages and climate change will drive many people to synthetic meat simply because it will become cheaper than real meat at some point.
And once we have people eating it, the stigma will slowly fade. The old generation might fight the change, but give it a few decades and it will be accepted.
thank for giving me a deeper knowledge about this.
Your comment is the best comment I've ever read.
@@Danny-qu7rt Your comment is the most blyatiful comment I have ever seen.
This video is biased and does not take into account other factors.
@@haxzaw8550 other factors like?
Anupama Tirkey transports, the nature of humans and the fact that nobody knows if plants feel pain
I saw this video while eating meat
I eated another after watching this
By that logic we shouldn’t be able to kill anything for food (including plants).
Is it a moral world we live in? The righteous fight for morality when there's much to gain.
The video raises interesting hypotheticals for us to interpret as we will, but one could argue for each of the questions there are multiple answers, not just the ones spoon-fed by the narrator. But for those considering if they should become vegetarian or not, I think the questions should be answered and thought through themselves because, as already stated by others, there doesn't seem to be a moral objectivity agreed by everyone on this topic. Even the question "is it morally good to eat other humans?" is tricky, and to dismiss the question as an objective moral absolute without arguments bolstering theory is at the very least lazy. Ask the mauri warriors of New Zealand if eating a human was a moral good, considering humans were regularly eaten for their mana in times of combat.
Along with the questions posed in the video, I would also ask;
-"Is it morally good to help other animals other than human?"
-"Is it morally permissable to eat plants, and at which point should we make the distinction between pants and animals?"
-"Does it matter morally if you eat an animal after it dies naturally? (And perhaps even define what it means to die naturally.)"
-"What are the moral (not to mention economic and ecological) implications of letting lose animals that were originally bred to be eaten?"
Again, I'm not advocating straightforward answers for any of these questions, and there might not even be one correct answer for our modern globalized society. But to whoever identifies as a meat-eater, vegetarian, or on the fence should seriously ask themselves these questions.
It would be interesting to hear anybody's constructive responses to these questions or the questions presented in the video.
Problem: I want to eat animals, you want to stop me
Solution: *I eat you*
Vegans taste bad(trust me I tried)
@@nugget2503 I'm digging your grave bro dw I got u fam. Those vegans be coming at u
I am completely dependent on plant diet reason is I don't feel plants experience as much pain as animals when being killed. I literally cry when I see an animal being slaughtered just for the taste of mouth. And I feel there is no difference between a man killing a man for pleasure and a man killing an animal for taste.
Yeah, plus some plant parts are made to be eaten(like plants make their fruits to feed the pollinators). So if we make sustainable arrangements to grow a diverse amount of fruit yielding plants, we can make the world free of any pain at least for food.
Animals experience pain when they are killed. Buy killing is an act that causes another to die. You're statement could be generalised to "animals experience pain when they die" as there are others ways to die other than being killed. It is also true that all things currently living will die. Thus all animals will experience pain when they die. So you eating plants doesn't change that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't right to eat plants, it may very well be the right thing to do. I'm saying that your conclusion "choosing to eat plants" doesn't flow from your premises "to eat meat you must kill animals" and "animals experience pain when killed" thus "not eating mean means animals don't get killed, so they don't feel pain.
I would also simplify "taste of mouth" to just "taste" (I don't know any other taste). Then question the apparent belittlement of the arguement to kill animals "just" for the taste. Taste has been an evolutionary driver to push us to seek the things our genes need, as well as a guide to what is potentially dangerous to our health. It would be like claiming people used to have unprotected sex just for the pleasure of it (before the advent of condoms that it). Well... kind of yes. But there are good reasons for sex to feel so marvellous. Without that, no one would bother and we'd all die out. Once again, I'm not saying there aren't good reasons for us to overrule our sense of taste (e.g. such as restraining ourselves in how much sugar we eat), but simply saying we eat meat "just for the taste" hides a far more complex issue from sight that remain unaddressed in your argument, which is: the value that the sense of taste provides to the species. Would we have survived the laste 300,000 years without a taste for meat, and would we be where we are today without it?
Taste certainly isn't enough of a driver to warrant eating anything, but to most, it's the guiding force suggesting it's a healthy thing to do.
@@dutoilette your argument of eating something tasty is healthy is not acceptable. Many ingredients like neem leaves, vegetable leaves, Raw vegetables not seem tasty but they lead to good health. But many things like burgers, coke, ice-cream destroy our health. My word Taste of mouth means, you consider it tasty only with your mouth... But we evolved here not by depending on the tounge only, but many other aspects like rational thinking, social bonding, Spiritual progress. The fact that early humans hunted for animals is not for taste.. It was the only option as they were not aware of plants that could be eaten for survival.
Animals get pain when killed. But why are you killing them if you have other choices. And what right you have to simply kill a young animal without making it live it's complete life? There is same life thriving in every organism on earth. But humans only have the capacity of rational thinking. So we have the capacity for producing less pain on earth. Today we are producing animals simply to create hell on earth for those animals.
I agree with your first point. We don't use taste alone, we use many other things to determine if something is healthy. But taste does form a significant part nonetheless.
Why would we kill if we have other choices? What are those choices? Say you have a herd of deer in a park (as we do close to where I live). How do we avoid them growing in number to the point of damaging the ecosystem for all the other creatures living there, eventually starving to death? I have the same question over and over again I ask all vegans. Once you set all the animals free and humans don't kill them anymore, the vegans go home victorious. But it doesn't end there. What happens next is a plague of animals grow without predation, eating everything they can find until they start starving to death. One way of the other they have to die! The question is how. Being shot, being gassed, or slowly starved to death over the cold winter months? Please explain.@@theordinarysoul2183
is it morally permissible to kill plants for food?
change the pig in the video with kale and voila!
The reason that we can't find an answer to this question is because we keep comparing it to other situations rather than looking at it independently
How should be look at this independently then? It is diffecult to talk about something without putting it in a certain context and theerby comparing it..
we explain things with other things we know...
Its very simple, if you want to eat them, eat them
@@emmanuelperez1516 Would you also apply that to humans? If you want to eat them, eat them? Because if you wouldn't, and I really hope you wouldn't, that justification only brings us back to the main question: What's the difference that justifies (killing and) eating pigs but not humans.
@ I would say humans are a special exception but if I was starving to death and had to eat one I probably would
I've been upset and also confused lately. Baisically I see videos of people inhumanely killing animals for food and putting the animal through excruciating pain for as long as possible just to keep it "fresh". Most people disagree with these methods and choose more humane ways. But others say these things:
"It doesn't matter because its food" that's not the point. Also its still an animal. Just because we eat it doesn't mean its an object now.
"It doesn't matter because they aren't human" It can still feel pain though!
"It doesn't matter because its their culture" Yeah but why kill it so inhumanely!
I even saw somebody say "fish can't scream so they can't feel pain" which makes absolutely 0 sense. Like if you were mute and couldn't scream, suddenly you don't feel pain? No.
I see people saying that they love to see the animal suffering and it just makes me so sick seeing how cruel some people are.
100% you're spot on... I would look into going vegan :) if you need help questions or resources let me know!
When my bird was looking at my computer monitor, I thought, woah, that bird has no idea what he's looking at. And yet, what does the bird do? Does he panic? No, he can't really panic. He just does the best he can. Is he able to live in a world where he's so ignorant? Well, he doesn't even have a choice. Yes, he can kinda live, usually, the bird's okay even if he doesn't understand the world, and he can kinda learn what's safe and what's dangerous. So, uh, that's where I've been living. I think, if I had to guess, I think I'm in a mental program, I have had a fake internet, and I've been struggling to tell them it's God, but they don't listen. You're that bird looking at the monitor, and you're thinking to yourself, 'I can figure this out'. And maybe, you have some bird ideas, that are ... maybe that's the best you can do.
Rosebud _TV u mean the bird was interested in a glowing light, hmm
Morality is merely the rules for living in society. Morality is a learned concept, we aren't born with morals. It's not okay to murder people because society says it isn't. Society says it's okay to kill animals and so it is. We are the top of the food chain and so we can chose what lives or dies, that is our right as the top. We have found a way to circumvent the need for hunting for food by farming animals. It doesn't matter how inteligent the animal is, because we are the top, if pigs were the top of the food chain it would be okay for them to kill and eat us. If an alien race were to come to earth and farm us for food than it's only our fault for not being strong enough to resist.
Matěj Well, it's cool to disagree as it's all opinion and there is no one true answer, but i must point out that rights are also a human concept. There are no rights in nature but survival of the fittest. Your position on the food chain decides your "rights" in nature. No living creature is assured life, and so because we are on top and stronger than all other creatures because we overcame physical limitations, it is our "right" at the top to decide if animals live or die. And also if cows or pigs were to evolve to be stronger than us than that is their right to do the same to us as we have done to them because then they'd be above us.
Narwilliam No that is not how morality works. Following society is only moral when it is moral. I can give you many examples, but I'm sure you can come up with your own.
The food chain was made up by humans to attempt to justify unnecessary slaughter. Humans do not need to eat animals to survive, therefore they shouldn't. It isn't much more difficult than that. Society said slavery was permissible, so was it?
Your entire argument can be summed up in three words: might makes right. You are basically saying that simply being stronger/faster/smarter etc. than other animals justifies killing them unnecessarily. According to your logic, there is nothing wrong with needlessly killing sensitive, intelligent and social creatures simply because we (as a species) are capable of doing so. Although morality is indeed subjective - and perhaps even a figment of human imagination - I seriously doubt you hold the position that unnecessarily causing harm to sensitive, intelligent and social creatures is justified by our position at the top of the food chain.
Let me ask you a more simple question: Don't you think that we should avoid harming other creatures when we can easily do so?
To what degree has x animal been included in our morality structure? Should it be punished for transgressions? Paid? Get a vote? Why are we pretending like we are confused on the difference between the species when it suits one's point? Im assuming you believe all things should start as permissible, since the other way around would leave us with no options...
Is a disabled person who can’t walk, speak, or vote ok to kill and eat?
I have been thinking about this issue for years and have not found the answer yet. Very well done but we need to dig deeper.
For one thing sure, we, as humans, eat LIFE. Whether plants or animals, they are all living creatures. Then we need to put all of them in a spectrum and decide where to draw the line. Thank you very much for the intelligent video.
Yes, plants might have emotions. But since the vegan diet kills less plants…
Actually, when humans eat other animals we are eating DEATH, not life. We take the life.
@@rachelgoodkind6545
Yes, an animal that died but was a living entity.
I have an essay coming up for my philosophy class at university we need to answer this question has anyone cracked it?
I kept waiting for him to say something.
He never did :(
all the fun talking points, he just banned from his own rhetorical conversation.
other cultures eat humans. survival victims eat humans. people eat placenta.
so much more philosophy could have been had rather than 'I don't want to give you a reason to eat a pig'
RentableDwarf its not good. Its not even a philosophy video. -_-
It is only a 9 min video, did you think you could have covered all of animal ethics in that?
Its not because other people do it that it makes it ok for other to do so ( sorry im french )
@@fatsamcastle - Fuck off. That's not philosophy. None of those examples bear any relevance to the topic whatsoever; they're just appeal to tradition, false analogy, and completely incoherent, respectively.
the problem with your question is that "morally permissible" is a nebulous term. the right way to go about it would be to establish goals, then determine what action would be best to achieve those goals. if your goals include "save the pigs", then it would be morally permissible to not eat pigs. if your goals include something like "eat all the tasty food", then it would be morally permissible to eat pigs. so the thing to keep in minds with this one is that we are social animals, that is we have a natural bias towards not doing things that are bad for humanity as a whole. so that's why we can say something like "eating people is bad", because eating ourselves would be detrimental to humanity as a whole.
+Zenthex There is nothing "moral" in achieving goals you set on your own. Let's say my goal is to enjoy and so I pick random animals and treat them badly for fun. Is it right?
John Love the reason that doesn't seem to work is because you're assuming an objective morality. when we talk about morals what we're really talking about is the difference between "things you should do" and "things you should not do". but in accordance to what? that's why you need to set goals as a referance. so if your goals include something like "i want to eat pig meat", then it follows that you should kill and cook pigs. now the reason we can agree that doing the same for humans isn't a good thing to do is because we evolved to have a social bias, that is we have a natural bias towards not doing thangs that are detrimental to the overall tribe.
Zenthex
Still nothing moral in goals you set. How that is not just selfish striving but moral? If that is true then why use the term moral at all?
Secondly, social bias can be worked upon. If you agree it is bias, then those that do not have it are superior than you otherwise racists are better than both of us. The question remains where you set limits. It is not as all humans agree what is detrimental or what is good for humans. I am pretty sure you have heard of cannibal tribes or those that sacrifice children, which in turn is viewed more wrong than abortion for reason either only God knows or is beyond any logic.
If you can set goals yourself, I can set my own too. So there is nothing that we weigh one moral and other not because we are equal as humans. Then if that is true, it means we both are free to propogate our views and get laws changed according to our convenience.
Even if morality is not objective, which I disagree with, there is no reason I see to define morality the way you define.
John Love the statement "bias
Zenthex
The bias you are stating is not from intelligent argumentation but from emotions. I do not see why it is different than that exhibited by a KKK supporter.
Secondly just because you have laws does not mean everybody will follow them. People murder eve though they know that is wrong. This does not mean law is not real or good.
Here's what conclusion I've generally drawn
- Many animals in question would not have been born if it weren't for the meat industry
- Good Life > No Life > Bad Life
(Or Good Life > Bad Life > No Life, still figuring that one out)
- Death, in and of itself is not immoral, or wrong; Especially when in service of what may be called a "greater good".
Therefore: If the animal is allowed a reasonably well lived life, and given a proper death with minimum pain, there shouldn't be issue in their expiration being cut shorter to give joy to another
The killing of these pigs also allows the meat industry to continue, and more pigs to be bred and allowed to live what should be a decent life.
(Editor's Note: This was the "greater good" in question, not the "they taste yummy" part)
If it were to stop entirely, many of these pigs would not be born, leading to a net loss of potential for good life, being a net loss of mortality
That's at least as far as I've gotten.
The issue is that animals within the animal industry don't generally live net positive lives, quite the contrary. The conditions are being tuned for efficiency and profit, not for the animal's well being. Factory farms aren't sanctuaries. But even if they would, how would this argument fare when asking whether it's okay to breed children into existence and offer them outstanding conditions up to the age of 20, when we then kill them for their organs because of a sentiment we have that "we brought them into existence, and we offered them a good life, one they wouldn't have had unless we bred them, so they kinda owe us" which we then use to justify our action. Would that be okay?
What if to that equation we add the fact that in this hypothetical humans are able to grow organ alternatives in a lab which makes the killing unnecessary in places where that's available?
@@gabrielem_ at least thats changing for better tasting meat no stress gun klilled
Is this guy seriously comparing humans to animals?
That's like comparing a calculator to a smartphone.
this just tells me just how little you understood the argument in this video. If I was a slaveholder in 18th century America and someone told me that it's not okay to enslave black people, and I replied "Is this guy seriously comparing white people to black people?", would you think that would be a valid response? This argument in this video asks you to identify a difference between humans and animals that makes it morally permissible to kill animals for food and not humans. If you cannot identify a morally relevant difference, then you have to agree that it is wrong to kill animals for food.
@@danielsolomon4600 Wow, comparing slavery to eating animals? You seriously just compared slavery to eating animals. I can't even begin to describe how wrong that is.
But what did I expect from a vegan?
I think I have a simple answer. No. It's not moral to kill pigs for food. Following the same logic we can also arrive at its immoral to harm or even pen pigs or any other animal for food. But if we follow all the steps further and further down the chain we can eventually, using the same reasoning argue that its immoral to eat plants for food. No arguments like "we can help the plants spread their seed" will suffice because the same arguments can be made about breeding pigs (or humans).
So it turns out that its not moral for humans to eat anything. The only moral choice you have is to starve or learn to photosynthesize. Or you can accept that to be an human is to be an animal and that means that we can't make our own food, we have to steal it from somewhere (either plants or other animals).So if we are going to be immoral lets be the least immoral we can be.
*yes
There is no evidence that plants are conscious and it is unlikely that it is a case
@@ayushsharma8804 why are you discriminating based on consciousness? Is it moral to kill something that isn't aware for no reason? Would you say that it's good to hack down a whole forest? Or to torture insects? And by that logic, shouldn't it be ok to kill chickens and pigs? they aren't intelligent enough to know any better. So by your logic more intelligent animals can kill the less intelligent. And if it's ok to kill creatures that are not conscious- then why not breed animals that fit that description.
In fact if we use the definition for consciousness, aware of and responding to one's surroundings, it's already been well documented that plants in fact are conscious. Its irrelevant to the argument since you've not established why its moral to kill things that aren't conscious. Or why its immoral to kill conscious creatures.
If the pig does not feel bad about eating us, why should we feel bad about eating them?
This is pig's fault.
Doesn't means we should counter
@Itachi Uchiha Not my fucking problem. I used my brain to determine that pork is delicious and contributes greatly to my diet so I will eat it whenever I want to. Live and let live. Eat your greens and i'll eat my meat.
@@sleepingrogue4130 Agree with you pal. People are evolved and designed to eat some meat(animals) by nature and not eat our own kind(because surely you are crazy and it is the last thing you wanna do for survival purpose) These people are not using their brain. They are just too soft and doesn't know hot nature works. That's how we evolve. They should wait for another evolution where we don't need to eat a meat anymore.
That's why breeding exist, kids.
This is actually an interesting thought..humans put into such conditions..knowing what lies ahead, would less likely reproduce? Maybe? If the they know that their children would face such a gruesome fate and if the breeding is up to them.
So in a nutshell, we don't know wether pigs, animals- cReatures are conscious. We as a society has come up with this conclusion; 'Animals don't have feelings, they are simply and organism that eat, sleep, and breed.' That's were we are wrong, scientists have found that pigs are smarter than dogs. What does this mean? Well that's up for you to decide.
So great to see a philosophical overview on animal rights, very inspiring work here :)
Asher Soryl Thanks! We hope to develop more content in this area!
+Wireless Philosophy Great! I enjoyed this a lot, will definitely be recommending it. It would be great to see an overview of using/exploiting animals for our own benefit. Cheers
Thanks! I'll second the request for an exploration of the abolitionist position.
+Claire McRae you mean like the people in sweat shops who make your clothes? people are definitely taken advantage of too lmao...
UJustMadeMeLOL I am also concerned about sweatshops which is why I buy second-hand or ethically-made clothing, and second-hand electronics. Food is something which you can't buy second-hand of course, and it's hard to track the supply chains of e.g. imported fruit and rice. Do you have any tips on how I could do this? At least by being vegan I am not magnifying the problem of unethical labour conditions for crop growers, because animal products require animals to be fed far more crops than vegans directly consume. But I'm not saying that veganism is the be-all-and-end-all. We can all improve. If you have any suggestions as to how I could improve my purchasing decisions, please do let me know.
Awesome. You have perfectly put the reasoning and logic some of which I too had and shared with others for a long time. Now I have more stronger arguments to go with. THanks Man. I saw in the comments, one person said he turned vegan after watching this, which is quite an achievement
yash bhandari i wish more people thought so. Im worried if I went vegan people would judge me for not giving my kids meat and I fear i cannot comtrol what they eat with their father or other family members so im at a loss forreal idk what to do. I just watched a video of a man who ripped apart a live frog with his mouth and then found this and now im sad for the frog 😭
@@naamna7 Now apply your logic with humans eating humans which according to you should be natural and moral. Lets not mix crime with ethics they can be mutually exclusive, crime is just what the government think is wrong.
I am not arguing with your point of view because i respect that it could be different for someone from a moral point but I am trying to show you an inconsistency in your reasoning and thereby suggesting that with your logic and argument you should be supportive of cannibalism which will make you logically consistent. So my question is, are you?
@@Liv-dw6hb I don't think it should be a strong enough reason to stop you from turning into a vegan or vegetarian. People can judge you for all sorts of reason, you should learn to not give a fuck to them.
If you feel something is wrong you have the right to enforce it on to their kids in your vicinity for example you wouldnt let them smoke no matter what society think of it and later when they grow up they can decide for themselves. When your reason makes sense they will see it too and at some point in life they will thank you for the values you instill upon them, veganism being one of them. The goal should be that at some point they no longer need enforcement and they themselves opt out of eating meat whether they are present with you or not
@@yashbhandari7429 animals are not human. they dont have rights the same way, we are very much the superior species, animals are also not sapient.
most animals are there to be eaten by us or by other animals. as long as we dont waste food we should keep eating them. a balanced diet of meat and green is best though
@@chozer1 Animals are sentient beings. Ya know, like your dog.
Two of the biggest valid arguments I've seen on veganism is this: 1. religious beliefs or theory (a possibility of awareness). 2. meat grosses you out and you choose not to eat it. Yes, we can choose to not eat meat. Nothing wrong with that. But there is nothing wrong with killing for food. It's the mistreatment of animals that is wrong. If you eat plants, you are literally killing other animals, making them starve to death because you are taking away their plants. There is a balance. Everything dies. Recycles. Is there an after life? I don't know. I know that most things are made of carbon. This universe eats itself and recycles its self. Some will say, we shouldn't choose their fate, who are we to judge? Until they get smarter and fly rockets into space, that's our decision. That's why we are the dominant species right now. Not all animals are used for food. Some can be used as friends, and we can take care of them, nothing wrong with that. Some roam free, and usually get eaten and because of our intelligence, we prevent them from being eaten and give them, a life that literally makes them live 5 times longer than if they lived in the wild. We need to stop seeing it as murder, and see it as life. If something tried to eat me, you know what id do? Pull out an ak47 and fucking blow its head off, because numb nuts isn't going to eat me with my god technology, lol. Not all animals are nice either, stop doing that shit. Some are fucking cunts and eat kids and your pets. It's your choice. I personally have a code. I wont eat baby animals or animals with disease or animals with high intelligence. Also, why would you let an animal be in pain as they get super old? Fuck that shit. This shit against assisted suicide is bullshit. If someone is in pain to the point of no physical ability, and they want to die, it's their fucking choice, why should you impose on their choice? It's not your life. Jesus. Why would you want them to suffer? Does that get you off? I think the animals should be pampered and treated like royalty on the farm, and once they get older, then give them quick death, send a prayer and bless them, etc. I think the mass factories need to stop, and have more small businesses. The bigger the company, the less quality. Food processing is also why so many people over eat. It's designed to be addicting and affordable. I think it's an insult to the animal that gave it's life to feed us. We should respect it. And thank it for its service. Very similar to what native Americans do when they hunt. At least that's what i've heard. But still. I could be wrong. I say both sides have their perks. But the two big arguments as far as being ethical goes is 1.the possibility of awareness or having a spirit. 2. It's fucking gross, and you're okay with spending the extra money eating like a rabbit. (rabbits are cool).
There would need to be far fewer plants on Earth for your statement that “humans eating plants means an animal will go hungry” to be true. On top of that, we artificially reproduce animals that we kill for food. So if we just stopped artificially reproducing them, their numbers would drop significantly and you’d have the perfect fix for your “not enough food to go around” argument.
And “everything dies” is not an argument in favor of killing anything and everything we choose to. We value continuity of life, and we’ve observed animal behavior that suggests that they do too. If someone had a gun to your head and promised to only kill you if they got your permission to do so, I think your response would stray pretty far from “well everyone’s gotta die sometime.”
And using intelligence to determine who lives and dies is dystopian. I’ve never built a rocket. I never contributed to space exploration. That doesn’t mean that someone who did should have the right to determine whether I live or die. And pigs generally have higher intelligence than dogs, but I don’t see you fighting the industry to save pigs specifically.
And animals don’t “give their life” for us to have meat. We *take their lives* for food. There is no beautiful, cooperative silver-lining to this. We oppress them, and they suffer and die as a result. Then, of all the things we could ask for after such a heinous process, we get a fleeting taste that usually only lasts 15 minutes in exchange for their entire existence. There’s nothing fair here, it’s just optional senseless exploitation. For reference, cows would live between 1-2 decades when left to their own devices, but we generally kill them at 2-3 years of age. We aren’t waiting until they had a fulfilling life, we’re waiting till they reach a size that we find acceptable. Then we inseminate them against their will, rip they calves away as they cry out and attempt to find each other again, repeat the process over and over again, and finally kill them. Just for a fleeting taste with nutrients you can get entirely from plant food.
@@aioli121 You have very good points. Tbh. I feel there are so many arguments that go back and forth. But like you said. It's a choice. We have the ability to choose. I'm also starting to realize how many chronic Illness are diagnosed from animal consumption. Even in moderation. I think because of the years of marketing and normalcy we have created towards animal usage, that we are thinking it's some extremist idea. But, I think the biggest reason vegetarianism or veganism isn't the norm. Is because people don't see the horror in front of them. They don't have too, because it's convenient. But you have excellent points. Thank you for enlightening me.
@@nomad1517 I appreciate you saying that. In a sea of heated arguments between vegans and meat eaters, it’s always nice to find a kind, civil person like yourself. If you find yourself seriously considering a vegan diet, or even just a 30-day trial period, let me know, and I’d be happy to provide you with some resources and advice from my personal experiences. :)
@@aioli121 I've been an animal lover my whole life. I feel veganism makes us reflect on our existence, and ethics. My biggest fear of veganism is the lack of knowledge on how it can be sustainable. I'm afraid if I don't balance it properly, I'll get sick as a dog. Especially if I'm homeless or broke. Im sure there is a legitimate answer you hold, which is what I'm willing to learn.
I ate meat without a second thought for years too ... then one day i realized I can never judge those who eat meat because I ate it just like them before my eyes were opened but its unbelievable that people think that the fact that we are smarter than the pigs or more advanced or the bible said it as an excuse to say you can just kill something and eat it. When i see animals i see thier eyes and how they take care of their children and its unbelievable that people say we have the right because even tho i wouldn't be safe either it would be interesting if aliens came and they were taller than us and had better weapons than us and had a book they call their bible and said it said we can eat you, humans. It dosn't matter what your bible says ... and it dosn't matter that we are stronger and smarter in fact its like killing a child who has no threat or done nothing wrong to you. Is even crueler when we experiment with animals and eat them because they are more innocent than us.
But you haven't explained why its wrong to eat animals...you look into its eyes and feel some emotion ..but thats not how you decide on whats right or whats wrong. The right and the wrong doesn't exist in primal nature...years of softening has made humans sensitive and emotional..but infact there is nothing wrong in utlizing anything from nature for our benift....If not none of the privileges you enjoy would exist.
Dude so you're saying humans are equal to animals ? Oh you soft ass .
@@melodysare4918 im alpha male
Animals kill each other all the time and humans are also animals. We need the nutrients meat provides, and to act as if it's morally wrong to kill an animal for food is ignorance.
@@omeg999 Animals rape each other all the time
6:00
"if a cow ever got the chance he'd eat you and everyone you cared about!"
the simpsons
@@ramaraksha01 Why are you comparing Jews being killed in the Holocaust to Cows ?
@@anonymousanonymous-iq3fz ...
You're joking, right?
@@anonymousanonymous-iq3fz isn't the mass killing of sentient beings called a holocaust?
@@pixdav true but it's kinda different in a way Because there humans duuh
LOL cows are vegan
The vegan teacher is like a believer teacher. Doesnt teach - only preach.
Мастрюнь Смит veganism is not a religion. arguments for veganism are supported with facts.
No, they're not. They're supported by emotional arguments and subjective narratives vegans pull from cherry picked data to dogmatize their rhetoric.
Veganism is a mental disorder.
Why is killing bad? To me its just a part of life.
If I were on an island and animals were there I,d leave them alone and eat plants and leave them alone
That’s so dumb.
@@beuh8752 no it’s smart
@@sp1no9993 It’s really not smart. It just makes their life harder.
@@beuh8752 true, I’m a vegetarian, but I have not had much promblems. If you’re a vegan it’s literally impossible to get at least 4 meals in an restaurant
@@sp1no9993 Yeah. Being vegetarians fine but trying to live on a island alone. You would have almost no protein
Great video, thanks.
Benny Malone Thank you!
would be interested in your feedback on my comment above that starts, 'sensory capacity and sentience are two totally different things...'
I know it's wrong to kill animals for food. How do I know and believe this? Because when I was homeless sleeping in the woods in a tent, a squirrel dropped berries on my tent every morning. It was willing to share its food with me even though I'm a human. It shared its supply with me every single day. And it's an animal. That to me showed me they are worthy of life and worthy to be protected. They are part of life we should not kill any other life. Plants want us to spread their seeds. They want us to eat them and spread more seeds so they can grow. Animals do not want to be eaten because they are us! Protect all life! Please God I pray Amen in Jesus christ name amen!
Plants do not want to be eaten. Plants want us to spread their seeds. But you don't poop in your own back yard. Your excrement is flushed down the toilet towards a sewage treatment plant, which they cannot survive.
Animals also do not 'want' to be eaten, but they 'need' to be eaten. A pig makes seven babies per litter, and 3 litters per year, and is fertile for 8 years, how long before the entire world is stacked 3 miles deep in pigs? If a sea turtle isn't prey, why do they lay 400 eggs per year?
Ultimately there are only so many ways an animal can die, predation, starvation, disease. To suggest prey animals can live free in nature without predation in balance with their ecosystem without predation is unrealistic. How else would there numbers achieve stability?
3:13 People who answered yes: I am four parallel universes ahead of you.
You could apply the John Rawls' idea of the "Veil of Ignorance" here, where you can say if you had no idea whether or not you would be born as a human, or born as an animal, before you were born, then you would be more likely to back the idea that animals should not be eaten for food by humans, since the likelihood that you would be born as an animal is significant.
The entire thing is simpler than a 9.14 video.
If we CAN avoid harming sentient beings, why WOULDN'T we?
There is, of course, no valid argument against it. Just fallacies and cop-outs that serve to serve one's ego, not his or hers actually logic/rationality.
That's deep.
Hmmm... define “CAN”. Like, would you apply pesticide to the termites that are eating your house, if you can avoid doing so just by letting them have it and building a new one?
Soldado de Juan José Torres May you please consider learning about the truth with dairy and eggs? About exploitation. Dairy and Eggs also include killing others by the way. Many people do not know
Can we avoid harming sentient beings? Will they not suffer in the wild? Do you think your own life will not involve suffering? Should we stop having children because the result is suffering?
Why favor sentient beings? This prejudice against plants seems arbitrary.
Louis C.K sums it up well with the following : "It's totally wrong, but I don't care and it's deliciious so i'm gonna keep doing it".
"If it feels good - do it!" the life philosophy of the worst generation to have ever lived.
look! another non-suicidal misanthrope!! peculiar creatures
You think compassion is peculiar?
another example of conflict between deontology (extroverted compassion) and free market (introverted compassion) ethics.
louis c k generation?
Reason I looked this up is because I'm a petowner, and was recently eating a burger, while admiring my geckos. And I thought long and hard: why do I love one species, and eat the other? It's not the cows fault that it isn't as cute am my little leos. So now I'm here, and I didn't get a straight answer.😤🦎
Look up r/happycowgifs on Reddit
I think it is part of nature for humans to eat meat. But because we have morals and judgment, we learn that animals face injustice (that if they're human, is very very wrong) so that's why we have a choice to kill or not to kill them...
but on the other hand, animals don't think and behave like humans and this difference is the root of everything. It is really hard to say that humans and animals are equal because it's obvious they are not...
Though I agree that animals cruelty is wrong and i wish that we can still eat without hurting them (but thats ://)
I am open to both sides. I am willing to get educated on this.
From the exceptions you make in your video (with the stranded person, and the plain crash survivors) you seem to imply that the morality of killing for meat is somehow relative to how much you need the food. This is also prevalent in the publics view of seal clubbing, where Canadians killing baby seals are seen as morally wrong, but Inuits doing the excact same thing is OK because they have few other sources of food.
What's morally right isn't relevant until certain basic societal needs are met. Only then are we free to contemplate such things.
you are the only person in this comment section so far that has had anything of value to say.
Baby seals get (got?) clubbed in large numbers to make fashionable fur coats for wealthy people, not for food.
finALY ANOTHER PERSON WITH MY POINT THAT ALL THE THINGS THAT THE HUMANS BANED IS STILL MORAle oops cap lock but yea also with pig they eat humans big deal
I think the argument against eating animals breaks down when he refutes the "people are people and pigs are pigs" argument, where he reasons that we would have a moral objection if aliens did the same to us.I don't think that our human morality applies to other species. We don't question the morality of sharks eating seals or hawks eating rabbits because they are not people. Our rules just don't apply.Further, if a different, more advanced species came around, they would more or less just be like another force of nature to us, with motives and intellect that we don't comprehend. In that way, I don't think that we would have any more grounds to question the morality of aliens killing us than we do the morality of hurricanes, tsunamis, or "God" (if you're the sort that believes in a higher power)
So. Youre argument is since we are a different species(of higher cognitive ability) it is permissible to kill species(with lower cognitive ability) for food.
Am i correct?
I think the issue has to be discussed in a social, cultural perspective. We have to see the historical, social context, rather in a scientific way. With some topics, it is hard to make a conclusion with mere logic.
agreed
I was hoping to find an answer to this question as much as it seems like stupid and obvious it is actually a very hard one
I'm not at all accusing or blaming people who eats animals and still pet some of them
But we as humans need to really discuss this and try to find a solution to it !!
I can still add that it's in our nature as Humans to eat and let's not forget that we're a part of this earth and it has a specific system that allows it to keep functioning!
Raising questions like these shows how much have Humans grown
We're starting to see things deeply in order to understand how they work !
That was always our job here.
Nevertheless sometimes we try to go beyond our nature to find a solution that occurred while experiencing in overreaction to thoughts
By either using logic or emotions
The only thing that I can say here in this hard humanistic situation is
To try to balance between the two
Because it's in our nature to eat and seek for food just like the first humans did thanks to them hunting and looking for food we are here now asking these types of questions !
And btw plant are alive too do turning vegan because of that I don't think is the ideal !
This guy tacitly assumes that the mental life of humans and pigs are morally comparable, then gives a bunch of strawman reasons we wouldn't accept for killing a human and ... voila! He reaches the conclusion that was contained in his premises. He's a hack. Though maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe when he assumes such knowledge about pig minds, he's speaking from first hand experience.
I wonder if he's pro-choice? His argument would actually defeat that position.
you know what's crazy? some people are willing to abort baby because it is not a sentient being or does not have conciousness yet share their beliefs that we should not kill animals for food. bruh 😂😂
Yes, it is moral for aliens or pigs to farm humans for food. So, there is no inconsistency
Would it still be moral if they killed humans for sport?
@@theswedishchicken5963 no. Food and defense are the only reasons you can kill a sentient being
@@shamtradtam3769 I would debate that. There are plenty of resources to be gained from animals, such as skins, medicines...etc. Food is but one category. Killing for sport falls under "play". Wild animals play with their prey when they start out, an expression of an evolutionary trait to help them practise their skills. I'd argue, humans being killed for sport falls under this last category and is morally permissible if it gives an evolutionary advantage to the predator (whatever he is).
The problem, as always, with humans, is the sheer number of us. We're too successful so we kill almost all 60 million bison in existance. In principle it's ok to kill animals, but not when we harm our own ecosystem in the process by sending countless species to extinction. Then we're shooting ourselves in the foot, which is morally wrong.
@@dutoilette I don't believe in some human exceptionalism due to God or whatever. We are also a mammalian species. If some bison or other species went extinct due to our actions, that means that species was not fit to survive. On the other hand, we should try to not kill sentient species for "play" or fun or whatever except for food or in defense. We may have natural instincts in us to do it, but that doesn't make it moral. Some of us also have natural instincts to murder, steal and rape. Morality is not based on our instincts
@@shamtradtam3769 I don't believe in human exceptionalism either.
"If some bison or other species went extinct due to our actions, that means that species was not fit to survive." - I agree, but this is a tautology. i.e. If a species hasn't survived, then it wasn't fit to survive. But this bears no relation as to whether it was ok for us to kill them all.
"...we should try to not kill sentient species for "play"..." - Why ever not? I can think of some good reasons but you've not mentioned any so far.
"Morality is not based on our instincts" - I totally agree. But the fact that the instinct is not only present in a population, but prevalent, indicates that it potentially serves a useful purpose that benefits the species. That, in my eyes, makes it moral. A moral act (in my understanding, everyone thinks differently) is one that benefits my genes. Damaging my environment by hunting a species to extinction hurts my offsprings ability to survive, same as damaging the climate and environment. Our instincts that served us well so far, are proving a disadvantage when we have become so numerous. So if an alien came down from space and hunted humans for fun (in the same way we hunted bison), that would be moral, until they risked driving us extinct, when it becomes immoral, as it would hurt them evolutionarily.
What do you think about the morality of overhunting?
I first watched this video around 4 years ago and it's been rattling around in my brain ever since. I started eating less animal products for environmental reasons, but kept coming up with justifications to continue eating some amount of animals products.
As of one month ago I've been vegan and I credit this video for planting that seed. It's one of the easiest changes I've ever made.
If anyone reading this wants some further viewing that expands from the philosophical realm into reality (you might be thinking "this all sounds fine in theory but...") I highly recommend looking up Earthling Ed here on youtube. He's a very eloquent speaker with thorough logical arguments and helped me to connect the theoretical ideas presented here to real world ethics. If you think this video has left some gaps, check out some of Ed's debates before you dismiss the idea. You're doing yourself an intellectual disservice to stop here.
perhaps this debate might also be taken right back to building blocks of very beginnings of life evolving on earth as well too
I think if we had a better relationship with every animal we would not kill em
You are 100% correct
@@pedroespinal3593 that is not possible, there are too many angles to the truth
This discourse can be equally applied to the question of whether its morally permissible to kill plants for food, as well. That's the whole problem with vegetarian philosophy, it fails to articulate why some categories of life (plants, fungi, bacteria, etc.) are okay to kill for food or otherwise and why others are morally abhorrent.
So my answer to the question of this video is "I honestly don't know, though I invite any moral arguments to the contrary."
Look up "sentience".
Plants aren't sentient beings capable of suffering and experiencing pain and fear. Also, we need to consume plants to survive and be healthy. We do not need to consume meat.
Even if plants are sentient (which most would agree not to be), just for the reason that vegetarian diet minimizes even number of plant "deaths" as much lesser consumption will happen without farm bred animals, and also if you really believe plants have an equal right to life as sentient life forms, you wouldn't have a problem with killing puppies or humans for food
I'm a vegetarian, but I think that while torture is wrong, killing is not. That being said, many people would say that factory farms effectively torture animals.
I think what we're doing is shaping these animals' fate. However, everything is born, everything lives, and everything dies. Because we are in their responsibility, we blame ourselves because of their death. It's not something that we control. They were going to die anyways, why not benefit from their death? Also I don't have any symphathy for chickens. Those assholes eat eachother alive.