You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Topics You Can Never Change My Mind On
The rational case for why humans should not hunt is that humans no longer need to hunt and kill non-humans to survive. Hunting is a primitive practice, and we continue to develop alternatives to meat consumption. If in the future you can "grow" meat using lab technology, and it tastes just as good, why should we allow the killing of other beings? Unless your value of fetal life is irrationally separate from other beings?
Why do you equate human life with animal life?
Calling something a "primitive practice" is not an argument.
We are animals. We are creatures among all the others. Obviously we have evolved to a point where we have achieved incredible things, but ultimately all creatures, human and non-human, feel emotions, and if we were to ever find ourselves below the top of the chain, wouldn't we beg for mercy ourselves?
I saw a video today of an elephant, using its trunk, very carefully painting a picture of an elephant, and expressing joy throughout the process. If you've ever had a pet that you've cared for deeply, you especially know it's not right to hurt animals, and hopefully it should just be implicit regardless.
I think it's a completely valid argument to say - we don't need to kill animals to eat and survive, so how is it not primitive behavior to continue to do so anyway even though it is barbaric?
We all belong to the "animal kingdom," but we are not all the same species. Many, many species of animals eat other species of animals either as obligate carnivores or as omnivores. Yes, we are the only species capable of reason as far as we know, so there is room for an argument in favor of applying reason rather than instinct to our actions. However, your arguments are not based in reason, but rather in an appeal to emotion cloaked in the trappings of reason.
Snopes among many other sources I have seen demonstrate that these paintings are the result of training rather than spontaneous creativity. My feelings for a pet to not imbue the pet with any unique characteristics. To say that we may not need to kill animals in order to eat and survive does not automatically mean that we should not. You're still failing to present any sound arguments.
Historically, animals have eaten other animals if they need to to survive, just like we as animals ourselves have historically done, and still do to this day. Only, humans don't need to eat animals to survive today. This is not an emotional argument, but simple fact, that you can live the rest of your life without eating meat, and you will be fine. For obligate carnivores, if we develop good "lab meat," then they don't need to consume other animals either. You may not consider this a sound argument, but I don't hear what your counter argument is to it.
And sure, the elephant thing doesn't really help the point I'm trying to make. However, animals have chemicals in their brain that constitute emotional responses, just as we do.
Point being - hunting is murder. So, why would we hold an inconsistent definition of murder across species? Why does species change the way we operate ethically? You accuse me of forgoing logic, but why logically would you hold different species to a lower ethical standard in a world where we no longer need to murder one another to survive?