2048 wrote:Yes we are apex predators and I think you must have misunderstood what the meaning of that is.
1.Yes, I realize that the word "predator" can be used in different ways. This is an issue of semantics. "Predator", in it's most general sense, describes an animal which hunts down and kills other animals, for whatever reason(s).
2.More specifically, the word "predator" can be used to describe animals who not only hunt, kill, and eat other animals; but have anatomies & body-parts (claws/sharp-teeth) well-adapted to doing so; and have a nutritional requirement to consume other animals. This is what the word "predator" usually describes with regards to certain nonhuman animals.
3.The usage of "predator" above (in paragraph #2), however, is not an accurate description of humans. We humans (as I described earlier) do not have anatomies well-adapted to digesting animal flesh, nor do we have body parts well-adapted to chasing down prey, killing them, and tearing them apart (without manufactured weapons & tools). We also have no nutritional requirement to consume meat/dairy/eggs.
4."Predator", when describing
humans,
only suggests that we have an ability to hunt and kill other animals,
but not a
need to do so, nor that we have any physiological traits of carnivores. "Apex-predator", when describing humans, suggests that in addition to having an ability to hunt and kill other animals, that we also are capable of defending ourselves to the extent that no other animals can hunt down and kill us. This still does
not suggest that we have a
need to kill and eat other animals, nor that we have any physiological traits of carnivores. I accept these particular usages (here in paragraph #4) of "predator" and "apex-predator" as accurate descriptions of humans. I do not accept the usage of "predator" as I defined it in paragraph #2, as an accurate description of humans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell you agree with these points, although you do not necessarily accept the moral implications which I think these points suggest.
5. Now I'd like to make it clear what points you made, regarding the morality of using animals for food, that I disagree with:
1)
Humans being apex predators is a sufficient moral justification for
using animals as a source of food (despite the resultant harm towards them),
and killing them.
2)For a certain individual
to have greater intelligence than another individual
is, at least to a certain extent, a moral justification for the more-intelligent-individual to harm the less-intelligent individual (perhaps even if the more-intelligent has no urgent need to do so, like nutritional requirement or preserving their own life, to harm the less-intelligent)
Feel free to correct me if you think that I have misrepresented your moral arguments in favor of using animals as a source of food.
6.
Regarding your first argument:
Many people who attempt to justify the harm towards animals, that results from our usage of them for food, do so by pointing out that we supposedly have a nutritional requirement to consume them. Essentially that we would be harming ourselves by not harming them, and so our usage of them is therefore a sort of "necessary evil". You have not made this type of moral argument. You have instead insisted that the harm towards animals, that results from our usage of them for food, is justified due to us being "apex predators". As I explained above in my paragraphs #1 through #4, describing humans as "apex-predators"
only suggests that we are
capable of hunting and killing all other animals, while preventing any of them from doing the same to us. It
does not suggest any nutritional need (nor any need at all regarding our well-being) for us to use other animals as food. By insisting that humans being "apex-predators" justifies the harm towards animals that results from using them for food, you are making nothing more than a "
might makes right" argument.
I hope you're familiar with this well-known phrase, and its disturbing moral implications.
Regarding your second argument:
You insisted that our greater intelligence, compared to other animals, is a moral justification for the harm we inflict on them as a result of using them for food. Whether or not there are any truly sufficient justifications for using other animals as food, I will now insist that our superior intelligence is not one of them. Do you value compassion? The concept of respecting the will of other animals, at least when there is no strong need for you to violate it? If so, you would not approve of a man's choice to force two dogs to fight to the death, for the sake of his own pleasure, when he could quite easily just not do this (
even though this human
is more intelligent than the dogs). You would not approve of a strong, intelligent child's choice to hurt a weaker child who happens to be mentally retarded (
even though the bully is
more intelligent than his victim). If this is true of you, then how is it morally consistent for you to insist that the superior intelligence of humans (over nonhuman-animals) is, by itself, a justification for harming them? When we could, quite simply, just not do this harm upon them?
If you read all of this then thank you for your patience. I hope that you will think this over carefully, and that if you don't agree with my arguments, that you will at least understand them.
2048 wrote:ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:So might makes right? If a large & strong child just happens to be more intelligent than a smaller/weaker child, would he then deserve to bully and hurt the smaller child, for the sake of his own pleasure (despite no serious need to be a bully)?
No, because as humans we have to take care of our own.
Most of us may need to for the sake of mutual benefit; but a strong, intelligent bully has no personal need to avoid hurting a weak & retarded child, so long as he can get away with it. If, however, he learns to value compassion, then he'll realize that he ought not to bully the vulnerable, because his victim would suffer and does not want this done upon him. He would realize that he can, quite simply, choose to not hurt others and respect their wishes instead. There may be
some legitimate reasons, under some very specific circumstances, for humans to hurt other humans (as well as other animals), but "superior-intelligence" alone is not a legitimate reason.
2048 wrote:ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:If there's an all-powerful & infinitely-intelligent God who chooses to punish humans with famine, drought, disease, and natural-disasters; then is he right to do so? Please note that this hypothetical "God" is the most intelligent being in all of existence.
Yes I do believe he would have the right to do it, why wouldn't someone who is that smart have the right to do whatever he wants?
No. This particular God would have the ability (obviously; he's omnipotent
and omniscient) to help us and inspire us to become better people through nonviolent means. For a God, despite this, to inflict suffering (unbearable beyond description) upon weaker beings demonstrates a severe lack of compassion on his part. It demonstrates that he is unworthy of our devotion and admiration. "Superior-intelligence" alone is not a sufficient justification for him to torment us so.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
