Your first point is exactly my point, but extended to humans. The idea that we are above instinct is so absurd, it requires putting us on a pedestal of rationality for which there is little evidence of. Is it more logical to think that all animal mental processes operate in much the same way or that for some reason humans simply are built different? There is some evidence that rationality is simply us justifying things we already decided instinctually.
My argument is not, “it is natural therefore it is right”, my argument is only and absolutely only about the morality of killing animals for food and is centered on the right to live of every animal. There’s other scaffolding about the insignificance of death but it’s unlikely to change your mind so I won’t go into it. Anyways should be obvious that Intra species relationships are different from interspecies relationships, human moral judgements are almost purely intra-species regulations. We don’t need to extrapolate my argument to make a universal claim about other things when I’ve been very clear that I’m simply talking about this issue specifically.
But to not sidestep around your argument yes there are instances in which humans may kill humans for food. Because survival overwrites any moral principles due to the right to live of every being which includes the right to kill for your own survival. How can you judge someone in a position in which there is only enough food to sustain 1 person as immoral if they are both thinking the same thing and one decides to take action? Should they both let themselves starve? Or how would you mediate it?
Now I may be predisposed to not do it due to social conditioning but I will not rationalize it by saying that it is because I’m more moral or ethical, I’m simply programmed differently and would not be able to kill another human for food. Or at least I do not think so, I don’t know what happens when my very life is on the line. I’m not sure that I would even be capable of killing an animal to be honest.
But again, that’s not really related to my argument in any direct way except that you are trying to turn it into a universal claim, which it isn’t.
I’m not saying humans are above instinct or lions have no rationality. I’m saying humans use rationality way more because of our far greater understanding of the world. Rationality requires knowledge of the world in order to form decisions, and humans have far more knowledge of the world then a lion.
I’m sorry for misunderstanding your claim as universal, but if it’s not you shouldn’t use universalist language: “all animals have a right to kill other animals in order to defend or feed themselves.”, rights, as I understand them, are universal as the more exceptions you have to a right the less it becomes a right.
I don’t understand them intra species vs inter species distinction, is cannibalism more wrong then inter species carnivory?
Back to the main point though, your initial claim that it’s fine to kill for food if you do it yourself and aren’t alienated from it, you said this is one requirement, are there any others? I’m saying that the necessity for survival is one of them. I think we agree on this as you base your claim for this “right” on the right to live of every animal, therefore an animal should not encroach on that right unless it feels its own life is threatened. If you live in the developed world with ample access to plant based foods and access to knowledge of how to eat a vegetarian diet, then it doesn’t matter if you go out into the woods naked armed only with a spear, your still wantonly killing. Your not killing to protect your right to life, your killing for the taste of the animals flesh, or sport, or to prove your masculinity etc. Those are not valid reasons to kill.
Your first point is exactly my point, but extended to humans. The idea that we are above instinct is so absurd, it requires putting us on a pedestal of rationality for which there is little evidence of. Is it more logical to think that all animal mental processes operate in much the same way or that for some reason humans simply are built different? There is some evidence that rationality is simply us justifying things we already decided instinctually.
My argument is not, “it is natural therefore it is right”, my argument is only and absolutely only about the morality of killing animals for food and is centered on the right to live of every animal. There’s other scaffolding about the insignificance of death but it’s unlikely to change your mind so I won’t go into it. Anyways should be obvious that Intra species relationships are different from interspecies relationships, human moral judgements are almost purely intra-species regulations. We don’t need to extrapolate my argument to make a universal claim about other things when I’ve been very clear that I’m simply talking about this issue specifically.
But to not sidestep around your argument yes there are instances in which humans may kill humans for food. Because survival overwrites any moral principles due to the right to live of every being which includes the right to kill for your own survival. How can you judge someone in a position in which there is only enough food to sustain 1 person as immoral if they are both thinking the same thing and one decides to take action? Should they both let themselves starve? Or how would you mediate it?
Now I may be predisposed to not do it due to social conditioning but I will not rationalize it by saying that it is because I’m more moral or ethical, I’m simply programmed differently and would not be able to kill another human for food. Or at least I do not think so, I don’t know what happens when my very life is on the line. I’m not sure that I would even be capable of killing an animal to be honest.
But again, that’s not really related to my argument in any direct way except that you are trying to turn it into a universal claim, which it isn’t.
I’m not saying humans are above instinct or lions have no rationality. I’m saying humans use rationality way more because of our far greater understanding of the world. Rationality requires knowledge of the world in order to form decisions, and humans have far more knowledge of the world then a lion.
I’m sorry for misunderstanding your claim as universal, but if it’s not you shouldn’t use universalist language: “all animals have a right to kill other animals in order to defend or feed themselves.”, rights, as I understand them, are universal as the more exceptions you have to a right the less it becomes a right.
I don’t understand them intra species vs inter species distinction, is cannibalism more wrong then inter species carnivory?
Back to the main point though, your initial claim that it’s fine to kill for food if you do it yourself and aren’t alienated from it, you said this is one requirement, are there any others? I’m saying that the necessity for survival is one of them. I think we agree on this as you base your claim for this “right” on the right to live of every animal, therefore an animal should not encroach on that right unless it feels its own life is threatened. If you live in the developed world with ample access to plant based foods and access to knowledge of how to eat a vegetarian diet, then it doesn’t matter if you go out into the woods naked armed only with a spear, your still wantonly killing. Your not killing to protect your right to life, your killing for the taste of the animals flesh, or sport, or to prove your masculinity etc. Those are not valid reasons to kill.