Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
There is no logical consistency except what allows the continued survival and flourishing of life and the human race.
Having sex with animals could get you sick and cause all sorts of problems. Eating animals on the other hand can extend your life beyond a few days and perhaps even into years after you can no longer drink your mother’s milk and has very few downsides, especially with the invention of cooking. Sure, we don’t need the source of sustenance that is meat today when we have several times more food than is necessary to feed the whole globe and then throw a lot of it away, but this wasn’t true for the vast majority of our history. People only a few hundred years ago had to scrape for every protein they could find.
There’s no special moral reason because we didn’t decide. It’s just an instinct, though one that we can examine and ignore if we want.
deleted by creator
Can I not also thank a squirrel after sex?
Why a squirrel specifically? 🤣 dear Lord, you’re an evil spirit 😅
Predisposed to consuming nuts
(I’m gonna regret this one later)
uh
Maybe you can get OP into trackballs as a diversion toward a different path?
From what I’ve been told by rape victims, I’d much rather be murdered.
Who do you personally consider a bigger criminal?
- Human murdering other animal without their consent?
- Human raping other animal without their consent?
(We are making judgments solely based on the animal’s perspective. So we can’t include disingenuous human arguments like “They died a noble death for our survival”.)
raping an animal is still worse. Morally, killing animals is bad but it does provide a method of survival wether it’s moral or amoral, raping an animal is just a sick and twisted desire that is not only gross and unnatural but also does not provide any method for survival, so while no it’s not noble like your premise claims the argument to be it’s just seem as societally gross for a good reason.
From the animal’s perspective, you could argue rape continues their species and therefor is natural like killing, cannibalism etc. but that doesn’t change the dynamic between humans and animals. To the animal, dying is death and it’s something every living thing has to do, getting raped/rape is not
Through Animal’s perspective - Raping an animal is bad but Killing is worst outcome as it removes them from the gene pool, which means they can’t be able to produce their offspring and continue their progeny/generation. ~ Humans justify killing animals because they think through their own benefits, because they neglect animal’s perspective.
Right, I think a lot of my understanding does revolve around being a human and I cannot separate myself from that morality & most animals are driven by survival if that makes sense. This question is so fucking wild
Perhaps zoophilia affects the human doing it negatively; eg the human may start to hurt other people some time?
You’re not worried about killing and eating animals having the same effect?
I’ve spent a lot of time around German butchers, who specialize in two of three areas during their training: 1-slaughtering, 2-meat production, and 3-sales. In my experience (so take this with a big grain of salt), people who specialized in 1 are significantly more callous towards human life than those who didn’t.
My husband’s hopefully passing his licensing exam today and though he specialized in 2&3 (hence the big grain of salt), he still had to work at a slaughterhouse for a few weeks during his training. He’s not a squeamish person at all (he once knowingly selected The Lullaby’s Smile [trigger warning: this is very effective body horror that so paralyzed me with anxiety to listen to that I couldn’t make myself get up to turn it off] to fall asleep to and is a big fan of schlocky horror movies), but he could not stand it. He hasn’t paid for meat since (though he does save things from the trash, both for himself and for a network of people we know who are happy to accept free meat past its sell-by date and capable of determining whether it’s safe to eat) and will work at a vegan butcher shop after his licensing as a direct result of his experiences at the slaughterhouse.
vegan butcher shop
Uh, what?
They sell vegan meat imitation products made by actual trained butchers. Some of their stuff is wild. I used to eat meat, but I’ve never been able to digest pork and it’s never appealed to me, and I find their pork-style products way too realistic to eat (confirmed to be accurate and not just unappealing by my husband, lol).
Wow, that’s… Interesting. TIL
There was an article many years ago about people working in the meat industry, and how they are under extreme stress. So yes, the meat processing industry has detrimental effects on people. Is there evidence that these people commit more violent crimes? It is well documented that psychopaths / serial killers usually have a history of torturing / raping animals in their youth. Taken together, this may be an additional reason beyond laws against sex with animals. (Before you pop a vessel: I am vegetarian and most of my meals are vegan).
No, most people who eat meat wouldn’t wanna kill an animal themselves
Edit: i guess the question is more directly about killing animals than eating meat though
Society condemns one and accepts the other
I was looking for the logical consistency. They are accepting killing of animals (murder without consent) while condemning the rape (sex without consent) of animals.
People aren’t looking at the animal’s rights.
They are condemning the humans who act in a disgusting way.
Most people would have the same reaction if you were cohabiting with a lawn mower.
Bonus…
Gene Wilder makes love to a sheep. SFW
This is the reason.
Different taboos in different places, I guess.
One is torture.
The other is a means of survival.
It’s acceptable to kill for survival.
It’s not acceptable to torture and hurt for sexual gratification that can be gained solo with no one else involved.
Valid argument - assuming you live in the woods and hunting and gathering is the only way you can get food.
I get what you mean, but as somebody that hasn’t eaten meet in 35 years I would argue its not needed for survival.
So shouldn’t the same logic dictate that it is not acceptable to kill for culinary satisfaction, if nutrition can be gained without killing a creature? (Which is very possible in most parts of the world)
You do not need meat to survive lmao. You eat it because you like it, at least be honest with yourself
- Zoophilia is Rape (sex without consent)
- Killing animal is Murder .
In both cases we should be considering animal’s perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can’t just involve human’s perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don’t think so.
Modern meat consumption is very disconnected from survival for most people though.
More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat. We would need so much less land that we could rewild a lot of it, and massively reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere as well.
But people like meat and will react badly to anyone suggesting that eating less is a good idea for everyone.
More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat.
Animals are raised on grass land, which is different from cropland. Even if all the animals disappeared tomorrow we wouldn’t have any extra cropland.
That doesn’t address grass land vs cropland.
It just complains people are turning forests into cropland.
I do feel like most people I talk to irl seem to agree that eating less meat is good for everyone, but that’s very local of course, and agreeing and doing it is also not necessarily connected 😅
agree that eating less meat is good for everyone
I think this is just human nature, you say the socially acceptable thing to move the conversation along even if it wont impact their behavior. In a situation where the topic comes up (even staunch pro-meat doctors) the path of least resistance is to smile nod and “agree”.
While klling an animal for food is sure destructive for the animal, it is constructive for the humanity. It allows us to get all those proteins “for free” instead of producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do and invest the saved energy in our intelligence to create beautiful and complex things. Whereas copulating with an animal is pure destruction. It harms the living being and leads to no babies and no emotional bond strengthening (contrary to human sex).
Eating animal is still a contradiction, because destruction is there. So I think this problem does need to be somehow overcome. But at least it’s outweighed by its positive effects, unlike zoophilia.
Eh…
The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review
producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do
This bit is nonsense. I’ll give you a point for meat consumption being an easy source of protein that allowed for some developments during the evolution of humans, that are unlikely to have happened without it. But that is more a question of availability than nutritious properties. In todays surplus society, where we have industrialized agriculture and optimized crops, there is abundant access to plant protein.
And meat is not a unique source of protein either. First of all, you don’t even have to eat meat to obtain animal protein. Eggs and dairy have it too. And when it comes to the constitution of protein, eggs were even considered the gold standard for a long time.Read the following wikipedia article to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_digestibility_corrected_amino_acid_score
The listed examples should be interesting to you.
While meats are indeed easily digestable and contain useful protein for the human body, so do many plant sources. Soy protein is even on par with eggs, while meats don’t reach the same score.
And of course we usually don’t eat a single source of protein, and combining different sources, their amino acid profiles can complement each other to form a complete source of protein.This might’ve been a bit of a ramble on a side-note when it comes to discussing the ethics of fucking animals, but I’m sure the discussion benefits from getting the facts straight.
I’m sure the discussion benefits from getting the facts straight.
You talked about a DIAAS (digestable indispensable amino acid score!) - you are my favorite person today.
But let’s contextualize plant proteins by how much food you need to eat, an 68kg adult needs about 110g of protein per day - Eating steak that is 350g of food, eating tofu is 650g of food, lentils is 1600g of food.
As the amount of plant based protein increases so does carbohydrate burden - a significant factor people need to be aware of, as most (94%) western adults have impaired metabolism and thus impaired insulin sensitivity - increased carbohydrate loads need to be carefully considered in their diet.
As a contrived example 1.6kg of lentils is 1900 calories.
graph i whipped up last week
Why are you pretending that every human is a bodybuilder? Your stated protein needs are way above what science says is actually needed
science says
That is a fun turn of phrase
There isn’t one person who’s opinions encompass “science says” - multiple public health bodies recommend a 1.1-1.6g/kg/day protein intake.
You talked about a DIAAS (digestable indispensable amino acid score!) - you are my favorite person today.
Actually, I didn’t. I just realized, that I linked to PDCAAS, which is a slightly different method. But it didn’t really matter, as I just wanted to illustrate the concept. And I’m not too involved in the topic. I don’t know what you’re doing, that you’re whipping up tables about this stuff, but I’m just a layperson with a little knowledge about nutrition.
Allow me a few remarks though:
-
you’re referencing prepared meat, but raw tofu? In my experience, tofu is usually also prepared in some way, and with most preparations, it looses quite a bit of water content.
-
We don’t have to rely on mostly unprocessed plant food. There’s stuff like texturized vegetable protein, that delievers a more concentrated source.
-
While a table like this gives a good overview and reference, it’s easy to miss the fact, that we usually don’t get our protein from a single source. As I mentioned in my last comment, combining different sources can be a good way to enhance the overall protein quality.
To reflect that, we’d need DIAAS data for prepared dishes, meal plans or a whole diet. -
Can you even use DIAAS to calculate an amount of single protein source food, that you’d have to eat like that? I don’t know if it scales that way, and even if it did, for an incomplete protein source, you’d end up with a lot of excess for the abundant amino acids in that protein source, which I suspect would have to be excreted and I don’t know how your kidneys like that.
-
That table would really benefit from adding references to clarify what you base your assumptions on and where you get your data from.
But I think none of this is all that relevant for the underlying topic in this thread.
Well written! Yes combinations are a great way to complete the liebig amino acid barrel - here is a fun tool that helps do this https://www.diaas-calculator.com/ - but DIAAS cannot be “calculated”, we can guess by adding up amino acids in isolation, but you don’t get a real DIAAS reading unless you feed the combination to a pig then actually measure the amino acid absorption.
-
We literally grow food to feed to animals. And then we have to spend time hearding the animals moving. Slaughtering is a decently evolved process (I think). They don’t give us the meet for free, we have to put effort to take it.
It’s simple, actually.
The number of people who like to eat animals is larger than the number people who like to, that.
On a significant level this is basically it.
I don’t believe moral facts exist and so every permissible behaviour ultimately is affected by societal expectations as well as individual inclination.
People clutch pearls over anything and everything but it’s interesting to observe how what was a pearl clutching behaviour previously (I.e. showing some ankle in Victorian era England) is now not even a concern.
A number of US states agree with op here, some it’s legal to have sex with animals within limits, anything over 20 pounds rings a bell for one, alabama maybe. They might have changed those laws because they were getting made fun of idk.
Most of the states that were ok with it changed after Washington State, which use to have the most permissive laws about this for whatever reason, really buckled down after that guy “Mr Hands” died from a horse
Zoophilia imparts trauma.
Death relieves a being of trauma. There ain’t more trauma when you are dead. And when done correctly, death in an abattoir is largely instantaneous.
Of the two, the former is more immoral when focusing on lingering or ongoing trauma.
Killing is a bigger crime than non-consensual sex because killing eradicates said animal from gene-pool and ends its potential progeny/generation. We try to justify killing of innocent animals because we are beneficiaries of that injustice. Benefits is corrupting our sense of morality. As for Zoophilia, it’s non-censensual sex, less harmful than killing. Killing is also considered a bigger crime (than rape) in jurisdiction of humans.
If life is to continue on this planet simultaneously with ethics, there must be an exception for living beings to morally participate in the food chain as their bodies evolved. This does not excuse our modern industrial system or domesticating animals, it excuses carnivory as it evolved only.
Now you might say “but humans are meant to eat plants” or “humans are omnivores meant to eat a large variety”. No, you’re deluded. No animal on Earth has every evolved to eat a large variety of foods, plant toxins are too numerous and varied too allow this, that’s why humans cook and process most (non-fruit) plants before eating them. Animals we call omnivores are really flexible carnivores that would die on an all plant diet that wasn’t fortified or selected by humans from plants outside of the animal’s habitat.
Most of the plants we eat today did not exist in our specie’s early days, we’ve bred almost the entire produce section at the grocery store, taking toxic barely digestible plants and changing them into broccoli and such. The plants we eat that did exist only existed in their native habitat, which was not necessarily where humans were. A human in Africa was not eating oranges from China 300k years ago.
Animals that evolved to eat plants have digestive systems oriented around providing an environment for bacteria to break down cellulose, they have adaptations to withstand the specific toxins in the specific plants they evolved to eat. Rabbits have to eat their shit and re-digest it get enough nutrition from plants. Cows have a multi-chambered stomach without an acid barrier in front, horses have to eat constantly. Gorillas are “hind gut digesters” that fart constantly and have massive barrel torsos to fit a digestive system large enough to support the rest of their bodies. Human digestive systems are clearly oriented around digestion of meat and using high-energy density fat to provide the massive amount of energy our brain needs.
But why don’t we have claws and fangs like other carnivores? Well, first, many carnivorous animals don’t fit this mental image. Second, human ancestors were frugivores going back like 5+ million years that started eating meat via scavenging, this explains our stomach acid on par with buzzards and condors, an acidic stomach is an “acid barrier” bacteria cannot pass. Then we evolved to eat large prey with lots of fat that we hunted by group coordination, ability to throw, and ability to create weapons, ability to direct an animal to fall to it’s death. Humans didn’t evolve to directly chase and kill animals with our hands and teeth, we’re tool masters.
Our bodies do poorly with chronic carb intake, this is the cause of most modern maladies. Our bodies evolved to fuel themselves with saturated fat we eat, small animals with little fat are inappropriate human food (e.g. “rabbit starvation”). In fact, almost all animals are “powered by fat”, not by sugar as we’re told. Cows are powered by short chain fatty acids produced by bacteria eating the plants the cow consumes.
This is really well written!
You are saying that humans killing animal for their benefits is right. Then you should also appreciate humans having sex with other animals. Because in both cases we are neglecting the Animal’s consent in its entirely. As we are far more intelligent and strong, we should do whatever we please (Killing or Raping) with other animals. It’s logically consistent.
If by benefit you mean survival, then yes. Fucking animals is not what humans evolved to do for survival.
If Killing is considered right then Raping should be right because both persons are getting away with doing wrong to “innocent victims”. Here, Killer should not be judgmental of Rapist’s actions because Killing is a far bigger crime.
I was talking about food, not rape and murder. I never said killing is right in general. Stop with the straw men.
- We are gaining the meat by killing innocent animals.
- We are gaining pleasure by raping innocent animals.
How are you not able to see the similar patterns within these systemic injustices against innocents?
You’re a crazy one, nobody is talking about raping animals.
Life eats life.
- Interspecific sex is a common occurrence within nature and this behavior is also present in humans (zoophilia). As animals can’t consent. So any sexual activity becomes a Rape.
Again the point was similarities in non-consensual killing and raping. Don’t you think that killing and raping are both great injustices against innocent animals? If we think killing is ok then Raping also becomes ok as it’s a smaller crime than killing.
An idea that species can “be meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy. Aincent Greeks believed that gods designed and meant us to live a certain way, this approach was adapted by other religions. It cannot be applied to evolution as evolution is a sequence of random events, some more likely than other.
We have evolved to, under certain conditions, when it increases our or our relatives’ chances of survival or recreation, kill others of our species or enact violence against them, including the type of violence that increases the expected number of offsprings of the person enacting it, but nobody argues we should build ethics around it.
but nobody argues we should build ethics around it
I argue that we should build ethics around it.
An idea that species can “be meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy.
People, even those that understand evolution often speak this way because it’s easier, this is Lemmy, not a research paper.
I claim that what we call morality and ethics is human cultural interpretation of what we call game theory. My foundation for morality is respect for consent, except in cases of self/community defense and participation in the food chain as evolution has produced my body in this way due to natural selection to operate at a particular trophic level.
If it were for pure game theory, slavery would still exist in some form (legally, because illegal slavery is still wide-spread IRL). Why would we care to liberate a useful caste of human servants if they would lose all means to rebel against a modern army? Granted, they could kill someone in an uprising, but so does cattle occasionally injure and kill farmers. Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.
Morality, whether based on game theory or not, has little to do with law.
Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.
You should learn more about game theory.
Game theory is about extracting personal good from cooperation. Game theory has nothing to say against boiling your cat alive as it has no leverage on you.
In societies where things like slavery existed for centuries or even millennias, owners had great evolutionary benefit from owning slaves. Their descendants hold some privileges to this day. Game theory was on their side.
Did you watch “86”? In this show, San-Magnolia was a country populated exclusively with blonde people, referred as “alba”. People with non-white hair (referred as “colorata”) were sent to internment camps outside the state walls and conscripted to fight in a war in a hope to regain at least some rights.
It was later revealed that over 10 million colorata and zero alba were killed in the later stage of the war, and if original prognosis on enemy forces ceasing to operate in a few years would be correct, alba people would totally win the evolutionary race and no game theory would bring justice. Doesn’t sound great if your hair happens to be brown or red.
So far every response to be has been straw man args.
Nobody is talking about boiling cats alive, I’m not arguing for the morality of that.
alba people would totally win the evolutionary race and no game theory would bring justice. Doesn’t sound great if your hair happens to be brown or red.
I’m not saying game theory can be used to justify anything, I’m saying it’s the basis for morality, it’s how morality came to be in our species IMHO. I think agents (things with agency, which are subject to game theory) develop strategies, and morality is based on these strategies. Harming other beings unnecessarily often puts one at risk, therefore harming other beings without need is often bad strategy. I’m not saying that anything that can create benefit is morally OK, this is a straw man, know what that is?
You’re speaking as if there’s a global, cosmic morality in which harming others is wrong, this is a religious belief, I’m not talking about religion. There are many moralities with different foundations, I explained the basis for mine.
The animal isn’t aware of being dead.
So that means it’s ethical to kill you?
Me personally? Yes
Sure, please do. I’m just a cog in the industrial machine and life insurance payouts will get my family out of debt.
Artificial semination is key to commercial animal agriculture, and that too would be unambiguously rape in human standards. Not to mention the horrific living conditions of most animals farmed for meat.
It’s really just because one has always been normal, and the other hasn’t, aka it’s cultural. It’s not rational. Though there’s also arguably far more benefit in killing for meat vs. having sex with dubious consent, so that can be a consideration that isn’t purely cultural.
