If they can live without meat, they should, and so yes, it would give their actions a morally questionable aspect by definition. Never really had damning in mind though, I’m devoted to honoring the ideal when possible but am not extremist about it.
What power holds these species’ moral compasses? For many people it’s their god or their religion (which could be Gaia/earth), for others it’s others around them, for others including me it’s themselves.
Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Do they hold themselves to your morals (ie, others comparing themselves to those around them), or are you holding your morals up to them?
If someone believes in God, it can serve as one’s inspiration for ethics, but it’s not necessary, nor is anything else. Relatedly, if something doesn’t have a concept of ethics, that doesn’t make its unethical actions unethical. If it did, teaching ethics would be unnecessary on the basis that someone who doesn’t know it is automatically universally justified in anything they do. Ethical validity reveals itself in how applicable a point is with different situations as well as other points. If an animal considers nature its model, it hopefully isn’t surprised when something/someone gets the same idea about it, but at the same time, hopefully the same can be said about us.
if something doesn’t have a concept of ethics, that doesn’t make its unethical actions unethical. If it did, teaching ethics would be unnecessary
Have you taken an Ethics class? You don’t learn one set of rules for life and then you are done (boy, life would be so easy if that were the case!!). You learn Kantian philosophy, Consequentialism, Deontology, Utilitarianism…just to name a few. You learn how philosophy comes in to play and how to recognize the patterns. Knowing these can relate to understanding where someone (or in this discussion, the bear/fox/deer/etc) places it’s moral compass to better understand it’s viewpoint. The bear may not understand ethics, but it still has a moral compass that you can tease out.
So the question remains: What power holds these species’ moral compasses? Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Or are you holding your morals up to them?
That’s what I was saying when I said “if an animal considers nature its model, it hopefully isn’t surprised when something/someone gets the same idea about it”. They get their modus operandi from nature. But nature, Kant, utilitarians, etc. cannot be reconciled hence why I said “ethical validity reveals itself in how applicable a point is with different situations as well as other points”. The wish to kill is not reconcilable with the drive to survive.
For the third time, yes. I am baffled as to why hunting would be necessary if meat eating isn’t.
So the bears, foxes, deer, egrets, etc are also being unethical and should be damned? Because they absolutely can live without meat but chose to hunt.
If they can live without meat, they should, and so yes, it would give their actions a morally questionable aspect by definition. Never really had damning in mind though, I’m devoted to honoring the ideal when possible but am not extremist about it.
I truly have never heard that response!
What power holds these species’ moral compasses? For many people it’s their god or their religion (which could be Gaia/earth), for others it’s others around them, for others including me it’s themselves.
Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Do they hold themselves to your morals (ie, others comparing themselves to those around them), or are you holding your morals up to them?
If someone believes in God, it can serve as one’s inspiration for ethics, but it’s not necessary, nor is anything else. Relatedly, if something doesn’t have a concept of ethics, that doesn’t make its unethical actions unethical. If it did, teaching ethics would be unnecessary on the basis that someone who doesn’t know it is automatically universally justified in anything they do. Ethical validity reveals itself in how applicable a point is with different situations as well as other points. If an animal considers nature its model, it hopefully isn’t surprised when something/someone gets the same idea about it, but at the same time, hopefully the same can be said about us.
Have you taken an Ethics class? You don’t learn one set of rules for life and then you are done (boy, life would be so easy if that were the case!!). You learn Kantian philosophy, Consequentialism, Deontology, Utilitarianism…just to name a few. You learn how philosophy comes in to play and how to recognize the patterns. Knowing these can relate to understanding where someone (or in this discussion, the bear/fox/deer/etc) places it’s moral compass to better understand it’s viewpoint. The bear may not understand ethics, but it still has a moral compass that you can tease out.
So the question remains: What power holds these species’ moral compasses? Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Or are you holding your morals up to them?
That’s what I was saying when I said “if an animal considers nature its model, it hopefully isn’t surprised when something/someone gets the same idea about it”. They get their modus operandi from nature. But nature, Kant, utilitarians, etc. cannot be reconciled hence why I said “ethical validity reveals itself in how applicable a point is with different situations as well as other points”. The wish to kill is not reconcilable with the drive to survive.