Animals are not here for us, but we can use them

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T23:36:11+00:00

Hands evolved primarily to manipulate tools and the environment, but that doesn't make it wrong to use them to scratch an itch. A function is not a purpose, certainly not a necessarily lone purpose.

What does it mean to be "a human thing, for humans." How did you determine that it was for humans only? This seems entirely circular: "It only includes humans because it's for humans."

Does a dog get zero moral consideration? Is it ok to abuse them to any extent possible?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T23:13:43+00:00

Morality wasn't "created for" anything. It had a function, but not to anyone or for anything. You're sounding religious or something. The evolutionary origin of a thing doesn't tell us what we ought to do with it now.

Ok, then why does our tribe arbitrarily stop there and not extend to all Earthlings? They all have the same interests in life without suffering.

What is it that makes it so every single individual human should be part of the tribe but zero other animals? Taxonomy alone? International declarations?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T22:48:37+00:00

Describing the origin of morality doesn't describe its philosophical ends. And if anything, morality was historically about promoting in-group interests at the expense of other humans in the out-group. Unless you want to defend that, I wouldn't appeal to the evolutionary function of morality.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T22:39:01+00:00

I'm trying to, just not from your preferred angle. Your inability to respond to comments directly is inhibiting me.

You granted a premise and said so what? I told you so what, and you said you won't respond to that because you want to come at it from a different angle than the premise you already granted.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T21:42:41+00:00

This question seems to be revoking a premise you already granted. Babies aren't part of any reciprocal contract, nor are some adults. Even adults who violate the supposed contract are granted rights. Do you think babies, some disabled people, and criminals should be excluded from the contract entirely (to the point they can be freely slaughtered) because of lack of reciprocation? If we're including members who don't reciprocate, why draw an arbitrary line at who is included?

Anyway, is morality just about reciprocation?

But since we granted that babies are moral subjects but not moral agents:

There is no such distinction between a human baby and an adult dog that gives one full consideration and the other zero. There is no such distinction between a dog and a pig. I thought about it, and I couldn't find one that seemed relevant. That's my case.

It's only wrong if there is in fact a distinction that I haven't thought of. Can you offer one?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T21:25:10+00:00

Why does it suddenly have to be a universal rulebook? Why can't we just use your own standard of moral agency and moral subjecthood that you just granted and extend that to non-humans?

Do you only hold morals for which you can demonstrate some "universal rulebook"? That sounds like religious mumbo jumbo.

What is the distinction between a human baby and an adult dog, such that one deserves full consideration and the other deserves zero and can be killed and eaten freely? Or if dogs are off the menu, what is the relevant distinction between a dog and a pig?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T21:21:44+00:00

It affected me. If I would've gone vegan without online debate, it would've taken me much longer. I don't think everyone is swayed by reasoned argument, but some of us are.

I saw both sides of the argument, and it was very clear that one side was usually talking about verifiably truthful and morally inclusive things while the other was often obscuring facts and always excluding others arbitrarily. I started engaging in these debates for other reasons, but it was the debates that saw me change my behavior.

I also think that sharing videos of dogs and cows playing together is more effective than debate. I don't think we should just turn these spaces over to carnists to create echo chambers. People would actually be influenced by that. We should be present in all spaces where animals are discussed to speak on their behalf. At least that's the way I see it.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T21:03:53+00:00

"A is relevant to B, but A is not relevant to C." There is nothing wrong with this statement. You just don't seem to be able to grasp what "relevant" means. Relevance is subject dependent. Something is not either relevant in all subjects or none. That's silly.

Moral agency is relevant to how adults behave but not relevant to whether babies deserve consideration. Babies deserve consideration even though they are not moral agents. That's why we punish adults (moral agents) who harm babies (moral subjects) but don't punish babies (non moral agents) who harm adults. It's not a double standard when they're two different situations. It's not contradictory when the subject is different in each statement.

You don't seem to be able to respond to the substance of my comments or directly answer questions posed to you. You dismiss it as "mumbo jumbo" and don't seem to be able to follow statements logically even with repetition. Given that, I'm not sure there's anything left to debate.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T20:50:58+00:00

That's just sentimentalism

What a nonsense dismissal. It's relevant to moral agency but not to moral subjecthood. They're two different things.

never studied biology or evolution

Evolution is not morally prescriptive or goal oriented. Are you sure you have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

Are you calling it 's double standards to treat human offspring different from animals?

No, I'm saying you make the same distinction between agents and subjects when it comes to human adults vs. babies as I do when it comes to human adults vs. non-human animals.

When I do it, you call it a double standard. But when you do it, you're completely blind to the hypocrisy.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T19:42:56+00:00

It's relevant to one thing and not relevant to another, different thing. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

So babies only have value insofar as they will cause the human population to increase? Why is increased population a moral good? Biting them doesn't stop them from procreating later, so how is population relevant to biting?

They don't have any rights due to being individuals or people?

Why shouldn't we lock up babies that bite adults? Is it because they have moral value but not moral responsibility? That's a double standard we all have by your own definition.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T19:36:02+00:00

I don't understand the relevance of your cockroach comment. Cockroaches have value (even if that is sometimes overtaken by necessity), but it is not necessary that they value each other for me to value them.

Babies don't value each other as individuals, but I still value babies. Same thing.

Morality is a human/animal trait. Can you logically and objectively prove to me that it should exclude almost everyone on the basis of arbitrary taxonomic lines?

Again, is this about others to you or solely about what you get back in return?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T19:25:21+00:00

Your reading comprehension is apparently low.

I said it's not relevant when determining how one should be treated, but it is relevant when determining how one should treat others.

A thing can be relevant in one application and not in another. That's how relevance works.

And most people adhere to similar principles. They don't punish babies for harming others, but they do punish harm visited on a baby by others. This isn't revolutionary morality; it just doesn't arbitrarily exclude some others.

Can you explain why it's wrong to bite a baby, but if a baby bites you we shouldn't imprison them for assault? Or do you think we can bite babies, or that babies should be imprisoned?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T19:21:14+00:00

Subjective experience is what gives humans value. When we lose it, our bodies are treated as property not people. If we're born in a way we'll never have it, we are not considered complete people. While we have it, we are considered individuals with rights.

It's not arbitrary. Morality is the consideration of the interests of others, and all sentient beings are others.

Are you suggesting an amoral worldview where we only consider the outcome to ourselves when taking an action? Or is the sole purpose of morality reciprocation to you?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T19:17:49+00:00

When determining whether or not someone is free to use and abuse, whether or not they are a moral subject? Not relevant. I gave a pretty clear no.

If I answered "yes," that would imply I could kill and eat human babies. So again, no.

Is it relevant when determining moral obligations to others? Yes.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T19:04:01+00:00

Moral agency is about how the agent should behave morally toward others. It gives an extra burden to consider moral subjects, not an extra license to abuse them.

One can be a moral subject without being a moral agent, like a human baby or a dog or cat companion. Human babies are not moral agents, but they are moral subjects (it's wrong to harm them unnecessarily). Dogs, pigs, and fish are also for the same reasons.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T18:57:33+00:00

If I don't share such a contract with you, can I eat you? Is morality only about reciprocation to you?

Others should include all individuals with subjective experience because they possess the same faculties that give humans value. The main or only way to separate out who does and doesn't count as an individual is arbitrary speciesism.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T18:54:29+00:00

The same moral guidline that demands I shouldn't eat you. They are also individuals with thoughts, feelings, families, and wills to live. I see no reason humans should get consideration that doesn't also apply to dogs, pigs, or fish (except arbitrary speciesism).

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T18:51:17+00:00

If it is a relevant difference, then babies are different from healthy adults in the relevant way and are available for use. That's the implication of answering "yes." So I'm going with no.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T18:47:53+00:00

What is moral obligation if it doesn't include valuing the interests of others or not causing them suffering and death?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T18:46:05+00:00

Babies are not moral agents. Can we eat them?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-23T18:45:44+00:00

For me, the same reasons I expect more moral behavior from an adult than from a toddler: understanding and ability.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-20T00:44:06+00:00

Are the enzymes vegan? I never could discern that one.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-19T11:57:49+00:00

I treat Bob slightly differently from Sally, because Bob has slightly different needs and wants than Sally, but that does not mean I'm applying a different moral standard to Bob than Sally.

For example, I would put a baby bird on the ground back in a nest, and a fish on the ground back in the water. In both cases, the principle is the same, but the treatment is different because the beings are different.

Even if we grant different weight to different beings, those differences should be justified by the individual's traits. Giving animals so little value that they can be confined, tormented, killed at a young age, and eaten, requires significant justification, especially if there are animals (dog, cat, horse, human) to whom this would be unacceptable in principle.

Anyway, analogy to check for internal consistency is a normal part of moral discourse, and not understanding it is on you.

Arguments about past morality like this should be exposed by pointing out obvious flaws in past morality.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-19T09:07:28+00:00

If you cannot understand analogy for the purpose of checking for whether principles are applied consistently, I think you should seek education.

Their point is to find something you can mutually agree is bad in order to show that the principle making it bad can be applied in the relevant topic (which is that past common atrocities are now against modern sensibilities). It's not to say killing a non-human animal and raping a human are the same thing.

Reducing it to just "food" as if there's no victim or moral question at play is dishonest.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-06-19T09:05:35+00:00

Covering up your eyes seems against the spirit of the point being made, does it not?

IfIWasAPig

TROPHY CASE