Well the first part of what you said seems just completely untrue. I don’t think if someone was starving and they needed to eat an animal to survive that anyone would say they acted immorally.
As to your second point: no. Those animals lack the moral reasoning ability to make a choice between eating meat and not eating meat. We don’t, though.
If I ever meat a bear who is able to make nuanced moral considerations like the ethics of eating meat, and who has access to a plant based diet on which they can survive, then sure I’ll hold them to the same standard as you and me.
I don’t think Im ever going to meet a bear like that though.
What about if someone were starving and they needed to eat a human to survive? (Because there wasn't anything else, shipwreck, etc)
You're trying to apply the same standards to animals as to humans with respect to killing them being morally wrong, but then you make an exception that seems to place humans into a completely different category again. I don't like your exception because things are basically never that clear-cut... there's always another way. If you want to be so absolute about the morality of killing, then stick to it and don't make exceptions. If you don't want to consider animals as food, then don't consider them food, even if it means starving to death. Just as I don't think I would ever consider another human as food, even if I'm starving to death.
> What about if someone were starving and they needed to eat a human to survive?
Yeah, what about it? I don't understand the relevance of the thought experiment.
> If you don't want to consider animals as food, then don't consider them food, even if it means starving to death
Why can't I consider them food when there is no other option? Why can't I try to preserve animal life as much as I can, unless my very own suffering and death are at stake?
How is it so controversial to simply say that we should avoid suffering so long as we are not sacrificing our own life? If I'm well off and healthy and have everything I need to survive, then the suffering caused by my killing an animal seems super unnecessary and pointless, no? But that same act (killing and consuming the animal) when I need to do it to survive is _not_ unnecessary or pointless, thus rendering it not immoral. That's all.
> I don’t think if someone was starving and they needed to eat an animal to survive that anyone would say they acted immorally.
Sure, just like most people don't view killing an animal to enjoy its taste as immoral either.
But as a general principle, the ultimate moral good is sacrificing your own life and happiness for another. Killing someone else to save your own life is not usually praised (as long as we're not discussing self defense, which is another matter).
Still, reading your other replies, I understand your position to be that there is a hierarchy of life worth - human > animal > plant[...], you just draw the line differently on killing than most people. I have to agree that this is also perfectly coherent.
> Those animals lack the moral reasoning ability to make a choice between eating meat and not eating meat.
But how can you say that? You can't know what choices an animal makes or doesn't make. In fact, if you have pets or been around animals for some time, it would be blindingly obvious that animals absolutely make choices between whether to eat something or not, be it meat or anything else.
For example, the cats in the farm where I live have no compunction about eating humans' food (for example, one of my cheeses that I foolishly left within their reach), but the dogs will never touch it.
And make no mistake: those are absolutely moral choices. The dogs know it's wrong to eat food that is for humans and that there will be repercussions if they do so. The cats don't care and only mind when they're caught.
Your caricature of animals as unthinking feeding machines is unrealistic and it is not based on any close contact or detailed knowledge of animals. Please re-examine your beliefs because they are unfounded and uninformed.
All I'm saying is that I don't think non-human animals should be expected to need to comprehend the nature of suffering in sentient begins. You're saying that's unfounded and uninformed. I don't even know how to respond because I almost feel like you're messing with me.
> The dogs know it's wrong to eat food that is for humans and that there will be repercussions if they do so.
No, they know they get scolded when they do it. This is why dogs only stop pissing on the floor when you make it clear they can't. Not because they had some sort of moral realization that it was wrong to piss on their owners floor.
> You're saying that's unfounded and uninformed. I don't even know how to respond because I almost feel like you're messing with me.
Yes, I appreciate it's difficult to understand why not everybody automatically agrees with everything you say.
Just out of curiousity and my apologies if I'm prying, but, do have a personality disorder? I mean, have you had a diagnosis and all? I don't want to be unfair to you.
Not at all. I'm asking whether you have a diagnosis of a personality disorder because in all the conversations I've had with you and in all the conversations I've seen you have with others you seem to be incapable of seeing the other person's point of view even just to disagree with it and you don't seem to appreciate how the most disurbing parts of your interaction come across. That, to me, speaks of an uncommon state of mind compatible with a personality disorder.
As I say, I don't want to be unfair. If you do have a personality disorder there's no point in me being upset at your behaviour.
As to your second point: no. Those animals lack the moral reasoning ability to make a choice between eating meat and not eating meat. We don’t, though.
If I ever meat a bear who is able to make nuanced moral considerations like the ethics of eating meat, and who has access to a plant based diet on which they can survive, then sure I’ll hold them to the same standard as you and me.
I don’t think Im ever going to meet a bear like that though.