Alright, I'll make a few closing statements. Sorry for misrepresenting your views, I think we just disagree on a few fundamentals so I was making some incorrect assumptions. Also I have a tendancy to go slightly off topic, so in the cases where you said "that wasn't my point", that's probably just me going on a tangent because I thought it was an interesting point to make.
I believe I have a pretty comprehensive set of morals that do not conflict with meat-eating. To clarify, I despise the poor treatment of animals, but I believe you can kill an animal without affecting its quality of life in a negative way - that is, the life it had before it died. You may believe that taking an animals life just to eat it is morally wrong full stop, but I simply disagree, as long as it had a pleasant life.
I've always been against pointless harm to nature, not necessarily because we're making a living creature feel pain - a lot of simple organisms simply can't feel pain or have any capacity for thought. Certain types of worms, for example, are practically biological robots, they're like moving plants. I still disagree with the aimless destruction of these things because nature is beautiful, it's a complex web of perfectly balanced incomprehensibly complicated chemical reactions that got here without any help from an intelligent designer, and so are we. Who are we to destroy it?
But when it comes to eating other life, which is how all life has worked since life existed, I don't necessarily have a problem with it. It's not as black-and-white as that for me.
In response to this specifically:
ScalieDan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:33 am
Ambidextroid wrote:We were natural predators. You can't really say they're doing anything immoral by hunting for food.
yes I can as this is appeal to nature which is 100% invalid. We humans in western countries often don't need this source. I said before hiw necessary consumption is different as it's 1 well-being vs another Which is a known issue that I'm not going to try to solve. It's evaluating 1 life vs another in a case where something must happen. Idk maybe this point was missed? Appeal to nature is invalid
I was talking about our pre-human ancestors. It's not immoral for a lion to eat a deer, and it's not immoral for an ape to eat other animals. We evolved from apes, so it seems like you're saying at some point we gained the ability to use sophisticated morals and it became morally wrong to eat other animals. But we didn't just get our morals from nowhere, you get them mostly from the culture you grow up in. If you grew up in a primitive tribe in Africa, I can guarantee you wouldn't have the same morals and the same attitude to meat-eating. So it's really not fair to say primitive tribes are being immoral by hunting for food. It's a matter of perspective.
And I think saying "appeal to nature is 100% invalid" is rather naïve. We are at the end of the day products of nature, and while you might be able to overcome a lot of your natural needs and instincts, we are still animals at the end of the day, full stop. We have a lot of natural needs in order to keep us alive, and many of these involve unavoidable destruction of other animals hapitats and well-being. Even creating farmland for crops destroys the local wildlife.
Nature is brutal. That's just how it is, and there's no way of making nature completely suffering-free without it no longer being natural, which is not a cause I can support.
I know this response was more of a continuation than a final statement, but I think our outlooks are just too different to wrap up properly in a single post. Hopefully I haven't misrepresented you again, so if you don't want to continue the discussion feel free to leave it, perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on certain points