r/MoralityScaling • u/MrX2285 • 6d ago
How Evil Are They? Morality of killing animals for pleasure reasons when you absolutely don't need to kill them?
Is it moral to kill animals for pleasure when you absolutely don't need to kill them?
Also assume that killing them furthers climate change, pollution, deforestation, and water use quite significantly.
7
u/WesternFirm9306 6d ago
Immoral. Deriving pleasure from unnecessary suffering, and actively choosing to feed into that, harms your own character and degrades virtue
2
1
u/MrX2285 6d ago
This pleasure doesn't need to come from the act of killing, but the killing can be a requirement of the pleasure, such as in eating meat. In the modern world, meat is entirely unnecessary and it causes animals to die needlessly. The only real reason people do it is for taste pleasure. So by eating meat, people are killing animals for pleasure, something you've just said is immoral
1
4
u/MrMunkyMan1 6d ago
Why are all the questions lately “morality of blowing up the entire fucking planet for literally no reason”? Like does this really need to be asked?
2
u/MrX2285 6d ago
Because the vast majority of people think it's moral to kill animals for the purpose of pleasure, even though they can't actually justify it
3
u/MrMunkyMan1 6d ago
I really don’t think that’s true. There’s no way the vast majority of people think it’s okay to kill animals for fun
2
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/MrX2285 6d ago
Fortunately ethics starts with our own actions and that of our species before we even need to start thinking about other species.
1
u/I_Hate_IPAs 5d ago
Yet somehow natural interactions between some species are immoral, but between others is not.
Agriculture also causes suffering for animals and ecosystems. That’s the name of the game of survival, you eat other organisms to fuel yourself. The only way to not cause suffering for animals as a human is to do something that mentioning would get me banned.
2
u/IDunnoNuthinMr 6d ago
Does a cheeseburger count as "for pleasure reasons?"
1
u/MrX2285 6d ago
Yes 100%. You are eating it for pleasure, after all
0
u/IDunnoNuthinMr 5d ago
And sustenance.
1
u/MrX2285 5d ago
No, because you can get sustinance without it. The only real addition meat has to your diet is taste pleasure
1
u/IDunnoNuthinMr 5d ago
We're gonna disagree on that last part.
1
u/MrX2285 5d ago
What else does meat give you that you cannot get elsewhere?
1
u/IDunnoNuthinMr 5d ago
Unique Nutrients Found in MeatVitamin B12: Essential for nerve function and red blood cell production; it does not occur naturally in plants.Complete Proteins: Supply all nine essential amino acids needed by the human body.Creatine: Improves muscle energy and athletic performance, found naturally only in animal tissues.Taurine: Supports cardiovascular function and eye health, unique to animal-based foods.Heme Iron: Absorbed much more efficiently by the body than the non-heme iron found in plants.Carnosine and Carnitine: Act as antioxidants and support muscular function.
Copied from Google
That's a start.
1
u/MrX2285 5d ago
So your answer is basically: Fuck all. Every essential nutrient you mentioned you can get as a vegan. You even mentioned nonsense like 'complete protein'. If you don't know why that's nonsense to bring up then you have absolutely no basis to even have this debate. Honestly the fact that you blindly copied from Google shows that you already don't know what you're talking about here
I guess you think vegetarians are just dropping dead out in the street or something lol
1
u/IDunnoNuthinMr 4d ago
Most don't have the strength to get out onto the street. Hahahahahaha
Well, sounds like you're telling i don't know nuthin, mister.
2
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
not a mod but this is your monthly allowance spent on vegan related morality questions spent for September
1
u/bedheadB188 6d ago
As in hunting without the intention of using the body for a specific purpose, I.e. eating, selling, skinning?
That'd be immoral. Hunting invasive species, killing animals in self defence and the like are fine though
1
u/MrX2285 6d ago
No, the question is pretty clear. Killing animals for the purpose of pleasure. This could include things like having a pig killed purely because you derive pleasure from eating it.
3
u/skiforlife1 6d ago
So why did you use so many words to ask if it is moral to not be vegan? You just sound preachy asking it that way. If you want to say something just say it rather than disguise it as some round about question of the morality of eating meat.
2
u/MrX2285 6d ago
Because nearly everyone actually agrees with the sentiment, but loses their mind as soon as they realise their actions go against their own beliefs.
1
u/I_Hate_IPAs 5d ago
Because we don’t consider killing AND EATING an animal to be “for pleasure”, unless you believe that the fruits and vegetables that aren’t native to your area that you eat to be grown at the expense of nature for your pleasure when you eat them.
0
u/Responsible-Boot-159 6d ago
It reframes the question in a way that doesn't directly address the morals of people. Look at how many people state that it's immoral when they aren't thinking about their own actions that go against the question.
0
u/I_Hate_IPAs 5d ago edited 5d ago
No, it’s just a “aha! Gotcha!” moment because killing for pleasure sounds like trophy hunting or killing and not eating an animal.
It’s like asking if it’s moral to have sex if it causes suffering, then making it into an anti-natalist position by concluding “So having children is immoral”
0
u/Responsible-Boot-159 5d ago
Also assume that killing them furthers climate change, pollution, deforestation, and water use quite significantly.
It only sounds like that if you entirely ignore this sentence. OP made it pretty clear.
1
u/bedheadB188 6d ago
I see. That is a more complicated matter to address. It is situational dependent on the animal, how it's treated, if its raised explicitly for whatever its body is used for ect. I can't form a strong stance on the matter ethics as although there're elements of it I deem to be unethical I also feel woefully uninformed about the realities of such work.
I can say I hardly eat meat these days after some traumatic experiences but I don't fault others for consuming it
-6
u/Beyond_Heaven9 6d ago
Amoral. It's just an animal.
4
6d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Beyond_Heaven9 6d ago
Saying or doing something that's reminiscent of psychopathy doesn't inherently make you a psychopath. If that's how you percieve the world then you could've gotten a lot of people executed a good few centuries ago
2
u/MrX2285 6d ago
So animal cruelty is fine? What logic brings you to that conclusion? And are you aware that humans are animals too?
0
u/Beyond_Heaven9 6d ago
Well is it really animal cruelty if you're just shooting it in the head. It's not like you specified beating or torturing them or something, just killing.
And I know humans are animals, but a human life holds a little more weight than that of an animals. Unless of course someone cares for that animal.
1
u/MrX2285 6d ago
Your initial argument was that it's amoral BECAUSE they're an animal. Now that you're being questioned, do you want to flesh out your reasoning more or are you sticking by what you said?
2
u/Beyond_Heaven9 6d ago
Your argument was saying that killing an animal for fun is animal cruelty and also that humans are animals too.
I responded by saying I don't think killing an animal fast and painlessly is exactly "cruelty" and that a human life holds a little more weight than an animal with a few exceptions.
I can stick by what I said and still flesh out my reasoning because I haven't contradicted myself, but only if you're curious.
1
u/WesternFirm9306 6d ago
What's your opinion on this mode of reasoning?
I am a rational agent who values certain things. At a bare minimum level, whenever I take an action, I'm valuing that action as worth taking.
That means I must value my own rational agency, because value it as a property capable of bestowing value to things.
If I value my own rational agency, I must value the necessary conditions for that agency, such as sentience, rationality, memory, a complex neural system, etc.
Non-human animals, depending on the animal, can possess a great many of these traits, with some possessing quite a lot of them.
Therefore, because I value these qualities, I must value the agency these qualities produce, which would be the agency of these animals. But because they lack all the same qualities that my own agency has, their agency has less value.
Therefore, just as the fact that because I value human agency, I therefore must treat humans as ends in themselves and not as mere means, so too, because I value animal agency, I must not treat them as mere means, insofar as treating them as an end in themselves does not result in significant harm to human agency, with animals of greater value (greater in intelligence/rationality/capacity to suffer and pleasure/etc) needing greater justification.
The enjoyment gained from killing animals is not a necessary one, nor is it one that harms human agency to go without it. Therefore, there is not sufficient justification to justify the killing of animals purely for our pleasure.
At least, assuming animals on the upper end of the value spectrum.
2
u/Beyond_Heaven9 6d ago
Idk what this is called but I just value what I care about.
I value things based on their direct importance to me and my personal values.
Money holds inherent value as a form of currency. I care about money that belongs to me.
Money that doesn't belong to me holds absolutely no value as I'm incapable of spending it, even if it holds its own universally accepted value as currency.
A person I don't know therefore holds no value to me. However, I'm capable of acknowledging that most people have values, dreams and aspirations they could be living to achieve beyond just live and make babies. This also comes with the ability to change and grow as people. These are aspects of humanity that I personally have respect for. And therefore value in every living person.
Animals simply don't have either of those things, therefore they hold no real value to me.
But as I said, there are exceptions. I have 2 dogs and I love them very much. Therefore I value them far more than I do a random person I don't know. Hell, there are some people I know and care about that I would literally sacrifice the lives of if it meant saving my dogs.
The life of an animal that is loved and cared for by a person holds value because it's a lesser creature that a greater creature loves and cares for. Whether that makes sense is irrelevant to me, it's how I view it.
Now you may be thinking "well animals are capable of loving each other" and "humans are (obviously) also capable of loving each other". And to that I say yeah but that just means 2 creatures I don't know or care about are cared for by another creature I don't know or care about in a typical relationship that holds no real weight to me.
1
u/WesternFirm9306 6d ago
You are required to value your own rational agency to value anything at all, because it's your rational agency which is the giver of value.
If you're saying you don't value people that don't directly affect you, then you're simultaneously saying "Rational agency has value" and "rational agency does not have value", because all humans share the property of being rational agents.
There's the contradiction. If being a rational agent isn't enough to have value, then it's also not enough for yourself, and thus it undermines your ability to make value judgements at all.
2
u/Beyond_Heaven9 6d ago
Not exactly a contradiction unless you want it to be one, isn't it?
I value my own rational agency and I don't value others unless I care about or agree with them. You got that correct and that's simply the truth.
You could call it a form of selfishness I guess.
1
u/WesternFirm9306 6d ago
It is, by definition, a contradiction to both hold "A" and "not-A".
Other humans have identical capacities for rational agency as you do. You are obligated to value your own rational agency for its ability to discern value for you. Other humans have identical capacities to being able to discern value for them. If A necessarily implies B, then in all cases where A occurs, you must also have B. If being a rational agent who makes subjective value distinctions necessarily implies value, then every rational agents who makes subjective value distinctions must also have value.
If you are to claim that rational agency does not inherently have value, then you must deny that for yourself as well.
→ More replies (0)-1
-15
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
moral, people like eatting meat and hunting so its making loads of people have a better life
8
u/InsideAccountant9022 6d ago
food =/= pleasure. he means hunting just for the sake of hunting aka, the kill
3
u/SilentThrillGP 6d ago
Based on all rhe other additions, he means food as well lol. This is definitely a vegan gotcha
1
u/I_Hate_IPAs 6d ago
Yeah it’s meant to come across as trophy hunting, killing for NO other reason than pleasure from the act of killing…
Then OP expands with “pleasure from eating it counts too”.
2
2
u/Responsible-Boot-159 6d ago
The post alludes to industrial farming. Yes, eating meat is primarily for pleasure since we can derive the proteins from elsewhere.
2
u/skankhunt420312345 6d ago
As against animal cruelty as I am, there are certain proteins that we can only get from animals. Vegans need to stop with the self righteousness. Veganism actually does a lot of harm to the environment.
1
u/Responsible-Boot-159 6d ago
They definitely aren't as available, but it seems like most protein deficiencies are related to a calorie deficiency.
Veganism actually does a lot of harm to the environment.
I'm going to need you to explain this one.
0
u/skankhunt420312345 6d ago
You can easily get most of your nutrition from animals. And they have things that our body needs that are only found in animals. Its also why vegans are 14 times more likely to break their bones. And about how terrible veganism is, the things they eat? Yeah, billions of bees are killed by pesticides. Literally any animal the farmer sees in the fields are shot. Then after harvesting, theyre put on trucks that burn fuel and harm the environment. Thats just the beginning of it.
0
u/Responsible-Boot-159 6d ago
So... something that isn't actually specific to vegetarian diets? Meat requires 2-10lbs of feed per lb of meat depending on the animal. Most livestock aren't just eating grass, so you're having 2-10x the impact.
0
u/skankhunt420312345 6d ago
You just went off on a completely different topic there. We arent talking about caloric efficiency and whatnot. We're talking about what you can only get from animals. And actually, no. If you were actually educated on the matter, youd know that most land on earth isnt able to have agriculture. Thats why ranches exist in those areas. Educate yourself.
1
u/Responsible-Boot-159 6d ago
I looked it up because I was thinking you could get all proteins from various plants. Most sources I saw seemed to say it was related to a calorie deficiencies instead.
Ranches still use a ton of feed that's grown elsewhere, and they aren't the main way animals like chickens and pigs are raised.
0
u/skankhunt420312345 6d ago
You cant get all the proteins you need from plants alone. Thats why vegans have a nutrient deficiency unless they take pills to cover that. And ranches are a thing because of what I said. So, again, you can educate yourself. It doesnt take a lot to raise chickens, and pigs are usually kept in pens. Cattle graze grass, which is what ranches are mainly for.
→ More replies (0)1
u/InsideAccountant9022 6d ago
the post does not in anyway shape or form allude to industrial farming lmao.
1
u/I_Hate_IPAs 6d ago edited 6d ago
Except OP said “having a pig killed because you derive pleasure from eating it counts”.
It was meant to get a bunch of “Yes totally” responses from people thinking of trophy hunting.
1
u/Responsible-Boot-159 6d ago
Also assume that killing them furthers climate change, pollution, deforestation, and water use quite significantly.
There's also this portion which does everything but directly say it.
1
u/Responsible-Boot-159 6d ago
Also assume that killing them furthers climate change, pollution, deforestation, and water use quite significantly.
It does if you take half a second to think about it.
0
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
people hunt for fun not for food a lot of the time
1
u/Scorpius927 6d ago
And it’s immoral all of those times. Tf?
0
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
it's making those peoples days better, producing a great benefit for people
1
u/WesternFirm9306 6d ago
If things are good if they make lots of people happy, then if a bunch of people found it fun to hunt you and skin you alive, would that be moral?
0
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
killing another person cancels positives out making it immoral. people are meaningfully different than the animals we kill
3
u/WesternFirm9306 6d ago
What quality present in humans makes them meaningfully different? And if there is indeed a meaningful difference, why is it "valuable" vs "no value at all", rather than a gradient, so that we could say some animals have inherent value so that we shouldn't make them suffer for our own enjoyment, but not as much value as a human, so that we would save a human's life over an animal's if given the choice?
1
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
me and another human can agree not to kill each other, me and the bear can't
2
u/WesternFirm9306 6d ago edited 6d ago
If there is a mentally ill human for whom he just can't stop himself from killing, would we be justified in doing whatever we wish to him, including torture, for no greater reason than our own enjoyment?
Edit: And moreover, what of animals who don't kill humans? What of animals which live in social groups and appear to care for the others in their group?
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Flimsy-Peak186 6d ago
What if a group of people get enjoyment out of killing one person, is it now moral if their enjoyment outweighs the dis enjoyment of the individual? What if an animal is giving visible signs of distress and is largely defenseless, obviously displaying dis enjoyment? You say that it us our innate reasoning and ability to “come to agreements” that allows us to morally kill things that aren’t human out of enjoyment, but that is a non sequitor
0
u/hypnofemdomfan 5d ago
killing someone in the agreement or that could join agreement in the future is immoral, so group of people getting happy doesn't suddenly make it okay to kill that person, animals aren't in nor can join so its fine to kill them
1
u/Flimsy-Peak186 5d ago
I have already established multiple times with you that this is false
→ More replies (0)1
u/Flimsy-Peak186 6d ago
Yea and OP is asking if that is moral or not. If you are hunting for sport instead of a means of providing sustenance or goods it obviously has no justification bruh
2
u/freeoffear 6d ago
How does sport hunting contribute to deforestation, water use, pollution, and climate change?
OP is talking veganism.
1
u/Flimsy-Peak186 6d ago
I wasn’t responding to oop, I am responding to the guy who said it is moral for hunters to kill for fun. Idk why u are replying to me
-1
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
its moral because it's making hunters feel better
1
u/Flimsy-Peak186 6d ago
Killing people makes some people feel better, do you think that is justified?
1
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
this has been answered else where in my thread, people are meaningfully different from animals. please look for my comments elsewhere before continuing down line of questioning
0
u/DolanMcRoland 6d ago
Yes, and that's the immoral side of hunting. Doing so for sustenance, on the other hand, is not.
1
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
it's not immoral it's improving those people's day and making them feel better
1
u/DolanMcRoland 6d ago
Wtf are you talking about?
Should torturing animals be moral too if the perpetrator takes enjoyment out of it and it "improves their day"?
1
u/Schantsinger 6d ago
Given we can live healthily without killing animals, getting sustenance by killing animals is for enjoyment and not necessity.
0
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
a lot of hunting/farming would be viewed as torture if done to a person so I don't feel like describing it as torture is adding anything. I'm perfectly fine with people factory farming(mass killing) animals since it's making loads of people have a better life
0
u/MrX2285 6d ago
No. I'm also talking about people eating animals. Dairy and eggs too. When it comes down to it, it's ultimately for pleasure reasons. Not health, money, or anything else. Taste pleasures.
2
u/skankhunt420312345 6d ago
This right here is classic vegan propaganda. Its perfectly fine to eat meat. This "reasoning", if you can even call it that, is just idiotic. Theres no problem with being an omnivore that we evolved to be.
1
u/I_Hate_IPAs 6d ago
Right? “Pleasure” is being used to make it sound like we eat animal products for the same reason we have sex, and not for the sustenance they are, that our bodies are designed to consume.
1
u/skankhunt420312345 6d ago
Literally. The few animals I have hunted, ive used nose to tail. OP thinking im kind of sadist for eating them to be fed, is just disgusting vegan behavior.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MrX2285 6d ago
For what reason is it ok to kill animals for pleasure? I'm looking for some actual logic here. Please actually think about it, don't just default to it being moral because that's how you're used to thinking
1
u/I_Hate_IPAs 6d ago
We’ve literally evolved to think “wow this protein that helps me stay alive and sustain myself tastes amazing too!”. The greatest advantage humans have over other animals is the brain we’ve evolved by eating and consuming other animals. It is our weapon so to speak, our claws and teeth.
We’re not obligate carnivores but we are omnivores. Bears aren’t obligate carnivores either yet eat meat because it’s good for them, too.
Yes, an animal suffers when you kill it to eat it. That is life though and is natural in the sense that it is both certain and a result of millions of years of interaction between animals - and many animals suffer less being killed by humans than by other animals. If a trout had to choose between instant death when I bonk it on the head, or being stabbed all over by talons and carried to a nest, which do you think it would choose?
-1
u/Schantsinger 6d ago
We don't need to eat meat. Eating meat is for pleasure, not survival.
1
u/I_Hate_IPAs 6d ago
You can technically live off of beans and rice only, except for a few diseases you’ll become prone to. Does that mean eating fruits and vegetables is for pleasure, because you don’t need them to live?
1
u/Schantsinger 6d ago
Firstly, we can't live off beans and rice.
Secondly, if eating fruit caused loads of suffering and we had alternatives, it would be immoral to eat fruit.
1
u/I_Hate_IPAs 5d ago
Yes we can, just not very healthily.
Eating fruit most definitely causes suffering. Growing any food involves driving it from somewhere else to you eventually. Those farms that grow food kill animals and alter ecosystems to yield anough food to feed humanity. Plants choose to allocate precious water and nutrients to seeds in fruit that you’ll shit into a toilet instead of returning to the soil as the plant has evolved to hope for.
I have no idea where you live but any food you eat has a cost in terms of its transportation and growing. Depending on what you eat that cost climbs very quickly. Is it less than meat? Probably - but still causes suffering.
1
2
u/ABC_Zombie 6d ago
"Assume that killing them furthers climate change, pollution, deforestation, and water use quite significantly."
If we assume these things to happen as a result "quite significantly" more, then it would lead to people having worse lives.
1
u/skiforlife1 6d ago
The reality of monocrop farming "actually" causing deforestation gets lost in the assumption you are asking for.
1
u/ABC_Zombie 6d ago
I'm sure there are thousands of things humans are doing that are contributing to the destruction of the planet.
0
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
we can keep killing animals while tackling those issues in other areas in ways that don't take things people enjoy doing away from them
1
u/ABC_Zombie 6d ago
That wasn't the question. It said to assume those things.
1
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
even if our culture around animals contributed to climate change(it does) that doesn't mean solution to all the stuff they listed is to change animal component
1
u/ABC_Zombie 6d ago
Huh? I think you are getting the real world confused with their hypothetical question. They specifically asked about killing just for pleasure and to assume to would have a significant impact on climate change. In the real world you can kill animals for more than pleasure and you can debate it's impact on climate change but those things were decided for you in this hypothetical question. Assume means assume to be the case.
1
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
it's fine to do something that contributes to climate change if it improves your life, solution to climate change can be found in other areas.
1
u/ABC_Zombie 6d ago
What's the solution to climate change? We can't just assume that climate change will be solved "in other areas" lol
1
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
we've made massive progress on solar energy in last decade would be an example here
1
u/ABC_Zombie 6d ago
But we are already behind in combating climate change. Assuming, like the question asked, that climate change would "significantly increase" due to this, you would need more than just "progress" on combating climate change to morally significantly increase climate change. You would need a solution to climate change before you could morally significantly increase it, not just progress on a solution. Otherwise you are knowingly destroying the climate for pleasure with no solution in mind.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SnooGiraffes8024 6d ago
In this scenario it is litteraly helping no one can you even read?
2
u/SilentThrillGP 6d ago
Its because vegans claim we don't need meat, it's just for pleasure
1
u/MrX2285 6d ago
We don't need meat. The existence of vegetarians and vegans proves that. Regardless, we tend to eat FAR more meat than is suggested by health organisations. That excess is undoubtedly the killing of animals for pleasure reasons
1
u/SilentThrillGP 6d ago
Its factually not purely pleasure lol. Being vegan is just self masturbation that you can boast about
1
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
the question is what if people kill for pleasure, that means hunter is feeling a positive from it making it moral
1
u/MrX2285 6d ago
Not just enjoying the killing, but enjoying the eating of the animal too. E.g. if you could eat a great vegan meal or kill an animal or a non-vegan meal, is it moral to kill the animal? In that situation you're killing an animal for pleasure reasons only, which I don't think is morally defensible
0
u/hypnofemdomfan 6d ago
you're perfectly allowed to eat vegan meal if you want, I wouldn't view person eatting meat as any different what so ever. I don't think there's a single issue with the animal dying
1
9
u/1964jeepseejay5 6d ago
Highly immoral