Quote from: TECSHARE on December 31, 2014, 10:25:46 PM

Quote from: Stijn on December 31, 2014, 08:09:28 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 31, 2014, 07:31:22 PM

Quote from: Stijn on December 31, 2014, 10:14:00 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 31, 2014, 01:42:11 AM

Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.

sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 31, 2014, 01:42:11 AM

If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible.

You didn't answer my question, you simply replied with a single example that fit your ideology. Lets try this with a more specific question.

Why is it ok for say chimpanzees (omnivores) for example to eat meat, but not humans? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

my ethical system says that it is not permissible for chimpanzees to eat meat, because they can survive without meat.

So your ethical system says that you are some how above nature and have some kind of authority to make this distinction in contradiction to nature. Your own "ethical system" contradicts itself. If humans are equal to animals, what gives you the right to stop a chimpanzee from eating meat in contradiction to its natural state? Furthermore, you didn't answer my whole question, what makes them different making this allowable?

what do you mean with being above nature? That you interfere in nature? But the chimpanzee also intervened in nature by eating some food, so in that sense the chimpanzee was above nature as well. The chimpanzee wanted to stop someone else from living, I wanted to stop the chimpanzee from killing.
You know that we should be above nature when it comes to ethics, because in nature some ugly unethical things happen. So we should not listen to nature and not condone the ugly things. Being above nature in the ethical sense is good. But first of all you should clarify what you really mean with being above nature.
Yes, humans and animals are equal, and yes humans have the right to stop chimpanzees from eating meat. Where is the contradiction? Chimpanzees also have the right to stop humans from eating meat, so there is our equality.
What do you mean with that natural state and being in contradiction to a natural state?
I don't understand your whole question. What makes whom different making what allowable?