I love that the people advocating against the shooting of kangaroos because it is inhumane overlap so closely with the group of people advocating for natural control methods like dingos. Like, do...
I love that the people advocating against the shooting of kangaroos because it is inhumane overlap so closely with the group of people advocating for natural control methods like dingos.
Like, do they think the dingo will lull the kangaroo to sleep before injecting it with a heart tranq or something? They will harass and maul them until they're too exhausted or injured to run then eat them from the arse side up while the animal is still alive.
And that's nothing compared to what happens to them when they outstrip their food or water supplies and slowly starve over the course of weeks. Or fall into human water supply dams and drown - as they do whenever there's a drought.
This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy, isn't it? Just because something happens in nature, it doesn't mean it's good, better or "pure". It's like the people that say "animals are better...
This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy, isn't it? Just because something happens in nature, it doesn't mean it's good, better or "pure". It's like the people that say "animals are better than people because they have no evil". Well, tell that to a group of hyenas eating an antelope that is still alive...
I'm not sure it's the naturalistic fallacy - or not solely the naturalistic fallacy. It might also be a way of absolving ourselves of moral responsibility. If we use dingoes to cull kangaroos,...
I'm not sure it's the naturalistic fallacy - or not solely the naturalistic fallacy.
It might also be a way of absolving ourselves of moral responsibility. If we use dingoes to cull kangaroos, then it's not we humans who killed the poor kangaroos, it was those dingoes just doing what dingoes do. It's not our fault if it's just nature taking its course.
This is not a valid argument in my opinion, as we don't need to hunt to survive; humans are past the point where they'd have to eat an antelope alive. I'm not sure what to think of either of those...
Well, tell that to a group of hyenas eating an antelope that is still alive...
This is not a valid argument in my opinion, as we don't need to hunt to survive; humans are past the point where they'd have to eat an antelope alive.
I'm not sure what to think of either of those options since I have not heard of a case where introducing new wildlife to keep other predators in check has not had unfavorable repercussions yet, and I also don't know if making kangaroos open game won't endanger them in some way.
However, I'm always in favor of planting trees, and the idea does make sense to me.
Keep in mind that this is a totally uneducated opinion, environmental issues are often a mystery to me.
I wasn't defending an argument per se. My actual argument would be something like this: because animals don't have a sense of morality, at least in the way humans do, they are neither good or...
I wasn't defending an argument per se. My actual argument would be something like this: because animals don't have a sense of morality, at least in the way humans do, they are neither good or evil, pure or impure. They are simply devoid of moral subjectivity (which is not in contradiction with the reality of animal suffering).
I have an elaborated argument in my language (posted on Facebook), but I don't have the time to translate it into English right now. Maybe if I have some time later.
That's not what people mean when they say that. Animals have no evil because they have no morality at all. They're generally not sapient, they don't understand the concept of evil or good. When an...
animals are better than people because they have no evil
That's not what people mean when they say that. Animals have no evil because they have no morality at all. They're generally not sapient, they don't understand the concept of evil or good. When an animal does something that we judge as bad, it's not fair to blame the thing because as far as it is concerned, there's no such thing as good or bad. Animals literally can't be morally evil or good.
That's not to say that letting dingoes eat kangaroos is better or worse than shooting them, just trying to explain the philosophy beehind that idea a bit.
I love that the people advocating against the shooting of kangaroos because it is inhumane overlap so closely with the group of people advocating for natural control methods like dingos.
Like, do they think the dingo will lull the kangaroo to sleep before injecting it with a heart tranq or something? They will harass and maul them until they're too exhausted or injured to run then eat them from the arse side up while the animal is still alive.
And that's nothing compared to what happens to them when they outstrip their food or water supplies and slowly starve over the course of weeks. Or fall into human water supply dams and drown - as they do whenever there's a drought.
This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy, isn't it? Just because something happens in nature, it doesn't mean it's good, better or "pure". It's like the people that say "animals are better than people because they have no evil". Well, tell that to a group of hyenas eating an antelope that is still alive...
I'm not sure it's the naturalistic fallacy - or not solely the naturalistic fallacy.
It might also be a way of absolving ourselves of moral responsibility. If we use dingoes to cull kangaroos, then it's not we humans who killed the poor kangaroos, it was those dingoes just doing what dingoes do. It's not our fault if it's just nature taking its course.
This is not a valid argument in my opinion, as we don't need to hunt to survive; humans are past the point where they'd have to eat an antelope alive.
I'm not sure what to think of either of those options since I have not heard of a case where introducing new wildlife to keep other predators in check has not had unfavorable repercussions yet, and I also don't know if making kangaroos open game won't endanger them in some way.
However, I'm always in favor of planting trees, and the idea does make sense to me.
Keep in mind that this is a totally uneducated opinion, environmental issues are often a mystery to me.
I wasn't defending an argument per se. My actual argument would be something like this: because animals don't have a sense of morality, at least in the way humans do, they are neither good or evil, pure or impure. They are simply devoid of moral subjectivity (which is not in contradiction with the reality of animal suffering).
I have an elaborated argument in my language (posted on Facebook), but I don't have the time to translate it into English right now. Maybe if I have some time later.
That's not what people mean when they say that. Animals have no evil because they have no morality at all. They're generally not sapient, they don't understand the concept of evil or good. When an animal does something that we judge as bad, it's not fair to blame the thing because as far as it is concerned, there's no such thing as good or bad. Animals literally can't be morally evil or good.
That's not to say that letting dingoes eat kangaroos is better or worse than shooting them, just trying to explain the philosophy beehind that idea a bit.
I don't know man, I think they do mean animals are actually superior in a moral sense. That's the impression I get.
Maybe some people do, but that doesn't really make any sense from a philosophical standpoint.