It's a straw man argument.

The problem is, that's a straw man argument. You start off with it being the killing of animals. I could easily start it off with the necessary eating of other life forms. Both are true, but expressing it as if that is the issue, killing animals, is disingenuous at best, and as I said, definitely a strawman.

Thank you. You expressed much better the exact things that sprung out at me from that article.

Yes, but not because of harm done to that person in particular. It's multi-faceted, don't you agree?

No I have exploited the global south in order to earn my wealth.

I'm going to give back the heart valve.

Is cannibalism inherently wrong?

Do you think that cannibalism harms that man? Or do you agree that this is another multi-faceted issue where other factors need to be taken into account?

So if no one knows about it cannibalism is alright?

It's a multi-faceted issue. The real dishonesty would be in ignoring that.

>Is it a moral harm to eat a man that died of natural causes?

Not to that man.

Why isn't it moral? By that logic surely curing disease isn't moral either? If you get a natural tumour then by getting rid of it you're rejecting your nature.

Why is how you treat them a moral question but not killing them when you don't have to?

Well unless you believe in universal morality, morality is based in part on your nature. For a tiger eating meat has no moral implications because it has neither the option to choose or the ability not to eat meat. Humans are omnivores and therefore eat plants and meat, despite being intelligent enough to choose I would say it is not moral to reject your nature and therefore the choice to eat meat is not a moral one because it is a part of our nature.

How you treat the animals you choose to eat in life and in killing them is moral however.

It's like whenever problematising meat eating is brought up on reddit (even on philosophy subs) the response is "why even have morals and ethics, we are just simple animals." The sheer amount of frankly thoughtless and unscrutinized arguments people bring forth to dismiss the issue is maddening.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

This is ignoring we have morals and eating meat has moral implications which is enough of a reason to not eat meat

Bro do squirrels do what every animal does? No, but they’re still animals. You see what I mean? Squirrels have intrinsic parts of their nature some parts overlap with some animals and some parts don’t. Humans have intrinsic parts of their nature some overlap with some animals some don’t. The point is that like other animals we have intrinsic aspects to our nature, one of which is that we are omnivores we should then not use the intelligence of our nature to deny the fact we are omnivores and stop eating meat.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Fair enough. :P just beginning to flex my philosophy muscles again :)

It's actually just an appeal to nature argument to begin with, otherwise what is it that makes one supposedly natural action good and the other bad? If there's a distinction to be made then it isn't the fact that it's natural or not that makes an action morally justified or not

Red herring...

If we don't do as animals do then it's irrelevant what they do. We can choose not to eat meat, it's irrelevant that we're omnivores since we can choose not to

Bro my whole point is that humans fit inside the category of animal. That doesn’t mean we do everything every other animal does. Furthermore as the human animal also fits inside the category of omnivore we cannot choose to stop being omnivores and not eat meat.

You introduced a new variable to the scenario to try and stretch the goalpost a little further rather than just answering the question considering the context in which it was asked. That was dishonest from my perspective. You could see that the debate was about eating meat in the context of suffering. Regardless, you've answered.

Is it a moral harm to eat a man that died of natural causes?