40:00 Just because you can do something bad does not mean you have to. And do not compare human with a lion. We can reason and have lots others options to be healthy.
Can anyone explain to me why is it ok for a lion to eat its prey, but it's not ok to do the same for a human being? We do understand that once we leave those humble animals alone they will not live happily ever after, they will be preyed upon in wild nature? Can a caw survive in wild nature?
Lions eat meat for survival. All animals do. They have no other choice. Humans pick and choose what they eat, there is no need for most people in the developed world to eat meat, as all nutrients that can be got from it can also be got from plant sources. People choose to eat meat because it tastes good.
Edward Abramian The lions probably wouldn't even eat the vegetables, however. Moreover, some vegetarians, particularly utilitarians such as myself, believe that it's not right for lions, or predators in the wild in general, to be able to inflict suffering on other sentient beings. We can get all of the essential amino acids that we need in a plant-based diets. Soya and tofu have all of the essential amino acids, and combinations of plant-based foods, such as rice and beans, will provide you with all of the necessary amino acids. We shouldn't own pets, at least if they require animal products.
+edwabr123 Lions are carnivores. They must eat meat to live. Humans are omnivores. While meat can be a part of our diet, we are in a position now where we can make choices, due to our intelligence, our technology, and the abundance of food available. Singer admits that if one is starving, to go ahead and eat the animal. But that is not the case in first-world countries.
Why do you consider only the way animals are made, and don't you never consider the simple (natural) evidence how humans are made? Humans in the nature are noway above the rest of the nature! We are just food for other animals. To be above all other species, we should have no enemies predators, thus we should be much stronger, and run much faster, and we would not need to use arms for killing, more than any other strong a fast animals. Well, we are not! We have simply learned many skils to defend and survive, by which we wrongly assume that we have more rights than others in the world. We are originally made to feed our self eating what we can grab by the bare hands, e.g. plants, fruits, roots.
At a certain quality of life, an animal is better off alive than dead. Every added animal life above that line is an ethical positive. Destroying, and/or preventing the existance of such lives is an ethical negative. Therefore, if we can choose between drastically reducing the number of such animals(thusly erasing their descendants from existence as well), so that a small percentage of the same animals can have an even better/longer life, and keeping the number of animals (and the quality of their lives) as it is, we should choose to keep the number of animals as it is. We wouldn`t allow most of humanity to starve so that a tiny subset of us could live perfectly. Why do it to animals? It`s a fact that the vast majority of domesticated animals would starve and die if we didn`t use them for food. We should therefore maximize the number of their lives if it is not in contradiction with the aforementioned minimum of life quality, (and if it is economically viable, obviously.) We should maximize the length of their lives, if it is not in contradiction with the previous two principals. Also, hunting and fishing are probably less unethical under current circumstances.
You don`t get what I`m saying: To allow animals to be killed for food is to call for animals to be killed (duh) Not to allow animals to be killed by humans IS NOT an abolition of violent/premature animal death, because now there is no incentive to feed them and keep said animals alive. Because farmers would kill them to preserve their crops, and how predators would eat them. I am saying that outlawing the killing and eating of animals under all circumstances is not necessarily, logically in accordance with the greatest number of animals getting to live a life that is worth living.
Keeping animals alive costs money. Money the public can`t be expected to pay for no reason, especially when it is also expected to denounce a big chunk of its diet to boot. Those farm animal sanctuaries could never feasibly hope to keep alive the number of animals well regulated and relatively humane farms could.
@@nebojsag.5871 What if we abolished the breeding of animals for food now, so no new lives will be added just to be killed. This way we could have a future in which we could use our recources more efficiently. We could feed more people if we were´t feeding so many animals. It would be better for the environment and it would reduce suffering.
40:00 Just because you can do something bad does not mean you have to.
And do not compare human with a lion. We can reason and have lots others options to be healthy.
We can compare chimps with humans as we have the same ancester and they eat meat as well.
Those pictures are disturbing, but there's far worse. Any human in this day in age who takes part in this is low-life criminal scum.
pamela bibby get a life!
I heard from Gary Vee (success speaker) that if I'm a singer I should publish a song online everyday. Think it's a good strategy?
24:50 Princeton Philosophers Only Eat Lobsters & Clams & Oysters.
note that medieval jewish philosophers forbade cruelty to animals, based on their capacity to feel pain and maternal pleasures.
oy vey
Which one
@@veganworldorder9394 a number of them - most notably, the Ramban. check out jewish vegan websites for more on this.
how does Peter feel about animals eating animals
eric cm I think he's concerned About the suffering it causes, however, there isn't really any way round this without destroying the ecosystem
Predators need to kill to survive and don’t have moral agency. Most people don’t need to kill or enslave animals for survival.
@@jordanv3323 very well said 👍
Can anyone explain to me why is it ok for a lion to eat its prey, but it's not ok to do the same for a human being? We do understand that once we leave those humble animals alone they will not live happily ever after, they will be preyed upon in wild nature? Can a caw survive in wild nature?
Lions eat meat for survival. All animals do. They have no other choice. Humans pick and choose what they eat, there is no need for most people in the developed world to eat meat, as all nutrients that can be got from it can also be got from plant sources. People choose to eat meat because it tastes good.
Edward Abramian Lions are carnivores. They can only eat meat.
Edward Abramian The lions probably wouldn't even eat the vegetables, however. Moreover, some vegetarians, particularly utilitarians such as myself, believe that it's not right for lions, or predators in the wild in general, to be able to inflict suffering on other sentient beings.
We can get all of the essential amino acids that we need in a plant-based diets. Soya and tofu have all of the essential amino acids, and combinations of plant-based foods, such as rice and beans, will provide you with all of the necessary amino acids.
We shouldn't own pets, at least if they require animal products.
+edwabr123 Lions are carnivores. They must eat meat to live. Humans are omnivores. While meat can be a part of our diet, we are in a position now where we can make choices, due to our intelligence, our technology, and the abundance of food available. Singer admits that if one is starving, to go ahead and eat the animal. But that is not the case in first-world countries.
+Edward Abramian If we were carnivores, we wouldn't eat vegetation at all. On the contrary, we should eat mostly vegetables in order to be heathy.
Do not interfere with nature
36:45 Argument For Baby Farms
Why do you consider only the way animals are made, and don't you never consider the simple (natural) evidence how humans are made? Humans in the nature are noway above the rest of the nature! We are just food for other animals. To be above all other species, we should have no enemies predators, thus we should be much stronger, and run much faster, and we would not need to use arms for killing, more than any other strong a fast animals. Well, we are not! We have simply learned many skils to defend and survive, by which we wrongly assume that we have more rights than others in the world. We are originally made to feed our self eating what we can grab by the bare hands, e.g. plants, fruits, roots.
SINGER IS A SICKO
This is not true. We evolved brains and tools so we could hunt. We are biologically meant to eat an omnivorous diet. Our brain is our claws and fangs.
At a certain quality of life, an animal is better off alive than dead.
Every added animal life above that line is an ethical positive. Destroying, and/or preventing the existance of such lives is an ethical negative.
Therefore, if we can choose between drastically reducing the number of such animals(thusly erasing their descendants from existence as well), so that a small percentage of the same animals can have an even better/longer life, and keeping the number of animals (and the quality of their lives) as it is, we should choose to keep the number of animals as it is.
We wouldn`t allow most of humanity to starve so that a tiny subset of us could live perfectly. Why do it to animals?
It`s a fact that the vast majority of domesticated animals would starve and die if we didn`t use them for food.
We should therefore maximize the number of their lives if it is not in contradiction with the aforementioned minimum of life quality, (and if it is economically viable, obviously.)
We should maximize the length of their lives, if it is not in contradiction with the previous two principals.
Also, hunting and fishing are probably less unethical under current circumstances.
'Destroying such lives is an ethical negative'
This reasoning prohibits killing animals for food, a practice you're in favour of?
You don`t get what I`m saying:
To allow animals to be killed for food is to call for animals to be killed (duh)
Not to allow animals to be killed by humans IS NOT an abolition of violent/premature animal death, because now there is no incentive to feed them and keep said animals alive. Because farmers would kill them to preserve their crops, and how predators would eat them.
I am saying that outlawing the killing and eating of animals under all circumstances is not necessarily, logically in accordance with the greatest number of animals getting to live a life that is worth living.
Niko Ništa You've discounted farm animal sanctuaries?
Keeping animals alive costs money. Money the public can`t be expected to pay for no reason, especially when it is also expected to denounce a big chunk of its diet to boot.
Those farm animal sanctuaries could never feasibly hope to keep alive the number of animals well regulated and relatively humane farms could.
@@nebojsag.5871 What if we abolished the breeding of animals for food now, so no new lives will be added just to be killed. This way we could have a future in which we could use our recources more efficiently. We could feed more people if we were´t feeding so many animals. It would be better for the environment and it would reduce suffering.