Allow me to begin by saying : I think morality is essentially an abstraction/bastardization (depending on the source of what were adaptive traits that early humans evolved. As an example, take the quasi-universal moral that killing is wrong :
How would this start? Well, humans are obviously social creatures, and early humans would have lived together in small bands or tribes, and relied on each other for survival. Now, losing any member of the tribe would be a detriment to the tribe as a whole, and lower it's (and all the individuals themselves') chances of survival. Killing obviously gets rid of a tribe member, so it's certain that we'd evolve some means minimizing killing each other : so here we evolve this aversion to killing others of our tribe, as well as a strong aversion to those who kill members of the tribe. Natural selection takes care of the rest by having the killers exiled or killed themselves.
You'll notice from this, though, that this aversion applies only to members of one's own tribe, which makes sense as killing off other tribes removes competition, which is obviously good for you. So how did the modern day moral that all killing is wrong evolve from this humble beginning? With the evolution of society. As time went on, the tribes grew larger, and with the advent of agriculture, were able to settle in one place, and grow into towns, villages, cities, and eventually countries; so as the groups grow larger, so too does the extent to which killing is considered wrong. Notice also that at this time, killing people from rival cities/countries (depending on political organization) wouldn't be considered wrong, as evidenced by the profuse amount of bloody wars throughout human history.
Fast forward to modern times, and through globalization, and increasing international interdependence, we've reached a point where we can practically consider the entire human population as a single distinct group, and likewise, the idea that killing is wrong applies to everyone. Now, there still is war and killing, because ultimately, there's no way to get all 6 billion of us to agree that we're all one big happy species, there will always be rivals, there will always be competition, and that will often lead to bloodshed. It's still quite obvious though, that universal agreement on someone being competition to be eliminated is nearly impossible; just look at all the anti-war protests.
Unfortunately, somewhere throughout this process some people got the idea to attribute morals to a God of some kind, and make them absolutes : that's what I call bastardization, but I'm not going to get into that here.
Another unfortunate thing that has happened to this, is that our wonderful ability to think of things in abstract terms, and to transfer ideas from one place to another has led to these morals being applied in places they were never meant to be. I'll take the example of killing again, and, as I'm sure you've likely guessed from the title, its application to animals.
We know where the idea that killing is wrong came from, but what people often fail to realize, is that this initial idea was very specific. It was an idea that applied only to those other humans who aided your survival. You may be wondering why only humans and why not animals? Well that's simple, members of your tribe are only any good to you alive, because if they're dead, they can't hunt, take care of children, or do anything. Animals, aside from those we domesticated for purposes that don't include food (like dogs), are good for us in two possible ways :
1. Producing useful things, like wool, milk, or more of themselves.
2. Food. Which means they have to be dead, because it would be pretty hard to cook or eat a live animal.
In case 1, we have a reason not to kill the animal, but as the population of that animal that we control grows, we have to keep control of it, and so some of them get transferred over to purpose 2, in which we have a very good reason to kill the animal.
Now for those of you who may be reading this, and thinking, gee, this guy's a complete asshole, he's saying it's totally ok to randomly kill animals!
That is not at all what I'm saying. The point I'm trying to get across, is that when people, be they vegetarian, vegan, or just general animal lovers, say that killing animals is always wrong, they are wrong.
Another argument I've heard, which come from vegetarian friends of mine, is that we no longer need to eat meat, and as such, we should not kill animals for food.
I agree completely with the premise here, we absolutely do not require meat in our diet anymore, there are easily available replacements to allow us to get all the nutrients we need to survive - without eating meat. My problem here, is that the conclusion is complete bullshit. The correct conclusion here, would be that we could not kill animals for food, that we have that option, but to go so far as to say we should not, is absolutely unfounded, and has no logic behind it whatsoever. This would imply that all proud omnivores (myself included) are immoral, which is pretty damn condescending. -Another quasi-universal moral : Do no judge others lest ye be judged yourself.
To conclude, I would like to say that to anyone who reads this and has made the choice not to eat meat for any of the reasons I've discussed, I respect your choice, and this is not intended to try and convert you in any way, so long as you do not judge me because you think I'm an immoral bastard because I eat animals, I won't judge you because you think it's immoral to eat animals. If I've offended you, I do apologize, but in all sincerity - too bad. I stand by my statements here 100%, but if you wish argue any of my points, feel free to do so.
I completely agree, it's true that we do not need to eat meat in order to support humans at this day and age but that does not in any way make it immoral to kill and/or eat animals.
Wonderful blog. Really opened my eyes on the idea of Morality. It also helps answer the question I posted in the Religion and Philosophy thread. I am actually vegetarian but I believe that everyone has the choice because the choice is there and acceptable. I also believe that if a person wants to eat meat, fine with me. To me it is personal preference. Again great blog.
There is no clear line between our species and every other species, or between different groups of humans. I think it is difficult to make the point that killing any other human is wrong, just because there are groups of humans that are complete detriments to society, or want to kill or control every other group, etc., but once you do make that point, the next step will be to say that killing any anial is wrong.
Comparing this issue to another issue, I do agree with the idea of the 'slippery slope'. The idea is applicable to other arguments. If you legalize interracial marriage, the next thing to come will be to legalize same-sex marriage. If you legalize marijuana, the next step will be to legalize cocaine.
It would be difficult for you to get someone to believe that killing humans is always wrong, without them beginning to consider the rights of other animals.
Also there is a very clear line between our species and every other species : every other species is not our species. Between different groups of humans, there might not be so many now, but back when what we view now as moral obligations would've just been evolutionary adaptations, there were very clear lines. You would know who was in your tribe/group, and anyone who wasn't with it was competition. And it's basically impossible to make the point that killing any other human wrong, without resorting to one's opinion on morals, which isn't worth a whole lot in making a point. It is, however, very easy to make the point that it's bad to kill other humans (except of course, in cases where that human is in some way negatively affecting the survival of others, like a psychopathic murderer).
As for the slippery slope, I do hope your comparison doesn't include saying that interracial/same-sex marriage should be illegal.
The correct conclusion here, would be that we could not kill animals for food, that we have that option, but to go so far as to say we should not, is absolutely unfounded, and has no logic behind it whatsoever. This would imply that all proud omnivores (myself included) are immoral, which is pretty damn condescending
Great blog, but I had some issues with this part. It is an evolutionary trait to kill deformed animals and this is commonly observed in nature. Even in Homo Sapiens we see this trait. This trait developed to keep these detrimental mutations from being passed on. So, the point I'm trying to make with this is that today we would view killing of the handicapped wrong and immoral, but killing animals for gain is acceptable and even encouraged. If you are arguing that killing animals is acceptable because we have evolved to eat meat and thus it is 'moral' for us to consume it, then why would you argue that killing the handicapped is wrong and we shouldn't do it?
@StewieSwan (had to delete the quote for length purposes)
I wasn't talking about handicaps at all. All I was saying in that part is that it's a valid point to make that we no longer need to kill animals for food, as we can get everything we get from meat in other places, but to take that, and go so far as to say we shouldn't kill animals for food, just because we have the option, is a step too far.
I don't know where' you're getting the handicapped thing from. Also, I'm not saying it's moral for us to eat meat, I'm saying there's no grounds for saying it's immoral. I myself am an amoralist (or moral nihilist, same thing really), so I tend to not label anything as moral or immoral.
I also don't see how you're linking killing the handicapped with killing animals for food. Euthanasia is a completely different issue from killing for food. I have no idea how you linked the two, especially considering I mentioned nothing of euthanasia.
| My Profile
On the origin of morals and killing animals. blog
of what were adaptive traits that early humans evolved. As an example, take the quasi-universal moral that killing is wrong :