Shareefruck
Registered User
Just wanted to zero in on this defense. To be fair, if we're thinking very primitively, rape is a means to procreate just as killing and eating animals is a means for survival (yet in both cases, are not the only way to do it), and biologically, our need and desire to procreate isn't much different from our need for survival-- Both are programmed into us and hypothetically help us survive. The point still stands-- the fact that something is natural, instinctive, and biologically designed is not a good reason at all to believe that it's right. These are appeal to nature fallacies that arguments in favor of eating meat should probably try to avoid if they want to be viewed as reasonable (and I think that better arguments for meat consumption exist anyways).Well, we still murder animals (and I don't think murdering other humans is instinctual necessarily). Rape is different and isn't necessary for survival, eating is and our bodies are designed to consume meat. The fact that vegans need to be more diligent about what they consume in order to insure that they're getting a healthy diet suggests this.
Frankly, I have a much easier time seeing validity in the "It is absolutely immoral and nothing changes that fact, but is too impractical to expect or demand-- we should accept that we don't currently have the luxury of being truly moral beings (just as there are extreme circumstances in which we wouldn't have the luxury of avoiding the murder of humans, as hard as it is to imagine), and it's something that we should only consider once conditions change and it becomes more realistic" argument than the "it isn't immoral or wrong at all and nobody should feel bad about it or think that it's unfortunate" argument. Personally, I don't see how the latter can be reasonably argued.
Last edited: