this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
359 points (85.0% liked)
Perry Bible Fellowship
645 readers
59 users here now
This is a community dedicated to the webcomic known as the Perry Bible Fellowship, created by Nicholas Gurewitch.
https://www.patreon.com/perryfellow
New comics posted whenever they're posted to the site (rarer nowadays but still ongoing). Old comics posted every day until we're caught up
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No it is not an appeal to nature, it might seem that way but it isn’t. I do not believe “it is natural, therefore it is right”. The main adaptations of humans are language and opposable thumbs, ergo tool making and use. We are able to improve on nature (and by virtue of this being a natural adaptation, it is also to be considered imo a natural process). The only claim I make is that we have no proof that animals lack rationality, only that they seem irrational to us due to different adaptations. Evidence points that they are rational. Therefore humans are not different than animals in any way, so if animals in their right to live have a right to kill in order to live, then humans also share in that right. I have agreed many times that in the context of industrial meat production the ethical choice is not to eat meat. But that is not the same as saying that killing animals is immoral, the immoral thing is torturing animals.
I think this illustrates my point:
A lot of people might see a cat playing with a mouse before killing it and they think that the cat does it because it doesn’t know better, but I consider the question, what if the cat is simply cruel? We cannot know. In the same way, why do some humans do cruel things with no apparent reason? Is it because they are not rational?
That doesn't follow at all.
Rationality isn't a binary, so animals being rational could still mean humans are different simply by order of magnitude.
Humans are different from other animals in the same way animals are vastly different to each other. Obviously we are animals, but comparing our morality to other animals makes as much sense as comparing our science to theirs. Is science not valid and worthwhile because other animals build no universities of their own?
You are willfully ignoring the mental capacity that gives us the ability to critically think about morality and implications in the first place. As long as you can think about the necessity to kill, other people can and will judge you for the decision to do so. We don't judge tigers morally for eating their young, we very much would do so for a fellow human though. There's a clear difference in expectations here.
What does that have to do with anything? You are not a cat. I expect roughly the same mental capacity from you than from myself. I know that I'm capable of critical thought, so I will assume the same about you. I can consider ethical considerations, so you can probably, too. And if you are able and can consider those I can judge your decision making accordingly. Causing avoidable harm is unethical, so eating meat for someone who could stay healthy with a vegan diet is unethical.
But yeah I guess you have a point in the sense that I don't actually know if youre really able to think about those things. Someone with a very severe mental disability might lack the cognitive capacity to think about those things and couldn't be judged for their behaviour. Although I must say if that's you I'm impressed by your ability to hold a coherent conversation on a complicated electronic device.
It must be hard to live in a moden society if you can't hold yourself to a higher standard than a tiger.