Comment on Hungry
mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks agoBro but its crazy to just pick the animal you specifically have a connection to. What if I had grown up watching that heron? What if I have twice as many kids as you and they all love the heron? Does that tip the scale so that now we should be angry at the fish for trying to kill my heron by starvation? Little fish bastards, why can’t they just my heron be?
Of course the real truth is that nature is at odds with itself and there’s no way around that. If you can say “yeah I just like the fish cos that’s what I like, I don’t care that it doesn’t make sense”, then that’s respectable enough. You’re just out for your own well-being, just like the fish and the heron both. But getting so heated at the heron for trying to be alive, which is also what your fish try to do, and then extending your hatred to all heronkind is just hilarious
mavu@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
And people say studying philosophy is irrelevant for every day life.
here we were just laughing about a bird / venting about a predatory species, and suddenly we are talking ethics and the question if moral(?) applies to animals when discussed by humans.
You are obviously right, in that i place my “pets” over a random predator. but then again, is the comparison truely equal if the heron is your “pet”? the fish seem to me pretty passive in all this, except in their inability to not attract things that want to eat them.
Is good and bad or right and wrong even applicable to animals in nature? and does a fish in a domesticated pond even fall under “living in nature”? would that even make a difference?
Or is the fault my own for not making sure the fish are protected?
Getting back to the beginning, do i have an obligation to moderate my language in any way?
Is it mean to wish for the heron to starve?
Could maybe a case be made that it is a request for poetic justice that one heron lives and a fish dies, and another one starves and a fish lives.
Philosophy is the shit.