Taxidermy

Do you guys think it's alright or is it horrible?

Personally, I dislike it. Sure, it gives a 'use' to the animal once it's dead but how would you like it if your body was stuffed and put on display once you died?

Discuss.

 

Why would I care? I'd be dead.

 

I (generally) dislike the idea of it, but I don't think it should be banned. I mean, the animal is dead, so it's not like any harm really comes from it. Furthermore, in places such as museums, taxidermied animals can serve educational purposes.

 

You are comparing the thoughts of a squirrel or a deer to the thoughts and feelings of a human being.

 

It's an interesting form of art. It's better than a lot of things animals go through.

No reason for it to be banned.

 

As long as you're not killing the animal just so you can stuff it, there is no problem with it.

 

Alright.

So, you want to ban something because it offends you? We should not go down this road.

If an animal is already dead, (surely) the more use we can get out of it, the better. You might see it as offensive, but others might see it as a beautiful thing. The animal can make people happy even after it's gone, rather than being worm food.

So long as the animal is not killed for the purpose of furniture or decoration, I have little to no problem with it. That caveat is key though.

That is an entirely valid comparison.

I don't 'get' why most people think humans are special. You're an animal. We are all cousins of squirrels and deer. Literally extended family. They have brains that do almost the exact same things that ours do. The our major difference being intelligence, though that would still depend on the animal.

 

The whole, "people aren't comparable to animals," argument is usually just an appeal to emotion. It feels 'insulting' to people to be compared to other animals, so they agree.

However, pertaining to this conversation, the argument has some validity because another factor is that the human species is our own. Because of this, it's natural to value ourselves as more important than other animals, no?

Hypothetically, if we were talking about an alien race that was taxidermying all animals on earth, then sure, there wouldn't be any difference on their part in them taxidermying us or any other animal. However, if we were to take another intelligent and social animal, such as dolphins, and we were to say that dolphins were capable of taxidermying animals, it would be stranger to see them taxidermy each other than to see them taxidermy other animals. Even though it should be realized that humans are animals, it's natural to value the feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc. of your own species over that of others.

 

By that logic, all species are "special", because their own species is their own. Or at least, 'special' to them (which makes the word redundant of its meaning). Plus, it would be natural to value their own species as more important than other species, right?

For what it's worth, I agree that we tend to value our own species over others. (Whether this is a good thing or not, is another thing entirely.) Honestly, I would just see this as a bias bred into us through Evolution. If we don't prioritise our own species over others, we become detrimental to the group and decrease the group's chances of survival. etc etc.

So long as we're already dead, sure.

Worth noting that, 'Natural =/= valid or justified'. It just means, understandable.

 

It's fine.
Personally I don't like having taxidermy in my house. But some people find a beauty in it, and they can have it if they want it. No reason it should be banned, and no reason people should get all fired up over this topic.

 

Correction. It wouldn't make the word 'redundant', just... slightly confused? I'm not sure I have a word for it.

Much like 'Alien' and 'Foreigner', they're applicable to everyone. We're all aliens to extra-terrestrials. We're all foreigners to people from other countries.

So, we're all 'special' to our own species. Including other animals to their own. Though I do still think humans are special, just not necessarily in *this* way.

 

Something being natural does make it justified in a way though. I'd definitely agree that it does not make it morally, logically, or ethically justified, but it does make it justified in a way. For lack of a better term, perhaps you could say 'biologically justified.'

For an example, let's take eating meat. Naturally, humans are omnivores; we've evolved in a way that we can eat both meat and plants. You can definitely consider eating meat to be logically, morally, and/or ethically unjustifiable, but because our species is naturally an omnivore, we're still 'biologically justified' to eat meat.

Yeah, I understand what you mean. I would definitely agree that "slightly confused" is more fitting than "redundant."

 

By that metric, men raping women is justified. Or fights easily breaking out into violence is justified. If we lived together, I would get to be a dictator of the house due to a self-proclaimed "Alpha Male" status, and I would be justified.

Almost everything has a biological component to it bred into us through Evolution. This is why I said "Understandable, but not justified".

It is understandable that a lot of men cannot control their anger, and resort to their primal instincts when confronted with a threat. It's understandable that some people flee from threats leaving loved ones behind. It's understandable, through Evolution. But not justified. Which is exactly why we have the 'Appeal to Nature' logical fallacy to explain the above.

[Via yourlogicalfallacyis.com]

Appeal to Nature
​

You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal.
​

Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.


Example: The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of 'artificial' medicines such as antibiotics.

I think you're unintentionally bait 'n' switching past and present. We are biologically justified to eat meat because 'that's the way our bodies work now'. If they were awful at processing meat, and much better at processing veg? (i.e. Meat made you sick) Then you wouldn't be using this example. We eat meat because our bodies are able to process them well "in the now". Not because we have done, evolutionary speaking.

 

As I said, something being natural doesn't make it logically, morally, or ethically justified; something being natural just makes it 'biologically justified.' I would by no means say that something being 'biologically justified' makes it okay, or justified in a way that actually matters (logically, morally, ethically), so I pretty much meant 'biologically justified' in the same way that you meant "understandable." So, overall, we're pretty much on the same page here, yeah?

We can both agree that there are definitely many things that are arguably natural that are definitely not good or justifiable in a logical, moral, or ethical way.

Of course I wouldn't be using the example if our bodies were incapable of processing meat, but the fact is that they are capable of it. And, our debate is based "in the now," so it's only reasonable to talk about how we currently are (capable of eating and processing meat), no?

 

But almost everything we do has biological/evolutionary justification. It's almost a 'nothing statement'.



Here's a link to a playlist by Gad Saad, an Evolutionary Behavioural Scientist. It's a great playlist, worth a listen if you're interested in human psychology.

Again though, I have to press you on this one. If this thread was about a group of men mercilessly raping a group of women, would you come into it and say the same? In a tentative defense of the rapists? If I was condemning their actions, would I ever see you in this thread saying, "Well, you guys should remember that it *is* natural to rape.". While true, what would be the point in saying that?

What would citing our biological history add to the conversation? How does that move to dialogue towards finding answers? Whether something is morally justified has no bearing on whether it's natural or not. You've already admitted that. So... I genuinely want to know, why are you saying it?

That's my exact point. You're bringing up this 'biologically justified' and "it's natural to feel this way" to excuse beliefs, to a degree. When this is not the case.

You used the example of 'eating meat'. Explaining how our bodies have been fit to process it in the past, and in the now. Combined, you're arguing that this is justification to eat meat in the present. I'm saying... forget the 'then'. What matters IS 'the now'. And that is the only thing that matters. Because if it was unhealthy to eat meat in the now, you'd never be appealing to 'biologically justified'. You'd never argue that we should eat meat now, because we used to be good at eating meat.

 

Well, yes, pretty much.

Of course I would never defend rapists, but I'm not defending us valuing our own species above others either. All I'm saying is that it's 'biologically justified,' but as I've said, that counts for nothing because, as you've pointed out, there are many horrible things (such as rape) that are arguably 'biologically justified' as well.

The only reason that I brought this whole 'biologically justified' point up was because you said that something being natural doesn't justify it, and I was saying that even though I agree that it doesn't morally, logically, or ethically justify it, it does make it 'biologically justified.'

Not at all.

I'm simply saying that we are 'biologically justified' to eat meat, but again, as we've discussed, 'biological justification' doesn't mean that something is morally, logically, or ethically justified.

If anything, I might say that eating meat is not morally justified.

Yes, if we were unable to eat meat, I definitely wouldn't argue that we're 'biologically justified' to do so.

 

I don't really know what else to say then. We've come to an agreement that it's 'biologically justified' to value our own species (something that we already believed in the first place), but it doesn't move the conversation forward much.

Hell, I'm not even sure it has much to do with the debate in question. Apart from a... slight disconnect with our species over others. Therefore... we should be more aware of our own biases towards this subject? So, it should cause us to look into subjects that involve other species and not ours... more closely?

I dunno. I'm a little confused to be honest. Not sure where to go from here?

 

It's not any worse than chopping up said animal and ingesting in.

 

True, but we've conquered and moved past some confusion and sorted some stuff out, which is progress, since we are now on the same page.

I think that's reasonable.

We're at an agreement that humans have a natural bias to favor other humans over other animals, so this is something that we should be aware of and take into account when debating something involving both humans and other animals, right?

Perhaps, yes.

Well, we've settled the whole 'biological justification' thing and we agree that while we are 'biologically justified' to value other humans over other animals, 'biological justification' holds no accountability for morally justifying something or making it okay.

So, I will offer you a new question: Are we morally justified to value other humans over other animals?

Hypothetically, if we were in a dire situation where there was a human and another animal (Let's say chimpanzee, since they're the closest to humans) who were both about to be killed, and we could save one, but not the other, would it be immoral to save the chimpanzee? Would we be morally obligated to save our fellow human?

As we've discussed, the fact that it's "natural" to value other humans definitely doesn't make it morally justifiable, but is there something else that does? Would it be moral to let the human die and save the chimpanzee?

 

It depends on the human, but without rare exceptions, it would be less moral to save the chimpanzee.

I don't know by what metric one would be measuring 'worth' or 'value', in which a chimpanzee would come out "on top" over another human being.

What can a chimpanzee offer society, compared to a human? It won't pay taxes and it won't work. It is arguably a net drain on the planet.

Are the levels of happiness and bliss that a chimp can experience, near that of a human?

Is a chimpanzee going to come anywhere close to increasing the well-being of it's friends and family, to the levels that a human would?

For me, it doesn't it come close. You should save the human every time. And heck, I'm a vegetarian animal-lover.