• samus12345@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Putting aside the “why the hell would you want to do that?” aspect, let’s assume that you’re the guy in the picture and you do. It would be morally wrong even if the deer were alive because a non-human animal cannot give consent. It’s wrong after it’s dead because it’s disrespectful to the deer, which was once a living being. Don’t need religion to understand that.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s wrong after it’s dead because it’s disrespectful to the deer, which was once a living being.

      But people eat the deer with zero moral qualms. Are you really going to tell me that yanking something’s skin off, cracking its bones, gouging out its internal organs, and processing its meat into sausages for roasting is a sign of respect?

      • blargh513@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        If the animal represents your only available food source, consuming it is required to continue living.

        You aren’t going to die if you fail to rape a dead animal, but you might if you fail to eat one.

        • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          is it true that anyone rich enough to eat deer meat need it, or any kind of meat at that, to survive?

        • r1veRRR@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          For how many people do you think animals are the only viable food source? How many in this thread? Like 10%? Sure hope anyone with options therefore doesn’t…

    • __hetz@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      I don’t think you’ll get consensus on the “it’s disrespectful” reasoning. It might not be inherently religious (although most religions I’m aware of expand upon it to specific procedures or prohibitions) but “respecting” the vessel which once contained a life seems very much tied up in sentimentality and woowoo more than sound reasoning or pragmatism. It’s just engrained into social norms at this point but, purely speculation, burial and burning were probably done for the same reasons other animals do it - you don’t attract other predators or suffer the scent of death inviting maggots, flies and other vectors for disease. It probably became more ritualistic and religious over time. If I’m dead someone can dangle my lads from their rearview like a pair of fuzzy dice for all I care - which will be not at all because I’m dead.

    • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      well, why is it we should disrespect? don’t give me wrong, i agree hat we should respect, but many customs of respect like this one seem to have origins nearly as arbitrary as faith

    • starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      I mean there are evolutionary reasons most humans feel disgust towards things, in this case mainly the spread of disease. If none of these were problems, there isn’t really a good moral case to be made against it unless you believe in some sort of afterlife.