Why aren't all carnivorous animals cannibals?

Not a fly

Humans are not carnivores, so they do not need animal tissue to survive and therefore usually kill unnecessarily. However, we have agreed to view unjustified (because unnecessary) violence as morally reprehensible, but we cannot simply throw this principle overboard when it comes to our pleasure or our profit.

The starting sentence is clearly in line with the facts. However, if we refer to our human behavior and try to justify the murder of other animals for food production, several objections can be raised against using the behavior of a relatively small part of the animal species known to us as a moral guide for our own type of diet.

First of all, it should be noted that the members of some species, so-called carnivores (or carnivores), are dependent on the death of other animals because they cannot survive without meat as food. In the wild they thus fulfill an important regulatory function that maintains the ecological balance. Predators have no choice in terms of their food, not least for physiological reasons, but humans can easily eat healthy without substances from or from other animals, as countless vegan women, men and children around the world prove.

Second, there is the fallacy that anything "natural" is inevitably morally good. Because in fact dogs and cats are also victims of predators, and in order to remain consistent, we would not only have to let a human being who tears the dog next door into pieces in order to subsequently eat it, but even describe it as "completely natural" .

Third, it must be clarified why other typical behaviors of "wild" animals should in turn not have a moral role model for human activity: In discussions about possible justifications for manslaughter, cannibalism or forced sexual acts, non-human animals do not appear as references. Forcibly enforced territorial claims, robbery and even murder of one's own children can also be observed in non-human animals, but the attempt to enforce these observations as justification will fail on all levels if such an act was committed by a sane, adult human.

As on countless other occasions, another double standard becomes visible in the treatment of this question, which we apply when we justify our use of non-human animals: We humans are also "only animals" and "subordinate to nature" if our meat consumption is legitimized should, but at the same time we are above all other animals and are superior to nature, for example when it comes to the use of non-human animals for work, entertainment or research purposes, to drinking their milk, to wearing their skin and hair or to the Extermination of those among them whom we have categorized as "pests".

We like to assert that we stand out from the rest of the animals in a moral way because we don't do our business in the neighbors' front yard, we don't rub the legs of strange women with our groins or simply bite our rivals in the ear. Why then do we allow this one exception and seemingly arbitrarily declare that killing and eating other animals by humans is acceptable because cats, for example, do the same?
We cannot hide our moral superiority over other species where our pleasure or profit is at stake.

Adults can choose whether to use violence against innocents for their enjoyment at the table. A few animals have no choice but to eat other animals, but whoever of us stands in a slaughterhouse knowing that a vegan lifestyle is possible, if not healthier, will hardly find what happens inside these walls to be morally justifiable can denote.