T0rturing invasive species ETHICAL

@invasiv_foods

37.6K followers · usually 17.2K views a post

Views

148.8K

Likes

10.2K

Comments

222

Shares

216

SoundTikTok sound · original sound - musicdud.e

Why it worked

The video likely performed well due to its provocative premise and the creator's engaging delivery. By framing a controversial topic with strong visuals and a clear, albeit debatable, argument, it encourages viewer engagement and discussion in the comments.

Summary

The video questions the morality of torturing invasive species, arguing that by utilitarian standards, it could be justified to prevent mass extinction. It uses examples like invasive fish, orange trees in Florida, and screw worms to illustrate the potential consequences of inaction, ultimately asking if mass extinction is a valid argument for justifying torture.

Structure

1Introduction: Torturing invasive species is ethical?
2Counter-argument: It's animal abuse.
3Philosophical framing: Utilitarianism and the greater good.
4Examples of societal infrastructure built on utilitarian principles.
5Application to invasive species: Unaliving them is morally correct.
6The threat of mass extinction and its potential inclusion of humans.
7Examples of ecological threats (orange trees, screw worms).
8

Original caption

Removing invasiv species by any means necessary, could be morally justifiable? Especially if that means stopping the sixth extinction. But what do you think? ##philosophical##invasivespecies##pleco##animalrights##morals

More from @invasiv_foods

On-screen text

T0rturing invasive species ETHICAL CANCELLED BECAUSE IT'S ANIMAL ABUSE. AND I ALSO GIVE THAT RESPONSE AS WELL. BUT IS THAT TRULY THE MOST MORAL ANSWER ESPECIALLY WITH THE CANCELLATION OF GERM LAB, A HUGE ISSUE. IT. HI, JONES, YOUR FAVOURITE INVASIVE SPECIES HUNTER. AND MANY PEOPLE FORGET WE LIVE IN A UTILITARIAN SOCIETY. UTILITARIANISM WHICH MEANS YOU TO VALUE THE GOOD AND BENEFIT OF THE MANY INSTEAD OF THE ONE. IN MOST CASES. WHY WE HAVE ROADS AND BRIDGES AND HOSPITALS, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NEVER USE THEM. BY THAT SAME STANDARD, UNALIVING INVASIVE SPECIES IS MORALLY CORRECT NO MATTER HOW IT HAPPENS. EXTINCTION OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET MIGHT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN. AND THIS TIME IT WILL INCLUDE YOU AND EVERYONE YOU LOVE. FOR CONTEXT, THESE AREN'T GRAVES, BUT YOUR ORANGE TREES IN FLORIDA. NEW AND A FLESH SCREW WORM HAS BEEN DETECTED IN TEXAS. NEATING SOUTH AMERICAN SCREW WORM HAS BEEN DETECTED IN TEXAS. BUT WHAT DO IS MASS EXTINCTION A GOOD ENOUGH ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY TORTURE? I DON'T THINK SO, BECAUSE STRESS TASTE BAD. BUT WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE?

Transcript

torturing invasive species is effective. No, it's not because it's animal abuse. And I also give that response as well. But, is that truly the most moral answer? Especially with the cancellation of germ lab? This has become a huge issue. Let's talk about it. My name is Jones, your favorite base of species hunter and many people forget we live in a utilitarian society, which means you're brought up to value the good and benefit of the many instead of the one in most cases. It's the reason we have roads and bridges in hospitals even though you may never use them. By that same standard, unalive invasive species is morally correct, no matter how it happens. Because the sixth extinction of life on this planet might have already begun. And this time it will include you and everyone you love. For context, these aren't graves, but your orange trees in Florida. And a flesh-eating South American worm was just detected in Texas. But what do you think? Is mass extinction a good enough argument to justify torture? I don't think so because stress makes my food taste bad. But what's your excuse?

@andrew.barela0 thanks again for the swan. Here’s how I cooked it — would you tr

14.3

241.3K19.2K289

Mute Swan

241.3Kviews@invasiv_foods

If your backyard smell smells like a bakery, you have an incoming investigation