There are some categories of animals that we pretty much have to treat like shit in order to maintain anything resembling our lifestyles. Insects, for example.
Tell you what - if it can smile, let's agree to not kill it. If the creature can't smile, eat it. Yes, I am seriously floating the idea that mirroring human emotions is a good metric for figuring out what we should do with animals.
Dog can smile = keep alive
Octopus can't smile = eat
We should probably treat all animals with a certain amount of respect (i.e. more than we do) instead of categorizing them by intelligence.
I don't know. I want to be able to guiltlessly swat flies, while still feeling bad for mistreating dolphins.
Or, hell, eat meat.
Unless we're going to cease all carnivorous activities as a species, we're going to need some way to draw a line on which animals get respect and which are fair game for cold cuts. Intelligence seems like a completely reasonable means of drawing that line.
There's a middleground, you know - an animal can be treated well and still end up on somebody's plate. What we do now is inexcusable.
But while that is a horrible thing for those chicks to go through, only a tiny fraction of them would even be alive if they weren't being farmed.
It seems like you're saying that something's counterfactual nonexistence is somehow worse than something's tortured existence.
I don't think this is what you want to say, but I don't see how else to read that. I don't have children, but if I had one and kept it in captivity and eventually murdered it, that does not strike me as a more moral alternative to not having children. You seem to be implying that the birds' very existence (as opposed to their nonexistence) mitigates whatever suffering they endure. Is that correct? If not, what are you talking about?
I'm thinking of it more in terms of the species as a whole rather than individual members of that species.
In terms of raw population, chickens have never been stronger as a species. The reality of life for a lot of those individual chickens is absolute shit, but in terms of the success of chickenhood, a strong argument could be made for their recent ascension to ranks unimagined by ancient chickens.
I think my over all point is that a) that has to count for something and b) how much should probably be inversely proportional to the sapience level of the creature involved and thereby its capacity for suffering.
Hence my statement that if pigs were smart enough to understand that being farmed for food sucks, we should reconsider doing it.
But while that is a horrible thing for those chicks to go through, only a tiny fraction of them would even be alive if they weren't being farmed.
It seems like you're saying that something's counterfactual nonexistence is somehow worse than something's tortured existence.
I don't think this is what you want to say, but I don't see how else to read that. I don't have children, but if I had one and kept it in captivity and eventually murdered it, that does not strike me as a more moral alternative to not having children. You seem to be implying that the birds' very existence (as opposed to their nonexistence) mitigates whatever suffering they endure. Is that correct? If not, what are you talking about?
I'm thinking of it more in terms of the species as a whole rather than individual members of that species.
In terms of raw population, chickens have never been stronger as a species. The reality of life for a lot of those individual chickens is absolute shit, but in terms of the success of chickenhood, a strong argument could be made for their recent ascension to ranks unimagined by ancient chickens.
I think my over all point is that a) that has to count for something and b) how much should probably be inversely proportional to the sapience level of the creature involved and thereby its capacity for suffering.
Hence my statement that if pigs were smart enough to understand that being farmed for food sucks, we should reconsider doing it.
Do you think it would be better to have the hypothetical last few members of a species be dead, or be alive and suffering greatly?
Do you think it would be better to have the hypothetical last few members of a species be dead, or be alive and suffering greatly?
I think that probably depends on whether or not that species was going to be able to sustain itself, or be sustained in that state.
Would humans fight to survive in horrible conditions, or would we just give up once they got bad enough? I think that given the choice between a shitty life and the end of our species, I'd probably choose the shitty life.
How about we focus on treating human beings like actual human beings before we get all caught up in expanding our definition of sentient life.
The "one problem at a time" mentality is pretty much useless a lot of the time, particularly when the problem "to be dealt with first" is so intractable.
As it is, in much of the world actively fucking your neighbor over is the exception to the norm. I don't see why we can't make abuse of dolphins also be an exception to a norm, even as we accept that there will essentially always be tragic exceptions and exceptional cases.
You're letting the perfect get in the way of the good. It's kind of counterproductive.
I'm thinking of it more in terms of the species as a whole rather than individual members of that species.
In terms of raw population, chickens have never been stronger as a species. The reality of life for a lot of those individual chickens is absolute shit, but in terms of the success of chickenhood, a strong argument could be made for their recent ascension to ranks unimagined by ancient chickens.
Evolution really doesn't give a shit about the individual or happiness. Happiness and pleasure is just a mechanism to make sure an animal survives and reproduces.
I'd be surprised if chickens didn't start showing love for conveyor belts and lazer-beak-scalding in a few generations, if they haven't already. Unless of course, unhappy chickens are more profitable or make tastier eggs. You can get pretty dramatic changes in only a handful of decades if you select hard enough.
As it is, in much of the world actively fucking your neighbor over is the exception to the norm. I don't see why we can't make abuse of dolphins also be an exception to a norm, even as we accept that there will essentially always be tragic exceptions and exceptional cases.
You're letting the perfect get in the way of the good. It's kind of counterproductive.
Fucking your direct neighbor over is rare. Dumping sewage into that river because fuck those guys downstream they won last year's curling tourney and by god we're going to show them what's what is depressingly common.
I'm reminded of that animal that was brought to the table in Restaurant at the End of the Universe that is introduced, names several of its tastiest cuts and then is happily slaughtered in the kitchen.
As much as I'd love to take extraordinary measures to make sure no dolphin ever comes to harm, I have to wonder what the ecological side effects would be. Not knowing anything about current rates, it just seems to me that, on the surface of it, ensuring that one predator gains special treatment would throw things out of whack.
Edit: Or, well, more out of whack than it already is.
As much as I'd love to take extraordinary measures to make sure no dolphin ever comes to harm, I have to wonder what the ecological side effects would be. Not knowing anything about current rates, it just seems to me that, on the surface of it, ensuring that one predator gains special treatment would throw things out of whack.
Edit: Or, well, more out of whack than it already is.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we follow dolphins around with a harpoon gun and shoot any shark that looks at them funny. The idea is just that we ensure our treatment of them is as humane as possible.
Dolphins are at the top of their food chain in almost every location anyway (and it might actually be every location). I don't know of anything that preys on adults.
As much as I'd love to take extraordinary measures to make sure no dolphin ever comes to harm, I have to wonder what the ecological side effects would be. Not knowing anything about current rates, it just seems to me that, on the surface of it, ensuring that one predator gains special treatment would throw things out of whack.
Edit: Or, well, more out of whack than it already is.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we follow dolphins around with a harpoon gun and shoot any shark that looks at them funny. The idea is just that we ensure our treatment of them is as humane as possible.
Just like every other fish we catch!
There's a brutal video out there by PETA (iirc), one of their finest pieces actually. It has some lingerie model doing a striptease, when a fisherman walks on stage, clubs her and guts her (still alive). It's reminding fishermen to actually ensure the fish are dead before gutting them.
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited January 2010
As far as eating critters goes, I think there are two possibilities:
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Humans are a special case, and not Just Another Animal. If humans are a special case, and are expected to have greater moral responsibilities than any other animal, then that sort of places them on another level. We cease to be the equal of other animals and start to be their objective superiors. And if we're their objective superiors, then there's a strong argument that what to do with them is pretty much up to us, up to and including harvesting them for food. Though this still doesn't preclude the notion that we should refrain from abject abuse.
So either way, I don't think it's hard to argue that eating animals is just hunky-dory. Honestly, if you want to argue against consumption of animals you're better of going the "environmentally unsustainable" route than the immorality route.
And yes, I'd say that an argument can be made that eating dolphins is perfectly moral. I'm not a fan of it, but I'm hard pressed to come up with a strong argument against it other than "it's icky".
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As far as eating critters goes, I think there are two possibilities:
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Humans are a special case, and not Just Another Animal. If humans are a special case, and are expected to have greater moral responsibilities than any other animal, then that sort of places them on another level. We cease to be the equal of other animals and start to be their objective superiors. And if we're their objective superiors, then there's a strong argument that what to do with them is pretty much up to us, up to and including harvesting them for food. Though this still doesn't preclude the notion that we should refrain from abject abuse.
So either way, I don't think it's hard to argue that eating animals is just hunky-dory. Honestly, if you want to argue against consumption of animals you're better of going the "environmentally unsustainable" route than the immorality route.
And yes, I'd say that an argument can be made that eating dolphins is perfectly moral. I'm not a fan of it, but I'm hard pressed to come up with a strong argument against it other than "it's icky".
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
The problem with any sort of test for sentience or self-awareness or whatever it is we're saying makes an animal a 'non-human person' vs. an animal is: what about humans who fail? There are humans with cognitive disorders who don't pass the mirror test. Human infants will fail damn near every test for cognition that you would apply to an animal. Are babies not persons? Are mentally handicapped people not persons? Do we need to treat dolphins better than kids with Down's?
i still don't understand why intelligence = greater moral value
that seems like a really bogus and biased means of establishing an ethical system
It really does sound nicer to say "they can't experience suffering" than "fuck 'em, they aren't human" but the fact is that reality is more in line with the latter than the former. Pretty much any critter with the rudiments of a nervous system and hazards in its environment probably has some sense of suffering, as it's generally an evolutionary advantage. Whether that suffering is analogous to our suffering, or how analogous it is, might conceivably be predicted by some measure of intelligence but really we're stretching things out pretty far with that.
I, for one, am perfectly comfortable stating that I'm a human, and I care about other humans, and I care about non-humans, but I will always be fairly strongly biased in favor of humans. I'd even extend this to hyper-advanced aliens or whatever, because I suspect that the reality of such things would be pretty far from "blue people with funny foreheads."
Empathy is the root of properly functioning social interaction, and understanding is a critical part of empathy. I don't see myself ever being able to empathize with another species as well as I do with my fellow humans.
We should probably treat all animals with a certain amount of respect (i.e. more than we do) instead of categorizing them by intelligence.
I don't know. I want to be able to guiltlessly swat flies, while still feeling bad for mistreating dolphins.
Or, hell, eat meat.
Unless we're going to cease all carnivorous activities as a species, we're going to need some way to draw a line on which animals get respect and which are fair game for cold cuts. Intelligence seems like a completely reasonable means of drawing that line.
Do you think we should stop eating pork/ham/bacon? Pigs are pretty smart.
I think that if a solid case could be made that the quality of life of the average pig has gone down since they became a farmed food source, enough so that the pigs would have noticed, we should probably consider it.
I'm not really sure what the parameters for such a determination would be, though.
It's thoughts like these (the entire quote tree) that make me seriously consider going totally vegan. I know I wouldn't want to be eaten, or born on a farm and thrown in a meat grinder as soon as I was fat enough, or hunted down by a vast, powerful, almost omnipotent superintelligent life form. Why is it okay for me to eat animals who went through that?
I mean, I'm a pretty big proponent of the law of reciprocity (a.k.a., The Golden Rule). I do my best to not lie, or steal, or cheat, or hurt people - I wouldn't want to be treated that way. I also don't want to be killed and eaten and treated in a way that causes me suffering - so why do I continue to eat meat?
why draw the line at animals? Plants are living things too.
Life feeds off of life. That's how the system works. If you don't want to consume other lives, then your only choice is to remove yourself from the cycle.
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
Snarling, inappropriate invective spoilered for unnecessary. But I'm leaving it in the post, because it's the first thing I typed and I still believe it.
Yes, but that would be stupid. They're fucking lions, you idiot.
The consequences of judging predators "immoral" are far-reaching and potentially devastating to our ecology if acted upon. You might want to rethink this.
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
When you define 'immoral' as 'the way that every living thing acts' it ceases to have any meaning.
Actually, I believe the word you are looking for is amorally. There's a bit of a difference. Immoral implies that they are acting against their moral code. I would argue that none of your examples have a moral code.
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
When you define 'immoral' as 'the way that every living thing acts' it ceases to have any meaning.
Actually, I believe the word you are looking for is amorally. There's a bit of a difference. Immoral implies that they are acting against their moral code. I would argue that none of your examples have a moral code.
My interpretation was that he was applying some sort of universal moral code to lions, without regard to their opinions in the matter.
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
When you define 'immoral' as 'the way that every living thing acts' it ceases to have any meaning.
Actually, I believe the word you are looking for is amorally. There's a bit of a difference. Immoral implies that they are acting against their moral code. I would argue that none of your examples have a moral code.
I think you missed the quotes there. Here's a recap. Jeffe said humans eating animals is no more immoral than animals eating animals, being that humans are animals. Starcross countered that therefore animals eating animals is immoral, and by extension humans eating animals is immoral as well. I replied sarcastically that this definition of immorality would qualify nearly every species on earth as immoral; therefore, this definition must not be correct. Do our perspective on things match so far?
I'm confused if your statement is contradicting me, or agreeing with me and in reference to the prior poster.
We should probably treat all animals with a certain amount of respect (i.e. more than we do) instead of categorizing them by intelligence.
I don't know. I want to be able to guiltlessly swat flies, while still feeling bad for mistreating dolphins.
Or, hell, eat meat.
Unless we're going to cease all carnivorous activities as a species, we're going to need some way to draw a line on which animals get respect and which are fair game for cold cuts. Intelligence seems like a completely reasonable means of drawing that line.
Do you think we should stop eating pork/ham/bacon? Pigs are pretty smart.
I think that if a solid case could be made that the quality of life of the average pig has gone down since they became a farmed food source, enough so that the pigs would have noticed, we should probably consider it.
I'm not really sure what the parameters for such a determination would be, though.
It's thoughts like these (the entire quote tree) that make me seriously consider going totally vegan. I know I wouldn't want to be eaten, or born on a farm and thrown in a meat grinder as soon as I was fat enough, or hunted down by a vast, powerful, almost omnipotent superintelligent life form. Why is it okay for me to eat animals who went through that?
I mean, I'm a pretty big proponent of the law of reciprocity (a.k.a., The Golden Rule). I do my best to not lie, or steal, or cheat, or hurt people - I wouldn't want to be treated that way. I also don't want to be killed and eaten and treated in a way that causes me suffering - so why do I continue to eat meat?
why draw the line at animals? Plants are living things too.
Life feeds off of life. That's how the system works. If you don't want to consume other lives, then your only choice is to remove yourself from the cycle.
That's a good point. But there's a difference between a plant and an animal. A obviously rather huge one.
I wish we had evolved to just soak up energy from the sun. That would make my omnivore's dilemma much easier.
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
When you define 'immoral' as 'the way that every living thing acts' it ceases to have any meaning.
Actually, I believe the word you are looking for is amorally. There's a bit of a difference. Immoral implies that they are acting against their moral code. I would argue that none of your examples have a moral code.
I think you missed the quotes there. Here's a recap. Jeffe said humans eating animals is no more immoral than animals eating animals, being that humans are animals. Starcross countered that therefore animals eating animals is immoral, and by extension humans eating animals is immoral as well. I replied sarcastically that this definition of immorality would qualify nearly every species on earth as immoral; therefore, this definition must not be correct. Do our perspective on things match so far?
I'm confused if your statement is contradicting me, or agreeing with me and in reference to the prior poster.
Why is eating other human beings immoral?
(The taboo against hunting and eating other human beings is evolutionary. We developed it because if we didn't, we'd probably have wiped eachother out, or there would be much less of us. Maybe Homo erectus didn't develop that aversion, and maybe that's why Homo sapien rose to power instead.)
But an explanation for why we feel that something is bad is different from the philosophical reason why we shouldn't do something.
My ever-growing opinion is that even though we evolved to eat other animals in a massive food chain - we've gone far away from those wild roots in recent years. There's a difference between a wolf hunting a rabbit and humans manufacturing chickens. Maybe it's not practical to change now, but I'd rather live in a world where we live more in harmony with the planet as a whole, and that would include getting by without slaughtering hundreds of billions of living, intelligent animals for own our sustenance.
(The taboo against hunting and eating other human beings is evolutionary. We developed it because if we didn't, we'd probably have wiped eachother out, or there would be much less of us. Maybe Homo erectus didn't develop that aversion, and maybe that's why Homo sapien rose to power instead.)
But an explanation for why we feel that something is bad is different from the philosophical reason why we shouldn't do something.
If humans had evolved a defense against prions, we'd probably be all talking about how not practicing cannibalism is morally wrong, because it is indulging in waste and not satisfactorily disposing of a corpse.
I would argue that the philosophical reason is irrelevant. Philosophy doesn't give truths. It gives rationalizations for what you already believe. Although I'm getting dangerously close to being off topic or summoning Podly here.
(The taboo against hunting and eating other human beings is evolutionary. We developed it because if we didn't, we'd probably have wiped eachother out, or there would be much less of us. Maybe Homo erectus didn't develop that aversion, and maybe that's why Homo sapien rose to power instead.)
But an explanation for why we feel that something is bad is different from the philosophical reason why we shouldn't do something.
If humans had evolved a defense against prions, we'd probably be all talking about how not practicing cannibalism is morally wrong, because it is indulging in waste and not satisfactorily disposing of a corpse.
I would argue that the philosophical reason is irrelevant. Philosophy doesn't give truths. It gives rationalizations for what you already believe. Although I'm getting dangerously close to being off topic or summoning Podly here.
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
When you define 'immoral' as 'the way that every living thing acts' it ceases to have any meaning.
no, it means we can eat every living thing
Except phytoplankton. They are without sin.
How are phytoplankton more pure of soul than, say, grass?
And I'm assuming you included hummingbirds because they take plant's nectar, but the whole reason nectar exists is the plant wants it eaten, so hummingbirds are more like saints.
Posts
Insects aren't animals! :P
I realize it's not so cut and dried.
Tell you what - if it can smile, let's agree to not kill it. If the creature can't smile, eat it. Yes, I am seriously floating the idea that mirroring human emotions is a good metric for figuring out what we should do with animals.
Dog can smile = keep alive
Octopus can't smile = eat
There's a middleground, you know - an animal can be treated well and still end up on somebody's plate. What we do now is inexcusable.
In terms of raw population, chickens have never been stronger as a species. The reality of life for a lot of those individual chickens is absolute shit, but in terms of the success of chickenhood, a strong argument could be made for their recent ascension to ranks unimagined by ancient chickens.
I think my over all point is that a) that has to count for something and b) how much should probably be inversely proportional to the sapience level of the creature involved and thereby its capacity for suffering.
Hence my statement that if pigs were smart enough to understand that being farmed for food sucks, we should reconsider doing it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Do you think it would be better to have the hypothetical last few members of a species be dead, or be alive and suffering greatly?
Would humans fight to survive in horrible conditions, or would we just give up once they got bad enough? I think that given the choice between a shitty life and the end of our species, I'd probably choose the shitty life.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The "one problem at a time" mentality is pretty much useless a lot of the time, particularly when the problem "to be dealt with first" is so intractable.
How do we stop fucking dolphins over in a manner that does not include changing the human condition?
Woah woah woah.
Let's figure out how to not have our civilization collapse as oil becomes more scarce before we focus on treating human beings like human beings.
As it is, in much of the world actively fucking your neighbor over is the exception to the norm. I don't see why we can't make abuse of dolphins also be an exception to a norm, even as we accept that there will essentially always be tragic exceptions and exceptional cases.
You're letting the perfect get in the way of the good. It's kind of counterproductive.
Evolution really doesn't give a shit about the individual or happiness. Happiness and pleasure is just a mechanism to make sure an animal survives and reproduces.
I'd be surprised if chickens didn't start showing love for conveyor belts and lazer-beak-scalding in a few generations, if they haven't already. Unless of course, unhappy chickens are more profitable or make tastier eggs. You can get pretty dramatic changes in only a handful of decades if you select hard enough.
Fucking your direct neighbor over is rare. Dumping sewage into that river because fuck those guys downstream they won last year's curling tourney and by god we're going to show them what's what is depressingly common.
Edit: Or, well, more out of whack than it already is.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
;D
I don't think anyone is suggesting we follow dolphins around with a harpoon gun and shoot any shark that looks at them funny. The idea is just that we ensure our treatment of them is as humane as possible.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Just like every other fish we catch!
There's a brutal video out there by PETA (iirc), one of their finest pieces actually. It has some lingerie model doing a striptease, when a fisherman walks on stage, clubs her and guts her (still alive). It's reminding fishermen to actually ensure the fish are dead before gutting them.
Oh, here it is
Warning, not safe for work or weak stomachs.
EDIT: not actually PETA
A) Humans are just another animal. If this is the case, then it's sort of hard to argue that eating other non-human animals is immoral given that other animals do it all the time. You think a lion would decide not to eat a pig because the pig is smart? And I think in this case that eating other humans becomes verboten more by way of social contract than by absolute moral code.
So either way, I don't think it's hard to argue that eating animals is just hunky-dory. Honestly, if you want to argue against consumption of animals you're better of going the "environmentally unsustainable" route than the immorality route.
And yes, I'd say that an argument can be made that eating dolphins is perfectly moral. I'm not a fan of it, but I'm hard pressed to come up with a strong argument against it other than "it's icky".
Or we could go with A) and also conclude that lions act immorally.
It really does sound nicer to say "they can't experience suffering" than "fuck 'em, they aren't human" but the fact is that reality is more in line with the latter than the former. Pretty much any critter with the rudiments of a nervous system and hazards in its environment probably has some sense of suffering, as it's generally an evolutionary advantage. Whether that suffering is analogous to our suffering, or how analogous it is, might conceivably be predicted by some measure of intelligence but really we're stretching things out pretty far with that.
I, for one, am perfectly comfortable stating that I'm a human, and I care about other humans, and I care about non-humans, but I will always be fairly strongly biased in favor of humans. I'd even extend this to hyper-advanced aliens or whatever, because I suspect that the reality of such things would be pretty far from "blue people with funny foreheads."
Empathy is the root of properly functioning social interaction, and understanding is a critical part of empathy. I don't see myself ever being able to empathize with another species as well as I do with my fellow humans.
why draw the line at animals? Plants are living things too.
Life feeds off of life. That's how the system works. If you don't want to consume other lives, then your only choice is to remove yourself from the cycle.
Snarling, inappropriate invective spoilered for unnecessary. But I'm leaving it in the post, because it's the first thing I typed and I still believe it.
The consequences of judging predators "immoral" are far-reaching and potentially devastating to our ecology if acted upon. You might want to rethink this.
Lions act immorally. Dogs act immorally. Cats act immorally. Dolphins act immorally... hummingbirds act immorally. Wasps act immorally. Krill acts immorally... Fungus acts immorally. Kudzu vines act immorally. Bacteria acts immorally...
When you define 'immoral' as 'the way that every living thing acts' it ceases to have any meaning.
no, it means we can eat every living thing
Except phytoplankton. They are without sin.
Approves.
Actually, I believe the word you are looking for is amorally. There's a bit of a difference. Immoral implies that they are acting against their moral code. I would argue that none of your examples have a moral code.
My interpretation was that he was applying some sort of universal moral code to lions, without regard to their opinions in the matter.
I think you missed the quotes there. Here's a recap. Jeffe said humans eating animals is no more immoral than animals eating animals, being that humans are animals. Starcross countered that therefore animals eating animals is immoral, and by extension humans eating animals is immoral as well. I replied sarcastically that this definition of immorality would qualify nearly every species on earth as immoral; therefore, this definition must not be correct. Do our perspective on things match so far?
I'm confused if your statement is contradicting me, or agreeing with me and in reference to the prior poster.
That's a good point. But there's a difference between a plant and an animal. A obviously rather huge one.
I wish we had evolved to just soak up energy from the sun. That would make my omnivore's dilemma much easier.
Why is eating other human beings immoral?
(The taboo against hunting and eating other human beings is evolutionary. We developed it because if we didn't, we'd probably have wiped eachother out, or there would be much less of us. Maybe Homo erectus didn't develop that aversion, and maybe that's why Homo sapien rose to power instead.)
But an explanation for why we feel that something is bad is different from the philosophical reason why we shouldn't do something.
My ever-growing opinion is that even though we evolved to eat other animals in a massive food chain - we've gone far away from those wild roots in recent years. There's a difference between a wolf hunting a rabbit and humans manufacturing chickens. Maybe it's not practical to change now, but I'd rather live in a world where we live more in harmony with the planet as a whole, and that would include getting by without slaughtering hundreds of billions of living, intelligent animals for own our sustenance.
If humans had evolved a defense against prions, we'd probably be all talking about how not practicing cannibalism is morally wrong, because it is indulging in waste and not satisfactorily disposing of a corpse.
I would argue that the philosophical reason is irrelevant. Philosophy doesn't give truths. It gives rationalizations for what you already believe. Although I'm getting dangerously close to being off topic or summoning Podly here.
How are phytoplankton more pure of soul than, say, grass?
And I'm assuming you included hummingbirds because they take plant's nectar, but the whole reason nectar exists is the plant wants it eaten, so hummingbirds are more like saints.