Based on the above, the killing and eating of humans people is not wrong either, with only culture determining the depth and breadth of morality.Spiral Out wrote:The only reason eating animals is 'wrong' in your mind is because you don't like it. You've expressed a subjective opinion, not an objective truth.
Eating Animals
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Eating Animals
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Eating Animals
And why would it be wrong? Lack of justification? Consequence of powerlessness? It's power that speaks, isn't it?Greta wrote:Based on the above, the killing and eating of humans people is not wrong either, with only culture determining the depth and breadth of morality.Spiral Out wrote:The only reason eating animals is 'wrong' in your mind is because you don't like it. You've expressed a subjective opinion, not an objective truth.
“All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
What does this say for morality? Why is our morality not more stringent than it is now, even to the point of the infringement upon certain 'rights'?
-
- Posts: 566
- Joined: August 3rd, 2014, 11:23 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Plato
- Location: Oregon, US
Re:
Who pays a Lion to eat a gazelle?cynicallyinsane wrote:But you pay them to kill the animal. How's the different than hiring a hitman to kill a person?
-- Updated December 27th, 2016, 2:13 pm to add the following --
Can't only rely on Neitzsche, that would be a fallacy.Spiral Out wrote:And why would it be wrong? Lack of justification? Consequence of powerlessness? It's power that speaks, isn't it?Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Based on the above, the killing and eating of humans people is not wrong either, with only culture determining the depth and breadth of morality.
“All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
What does this say for morality? Why is our morality not more stringent than it is now, even to the point of the infringement upon certain 'rights'?
"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"
Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.
Truth is pain, and pain is gain.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Eating Animals
Still, my point stands.
If we are to stop killing cows then we must also stop killing ants, else logic be abandoned completely. Yet, being all merely subjective opinion, I guess that would be par for the course.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Eating Animals
Spiral, I didn't claim that eating humans was wrong. After all, crocodiles, sharks, snakes, predatory fish, wild canines, big cats and cadaver-eating scavengers have never had an issue with killing humans.Spiral Out wrote:And why would it be wrong? Lack of justification? Consequence of powerlessness? It's power that speaks, isn't it?Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Based on the above, the killing and eating of humans people is not wrong either, with only culture determining the depth and breadth of morality.
“All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
What does this say for morality? Why is our morality not more stringent than it is now, even to the point of the infringement upon certain 'rights'?
The post hoc rationalisation I constructed around my conditioned distaste for killing humans and other organisms that evoke sympathy in me is concerns about pointless loss of order in the environment. It would seem better to inflict the minimum amount of entropy in achieving what we need to do. If plants and simple animals can give an individual good health, there is no ethical justification for inflicting pain and suffering on intelligent animals. Of course, this is all in the personal domain. Globally, not too many much care, with the main difference between meat and vegetables being cost, taste and, maybe, nutritional content. Yet the idea of eating humans is considered shocking to most of us.
I can see why you choose to avoid judgement here - it's easy hold double standards when one judges with this issue. As animals, if we are to live then some other living thing has to die.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Eating Animals
You're correct, of course, that the average citizen would not accept reasoning, but then again we're in the Philosophy Forum, so we are examining issues with a finer toothed comb. A couple of things are so predictable as to be almost truths. One is that anything being killed and eaten is going to have a "logic" problem with the idea. That doesn't mean that the idea is flawed. Extraterrestrials chowing down on humans is more akin to humans initially but later essentially abandoning eating cetaceans, than the industrial farming/ranching of cattle by humans.Spiral Out wrote:I doubt there would be anyone who would accept any line of reasoning as justification for their demise in such a scenario. There are no objective criteria in the justification for anything. It's all relative and subjective. An 'unconvincing' line of reasoning is irrelevant to what the general population will accept. Justification is unnecessary when a large and/or powerful collection of people agree on something.ThamiorTheThinker wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Note that no one would accept that as justification for extraterrestrials killing and eating us. That means there's something unconvincing about that line of reasoning, no?
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Eating Animals
Do you limit your concern only to 'intelligent' animals? How do you judge the level of intelligence in any given animal?Greta wrote:The post hoc rationalisation I constructed around my conditioned distaste for killing humans and other organisms that evoke sympathy in me is concerns about pointless loss of order in the environment. It would seem better to inflict the minimum amount of entropy in achieving what we need to do. If plants and simple animals can give an individual good health, there is no ethical justification for inflicting pain and suffering on intelligent animals.
A mass-production crop industry will cause as much loss of order and entropy as any mass-production meat industry. I've already shown evidence of this. The problem isn't the type of food production, it's the scale of food production.
Speaking of entropy and disorder, I'm sure you're aware that such things are a distinctly Human concept. The universe would be better off without us. Yet the survival instinct given to us by the universe causes us to thrive and cause more entropy and disorder.
I don't think I'm avoiding any judgement here. I'm glad you admit that life feeds on life. It is a necessary condition, but you seem to want to change the fundamental nature of the physics of physical existence.I can see why you choose to avoid judgement here - it's easy hold double standards when one judges with this issue. As animals, if we are to live then some other living thing has to die.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Eating Animals
There's no hard and fast line, more a broad principle. Generally mammals and birds are the most aware. Vertebrates tend to be more aware than invertebrates, aside from molluscs. All this is corroborated by neuroscience.Spiral Out wrote:Do you limit your concern only to 'intelligent' animals? How do you judge the level of intelligence in any given animal?Greta wrote:The post hoc rationalisation I constructed around my conditioned distaste for killing humans and other organisms that evoke sympathy in me is concerns about pointless loss of order in the environment. It would seem better to inflict the minimum amount of entropy in achieving what we need to do. If plants and simple animals can give an individual good health, there is no ethical justification for inflicting pain and suffering on intelligent animals.
Yes, but there's no measure of the relative order lost when a chimp dies as compared with a worm. A more complex system of consciousness is broken. It's not a practical consideration to humans, hence the lack of measurement, but the death of a cow will result in a greater loss of order in reality than the death of a fish.Spiral Out wrote:A mass-production crop industry will cause as much loss of order and entropy as any mass-production meat industry. I've already shown evidence of this. The problem isn't the type of food production, it's the scale of food production.
I didn't realise that you were effectively an antinatalist. I personally hold hope that life can evolve and improve on itself, just that the path to intellectual and ethical advancement is long and pitted.Spiral Out wrote:Speaking of entropy and disorder, I'm sure you're aware that such things are a distinctly Human concept. The universe would be better off without us. Yet the survival instinct given to us by the universe causes us to thrive and cause more entropy and disorder.
I don't think I'm avoiding any judgement here. I'm glad you admit that life feeds on life. It is a necessary condition, but you seem to want to change the fundamental nature of the physics of physical existence.I can see why you choose to avoid judgement here - it's easy hold double standards when one judges with this issue. As animals, if we are to live then some other living thing has to die.
Re: "you seem to want to change the fundamental nature of the physics of physical existence". This is true. You do too, along with all other life forms. Living itself is in opposition to entropic forces working to break one's unity into smaller, more readily recyclable pieces.
Logically, it makes more sense to operate "with a light touch", aiming to do the minimum amount of damage in achieving our aims. It's not a new idea, obviously, being alluded to in all major philosophic traditions. Ethically and strategically, it's usually better for humans to operate with subtlety and care than to be akin to a bull in a china shop.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Eating Animals
And what of this 'loss of order' if all cows were gone? What of it if cows had never existed? What if Humans cease to exist? What will become of 'order' then? You speak of order as if it's an objective thing; as if it's quantifiable; as if there's a reference to measure it against.Greta wrote:Yes, but there's no measure of the relative order lost when a chimp dies as compared with a worm. A more complex system of consciousness is broken. It's not a practical consideration to humans, hence the lack of measurement, but the death of a cow will result in a greater loss of order in reality than the death of a fish.
Also corroborated by science, ants appear to be more sentient than cows. If we are to argue against the killing of cows due to some 'loss of order' as it pertains to their 'intelligence' then we must also argue the same for ants. That's quite the hard sell.Greta wrote:There's no hard and fast line, more a broad principle. Generally mammals and birds are the most aware. Vertebrates tend to be more aware than invertebrates, aside from molluscs. All this is corroborated by neuroscience.
We'd have a much easier time convincing people to save the puppies than convincing them to save the scorpions. If you understand why that is then you'll understand my point. Emotion. Emotion rules the day, not logic, not reason, not science. For better or worse, just emotion. It's what opinions are made of, and all we have here are subjective opinions.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Eating Animals
Yes, Lucky made this fair point earlier - that the cows wouldn't have existed if not for humans. It's been suggested that, since there are far more domesticated cattle than wild cattle, that being a staple food source for humans is a survival advantage. I have no answer on that other than I like cows :lol:Spiral Out wrote:And what of this 'loss of order' if all cows were gone? What of it if cows had never existed? What if Humans cease to exist? What will become of 'order' then? You speak of order as if it's an objective thing; as if it's quantifiable; as if there's a reference to measure it against.Greta wrote:Yes, but there's no measure of the relative order lost when a chimp dies as compared with a worm. A more complex system of consciousness is broken. It's not a practical consideration to humans, hence the lack of measurement, but the death of a cow will result in a greater loss of order in reality than the death of a fish.
Still, there is a valid environmental consideration, in that cows, especially, and sheep are far less energy efficient than other meats.
While it's true that the number of neurons in a large ants' next is about equal to that of a single human, the number of neurons in an entire herd of cattle is greater still. Further, individual cows and bulls are obviously far more sentient than individual social insects.Spiral Out wrote:Also corroborated by science, ants appear to be more sentient than cows. If we are to argue against the killing of cows due to some 'loss of order' as it pertains to their 'intelligence' then we must also argue the same for ants. That's quite the hard sell.Greta wrote:There's no hard and fast line, more a broad principle. Generally mammals and birds are the most aware. Vertebrates tend to be more aware than invertebrates, aside from molluscs. All this is corroborated by neuroscience.
The claim is incorrect - logic, reason and science are all considered, but when those factors provide contestable conclusions then it comes down to probabilities, emotions and commonsense.Spiral Out wrote:We'd have a much easier time convincing people to save the puppies than convincing them to save the scorpions. If you understand why that is then you'll understand my point. Emotion. Emotion rules the day, not logic, not reason, not science. For better or worse, just emotion. It's what opinions are made of, and all we have here are subjective opinions.
Why do you do favours for friends and family that you would not do for strangers? Emotions. You are subject to them too. So there's nothing whatsoever wrong with avoiding killing things for emotional reasons if there's no reason to kill them, if there are viable alternatives.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Eating Animals
Would it change the logic of the argument if it was shown that domestic cattle live longer than wild cattle? (thus confirming the "survival advantage"). I can support those who choose not to consume animals for any reason: health, environmental, religious, taste preference, ethical, moral, though by the same token consuming animals is logical but optional thus any choice is reasonable. The argument that industrial farming processes are not ethical and thus not logical can (and has) be made, but everyone acknowledges that there are other farming practices, so while valid for special cases is not a universal argument.Greta wrote:Yes, Lucky made this fair point earlier - that the cows wouldn't have existed if not for humans. It's been suggested that, since there are far more domesticated cattle than wild cattle, that being a staple food source for humans is a survival advantage. I have no answer on that other than I like cowsSpiral Out wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
And what of this 'loss of order' if all cows were gone? What of it if cows had never existed? What if Humans cease to exist? What will become of 'order' then? You speak of order as if it's an objective thing; as if it's quantifiable; as if there's a reference to measure it against.
Still, there is a valid environmental consideration, in that cows, especially, and sheep are far less energy efficient than other meats.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Eating Animals
The survival advantage is there, no doubt, so quality of life is the concern. After all, humans appear to be highly successful but most of us would prefer that we were less so. Aside from maintaining minimum standards of care for livestock, the main issue now would seem to be environmental - that some foods are more efficient in terms of energy and water use. Another significant issue is health. It hardly makes sense for people to be struggling to make ends meet while insisting on buying far more expensive meat than is healthy.LuckyR wrote:Would it change the logic of the argument if it was shown that domestic cattle live longer than wild cattle? (thus confirming the "survival advantage").Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Yes, Lucky made this fair point earlier - that the cows wouldn't have existed if not for humans. It's been suggested that, since there are far more domesticated cattle than wild cattle, that being a staple food source for humans is a survival advantage. I have no answer on that other than I like cows :lol:
Still, there is a valid environmental consideration, in that cows, especially, and sheep are far less energy efficient than other meats.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Eating Animals
Enough talk about the problems. What are the solutions?Greta wrote:After all, humans appear to be highly successful but most of us would prefer that we were less so. Aside from maintaining minimum standards of care for livestock, the main issue now would seem to be environmental - that some foods are more efficient in terms of energy and water use. Another significant issue is health. It hardly makes sense for people to be struggling to make ends meet while insisting on buying far more expensive meat than is healthy.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Eating Animals
If ranchers had to pay for the damage that their livestock created then beef and lamb would be a lot more expensive. Which would be a good thing. That would drive down (but not eliminate) consumption. Sort of like the idea that while a Prius may be better for the environment, Ferraris should not be illegal. They don't need to be. They are prohibitively expensive so their impact on the environment is negligible.Greta wrote:The survival advantage is there, no doubt, so quality of life is the concern. After all, humans appear to be highly successful but most of us would prefer that we were less so. Aside from maintaining minimum standards of care for livestock, the main issue now would seem to be environmental - that some foods are more efficient in terms of energy and water use. Another significant issue is health. It hardly makes sense for people to be struggling to make ends meet while insisting on buying far more expensive meat than is healthy.LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Would it change the logic of the argument if it was shown that domestic cattle live longer than wild cattle? (thus confirming the "survival advantage").
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Eating Animals
Pricing that truly reflects the cost of things, without hidden costs transferred to the broader community would be the kind of practical answer Spiral asked about. Powerful vested interests, however, may not be enthusiastic about the concept.LuckyR wrote:If ranchers had to pay for the damage that their livestock created then beef and lamb would be a lot more expensive. Which would be a good thing. That would drive down (but not eliminate) consumption. Sort of like the idea that while a Prius may be better for the environment, Ferraris should not be illegal. They don't need to be. They are prohibitively expensive so their impact on the environment is negligible.Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
The survival advantage is there, no doubt, so quality of life is the concern. After all, humans appear to be highly successful but most of us would prefer that we were less so. Aside from maintaining minimum standards of care for livestock, the main issue now would seem to be environmental - that some foods are more efficient in terms of energy and water use. Another significant issue is health. It hardly makes sense for people to be struggling to make ends meet while insisting on buying far more expensive meat than is healthy.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023