|
TychoCelchuuu posted:So, is your concern really for people in this situation? Or are you using this as an excuse for people in other situations (like, say, yourself) not to go vegan? In this case the thought is legitimate. I live in an area with several local tribes whom maintain and utilize their granted fishing and hunting rights as genuine forms of cultural reclamation and I was curious about the response. How do you treat a tribe that say defends it's cultural and historical whaling rights (which it does utilize sustainably and only taking a very limited number of whales per year)? It's a question I've grappled with. I know the thread is an attempt to convince others that it is a moral imperative to cease the killing and consumption of animals (specifically those in European affluent societies), but the edge cases to me are more interesting and telling than the straightforward answers. I don't disagree with getting traditions changed (or that even some are wrong or destructive!), but how you go about that is a different matter. I, functionally, have been an atheist my entire life and have certain beliefs around faith and disagreements with human cultures at large, but I still appreciate the arguments and thoughts of individuals who do have faith. I don't necessarily go out of my way to dissuade them of their beliefs because fundamentally I know we are at an impasse on a deep fundamental level. Frankly, I view veganism as being in a similar struggle: how do you convince others (arguably a large portion of living human society) that cannot at fundamental base level agree with a core tenet of your belief? TychoCelchuuu posted:1. There's no such thing as "the natural order of ecosystems." To be frank I was tired when wording this and I was fretting if I nailed the language. It's less that there's a strict "natural order" but more that we as fellow animals come from a place of having killed to consume and exist in as a part of the cycle of living consumption. Some animals kill other animals to continue to exist, and we have done so for thousands of years. Why does the elevation of our consciousness and intellect push us morally away from sustainably and thoughtfully consuming other animals when many other species do so as well, with far less potential for thought? Is the omnivore who chooses not to eat meat morally superior to the obligate carnivore? TychoCelchuuu posted:2. Even granting there's such thing as the natural order of ecosystems, we're loving up those natural orders... And I don't disagree, and I should have included the caveat that industrial scale farming (and to be frank industry in general) is a blight and a unending pit of suffering. That in itself isn't an argument I find compelling for the total cessation of animal consumption, but rather the industrial harvesting of fellow animals.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
DrBox posted:I don't think it's bad to hold your preference if you can articulate why you hold it beyond "I like this". If the preference you hold results in harm then we should be able to justify why beyond a surface level gut feeling. If someone is torturing cats we do not simply accept that they have a preference for dogs and carry on. I don't think there's any one trait that makes humans special, rather it's a whole host of traits that combine to make humans special as a category. And humans clearly are very different in a great many ways than any known animal species. quote:Is the only thing holding you back from participating in an activity that you otherwise find objectionable a law? If you're visiting a country with no law against littering would you start throwing your trash on the ground? Animal protection laws vary by country. If you're visiting a country that has no protections for dogs would that make you more likely to kick or kill one? I wouldn't start kicking or killing dogs, no. But I have a strong cultural bias in favor of dogs. Like I've said before, I think it's entirely valid to have a preference that isn't based in morality. But if I went to a country where everyone littered, I'm wading through piles of garbage when I walk anywhere, I look around me and the people I'm with are all littering, I'm carrying a sticky soda can and the nearest garbage can is a twenty minute walk away... then sure, I think I probably litter. And I don't think I feel bad about doing it. It's not on me to make a meaningless sacrifice in the face of an overwhelming social problem. That's on society as a whole to fix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:So there is no moral difference between something that is inanimate, and something that is alive, if there is no sentience? Do you consider being a lumberjack to be more morally problematic than being a miner I don't think plants per se deserve any more moral consideration than rocks. It's only when we think about externalities to sentient beings that things get complicated. Enjoy fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Oct 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Do you consider being a lumberjack to be more morally problematic than being a miner Yes. I don't find either occupation particularly morally problematic, but you're asking about one vs. another. Killing something living is morally different than damaging an inanimate object. Enjoy posted:I don't think plants per se deserve any more moral consideration than rocks. It's only when we think about externalities to sentient beings that things get complicated. On this point we disagree. I think life, in and of itself, has some nonzero moral weight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
rargphlam posted:I don't disagree with getting traditions changed (or that even some are wrong or destructive!), but how you go about that is a different matter. I, functionally, have been an atheist my entire life and have certain beliefs around faith and disagreements with human cultures at large, but I still appreciate the arguments and thoughts of individuals who do have faith. I don't necessarily go out of my way to dissuade them of their beliefs because fundamentally I know we are at an impasse on a deep fundamental level. Frankly, I view veganism as being in a similar struggle: how do you convince others (arguably a large portion of living human society) that cannot at fundamental base level agree with a core tenet of your belief? rargphlam posted:To be frank I was tired when wording this and I was fretting if I nailed the language. It's less that there's a strict "natural order" but more that we as fellow animals come from a place of having killed to consume and exist in as a part of the cycle of living consumption. Some animals kill other animals to continue to exist, and we have done so for thousands of years. Why does the elevation of our consciousness and intellect push us morally away from sustainably and thoughtfully consuming other animals when many other species do so as well, with far less potential for thought? Is the omnivore who chooses not to eat meat morally superior to the obligate carnivore? There is much more to say on the topic: for instance, the question " Is the omnivore who chooses not to eat meat morally superior to the obligate carnivore?" is rather misguided, because we don't judge people who lack the capability to exercise morality (e.g. infants) for their behavior, and for the same reasons we don't judge carnivores. If a lion could be an ethical vegan and chose not to, then we could have a beef with the lion. But the lion can't do that: the lion can't even understand the topic, let alone make a choice. Just like it would be ridiculous to get angry at a baby for throwing up on you but perfectly acceptable to get angry at me for throwing up on you, it would be ridiculous to judge a wolf for eating a goat but perfectly acceptable to get angry at me for eating a goat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Pretty ridiculous huh Plants definitely do move and react to stimuli. Most just do so very slowly compared to animals. Some aggressively (but slowly!) And some communicate a response that functionally seems similar to pain to other plants. They also have what can be characterized as social struggles. We just don’t notice most of these things. Attenborough did a really excellent series on some of these things decades ago called The Private Life of Plants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:I don't think there's any one trait that makes humans special, rather it's a whole host of traits that combine to make humans special as a category. And humans clearly are very different in a great many ways than any known animal species. Colonel Cool posted:I wouldn't start kicking or killing dogs, no. But I have a strong cultural bias in favor of dogs. Like I've said before, I think it's entirely valid to have a preference that isn't based in morality. Colonel Cool posted:But if I went to a country where everyone littered, I'm wading through piles of garbage when I walk anywhere, I look around me and the people I'm with are all littering, I'm carrying a sticky soda can and the nearest garbage can is a twenty minute walk away... then sure, I think I probably litter. And I don't think I feel bad about doing it. It's not on me to make a meaningless sacrifice in the face of an overwhelming social problem. That's on society as a whole to fix. DeadlyMuffin posted:Killing something living is morally different than damaging an inanimate object.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:I don't think there's any one trait that makes humans special, rather it's a whole host of traits that combine to make humans special as a category. And humans clearly are very different in a great many ways than any known animal species. The idea that a problem is too big for personal actions to impact it has come up a few times. While I agree, there are other factors to consider. Firstly, despite it's many issues even capitilist society does change due to public demand. Secondly most people feel happier about themselves if their actions reflect their beliefs. I have to wake up as myself, so I try to match my actions with my values. As someone pointed out upthread, very few people are arguing that factory farming is good or even sustainable. Even if large scale changes don't come about in my lifetime, I don't want to have been a part of the problem with no internal justification.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
DrBox posted:If there is no subject experiencing harm or suffering, why does it matter? Do you grant bacteria moral consideration? No much consideration, but more than I'd grant a rock. Think of it as a continuum, rather than a step function at sentience the way you describe it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No much consideration, but more than I'd grant a rock. I don't share your view but would you consider this an even stronger case for Veganism since the amount of plant deaths required for humanity to feed itself is magnified many times over by animal agriculture? If plants deserve moral consideration how can we justify feeding plants to animals, to then eat animals compounding the suffering we inflict?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
DrBox posted:That tells me how you are putting individuals in those categories but you are not telling me why that difference justifies the difference in treatment. Why does the fact that animals and non human animals are different justify treating animals as property to be placed in horrible conditions and killed for food when we are not in a survival situation or dependant on doing this? The fact that they're human. Like I said, I think this is a foundational principle. You being able to point to sentience as the thing that grants moral consideration may be a simpler answer, but I don't find it any less arbitrary or any more compelling. quote:What would you tell someone who does not share your preference in order to convince them to stop torturing dogs? Under what context? In our society I'd probably tell them that they're going to get in legal trouble for it. In another society that was totally fine with it I probably wouldn't make any argument because it seems like a pointless thing to do, but theoretically I'd make an argument that torturing things for fun probably does damage to your own mental health and isn't providing any benefit in return. quote:Ok so there are extreme circumstances where you would litter but it does not sound like as soon as you're in a place without a lawn prohibiting something you change your behavior instantly when the law is removed. I do not think law or likelihood of getting caught should dictate all our actions when there is a victim involved as the is with animal agriculture. Remember that my stance doesn't come from there being a victim. It comes from society as a whole collectively partaking in animal agriculture creating a collective harm to humanity, and the fact that my participation has no meaningful impact on that collective harm. Content to Hover posted:The idea that a problem is too big for personal actions to impact it has come up a few times. While I agree, there are other factors to consider. Firstly, despite it's many issues even capitilist society does change due to public demand. Secondly most people feel happier about themselves if their actions reflect their beliefs. Yeah I've said that I support laws to reduce or eliminate animal agriculture. I suspect society will probably come to a point where there is enough public demand to pass laws like those, and I'm fine with that. As for the matching actions and values... I don't think I feel any pressure to personally make a sacrifice to make an ineffective gesture about a global problem. But maybe I actually do, or will some day. I'll keep thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I don't share your view but would you consider this an even stronger case for Veganism since the amount of plant deaths required for humanity to feed itself is magnified many times over by animal agriculture? No, I wouldn't. I don't see a cow eating a plant as committing an immoral act, nor do I see a person eating a cow as an inherently immoral act. I think it's a question of how much moral weight you place. Maybe this might help: a plant (or even a bacteria) has a potential to grow and even to reproduce; to become something more than it is in the moment you see it. A rock doesn't, it can't act it can only be acted on. There is a fundimental difference there that I think has value and moral weight to a degree. The environmental and ecological arguments for vegetarianism or veganism are far more convincing to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:The fact that they're human. Like I said, I think this is a foundational principle. You being able to point to sentience as the thing that grants moral consideration may be a simpler answer, but I don't find it any less arbitrary or any more compelling. Colonel Cool posted:Under what context? In our society I'd probably tell them that they're going to get in legal trouble for it. In another society that was totally fine with it I probably wouldn't make any argument because it seems like a pointless thing to do, but theoretically I'd make an argument that torturing things for fun probably does damage to your own mental health and isn't providing any benefit in return. So in a country with no animal protection laws or social pressure against torturing dogs you just shrug your shoulders and have no moral argument to convince them to stop? You just walk past someone beating a dog in the street? Colonel Cool posted:Yeah I've said that I support laws to reduce or eliminate animal agriculture. I suspect society will probably come to a point where there is enough public demand to pass laws like those, and I'm fine with that. Colonel Cool posted:As for the matching actions and values... I don't think I feel any pressure to personally make a sacrifice to make an ineffective gesture about a global problem. But maybe I actually do, or will some day. I'll keep thinking about it. DeadlyMuffin posted:No, I wouldn't. I don't see a cow eating a plant as committing an immoral act, nor do I see a person eating a cow as an inherently immoral act. Stalactites in caves grow over time. Rust can propigate. My cell phone reacts the same as a plant. The fact that plants are alive is a byproduct of chemistry and how we define life, but it does not suffer or have wants any more than a rock or my phone. The environmental argument is a rough one because it justifies cruelty as long as it's sustainable. If I can torture then 3 whales a year forever so long as I eat them, that's sustainable but should not be considered moral. DrBox fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Oct 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:There is much more to say on the topic: for instance, the question " Is the omnivore who chooses not to eat meat morally superior to the obligate carnivore?" is rather misguided, because we don't judge people who lack the capability to exercise morality (e.g. infants) for their behavior, and for the same reasons we don't judge carnivores. If a lion could be an ethical vegan and chose not to, then we could have a beef with the lion. But the lion can't do that: the lion can't even understand the topic, let alone make a choice. Just like it would be ridiculous to get angry at a baby for throwing up on you but perfectly acceptable to get angry at me for throwing up on you, it would be ridiculous to judge a wolf for eating a goat but perfectly acceptable to get angry at me for eating a goat. Stripping it down to a base level, I am trying to to grapple with the morality of the act and why the ability to choose makes it more moral. Morality is a human construct defining the outlines of acceptable society and thought, and if "tradition" can change and alter, why is our conception of morality as definitive? If, hypothetically, presented with the choice of starvation (either by a quirk of genetics or the lack of other resources) or killing another animal to live and survive, is it immoral to kill another animal to survive? If say a lion could choose not to eat meat but ultimately die that may be a selfless act but is it the more moral one? And there are people who grapple with this because of quirks in their biology when processing fats and proteins! Does the morality of taking a sentient life to live ever exist as a necessity or is always an undue harm on other life forms?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
DrBox posted:What does it mean for something to have moral value but then harming, destroying, or feeding it to an animal not be immoral? If you're granting something moral value, it should matter if you destroy it. I think the difference is that I see value as a spectrum, not a binary. Your question only makes sense if you see something as either having value or not. DrBox posted:Stalactites in caves grow over time. Rust can propigate. My cell phone reacts the same as a plant. The fact that plants are alive is a byproduct of chemistry and how we define life, but it does not suffer or have wants any more than a rock or my phone. Do you think your cell phone is alive? A plant acts upon its surroundings, and uses things around it to grow itself and propagate. That is fundimentally different from a stalactites. You reaching for a plant to eat because you are hungry is just as much a byproduct of chemistry as a plant moving towards a light. DrBox posted:The environmental argument is a rough one because it justifies cruelty as long as it's sustainable. If I can torture then 3 whales a year forever so long as I eat them, that's sustainable but should not be considered moral. If an animal is killed humanely, I don't think it is cruelty. Neither is harvesting a plant. As I see it, both the method and the use matter. Killing an animal for food vs torturing it to death then eating it aren't equivalent. Again, spectrum vs. binary. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Oct 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
DrBox posted:What does it mean for something to have moral value but then harming, destroying, or feeding it to an animal not be immoral? If you're granting something moral value, it should matter if you destroy it. (I recognize you're probably not a utilitarian)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Human is a category.  Gotta not be quite so cavalier with categories. I mean we gotta use them, but you’re presenting your points as essentials of the category and you will cause the reactions you are encountering by doing that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Human is a category. What about humans make you against their suffering, but ok with deliberate human orchestrated animal suffering? How much DNA or cognitive capacity needs to change for you to be ok with farming them? Would Neanderthals count? Chimpanzees or Bonobos? I'll be honest that I don't know enough about Neanderthals to answer that properly, but from my vague impression of them they're probably humanlike enough to count? Chimps probably not. I certainly have a strong cultural bias against it, but if we could gain some immense benefit to humanity out of farming chimps then I'd probably overcome that instinctive revulsion to it. If we lived in a world where if we farmed chimps we could end world hunger and global warming would you really say we shouldn't do it anyway because it's morally wrong? quote:So in a country with no animal protection laws or social pressure against torturing dogs you just shrug your shoulders and have no moral argument to convince them to stop? You just walk past someone beating a dog in the street? I think someone who grew up in a country where torturing dogs for fun is totally acceptable comes from a sufficiently different framework to me that we lack any ability to convince each other of anything at all on the subject. I don't think you'd have any luck making a moral argument about it to them either. I think a practical argument about needless waste and mental harm is much more likely to do something, but I'm probably not going to accost strangers on the street with it either in practice. quote:But it's not a moral concern so your support for eliminating animal agriculture is strictly environmental? If those new mega hog farms in China were sustainable net zero operations you would be perfectly happy with confining pigs in pens where they cannot turn around for their lives and where they are mutilated without anesthetic? I certainly find it icky. And I like it when we as a society sacrifice some efficiency in order to alleviate icky feelings. But I don't think I can say it's morally abhorrent, and if a country either doesn't experience those icky feelings, or doesn't care enough about them to legislate against them, then I can't really condemn them for it. If they were net zero emissions then I suppose I'd mostly be okay with it. quote:I appreciate you being honest and replying. I'm glad you're open to giving it more thought. Yup for sure. I appreciate the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think the difference is that I see value as a spectrum, not a binary. Your question only makes sense if you see something as either having value or not. My cell phone is not alive but even if were to meet the NASA definition of life, “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”, that says nothing about sentience or the ability to suffer. Just because it could sustain itself and replicate does not automatically grant it moral worth in my view. Something like sentient AI if we were able to determine such a thing exists would under my system be deserving of moral consideration even if it was not self sustaining and so technically not alive by that same definition. My reaching for a plant to eat is not the same as a plant moving towards the light because I can choose what I'm reaching for. The plant is not making that conscious choice. There is no one in there to make a choice. If in your view animals killed humanely (oxymoron IMO, I would say with minimal suffering) is fine, is it different to kill a human humanely? Trapick posted:From a utilitarian standpoint I don't think there's a confusion here, we can give things some moral weight but other things higher weight. Harming an animal is 5 "bad". In total we get 10 "good" from turning it into hamburgers. We don't allow animal torture because we agree that's not worth any "good" points. etc. Bar Ran Dun posted:
DrBox fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Oct 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
DrBox posted:My reaching for a plant to eat is not the same as a plant moving towards the light because I can choose what I'm reaching for. The plant is not making that conscious choice. There is no one in there to make a choice. Only a difference in degree, not in kind. DrBox posted:If in your view animals killed humanely (oxymoron IMO, I would say with minimal suffering) is fine, is it different to kill a human humanely? The reason matters. We don't eat people, so I'm not sure you can draw that line. Killing something living, for no reason, no matter how humanely executed, seems immoral to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Only a difference in degree, not in kind. If killing anything living for no reason is immoral in your view, can I assume taking life for a bad reason is also immoral? Then we can at least start arguing justifications for animal harm rather than this plant lives tangent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
DrBox posted:It's not a difference in degree with plants. Sentience may be a spectrum but plants are not on that spectrum as far as we can tell. Life is not sentience. You being hungry and reaching for food is chemistry as much as it is for the plant. You don't do it purely out of sentience. DrBox posted:If killing anything living for no reason is immoral in your view, can I assume taking life for a bad reason is also immoral? Then we can at least start arguing justifications for animal harm rather than this plant lives tangent. Nah, I think I'm done. Your dismissal of an environmental argument and not understanding the plant "tangent" is enough for me to disengage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:You being hungry and reaching for food is chemistry as much as it is for the plant. You don't do it purely out of sentience. DeadlyMuffin posted:Nah, I think I'm done. Your dismissal of an environmental argument and not understanding the plant "tangent" is enough for me to disengage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I'm not sure what you mean by this but I'd appreciate contribution to the discussion rather than just drive by tone policing. I don't need tips on my writing style or tactics, I need arguments for or against cutting a cow's throat for a burger when perfectly good alternatives exist. I’m not tone policing. Basically when one argues in certain ways certain things often happen in the discourse or discussion and some of those are predictable. I’m trying to make you aware of things you doing that make what you are doing harder for you. The framing of how you are approaching this eg. : “I need arguments for or against”. That’s not how all people work. It’s not a fight and making it a fight reduces your ability to morally influence others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I’m not tone policing. Animals are being harmed and exploited and I have not encountered a justification that goes beyond culture, tradition, or personal pleasure. None of these reasons justify harming humans and there is no morally relevant difference to point to that would make it justified for animals. In 2022 for those that can buy food at the grocery store and avoid these industries I argue they should do this not only because of the moral argument but also because it will be better from an environmental, antibiotic effectiveness, or zoonotic diseases risk perspective. Rather than only chiming in to start a meta discussion on the effectiveness of certain posts, be the change you want to see here and engage in the conversation taking place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I'm not sure what you mean by this Since they didn't say it explicitly: that is a cropped image from a painting that comes up when one searches for the story about Diogenes the Cynic confronting Plato. Plato had (apparently) offered a definition of man as being an animal that was a featherless biped. Diogenes showed up with a plucked chicken - "Here is Plato's man!". The source for the story is not contemporary and it may well not have happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Since they didn't say it explicitly: that is a cropped image from a painting that comes up when one searches for the story about Diogenes the Cynic confronting Plato. Plato had (apparently) offered a definition of man as being an animal that was a featherless biped. Diogenes showed up with a plucked chicken - "Here is Plato's man!". This is a deep cut I was not aware of. Thanks! I may just be dense I don't understand how that is applicable in the context of asking for one morally relevant difference in order to avoid the ambiguity that comes with assigning moral worth to a vague category with no underlying feature to point to. I'm not asking anyone to define human, only to tell me what feature within that category or what list of features creating an emergent property would justify farming me if I lacked them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:
Is this your only objection to killing people (humanely) that we don't eat them afterwards? Would a society that farms people to eat them be ok, as long as they used sustainable farming practices and humane methods?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
It is not productive to constrain the topic of this thread to 'follow a vegan lifestyle y/n?". In my view, related topics should be welcome - for instance, I really enjoy discussion that has happened on the ethics of particular forms of hunting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:It is not productive to constrain the topic of this thread to 'follow a vegan lifestyle y/n?". In my view, related topics should be welcome - for instance, I really enjoy discussion that has happened on the ethics of particular forms of hunting. I hope I was not giving the impression I'm trying to shut down other topics. My problem is drive-by quips about the delivery rather than the substance. It feels like heckling instead of participating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Animals are being harmed and exploited and I have not encountered a justification that goes beyond culture, tradition, or personal pleasure. None of these reasons justify harming humans and there is no morally relevant difference to point to that would make it justified for animals. More concretely; do insects have sentience? How would you feel about someone killing a mosquito because it might bite them and cause some minor discomfort? What about someone trapping or killing rats that were in their restaurant?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
rargphlam posted:Stripping it down to a base level, I am trying to to grapple with the morality of the act and why the ability to choose makes it more moral. Morality is a human construct defining the outlines of acceptable society and thought, and if "tradition" can change and alter, why is our conception of morality as definitive? If, hypothetically, presented with the choice of starvation (either by a quirk of genetics or the lack of other resources) or killing another animal to live and survive, is it immoral to kill another animal to survive? If say a lion could choose not to eat meat but ultimately die that may be a selfless act but is it the more moral one? And there are people who grapple with this because of quirks in their biology when processing fats and proteins! Does the morality of taking a sentient life to live ever exist as a necessity or is always an undue harm on other life forms? (If you're really hung up on the issue, though, there's a relatively easy solution. Just imagine someone who will die if they don't eat humans. Whatever you say about the morality of that situation will more or less answer the question for the hypothetical morally sophisticated lion.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 02:46
|
|
|
Trapick posted:How would you convince someone that sentience is the critical thing to care about, rather than humanness or sapience or 'living creatures I like' or anything else? I think that's where all the plant talk was trying to go, why should sentience be the line? You seem to assume everyone has that same belief, and then don't understand why they come to different conclusions. I'm not assuming everyone has the same belief, I have just never heard a good justification for any other one and when I ask in this thread it's just circular reasoning about preferences or spectrums without any actual reasons given. If someone says "humanity" and actually gives a trait it inevitably ends up leaving out some humans. I understand where the "plant talk" was trying to go but that would only ever be an argument for the futility of trying to go vegan, or a stronger case for veganism. I think people just have not examined their beliefs closely and would probably move to my side with some introspection. I understand that sounds arrogant but I am honest when I say my mind can be changed if someone can give me a sound reason to care about only humans or to bring plants into my moral circle. I did not want to go vegan and tried for a while to find a loophole that sat well with my conscience. I just could not find one. I want to point out that I have not met anyone besides a couple internet trolls who would take the Kantian view seriously and think animals are merely automatons, or who actually defend factory farming. That means even if they say they only care about humans you can point out that they actually already grant animals moral consideration. People will go ballistic for dog and cat abuse, while being accepting of the same and worse treatment for farm animals, but there is no reason for that difference aside from culture, and we know culture is a bad barometer for what is right. If you can get them to grant that then it's just finding the common link. If you don't want humans to suffer and you want animals to suffer as little as possible, what is there in common besides sentience or capacity to suffer? Generally people end up agreeing that they do care about animals and they'd rather we not kill them and then retreat to arguments of futility, or try to say that a plant based diet is unhealthy or unsustainable, or just say flat out they know they're a hypocrite but can't bring themselves to change their lifestyle. Look at all the people who say they will swap instantly to lab grown meat. This is not a different moral system, this is apathy. If lab grown meat and precision fermentation had already replaced meat and dairy then we would not be seeing anywhere near this level of resistance to these ideas. As for insects, there is some studies exploring the idea they do have some level of sentience. There was a neat article a little while back about jumping spiders dreaming. You can't overcome all biases and I don't feel very bad about people swatting insects even though on a intellectual level I understand all the same arguments apply. I still try to avoid killing them where I can and it comes down to what is practical and possible. I do what I can within the confines of the society I live in which is all the definition of veganism really demands. I'm against farming insects either and am against cricket farms. I also think that if animal agriculture was gone and we did not have need for so much cropland to feed to animals we could be smarter and more targeted with the use of insecticides and other problematic things. Finally for killing rats in restaurants that becomes more of a self defense argument. I'm not for killing humans or rats but if they posed an otherwise unavoidable threat to my health or safety then something has to be done. I'm not asking people to martyr themselves or be perfect but if we're quibbling over edge cases relating to minimizing disease risk then I hope we're doing that after we have abolished factory farms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I hope I was not giving the impression I'm trying to shut down other topics. My problem is drive-by quips about the delivery rather than the substance. It feels like heckling instead of participating. You are conflating observations about the structure of your assertions with tone or delivery. DrBox posted:Animals are being harmed and exploited and I have not encountered a justification that goes beyond culture, tradition, or personal pleasure. None of these reasons justify harming humans and there is no morally relevant difference to point to that would make it justified for animals. and engage in the conversation taking place. Are you pro-life?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:You are conflating observations about the structure of your assertions with tone or delivery. Bar Ran Dun posted:Are you pro-life?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I don't like that label and we should destroy it. Who wouldn't be pro living things? I'm pro-sentience and pro-choice, or anti-forced birth and anti-forced use of other people's bodies. So you do make judgments regarding which living animals you think have sentience and can be morally killed. Do you think sentience suddenly happens just at birth? How do you feel about eggs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:So you do make judgments regarding which living animals you think have sentience and can be morally killed. Do you think sentience suddenly happens just at birth? I'm not sure what you mean by making judgements. Please read up again to my comments about effective communication. I think we should avoid killing animals that have sentience and the capacity to suffer as far as can be determined through modern scientific methods. Sentience does not appear to happen suddenly at birth, but requires certain brain structures to form and "come online" for lack of a better term. I don't feel any way about eggs themselves. If you find an unfertilized egg in the forest and want to eat it there's no real harm there. It's a similar situation to roadkill. If you're talking about chicken eggs the moral issue is the externalities of egg production. Chickens need to be bred, lay too many eggs, suffer in that process, and are killed as soon as they are deemed unproductive. Male chicks in the egg industry are blended up, crushed or gassed as they are a waste product. Egg production involves turning sentient beings into a resource so I'm against it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Sentience does not appear to happen suddenly at birth, but requires certain brain structures to form and "come online" for lack of a better term. If you are making distinctions about when human fetus or even a young child acquires sentience are those distinctions also applicable to animals? If a particular animal other than a human lacks those structures are they not sentient?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:If you are making distinctions about when human fetus or even a young child acquires sentience are those distinctions also applicable to animals? I'm no biologist but scientists are exploring sentience in mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and even insects so the structures required are likely not the same for every species. It seems as though we can rule out single cell organisms so some number of neurons or equivalent processing unit is required. Seeing as most animals appear to be sentient and no plants seem to be, I can use "animal" as a good rule of thumb. There are edge cases like mussels and sponges are almost certainly not sentient, but to keep it simple I just avoid harming animals where I can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
DrBox posted:I'm no biologist but scientists are exploring sentience in mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and even insects so the structures required are likely not the same for every species. I don't believe this is as settled as you seem to. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ is an article that discusses some of the emerging science in tree intelligence and communication. I believe this is a pretty credible source, even though it's a controversial field. However, I still don't think this presents a problem for veganism. Some plants might possess some form of awareness. Animals definitely do. Plants cannot be fully removed from my diet safely. Animals can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 05:20
|
|
