Oh come on, you don't really take "disgustipated" seriously, do you? Maynard as a preacher, thank you Jesus, "Let the rabbits wear glasses" - it has written SARCASM all over it. Maybe fooltime is dumb enough to make a mantra out of a parody, but you seem to be much brighter.
Wow, all these people posting comments about how they love tasty meat. Absolutely no self-discipline or self-control, even when you know it's destructive and painful for animals. At least eat fish but try not to eat mammals, who are more like us.
I 100% agree with everything you've said; however, I love meat. I guess there is no away around the issue, eating meat appears to be immoral because it causes needless suffering. But what would be your response if we could ensure the lives of animals were enjoyable until such time as they are eaten, and that their deaths would be as painless as possible? Do you think we must completely stop eating meat or are some animals okay to eat, such as fish, shrimp, etc? Where is that line?
@DiscoveringReligion I think everyone's got to answer that for themselves, but they should do that only once being informed. I don't know if shrimp can suffer or not, but when you look at the environmental damage that shrimping does, there are other good reasons not to eat shrimp.
@DiscoveringReligion As for 'cruelty free farming', I don't think there is such a thing, but there are some farms that are far better than others. But killing a human at a fraction of their natural life, even if that life is a happy one, is still a horribly moral evil. Why should that be any different for a non-human animal?
Why care about the suffering in non-sentient beings? Yes, animals suffer in some way, and even though consciousness is present in most animals, it is so in different degrees. I contest their pain is different from ours. At any rate, there are humane ways of killing them, and since their perception of the world is fundamentally different from ours, it is in fact humane.
I don't really care either way. Give me some tasty nutritious meat, whether it be synthetic or not, and I'm content.
And actually, and feel free to scrutinize on this better than I have, but ancient Egyptian slaves were treated basically like poor people today, with differences in technology of course. So historically, we have depended on slaves and still do, we just call them 'poor people' today.
The naturalist in me, recognizes that my body has elements of carnivores and herbivores. The nihilist in me does not care for morality. And the hedonist in me, just loves the taste of meat.
And the real me says it in layman's terms: I've got canines, morals are relative so don't mean shit when compared to other's morals, and finally, meat tastes fucking good!
@SisyphusRedeemed They've created a way to produce synthetic meat (I think it was in Japan or something). So if that comes through it'll be settled.
I'll admit to not having thought this vegetarianism thing through yet, but if you accept animals into the moral landscape, and if you accept that one species feeds on another species, surely it's at least a weak argument for eating meat?
@SisyphusRedeemed You claim to be in “no position to… cast judgement… at moral choices” yet state “[eating meat] causes the most obscene and grotesque amount of suffering that this planet has ever seen.” You also compare eating meat to slavery and at least imply that refusing to eat meat is “everyone’s goalpost except for the sociopath.”
In light of these statements and others, can you envision a world in which you would not enforce vegetarianism and punish those that would eat meat?
@Blackmark52 "In light of these statements and others, can you envision a world in which you would not enforce vegetarianism and punish those that would eat meat?"
Yeah: this one. I wouldn't force vegetarianism on people by force of law. That would be pointless and ineffective. Laws are social end-products, an expression of a society's values. I want to change those values, not use force against people. I want to go after the root, not the branch.
@SisyphusRedeemed Touching on Blackmark52's comments, if the law was not ineffective in treating this issue (I admit in actuality it most certainly is), would you consider using it in this situation? In other words, do you oppose using the law here only for pragmatic reasons, or do you also think that society's values being expressed takes precedent (1)
@synchronium24 "or do you also think that society's values being expressed takes precedent"
I don't think either take absolute precedence. It's always a contextual judgment. I'm sure there are hypothetical worlds where I'd enforce a law against the values of a people, but I don't really care for speculating about hypothetical worlds unless doing so somehow illuminates a practical issue in this one. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
@SisyphusRedeemed over what you consider the depravity of eating meat? I'm not a vegetarian, but i'm hard pressed to see how you could hold the latter view given that you do support the force of law on other issues, some of which you presumably find less objectionable than meat eating. (2)
@synchronium24 "you do support the force of law on other issues, some of which you presumably find less objectionable than meat eating."
Sure, but in those cases the majority of society is in agreement. If almost everyone agreed that torturing animals was wrong (which I think they do) & they were honest about how this commits them to abolishing factory farms, & all of the other relevant values were clarified, a law protecting animals from being eaten would make more sense.
@SisyphusRedeemed "I wouldn't force vegetarianism on people by force of law."
I wonder if you are being naive or disingenuous. How could a society not use law to oppose this obscene and grotesque amount of suffering you talk of? Can you cite one societal structure that maintains a moral righteousness that doesn't condemn contrary views? How do you propose to "go after the root"? Indoctrination? Re-education?
@Blackmark52 "How could a society not use law to oppose this obscene and grotesque amount of suffering you talk of?"
That's exactly what we're doing now. Using force to stop hundreds of millions of people from doing something they want to do doesn't work (just look at alcohol, drug and prostitution prohibition.)
I propose going after the root not through 're-education' (whatever the hell that is) but through education. That's what I'm doing here.
@SisyphusRedeemed You are avoiding the question. You talk of "going after the root" but that doesn't mean anything. Re-education is a 1984 concept with similar ideas in other sci-fi literature. The point being made is that your views as expressed logically lead to not accepting nonconformity. Go back and look at your language.
@Blackmark52 I'm sorry, I don't mean to be avoiding the question. If you could you restate the question for me, and I'll try to answer it directly.
I got reference to 1984; my point was that you can't actually do that. YouTube is not the Ministry of Truth. It's a teaching platform, and that's what I'm using it for. It's education, not 're-education.'
@Blackmark52 "The point being made is that your views as expressed logically lead to not accepting nonconformity."
What, exactly, does 'not accepting nonconformity' mean in this context? Do you expect me to force everyone to become vegetarian? How would I do that, crossing my arms and wiggling my nose? I'm a pragmatist on this, not an idealist: I want to pursue policies that will minimize animal suffering. Outlawing eating meat in our current environment won't do that.
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks for the clarification. So, it sounds like with your willingness to outlaw factory farming, you do support some force in the face of an opposing majority. However, one of your own assertions actually highlights where my confusion came from. you say:
"But it IS a moral issue: we're talking about the torture and slaughter of billions of sentient beings. What else COULD IT BE other than a moral issue? If that's not a moral issue, nothing is." (1)
@synchronium24 "it sounds like with your willingness to outlaw factory farming, you do support some force in the face of an opposing majority."
I don't think so. The majority doesn't support factory farming because the majority has no idea what it is. When put in a position to make an informed decision, my experience shows the majority oppose factory farming.
@SisyphusRedeemed Eh, depends on your definition of 'oppose.' I agree that most people don't know what factory farming is, but functionally speaking this uninformed group helps maintains the status quo. They don't support factory farming per se, but they inadvertently become a barrier to its removal. However, if you're simply saying that you wouldn't be going against society's values, then i would agree (assuming the majority of informed people do in fact oppose factory farming).
@SisyphusRedeemed From the impact of this statement it isn't that hard to connect the dots to "...and therefore meat eating should be illegal." Since I didn't know the reasoning behind your objection to using the law here, you seemed to be advocating a bizarre moral relativism that you usually rail against. (2)
@synchronium24 "From the impact of this statement it isn't that hard to connect the dots to "...and therefore meat eating should be illegal.""
The law isn't a tool to impose values on people. Like I said, law is a social end-product, an EXPRESSION of a people's values. You can't craft values with force, history is awash with failed attempts to do so. Reason, education, empathy and patience are necessary tools. Legislation comes later.
@Blackmark52 I WOULD support laws outlawing factor farming; that's something I think would be effective and wouldn't require mass consciousness raising, necessarily, to make happen (though that would sure help). But that's a far cry from laws outlawing eating meat.
@SisyphusRedeemed "that's a far cry from laws outlawing eating meat."
But is it? Many vegetarians already support the idea. How can you outlaw factory farming and not eventually target any slaughter whatsoever? Once you've done that you HAVE outlawed eating meat.
My problem with your argument is precisely that it frames the issue as a moral one. When the opponents of a belief are vehemently denounced as immoral they are afforded no rights.
@Blackmark52 "Once you've done that you HAVE outlawed eating meat."
Human beings ate meat for thousands of years before factory farming. It is obviously possible to do the former without the later.
"My problem with your argument is precisely that it frames the issue as a moral one."
But it IS a moral issue: we're talking about the torture and slaughter of billions of sentient beings. What else COULD IT BE other than a moral issue? If that's not a moral issue, nothing is.
@Blackmark52 "When the opponents of a belief are vehemently denounced as immoral they are afforded no rights."
How on earth do you jump to this conclusion? You denounce immoral behavior in other people all the time (I assume) without depriving them of rights. I assume you think lying is immoral, but I doubt you'd say people don't have a right to do it, or that you would outlaw it if you could.
@SisyphusRedeemed I would outlaw those things I deem immoral. But I don't consider such things as eating animals a moral issue. I don't consider lying immoral (though perjury and libel should be punished). Withholding medical treatment from children is immoral, and I would not extend that right under the law. But I don't generally see things in moral terms, so vegetarians would be safer from me, than I from vegetarians.
@superustipak I'd certainly be skeptical at first, but if the research was solid, I'd say we had a moral obligation to learn more about what caused them pain, what that pain is like, and then do whatever we can to avoid hurting them. But this purely hypothetical--such a finding would mean that everything we know about botany, biology, neuroscience and a half dozen other fields was completely mistaken.
This video sounds like a 12 minute long argument for genetically engineering animals that don't feel pain/think. Then we could enjoy delicious meat while not being bothered by the moral implications of causing pain to animals.
@Drachnon People are working on lab-grown meat. There's still some hurdles to clear, but there's good reason to think it will happen in the next few years.
Sisyphus, thank you for championing the welfare of animals. In my opinion, factory farming is the most important moral issue of our time and we need as many rational and articulate voices as possible to expose this ugly industry to the public.
Pain's undesirable but is it bad?This is David Hume's is/ought fallacy.Now,I'm not pointing out that we should not care about pain in the universe;I'm only implying that a utilitarian approach to this problem is best.Would humanity be happy as a whole if they knew they were empathizig with consious animals?I believe the answer is YES as long as this doesn't compromize human well-being.Thus, for issues such as the use of animals in medical research,it is acceptable within limits.But for food?Nah!
I reject the idea that this is a fallacy. In fact, I think the idea that there is a distinction between facts and values is the actual fallacy. Values are part of the world, they are a kind of fact. And facts, like values, are norms. Hume was just wrong on this one.
@SisyphusRedeemed Well, I do believe that values are but expressions of our inner wishes. It's a neuroscientific matter that can be summarized in mirror neurones and oxytocin. If values were in selves part of the world then moral progress would almost be like facts popping into existence out of an unknown origin.Instead,it's human endevaur & increased awareness that define new values.am really enjoying this discussion:)I wrote an article about it in kheffah(dot)blogspot(dot)com
@HannuMarijarvi My argument isn't that different than the one Sam Harris puts forward in "The Moral Landscape." There are a few things I disagree with him on, but the general idea is there.
You are absolutely right about the excuse making that people use to avoid the ethical dilemmas involved in eating animals. While I do eat meat, I recognise that it is largely morally indefensible. It does cause me some brow wringles but I just can't bring myself to stop eating it.
Lamb in particular pains me and every time I indulge in a donner kebab I feel very guilty. The guilt has to compete with extreme deliciousness but still.
I can't wait till we can have the meat without the minds. :)
@TheCelticChimp "I can't wait till we can have the meat without the minds. :)"
I'm also a meat eater who concedes that eating meat is immoral, and while I don't feel nearly the emotional stirring you do (otherwise i might be a vegetarian), i'm all for any substitutes that will reduce animal suffering.
@LetsTalkSexTalk Who ever said atheism was unifying? It's just a lack of a belief in gods, not a banner to gather under at all.
Still, I'd rather hang with atheists and argue with them all day long rather than with religious people, because in general I have found atheists to be more stimulating and less given to baseless dogma, intentional blindness, or petty intellectual fallacies than the average religious person I've met.
@Crunchy68 Many religious groups call atheism its own religion, which is to suggest that it is unifying as a belief system. I don't believe that they are correct, but I do believe that this video illustrates that it is not a unifying belief system.
@LetsTalkSexTalk If you'd stop to talk sex talk, you might realize atheism's got nothing to do with what's being said in this video. It might be hard for you to get that, but I'm sure you'll manage. Well, I hope you will ...
@MisterScrutinizer The first part of my comment was a joke based around the fact that both of the youtubers are recognized as part of an atheist youtube community of sorts. The video of course didn't have an atheist topic, but both users are recognized as such.
"Animals feel pain ergo they matter morally." Killing animals quickly does not cause them pain. Dead animals do not feel pain.
I see your point about the way animals are treated in factory farms... but that doesn't imply that it is inherently wrong to eat meat. What if I one was to eat meat from a farm where animals were farmed and slaughtered humanely? Would this also be a transgression?
@craigblack1234 "Killing animals quickly does not cause them pain. Dead animals do not feel pain."
Replace the word 'animals' with 'humans' and see how the truth value is affected.
As for 'humane' farming, I don't think there is such a thing, but there is certainly better and worse farming. But again, imagine we were 'humanely' raising, killing and eating humans. Would anyone try to defend that?
@SisyphusRedeemed I don't understand why you equate the morality of raising animals to eat with raising humans to eat. Eating a human would be a waste of a resource, since humans are capable of vastly contributing to the lives of other humans in ways far more meaningful than just one meal. An animal is not so capable.
Why do you think farming cannot be humane?
If an animal WAS happy in life and killed painlessly, would its death still be immoral to you?
@SisyphusRedeemed I would have to say the truth value of that statement does not change. Since you are switching topics from pain to species, the morality of the act is more related to the value placed on the belief humans have that another species is cognitively aware of the value of their own existence. A dog bites a person, and we euthanize it. We don't do that to another person. We kill rodents in horrible ways because they chew holes in our cabinets. Insects?....
@Uhlbelk "A dog bites a person, and we euthanize it."
No, we don't. Euthanasia is when a person is killed for their own good. What we do to such a dog has another name: we execute it. We don't like to call it that because we prefer the euphemism 'euthanize', but that is simply a false description. The act of of killing a being because it has harmed others is an execution. And in 34 states (and the federal government) we do that to humans, too.
@SisyphusRedeemed We do not kill people for biting another. Most kids would never make it out of childhood if we did. We call it euthanizing because it is not done as revenge or punishment because the animal could not comprehend that. You seem to be avoiding the point. Do you disagree that humans base the morality of decisions based on the mental faculties of the subject? The lines may be subjective but they exist and do so for each person.
@Uhlbelk "We do not kill people for biting another"
But we do kill them when we think they may be a perpetual threat to the lives of others. The biting isn't the reason we kill dogs (dogs bite people all the time in play); it's the fact that we think they're a risk to people's lives.
"We call it euthanizing because it is not done as revenge or punishment because the animal could not comprehend that."
Look up the definition of euthanasia, and you'll see that doesn't fit.
@SisyphusRedeemed euthanasia IS used to refer to any induced death in a medical setting, and while I'm sure someplaces take fido out behind the shed and put a .22 in his head, most places do it in a veterinarian setting. Just because you don't like the word being used in this context doesn't mean it doesn't fit the accepted societal definition.
Then it's used wrongly. 'Euthanasia' is a technical term with a specific meaning. I say this as someone with training in medical ethics. It's a point I drive home to my students every semester. Euthanasia ONLY applies when it's done for the benefit of the one dying. Wiki actually gets it right: en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Euthanasia
@SisyphusRedeemed Yes, according to the wiki article there is a debate on the best definition and the colloquial definition whether you like it or not refers to "painless inducement of a quick death". I also have training in medical ethics but I'm not going to pretend like the word has some fixed meaning highlighted with a picture of jack kevorkian.
@Uhlbelk "Do you disagree that humans base the morality of decisions based on the mental faculties of the subject?"
No, I agree with that. That's the crux of my argument: human and non-human animals both have the same morally relevant mental faculties such that raising and killing either of them for food is immoral.
@SisyphusRedeemed See, I don't agree with you with "human and non-human animals both have the same morally relevant mental faculties". If you were driving and a child ran out into the street in front of your car, you AND society would punish you. Do you feel that you would deserve or receive the same punishment (from yourself even) if it was a dog?...a squirrel?...ect ect. I don't think you would, you wouldn't feel anywhere near as badly about it.
@Uhlbelk "I don't agree with you with "human and non-human animals both have the same morally relevant mental faculties""
Well, it's certainly a debatable point, but I wonder how much you know about non-human facilities, and what you consider to be morally relevant faculties.
"If you were driving and..."
I don't think they're morally identical. I think that there is no significant difference vis-a-vie killing and eating them, such that one is okay and the other isn't.
@SisyphusRedeemed Which is it, you "dont think they are morally identical" or "no significant difference". We are talking about death of an animal, I understand this line is subjectively drawn and you are setting the line somewhere where animal farming is wrong, but where do you draw the line at? crustaceans? fish? Also if animals are morally equivalents to humans, what makes a pet different then a slave, why is it ok to kill a cockroach?
@Uhlbelk "Which is it, you "dont think they are morally identical" or "no significant difference""
It's both. The are contexts in which there are significant moral differences between humans and animals (such as pets vs. slaves); killing and eating is not one of those.
"where do you draw the line at?"
This is where the virtue ethics comes in: it's a judgment call. We need to take our best understanding of these creatures and make the best, most honest judgments we can.
@SisyphusRedeemed Ok, so this moral equivalent thing for you is limited. From your previous reply, it doesn't appear that the killing part is equivalent, since I doubt you are going to even stop your car if a squirrel decides to become a speedbump, but eating them is? Or is it the suffering? I don't really see how you decide a subject is morally equivalent or not.
@SisyphusRedeemed I meant after the squish. A human you would definitely stop, a dog..probably depends on if it was an interstate or a sidestreet, a squirrel....
"we often assign higher priority to some human lives over others" we are talking about moral statements not value statements...if you are going to defend your reaction to a human death compared to a rodent as being based on their value to you, then I don't see how the morality is relevant.
@Uhlbelk "so this moral equivalent thing for you is limited."
Sure, but that's hardly a concession. Human moral equivalence is limited, too. Despite our talk about 'all people being created equal' we often assign higher priority to some human lives over others. And rightful so.
In much the same way that you point out that vegetables do not have the same faculties that aminals have, humans have faculties that animals do not.
There is a clear distinction between animals and humans in the way that there is a clear distinction between vegetables and animals. A direct substitution seems a poor way to deal with craig's question. It ignores important distinctions.
@TheCelticChimp "There is a clear distinction between animals and humans "
Could you please tell me what that 'clear distinction' is with regard to torture? Because in that context I see no difference. You can't torture a vegetable, it's simply not possible, so I see a difference there. But all the morally relevant dimensions of torture seem to apply to both human and non-human animals, to me.
How did this move on to torture? Craig was talking about the painless killing of animals.
The clear distinction between humans and animals is our more powerful brains. This allows us to understand all kinds of things that animals don't. We can reason, predict, anticipate, we form deeper bonds socially, we worry about all kinds of things, etc. etc. Humans can be tortured in ways animals cannot. Most notably by promising future pain and suffering.
@TheCelticChimp "Craig was talking about the painless killing of animals."
Sorry, I didn't realize you were picking up on Craig's thread, I just though you were responding to the video. In that case, allow me to rephrase:
Can you tell me what the morally relevant difference is between painlessly killing a human animal & painlessly killing a non-human animal? You say: "We can reason, predict, anticipate, we form deeper bonds socially, we worry about all kinds of things" (cont'd)
@TheCelticChimp (cont'd) None of that seems to make a difference. The reason why it's wrong to kill a non-human animals (even if done painlessly) doesn't have anything to do with their capacity to reason, predict, anticipate, form deeper social bongs, worry, etc. If it were, then there would be nothing wrong with painlessly killing mentally retarded humans, small children, senile adults, etc. These things you point to may matter in some contexts, but they don't in this one.
I wouldn't put retarded humans, small children or senile adults on the same mental level as animals but I'll take the point.
I am not arguing that it is morally neutral to kill animals, even painlessly. I am arguing that there is a distinction between killing animals and killing humans. If you didn't see this distinction could you go about your business while truckloads of humans were being shipped to abattoirs all over your country as you do now?
You argue that "killing" vegetables is ok because they have no experience of anything. I think the fast difference in experience between humans and animals is simply a logical extention of that same line of argument.
Incidentally, I agree that killing animals is morally wrong. I just don't think it is fair to draw an exact eqivalence between humans and animals. Also, if cows had the same mental experience as humans it would be as wrong to kill them.
@TheCelticChimp "I think the fast difference in experience between humans and animals is simply a logical extention of that same line of argument."
There's a difference of kind between vegetables and animals; there are merely differences of degree between human and non-human animals, and the degrees are pretty minor. There's a difference between killing small children and killing old people, but not significant enough to make one not murder.
@TheCelticChimp "if cows had the same mental experience as humans it would be as wrong to kill them."
How much do you know about cows? They have almost all the same mental experiences as humans. In addition to pain, they feel love, loss, longing, they have memories, they can anticipate the future. They don't have language & they can't do math (neither of which are morally significant), but beyond that, they share most of our basic mental functions. More so than small children.
Cows have almost the same mental experience as humans?
I don't really know what to make of that to be honest. I don't believe it is even close to true. I think this puts us too far apart on our underlying views of the reality of what we are trying to make ethical decisions about for the conversation to be meaningful.
In any case, I enjoyed the conversation and thanks for taking the time to respond.
@TheCelticChimp I can recommend a book on the topic, if you're interested: "The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional Lives of Farm Animals" by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. I think you might be surprised.
I likewise appreciate the exchange of ideas. Cheers.
There is no question that a vegetable is not equivalent to an animal in terms of what is ethically permissable but it seems to me that there is no question either that aminals are not equivalent to humans in this regard either. Owning animals for instance simply doesn't have the same implications as owning a person.
I think that subbing in human for animal and then testing an ethical idea is ignoring important differences.
"Life feeds on life" is not fully correct, because plants feed on sunlight.
Cannibalism is immoral because our culture SAYS it's immoral. I doubt there's an evolutionary reason why cannibalism is objectively wrong in all cases. But human societies couldn't be the same if we thought of each other as food instead of as allies.
But it's silly to imply he can't complain if you kill and eat him, both because of self-preservation and because of COURSE a non-psycho person values allies over food.
@Crunchy68 Social animals tend to be noncanniballistic because they rely on cooperation. Humans are social animals thus they see cannibalism as immoral (against their nature) and if it happens it's either because of religious factor or lack of food.
Still, ever since reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" I rather wonder why we consider it immoral to even eat people who just died, as opposed to killing folks AS food. Why do we feel attached to the idea of preserving the integrity of a lifeless body that USED to be animated by a loved one? I don't even believe in spirits or souls, yet I feel the pull. I don't really understand it.
@Crunchy68 The idea of preserving bodies of those who were once close to us have probably something to do with Dunbar's number. I don't know any studies on this topic though.
@Crunchy68 I thought of Dunbar's Number when you mentioned about kil;ing people and preserving bodies of those who are close to us. When a person is a part of group it is difficult to just let the relationship go when he dies.Body preservation is just an attempt to keep the relationship going. When person is not a part of group we dont see him as full human and it is easier to kill him/her under certain circumstances...
[cont] I eat meat 3-4 times a month. Im not the greatest meat eater, but i will not stop eating meat or other animal products, because they keep me healthy and more importantly i like eating them from time to time. Does that make me a bad person, i dont know. One day may be society will teach my children or grandchildren that this is immoral and should not be done. That is their problem. For now i do not see any moral problem standing in front of me on that subject.
(cont) What we do today us raise animals for the slaughter, we pump them up with chemicals and hormons, keep them in conditions that most people could not stand to look at let alone live in. If thare is no greater cruelty that has lasted for so long in our time. This is something that our modern society has created. That is what i find immoral.[cont]
Hello there, i think that people that say that we have always eaten animals and there is nothing wrong with what we are doing right now are ignorant or generally misinformed. People throughout history have not eaten meat for every meal and actually before 20th century most meals eaten by men were vegetarian. People killed animals only in great need or for greater celebrations, in my country that are 5-6 holidays a year. Farmers raised animals for milk, eggs, field work and sale to the rich(cont)
It may not be morally permissible to kick a puppy, but that is only because there is no reason for it. When such a reason does exist it is not automatically wrong just because it harms animals. It depends on the gain that humans receive from it compared to the damage it does to animals, and this actually is an arbitrary line that you draw for yourself.
Most people believe it is acceptable to breed animals for meat and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that.
@Wushuki Most people may believe that, but that is no reason to think it is true. There was a time when most people believed that it was acceptable to own other human beings. Clearly what most people believe is not a sound foundation for our own moral beliefs.
@SisyphusRedeemed My point is that there is no "truth" here. They are just decisions that we make based on what we believe is more important. Similarly, it is not objectively true that we cannot hold slaves, this too is just a decision based on how we draw our moral lines.
Our morals are based on the idea that the interests of intelligent life weigh more heavily than those of lesser intelligent life. If someone draws a line there, then on what ground can you disagree?
@Wushuki I can point out that their line leads to conclusions that they themselves most likely won't accept. For example, if 'more intelligent' means higher moral status than less intelligent, doesn't that imply that Stephen Hawking has higher moral status than Paris Hilton? If we can raise and slaughter less intelligent beings for food, then couldn't we do the same with congenitally retarded human beings? I doubt many people will bite this bullet, but it follows from your principle.
@SisyphusRedeemed I see a flaw there indeed, but it is more related to my definition than it is on the actual moral standards that most people, me included, have. Let me rephrase: Our morals are based on the idea that the interests of members of intelligent species weigh more heavily than those of members of lesser intelligent species.
@Wushuki But why is species-membership the morally relevant line? Why isn't kingdom-membership, or phylum-membership, or race-membership? You seem to be comfortable with the idea that we draw the line arbitrarily, but I don't think you should be. I want to condemn the racist for drawing the line at an arbitrary point, not simply accept his move as no worse than anyone else's. If racism is wrong because it draws a morally irrelevant line, then the same is true of speciesism.
@SisyphusRedeemed@SisyphusRedeemed "If racism is wrong because it draws a morally irrelevant line, then the same is true of speciesism. "
Yes, but racism is not wrong because it draws a morally irrelevant line. Racism is regarded as wrong because it is not a stable way for voluntary agents to interact. A group of people who get no opportunities because of their biology will not have any interest in maintaining interactions with the people who oppress them.
@SisyphusRedeemed "If racism is wrong because it draws a morally irrelevant line, then the same is true of speciesism. "
Yes, but racism is not wrong because it draws a morally irrelevant line. Racism is regarded as wrong because it is not a stable way for voluntary agents to interact. A group of people who get no opportunities because of their biology will not have any interest in maintaining interactions with the people who oppress them.
@SisyphusRedeemed Wishuki tried to point this out by pointing at intelligence, which is the key property that allows agents to have considerations of the fact that other agents have interests as well, and can preemptively take actions that prevent conflict and establishes a social environment where everyone can benefit from each other. It should be patently obvious that virtually no animal can participate in such systems due to their limited cognitive systems.
@SisyphusRedeemed Because of this, our relationship with animals will always be a one-way street, even in principle. With humans, we can adopt models like insurance to justify treating even severely handicapped members of our species well.(It could have been us etc), but with animals we can never get anything in return in any way what so ever, not even indirectly. This is the point where moral reasoning becomes pointless. It literally has no value vs animals, even in theory.
@SisyphusRedeemed Now, this does not mean that I would insist that my hamburgers be tortured before they die, but it does mean that I employ an entirely different standard for dealing with animals than I do with humans, and that I consider this a necessity due to our different natures.
Given a theoretical species that could cooperate in reasonable ways, they'd be moral agents for me in a flash though. The human species has no relevance. Our capabilities do.
@SisyphusRedeemed I also find it rather simplistic to adopt the "Suffering is the measure of morality" approach of Singer. It fails, in the most spectacular way, to take into account that suffering is an unavoidable aspect of being alive. Killing someone could not possibly be regarded as wrong simply because you make other people suffer, for the simple reason that they're going to die at some point anyway and will suffer similarly at that point.
@SisyphusRedeemed Our moral intuitions are far more complex than that and deal with things like how we imagine our actions will make us appear to other people(Threat assessments, our willingness to reciprocate etc), rather than naive inherent "rights" and "wrongs" that can be generalized to species that are incapable of viewing us as anything but "food".
"doesn't that imply that Stephen Hawking has higher moral status than Paris Hilton?"
I've actually argued this, but I'm not sure I would say that I necessarily agree with the "type" of intelligence involved. This can get you out of the feeding of the mentally handicapped: I prefer to think of it in terms of more actualized rather than more intelligent. However, it doesn't truly justify the torture, because higher beings have an obligation to the lower.
@Wushuki "Our morals are based on the idea that the interests of intelligent life weigh more heavily than those of lesser intelligent life." - depends on the philosophy applied. If you're an Schopenhaurian (?), your morality is based on compassion.
"If someone draws a line there, then on what ground can you disagree?" - that would imply that there's no ground whatsoever to disagree with any line at all, no?
@SisyphusRedeemed Love this newly discovered channel but come on seriously? So by your measurements it is perfectly acceptable to run down your local woodland and trample every flower you see because they feel no pain? You are also by default an utter utilitarianist because you believe pain and pleasure are the only measure of an ethical system... Come on you are better than that. Also, really? The infrastructure is there for us to all only eat vegan? It is simply not.
@curzmg "So by your measurements it is perfectly acceptable to run down your local woodland and trample every flower you see because they feel no pain?"
Not at all. I said feeling pain is sufficient for moral status, I didn't say it was necessary. That doesn't make me a utilitarian, that makes me morally minimally decent. Anyone who denies that feeling pain is sufficient for status would be a moral monster.
@curzmg "The infrastructure is there for us to all only eat vegan? It is simply not."
You say that as if infrastructure is fixed and unchanging. As more people become vegetarian/vegan the market will react by developing new infrastructure to meet that demand.
@SisyphusRedeemed I do not believe it will. Or at least I believe it would eventually but these things do not happen without great pain to many people. If I own a cattle farm, you stop buying, then I lose money. Many farms won't have the capability to retool and the people hardest hit would be the smaller farms. An example of this struggle in reality is the upcoming EU ban on battery cages for egg production. It clearly is not a cakewalk.
@SisyphusRedeemed What do you think would happen if we all only ate vegan? Well for a start it would simply be impossible, there just aren't enough resources. If we did not only would we fuck ourselves but we would also tank many economies that rely even somewhat on animal exports. So don't you think, as it is physically impossible, that it is somewhat wrong to moralise and chastise others for eating non-vegan when it is physically impossible for us to all eat vegan?
@curzmg "t would simply be impossible, there just aren't enough resources."
You couldn't be more mistaken. Our current system is far more wasteful than a vegan system would be. Right now we take crops and feed them to cows, chickens and pigs, then eat them. If we simply ate the crops (after converting the land to human edible ones, of course) we could feed the entire planet on about 1/10th of the resources that we're currently using.
@SisyphusRedeemed I should have said under current market conditions. Your line then is that you believe the market would retool and take up the demand. Well then this is a very sticky question. If we could all agree at one time that this was morally wrong, as we should if it is so, then we would also simultaneously cause an immoral mess of the economy. It is only moral to convert to veganism as long as we do it slowly enough for the economy to keep up.
@SisyphusRedeemed I looked it up and I don't believe I am. This fallacy only works when we are concerned about the economy at large and not certain sectors. Clearly if my son never broke my windows ever again, in fact we all managed never to break our windows for a period, then the window fixing industry would tank. It would be relevant to the larger economy that the shoe or whatever industry blossomed but irrelevant to the tanking window fixing industry.
@SisyphusRedeemed Meaning, despite the fact that other economies would benefit from growing arable demand, those that rely on livestock would still tank and we would notice it. This is a fallacy that doesn't take into account the geographic distribution of economical sectors. Still Jesus Christ, you are the first person I have ever spoken to that can run philosophical rings around me without a sweat. I will be sure to take time on any further responses to your videos just to keep up!
@SisyphusRedeemed (in response to "what most people believe is not a sound foundation for our own moral beliefs."
Morals change based on folks' understanding of what is normal or necessary or right from their perspective. I don't think there can be any utterly objective morality, though. The group/tradition may very well be wrong in light of new information, but it does not follow that they were wrong based on the information they had. Group morality is not perfect, but it's where we start.
@KangoeroeSkippy A quibble: "Meatarian?" I eat meat...and vegetables...lot's of 'em. In fact, I know for a fact I eat more green-leafy veggies, root veggies, etc., than most vegetarians, who I've watched for most of my life, eat grains and carb- and highly processed "vegie-protein" based diets. While "vegetarian" may be an apt label for those who eat only vegetable matter, "meatarian" seems a bit amiss as a comparable omnivorous diet.
In a discussion with a friend pertaining to my recent choice to become a vegetarian, we've come across a line of reasoning for eating meat which seems strong, and which i haven't heard before.
Morality = Unnecessary suffering (simplified)
If the animal dies without suffering happening (in the animal or in parties caring for it), it is not immoral.
Therefore it would be immoral to eat social animals, or animals killed in a painful manner, but it is otherwise permissible.
@IFE10M First of all, there is no way to avoid killing animals in a painful manner if you're doing it on an industrial scale, and it's unlikely to be avoided even on a smaller scale. The idea of 'cruelty free farming' is simply a myth. Second, it's not just the killing of the animal that causes suffering, it's how they are kept and raised. There is also the good that would have constituted their life, had they not been killed prematurely. So I don't buy it, but that's just me.
@SisyphusRedeemed I agree with your stance on factory farms. I do my best to avoid them. But, I don't see that as an argument in favor of vegetarianism per se. For one, I do see a distinction between factory farming and pasture raised animals. You rebut the idea that life feeds on life and do so through making distinctions between differing kinds of life. Yet, I don't see you taking that one step further...
@SisyphusRedeemed ...to what kind of death is in store for every living being. What vegetarians seem to forget is that these animals, like us, are not immortal. They die. In "nature" they rarely reach a ripe old age and dance in the daisies. Instead, they are brutally torn asunder by other animals, die of starvation, disease, drowning, etc. Could it not be that, in exchange for a healthy life, far more protected by disease, starvation, etc., the animal's life is better than otherwise?
I respectfully agree with this statement but to your other point that non sentiant beings do not posses interest I would have to disagree. Consciousness is not a requisite to interest as the organism strives to reproduce and survive, perhaps out of biological determinacy.
@andrewbandrew right then that means you can't eat plants either. you'll have to be a fruitarian then, and only eat the parts of plants that evolved to be eaten.
Respond to this video... If one cannot favour the consumption of an being with a more complex consciousness over a less complex consciousness, then should they not favour a being of interest with a consciousness over one with consciousness on the principle of organizational hierarchical favoritism. What about eating higher beings? Much respect.
@KangoeroeSkippy Ask them questions like this: "Would you agree that it's better to live in a world with less suffering, rather than more suffering?" "Would you agree that animals can suffer?" "Would you agree that animals on factory farms suffer horribly?" "Would you agree that one way to make this a world with less suffering is to abolish factory farms?" "Would you agree that one way to help abolish factory farms is to not support them by buying their product?" I've found that works better.
@KangoeroeSkippy A statement like "there is nothing intrinsically wrong with X" is incredibly complicated. It involves a lot of tricky metaethical and metaphysical issues. Maybe they think there's nothing intrinsically wrong with X because they don't believe that ANYTHING is intrinsically wrong. So that's not the line to go after. All you need to show is that the person in question's own moral values already commit them to the immorality of eating meat. (cont'd)
While I will be the last person to defend the sickening practices of factory farming, what shall we make of the claims of meat-eaters that eating meat actually helps animals by preventing them from being killed in a gruesome manner by nonhuman animals? Is the best option here neither factory farming nor vegetarianism? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair "what shall we make of the claims of meat-eaters that eating meat actually helps animals by preventing them from being killed in a gruesome manner by nonhuman animals?"
Nothing done in the state of nature even comes close to the horrors of what happens in factory farms. Nature is red in tooth and claw, but as in all things, mankind has managed to make a system that is even worse.
I'm probably going to upset a lot of people but what it boils down to for the consumer is what's affordable, delicious, edible and emotionally satisfying.
Meat is something engrained deep into our instincts.
Until vegetable matter can become as interesting or as juicy without ridiculous preparations being involved, alternative consumer life-styles are never going to take off.
Talking about it is all fine and good but unless you're changing food, you're not changing the world.
@osakanone As a description of people's actual psychology/behavior, you're probably right. But surely this isn't a justification for that psychology/behavior. Our instincts can't distinguish between cow flesh and human flesh, so if our instincts justify eating the former then perforce they justify eating the later.
Do you really think that? What it makes it immoral to kill a human for food but not immoral to do the same to a nonhuman animal, assuming they are both killed in a "painless" manner? Pigs are intelligent creatures that have as much of a desire to live as any human child. To defend speciesism by saying that the child will eventually grow into an adult is to resort to the same fallacy that strict pro-lifers use.
There's nothing wrong with killing animals to eat. It's the WAY they are killed. Why not shoot pigs in the back of the head quickly and painlessly instead of hanging then upside down and watching them suffer after slitting their throat? And don't tell me it's because of lead poisoning. I can guarantee that a tiny bit of lead in our meat, is no where near as dangerous as all the Fluoride in all of our drinking water, because Fluoride is far more poisonous than lead.
@BlizBob "human feels pain much more than a cow, moose or a rabbit."
In some circumstance yes, in others no. A cow has thicker skin than a human, so a slap of equal force will hurt a human more than a cow. But you can compensate for their skin by slapping harder. Their psychology can also make them more vulnerable: you can't explain to them that their pain will end soon, for example, like you can with a human.
Actually, that proves the opposite: if a human dies instantly, they feel no pain at all. If a moose lives after being shot for, say, 5 minutes, then it suffers for 5 minutes more than the human.
@SisyphusRedeemed Cannabalism just means you eat people. It doesn't mean you kill them to eat them. Armin Meiwes was only sent to jail on killing Brandes, not eating him. That's not to say everything that is legal is moral, to be clear, just to highlight the difference. Sometimes mother cats who have dead newborns will eat them. In fact, we might be morally obligated -to- eat our own dead after they've died so as to limit the amount of killing for meat that goes on.
Oh come on, you don't really take "disgustipated" seriously, do you? Maynard as a preacher, thank you Jesus, "Let the rabbits wear glasses" - it has written SARCASM all over it. Maybe fooltime is dumb enough to make a mantra out of a parody, but you seem to be much brighter.
trakkaton 3 weeks ago
Wow, all these people posting comments about how they love tasty meat. Absolutely no self-discipline or self-control, even when you know it's destructive and painful for animals. At least eat fish but try not to eat mammals, who are more like us.
DarkArabesque 1 month ago
2:28
That was pretty funny.
BionTimeWorks 1 month ago
I 100% agree with everything you've said; however, I love meat. I guess there is no away around the issue, eating meat appears to be immoral because it causes needless suffering. But what would be your response if we could ensure the lives of animals were enjoyable until such time as they are eaten, and that their deaths would be as painless as possible? Do you think we must completely stop eating meat or are some animals okay to eat, such as fish, shrimp, etc? Where is that line?
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion I think everyone's got to answer that for themselves, but they should do that only once being informed. I don't know if shrimp can suffer or not, but when you look at the environmental damage that shrimping does, there are other good reasons not to eat shrimp.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion As for 'cruelty free farming', I don't think there is such a thing, but there are some farms that are far better than others. But killing a human at a fraction of their natural life, even if that life is a happy one, is still a horribly moral evil. Why should that be any different for a non-human animal?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
Re carrots: What they don’t have is sensation/perception. Show me where the nerve tissue is in a carrot, and . . .
schwei56 2 months ago
Actually I’d submit that, more often than not, life feeds on death. Ask any fly. Now go eat an apple as it’s hanging from a tree. Not easy, is it?
schwei56 2 months ago
Why care about the suffering in non-sentient beings? Yes, animals suffer in some way, and even though consciousness is present in most animals, it is so in different degrees. I contest their pain is different from ours. At any rate, there are humane ways of killing them, and since their perception of the world is fundamentally different from ours, it is in fact humane.
I don't really care either way. Give me some tasty nutritious meat, whether it be synthetic or not, and I'm content.
TheRationalOracle 2 months ago
@TheRationalOracle Unless synthetic meat is more expensive of course, lol.
TheRationalOracle 2 months ago
And actually, and feel free to scrutinize on this better than I have, but ancient Egyptian slaves were treated basically like poor people today, with differences in technology of course. So historically, we have depended on slaves and still do, we just call them 'poor people' today.
Nervousification 2 months ago
I love that song, this is necessary.
Nervousification 2 months ago
Very well argued. Liked, as usual.
IDOZRX 2 months ago
Keep up the good work, SR. I believe in you!
IAmTheScum13 2 months ago
That's about as coherent as I can get. Just today I ate 5 fried fish and then a couple of hours later I had some steak.
saiyanmage 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The naturalist in me, recognizes that my body has elements of carnivores and herbivores. The nihilist in me does not care for morality. And the hedonist in me, just loves the taste of meat.
And the real me says it in layman's terms: I've got canines, morals are relative so don't mean shit when compared to other's morals, and finally, meat tastes fucking good!
saiyanmage 2 months ago
Tooltime gets it, Sisyphus doesn't... I agree with Tooltime; dislike video
PepperGeorge 2 months ago
You vegan bro?
Nothing wrong with eating meat, just with hurting animals.
FHomeBrew 2 months ago
@FHomeBrew In practice I don't think you can do prior without doing the later.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed They've created a way to produce synthetic meat (I think it was in Japan or something). So if that comes through it'll be settled.
I'll admit to not having thought this vegetarianism thing through yet, but if you accept animals into the moral landscape, and if you accept that one species feeds on another species, surely it's at least a weak argument for eating meat?
FHomeBrew 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed You claim to be in “no position to… cast judgement… at moral choices” yet state “[eating meat] causes the most obscene and grotesque amount of suffering that this planet has ever seen.” You also compare eating meat to slavery and at least imply that refusing to eat meat is “everyone’s goalpost except for the sociopath.”
In light of these statements and others, can you envision a world in which you would not enforce vegetarianism and punish those that would eat meat?
Blackmark52 2 months ago
@Blackmark52 "In light of these statements and others, can you envision a world in which you would not enforce vegetarianism and punish those that would eat meat?"
Yeah: this one. I wouldn't force vegetarianism on people by force of law. That would be pointless and ineffective. Laws are social end-products, an expression of a society's values. I want to change those values, not use force against people. I want to go after the root, not the branch.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Touching on Blackmark52's comments, if the law was not ineffective in treating this issue (I admit in actuality it most certainly is), would you consider using it in this situation? In other words, do you oppose using the law here only for pragmatic reasons, or do you also think that society's values being expressed takes precedent (1)
synchronium24 2 months ago
@synchronium24 "or do you also think that society's values being expressed takes precedent"
I don't think either take absolute precedence. It's always a contextual judgment. I'm sure there are hypothetical worlds where I'd enforce a law against the values of a people, but I don't really care for speculating about hypothetical worlds unless doing so somehow illuminates a practical issue in this one. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed over what you consider the depravity of eating meat? I'm not a vegetarian, but i'm hard pressed to see how you could hold the latter view given that you do support the force of law on other issues, some of which you presumably find less objectionable than meat eating. (2)
synchronium24 2 months ago
@synchronium24 "you do support the force of law on other issues, some of which you presumably find less objectionable than meat eating."
Sure, but in those cases the majority of society is in agreement. If almost everyone agreed that torturing animals was wrong (which I think they do) & they were honest about how this commits them to abolishing factory farms, & all of the other relevant values were clarified, a law protecting animals from being eaten would make more sense.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "I wouldn't force vegetarianism on people by force of law."
I wonder if you are being naive or disingenuous. How could a society not use law to oppose this obscene and grotesque amount of suffering you talk of? Can you cite one societal structure that maintains a moral righteousness that doesn't condemn contrary views? How do you propose to "go after the root"? Indoctrination? Re-education?
Blackmark52 2 months ago
@Blackmark52 "How could a society not use law to oppose this obscene and grotesque amount of suffering you talk of?"
That's exactly what we're doing now. Using force to stop hundreds of millions of people from doing something they want to do doesn't work (just look at alcohol, drug and prostitution prohibition.)
I propose going after the root not through 're-education' (whatever the hell that is) but through education. That's what I'm doing here.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed You are avoiding the question. You talk of "going after the root" but that doesn't mean anything. Re-education is a 1984 concept with similar ideas in other sci-fi literature. The point being made is that your views as expressed logically lead to not accepting nonconformity. Go back and look at your language.
Blackmark52 2 months ago
@Blackmark52 I'm sorry, I don't mean to be avoiding the question. If you could you restate the question for me, and I'll try to answer it directly.
I got reference to 1984; my point was that you can't actually do that. YouTube is not the Ministry of Truth. It's a teaching platform, and that's what I'm using it for. It's education, not 're-education.'
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@Blackmark52 "The point being made is that your views as expressed logically lead to not accepting nonconformity."
What, exactly, does 'not accepting nonconformity' mean in this context? Do you expect me to force everyone to become vegetarian? How would I do that, crossing my arms and wiggling my nose? I'm a pragmatist on this, not an idealist: I want to pursue policies that will minimize animal suffering. Outlawing eating meat in our current environment won't do that.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks for the clarification. So, it sounds like with your willingness to outlaw factory farming, you do support some force in the face of an opposing majority. However, one of your own assertions actually highlights where my confusion came from. you say:
"But it IS a moral issue: we're talking about the torture and slaughter of billions of sentient beings. What else COULD IT BE other than a moral issue? If that's not a moral issue, nothing is." (1)
synchronium24 2 months ago
@synchronium24 "it sounds like with your willingness to outlaw factory farming, you do support some force in the face of an opposing majority."
I don't think so. The majority doesn't support factory farming because the majority has no idea what it is. When put in a position to make an informed decision, my experience shows the majority oppose factory farming.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Eh, depends on your definition of 'oppose.' I agree that most people don't know what factory farming is, but functionally speaking this uninformed group helps maintains the status quo. They don't support factory farming per se, but they inadvertently become a barrier to its removal. However, if you're simply saying that you wouldn't be going against society's values, then i would agree (assuming the majority of informed people do in fact oppose factory farming).
synchronium24 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed From the impact of this statement it isn't that hard to connect the dots to "...and therefore meat eating should be illegal." Since I didn't know the reasoning behind your objection to using the law here, you seemed to be advocating a bizarre moral relativism that you usually rail against. (2)
synchronium24 2 months ago
@synchronium24 "From the impact of this statement it isn't that hard to connect the dots to "...and therefore meat eating should be illegal.""
The law isn't a tool to impose values on people. Like I said, law is a social end-product, an EXPRESSION of a people's values. You can't craft values with force, history is awash with failed attempts to do so. Reason, education, empathy and patience are necessary tools. Legislation comes later.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@Blackmark52 I WOULD support laws outlawing factor farming; that's something I think would be effective and wouldn't require mass consciousness raising, necessarily, to make happen (though that would sure help). But that's a far cry from laws outlawing eating meat.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "that's a far cry from laws outlawing eating meat."
But is it? Many vegetarians already support the idea. How can you outlaw factory farming and not eventually target any slaughter whatsoever? Once you've done that you HAVE outlawed eating meat.
My problem with your argument is precisely that it frames the issue as a moral one. When the opponents of a belief are vehemently denounced as immoral they are afforded no rights.
Blackmark52 2 months ago
@Blackmark52 "Once you've done that you HAVE outlawed eating meat."
Human beings ate meat for thousands of years before factory farming. It is obviously possible to do the former without the later.
"My problem with your argument is precisely that it frames the issue as a moral one."
But it IS a moral issue: we're talking about the torture and slaughter of billions of sentient beings. What else COULD IT BE other than a moral issue? If that's not a moral issue, nothing is.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@Blackmark52 "When the opponents of a belief are vehemently denounced as immoral they are afforded no rights."
How on earth do you jump to this conclusion? You denounce immoral behavior in other people all the time (I assume) without depriving them of rights. I assume you think lying is immoral, but I doubt you'd say people don't have a right to do it, or that you would outlaw it if you could.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I would outlaw those things I deem immoral. But I don't consider such things as eating animals a moral issue. I don't consider lying immoral (though perjury and libel should be punished). Withholding medical treatment from children is immoral, and I would not extend that right under the law. But I don't generally see things in moral terms, so vegetarians would be safer from me, than I from vegetarians.
Blackmark52 2 months ago
What happens if research is presented that plants DO feel pain?
superustipak 2 months ago
@superustipak I'd certainly be skeptical at first, but if the research was solid, I'd say we had a moral obligation to learn more about what caused them pain, what that pain is like, and then do whatever we can to avoid hurting them. But this purely hypothetical--such a finding would mean that everything we know about botany, biology, neuroscience and a half dozen other fields was completely mistaken.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
This video sounds like a 12 minute long argument for genetically engineering animals that don't feel pain/think. Then we could enjoy delicious meat while not being bothered by the moral implications of causing pain to animals.
Drachnon 2 months ago
@Drachnon People are working on lab-grown meat. There's still some hurdles to clear, but there's good reason to think it will happen in the next few years.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
Meat is lovely.
amberience 2 months ago
Thumbed this shit up while I was eating a corndog
nsane87 2 months ago
Sisyphus, thank you for championing the welfare of animals. In my opinion, factory farming is the most important moral issue of our time and we need as many rational and articulate voices as possible to expose this ugly industry to the public.
biznor3 2 months ago
Pain's undesirable but is it bad?This is David Hume's is/ought fallacy.Now,I'm not pointing out that we should not care about pain in the universe;I'm only implying that a utilitarian approach to this problem is best.Would humanity be happy as a whole if they knew they were empathizig with consious animals?I believe the answer is YES as long as this doesn't compromize human well-being.Thus, for issues such as the use of animals in medical research,it is acceptable within limits.But for food?Nah!
kheffah 2 months ago
@kheffah "This is David Hume's is/ought fallacy."
I reject the idea that this is a fallacy. In fact, I think the idea that there is a distinction between facts and values is the actual fallacy. Values are part of the world, they are a kind of fact. And facts, like values, are norms. Hume was just wrong on this one.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SisyphusRedeemed Well, I do believe that values are but expressions of our inner wishes. It's a neuroscientific matter that can be summarized in mirror neurones and oxytocin. If values were in selves part of the world then moral progress would almost be like facts popping into existence out of an unknown origin.Instead,it's human endevaur & increased awareness that define new values.am really enjoying this discussion:)I wrote an article about it in kheffah(dot)blogspot(dot)com
kheffah 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Would love to see how you'd show that Hume's guillotine is a fallacy. I sure can't see how.
HannuMarijarvi 2 months ago
@HannuMarijarvi My argument isn't that different than the one Sam Harris puts forward in "The Moral Landscape." There are a few things I disagree with him on, but the general idea is there.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
You are absolutely right about the excuse making that people use to avoid the ethical dilemmas involved in eating animals. While I do eat meat, I recognise that it is largely morally indefensible. It does cause me some brow wringles but I just can't bring myself to stop eating it.
Lamb in particular pains me and every time I indulge in a donner kebab I feel very guilty. The guilt has to compete with extreme deliciousness but still.
I can't wait till we can have the meat without the minds. :)
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCelticChimp "I can't wait till we can have the meat without the minds. :)"
I'm also a meat eater who concedes that eating meat is immoral, and while I don't feel nearly the emotional stirring you do (otherwise i might be a vegetarian), i'm all for any substitutes that will reduce animal suffering.
synchronium24 2 months ago
"Spare me please!". I really wish this response were more accepted in general philosophical discussions. :)
I'm not being sarcastic in this case, thouroughly deserved in the example you cite. Nice one.
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
This tooltime guy obviously is an extremely superficial person. Logically, what he's saying is: A because A, therefore A is A OK.
MisterScrutinizer 2 months ago
ooooo the atheists are fighting. This is good though because it reiterates the fact that atheism isn't a wholly uniting banner of belief.
LetsTalkSexTalk 2 months ago
@LetsTalkSexTalk Who ever said atheism was unifying? It's just a lack of a belief in gods, not a banner to gather under at all.
Still, I'd rather hang with atheists and argue with them all day long rather than with religious people, because in general I have found atheists to be more stimulating and less given to baseless dogma, intentional blindness, or petty intellectual fallacies than the average religious person I've met.
Crunchy68 2 months ago
@Crunchy68 Many religious groups call atheism its own religion, which is to suggest that it is unifying as a belief system. I don't believe that they are correct, but I do believe that this video illustrates that it is not a unifying belief system.
LetsTalkSexTalk 2 months ago
@LetsTalkSexTalk I believe in YOUR FACE. Now let's fight for no reason.
saiyanmage 2 months ago
@LetsTalkSexTalk If you'd stop to talk sex talk, you might realize atheism's got nothing to do with what's being said in this video. It might be hard for you to get that, but I'm sure you'll manage. Well, I hope you will ...
MisterScrutinizer 2 months ago
@MisterScrutinizer The first part of my comment was a joke based around the fact that both of the youtubers are recognized as part of an atheist youtube community of sorts. The video of course didn't have an atheist topic, but both users are recognized as such.
LetsTalkSexTalk 2 months ago
Your arguments are good and valid.
I can't argue against them, so I guess I'm immoral towards animals.
Still, I really liked this video!
I'm definitely subscribing!
saiyanmage 2 months ago
"Animals feel pain ergo they matter morally." Killing animals quickly does not cause them pain. Dead animals do not feel pain.
I see your point about the way animals are treated in factory farms... but that doesn't imply that it is inherently wrong to eat meat. What if I one was to eat meat from a farm where animals were farmed and slaughtered humanely? Would this also be a transgression?
craigblack1234 2 months ago
@craigblack1234 "Killing animals quickly does not cause them pain. Dead animals do not feel pain."
Replace the word 'animals' with 'humans' and see how the truth value is affected.
As for 'humane' farming, I don't think there is such a thing, but there is certainly better and worse farming. But again, imagine we were 'humanely' raising, killing and eating humans. Would anyone try to defend that?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I don't understand why you equate the morality of raising animals to eat with raising humans to eat. Eating a human would be a waste of a resource, since humans are capable of vastly contributing to the lives of other humans in ways far more meaningful than just one meal. An animal is not so capable.
Why do you think farming cannot be humane?
If an animal WAS happy in life and killed painlessly, would its death still be immoral to you?
Crunchy68 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I would have to say the truth value of that statement does not change. Since you are switching topics from pain to species, the morality of the act is more related to the value placed on the belief humans have that another species is cognitively aware of the value of their own existence. A dog bites a person, and we euthanize it. We don't do that to another person. We kill rodents in horrible ways because they chew holes in our cabinets. Insects?....
Uhlbelk 2 months ago
@Uhlbelk "A dog bites a person, and we euthanize it."
No, we don't. Euthanasia is when a person is killed for their own good. What we do to such a dog has another name: we execute it. We don't like to call it that because we prefer the euphemism 'euthanize', but that is simply a false description. The act of of killing a being because it has harmed others is an execution. And in 34 states (and the federal government) we do that to humans, too.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed We do not kill people for biting another. Most kids would never make it out of childhood if we did. We call it euthanizing because it is not done as revenge or punishment because the animal could not comprehend that. You seem to be avoiding the point. Do you disagree that humans base the morality of decisions based on the mental faculties of the subject? The lines may be subjective but they exist and do so for each person.
Uhlbelk 2 months ago
@Uhlbelk "We do not kill people for biting another"
But we do kill them when we think they may be a perpetual threat to the lives of others. The biting isn't the reason we kill dogs (dogs bite people all the time in play); it's the fact that we think they're a risk to people's lives.
"We call it euthanizing because it is not done as revenge or punishment because the animal could not comprehend that."
Look up the definition of euthanasia, and you'll see that doesn't fit.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed euthanasia IS used to refer to any induced death in a medical setting, and while I'm sure someplaces take fido out behind the shed and put a .22 in his head, most places do it in a veterinarian setting. Just because you don't like the word being used in this context doesn't mean it doesn't fit the accepted societal definition.
Uhlbelk 2 months ago
@Uhlbelk "euthanasia IS used to refer to..."
Then it's used wrongly. 'Euthanasia' is a technical term with a specific meaning. I say this as someone with training in medical ethics. It's a point I drive home to my students every semester. Euthanasia ONLY applies when it's done for the benefit of the one dying. Wiki actually gets it right: en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Euthanasia
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Yes, according to the wiki article there is a debate on the best definition and the colloquial definition whether you like it or not refers to "painless inducement of a quick death". I also have training in medical ethics but I'm not going to pretend like the word has some fixed meaning highlighted with a picture of jack kevorkian.
Uhlbelk 2 months ago
@Uhlbelk "Do you disagree that humans base the morality of decisions based on the mental faculties of the subject?"
No, I agree with that. That's the crux of my argument: human and non-human animals both have the same morally relevant mental faculties such that raising and killing either of them for food is immoral.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed See, I don't agree with you with "human and non-human animals both have the same morally relevant mental faculties". If you were driving and a child ran out into the street in front of your car, you AND society would punish you. Do you feel that you would deserve or receive the same punishment (from yourself even) if it was a dog?...a squirrel?...ect ect. I don't think you would, you wouldn't feel anywhere near as badly about it.
Uhlbelk 2 months ago
@Uhlbelk "I don't agree with you with "human and non-human animals both have the same morally relevant mental faculties""
Well, it's certainly a debatable point, but I wonder how much you know about non-human facilities, and what you consider to be morally relevant faculties.
"If you were driving and..."
I don't think they're morally identical. I think that there is no significant difference vis-a-vie killing and eating them, such that one is okay and the other isn't.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Which is it, you "dont think they are morally identical" or "no significant difference". We are talking about death of an animal, I understand this line is subjectively drawn and you are setting the line somewhere where animal farming is wrong, but where do you draw the line at? crustaceans? fish? Also if animals are morally equivalents to humans, what makes a pet different then a slave, why is it ok to kill a cockroach?
Uhlbelk 2 months ago
@Uhlbelk "Which is it, you "dont think they are morally identical" or "no significant difference""
It's both. The are contexts in which there are significant moral differences between humans and animals (such as pets vs. slaves); killing and eating is not one of those.
"where do you draw the line at?"
This is where the virtue ethics comes in: it's a judgment call. We need to take our best understanding of these creatures and make the best, most honest judgments we can.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Ok, so this moral equivalent thing for you is limited. From your previous reply, it doesn't appear that the killing part is equivalent, since I doubt you are going to even stop your car if a squirrel decides to become a speedbump, but eating them is? Or is it the suffering? I don't really see how you decide a subject is morally equivalent or not.
Uhlbelk 2 months ago
@Uhlbelk "I doubt you are going to even stop your car if a squirrel decides to become a speedbump"
I most certainly WOULD stop my car, if I could. Why wouldn't I?
"I don't really see how you decide a subject is morally equivalent or not."
Well, I spent two chapters of my dissertation trying to answer that question, so...
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I meant after the squish. A human you would definitely stop, a dog..probably depends on if it was an interstate or a sidestreet, a squirrel....
"we often assign higher priority to some human lives over others" we are talking about moral statements not value statements...if you are going to defend your reaction to a human death compared to a rodent as being based on their value to you, then I don't see how the morality is relevant.
Uhlbelk 2 months ago
@Uhlbelk "so this moral equivalent thing for you is limited."
Sure, but that's hardly a concession. Human moral equivalence is limited, too. Despite our talk about 'all people being created equal' we often assign higher priority to some human lives over others. And rightful so.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
In much the same way that you point out that vegetables do not have the same faculties that aminals have, humans have faculties that animals do not.
There is a clear distinction between animals and humans in the way that there is a clear distinction between vegetables and animals. A direct substitution seems a poor way to deal with craig's question. It ignores important distinctions.
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
@TheCelticChimp "There is a clear distinction between animals and humans "
Could you please tell me what that 'clear distinction' is with regard to torture? Because in that context I see no difference. You can't torture a vegetable, it's simply not possible, so I see a difference there. But all the morally relevant dimensions of torture seem to apply to both human and non-human animals, to me.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
How did this move on to torture? Craig was talking about the painless killing of animals.
The clear distinction between humans and animals is our more powerful brains. This allows us to understand all kinds of things that animals don't. We can reason, predict, anticipate, we form deeper bonds socially, we worry about all kinds of things, etc. etc. Humans can be tortured in ways animals cannot. Most notably by promising future pain and suffering.
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
@TheCelticChimp "Craig was talking about the painless killing of animals."
Sorry, I didn't realize you were picking up on Craig's thread, I just though you were responding to the video. In that case, allow me to rephrase:
Can you tell me what the morally relevant difference is between painlessly killing a human animal & painlessly killing a non-human animal? You say: "We can reason, predict, anticipate, we form deeper bonds socially, we worry about all kinds of things" (cont'd)
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@TheCelticChimp (cont'd) None of that seems to make a difference. The reason why it's wrong to kill a non-human animals (even if done painlessly) doesn't have anything to do with their capacity to reason, predict, anticipate, form deeper social bongs, worry, etc. If it were, then there would be nothing wrong with painlessly killing mentally retarded humans, small children, senile adults, etc. These things you point to may matter in some contexts, but they don't in this one.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
I wouldn't put retarded humans, small children or senile adults on the same mental level as animals but I'll take the point.
I am not arguing that it is morally neutral to kill animals, even painlessly. I am arguing that there is a distinction between killing animals and killing humans. If you didn't see this distinction could you go about your business while truckloads of humans were being shipped to abattoirs all over your country as you do now?
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
@TheCelticChimp "I am arguing that there is a distinction between killing animals and killing humans."
I agree there are differences, I just don't think they're significant enough to make any difference to the ethics of eating meat.
"could you go about your business while truckloads of humans were being shipped to abattoirs all over your country as you do now?"
In the words of George Bernard Shaw, "Custom will reconcile man to any atrocity."
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
You argue that "killing" vegetables is ok because they have no experience of anything. I think the fast difference in experience between humans and animals is simply a logical extention of that same line of argument.
Incidentally, I agree that killing animals is morally wrong. I just don't think it is fair to draw an exact eqivalence between humans and animals. Also, if cows had the same mental experience as humans it would be as wrong to kill them.
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
@TheCelticChimp "I think the fast difference in experience between humans and animals is simply a logical extention of that same line of argument."
There's a difference of kind between vegetables and animals; there are merely differences of degree between human and non-human animals, and the degrees are pretty minor. There's a difference between killing small children and killing old people, but not significant enough to make one not murder.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@TheCelticChimp "if cows had the same mental experience as humans it would be as wrong to kill them."
How much do you know about cows? They have almost all the same mental experiences as humans. In addition to pain, they feel love, loss, longing, they have memories, they can anticipate the future. They don't have language & they can't do math (neither of which are morally significant), but beyond that, they share most of our basic mental functions. More so than small children.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Cows have almost the same mental experience as humans?
I don't really know what to make of that to be honest. I don't believe it is even close to true. I think this puts us too far apart on our underlying views of the reality of what we are trying to make ethical decisions about for the conversation to be meaningful.
In any case, I enjoyed the conversation and thanks for taking the time to respond.
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
@TheCelticChimp I can recommend a book on the topic, if you're interested: "The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional Lives of Farm Animals" by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. I think you might be surprised.
I likewise appreciate the exchange of ideas. Cheers.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
It is a topic I do have some interest in. Thanks for the suggestion.
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
There is no question that a vegetable is not equivalent to an animal in terms of what is ethically permissable but it seems to me that there is no question either that aminals are not equivalent to humans in this regard either. Owning animals for instance simply doesn't have the same implications as owning a person.
I think that subbing in human for animal and then testing an ethical idea is ignoring important differences.
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
"Life feeds on life" is not fully correct, because plants feed on sunlight.
Cannibalism is immoral because our culture SAYS it's immoral. I doubt there's an evolutionary reason why cannibalism is objectively wrong in all cases. But human societies couldn't be the same if we thought of each other as food instead of as allies.
But it's silly to imply he can't complain if you kill and eat him, both because of self-preservation and because of COURSE a non-psycho person values allies over food.
Crunchy68 2 months ago
@Crunchy68 Social animals tend to be noncanniballistic because they rely on cooperation. Humans are social animals thus they see cannibalism as immoral (against their nature) and if it happens it's either because of religious factor or lack of food.
MarekNR 2 months ago
@MarekNR Exactly.
Still, ever since reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" I rather wonder why we consider it immoral to even eat people who just died, as opposed to killing folks AS food. Why do we feel attached to the idea of preserving the integrity of a lifeless body that USED to be animated by a loved one? I don't even believe in spirits or souls, yet I feel the pull. I don't really understand it.
Crunchy68 2 months ago
@Crunchy68 The idea of preserving bodies of those who were once close to us have probably something to do with Dunbar's number. I don't know any studies on this topic though.
MarekNR 2 months ago
@MarekNR I looked up Dunbar's Number, and it's interesting but I don't see the connection. Would you please extrapolate a bit for me?
Crunchy68 2 months ago
@Crunchy68 I thought of Dunbar's Number when you mentioned about kil;ing people and preserving bodies of those who are close to us. When a person is a part of group it is difficult to just let the relationship go when he dies.Body preservation is just an attempt to keep the relationship going. When person is not a part of group we dont see him as full human and it is easier to kill him/her under certain circumstances...
MarekNR 2 months ago
[cont] I eat meat 3-4 times a month. Im not the greatest meat eater, but i will not stop eating meat or other animal products, because they keep me healthy and more importantly i like eating them from time to time. Does that make me a bad person, i dont know. One day may be society will teach my children or grandchildren that this is immoral and should not be done. That is their problem. For now i do not see any moral problem standing in front of me on that subject.
SergeiFragov 2 months ago
(cont) What we do today us raise animals for the slaughter, we pump them up with chemicals and hormons, keep them in conditions that most people could not stand to look at let alone live in. If thare is no greater cruelty that has lasted for so long in our time. This is something that our modern society has created. That is what i find immoral.[cont]
SergeiFragov 2 months ago
Hello there, i think that people that say that we have always eaten animals and there is nothing wrong with what we are doing right now are ignorant or generally misinformed. People throughout history have not eaten meat for every meal and actually before 20th century most meals eaten by men were vegetarian. People killed animals only in great need or for greater celebrations, in my country that are 5-6 holidays a year. Farmers raised animals for milk, eggs, field work and sale to the rich(cont)
SergeiFragov 2 months ago
I think a person should respond without reading to a person who spoke without reading......just me.
Jeffersonwazright 2 months ago
It may not be morally permissible to kick a puppy, but that is only because there is no reason for it. When such a reason does exist it is not automatically wrong just because it harms animals. It depends on the gain that humans receive from it compared to the damage it does to animals, and this actually is an arbitrary line that you draw for yourself.
Most people believe it is acceptable to breed animals for meat and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that.
Wushuki 2 months ago
@Wushuki Most people may believe that, but that is no reason to think it is true. There was a time when most people believed that it was acceptable to own other human beings. Clearly what most people believe is not a sound foundation for our own moral beliefs.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed My point is that there is no "truth" here. They are just decisions that we make based on what we believe is more important. Similarly, it is not objectively true that we cannot hold slaves, this too is just a decision based on how we draw our moral lines.
Our morals are based on the idea that the interests of intelligent life weigh more heavily than those of lesser intelligent life. If someone draws a line there, then on what ground can you disagree?
Wushuki 2 months ago
@Wushuki I can point out that their line leads to conclusions that they themselves most likely won't accept. For example, if 'more intelligent' means higher moral status than less intelligent, doesn't that imply that Stephen Hawking has higher moral status than Paris Hilton? If we can raise and slaughter less intelligent beings for food, then couldn't we do the same with congenitally retarded human beings? I doubt many people will bite this bullet, but it follows from your principle.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I see a flaw there indeed, but it is more related to my definition than it is on the actual moral standards that most people, me included, have. Let me rephrase: Our morals are based on the idea that the interests of members of intelligent species weigh more heavily than those of members of lesser intelligent species.
Wushuki 2 months ago
@Wushuki But why is species-membership the morally relevant line? Why isn't kingdom-membership, or phylum-membership, or race-membership? You seem to be comfortable with the idea that we draw the line arbitrarily, but I don't think you should be. I want to condemn the racist for drawing the line at an arbitrary point, not simply accept his move as no worse than anyone else's. If racism is wrong because it draws a morally irrelevant line, then the same is true of speciesism.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed @SisyphusRedeemed "If racism is wrong because it draws a morally irrelevant line, then the same is true of speciesism. "
Yes, but racism is not wrong because it draws a morally irrelevant line. Racism is regarded as wrong because it is not a stable way for voluntary agents to interact. A group of people who get no opportunities because of their biology will not have any interest in maintaining interactions with the people who oppress them.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "If racism is wrong because it draws a morally irrelevant line, then the same is true of speciesism. "
Yes, but racism is not wrong because it draws a morally irrelevant line. Racism is regarded as wrong because it is not a stable way for voluntary agents to interact. A group of people who get no opportunities because of their biology will not have any interest in maintaining interactions with the people who oppress them.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Wishuki tried to point this out by pointing at intelligence, which is the key property that allows agents to have considerations of the fact that other agents have interests as well, and can preemptively take actions that prevent conflict and establishes a social environment where everyone can benefit from each other. It should be patently obvious that virtually no animal can participate in such systems due to their limited cognitive systems.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Because of this, our relationship with animals will always be a one-way street, even in principle. With humans, we can adopt models like insurance to justify treating even severely handicapped members of our species well.(It could have been us etc), but with animals we can never get anything in return in any way what so ever, not even indirectly. This is the point where moral reasoning becomes pointless. It literally has no value vs animals, even in theory.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Now, this does not mean that I would insist that my hamburgers be tortured before they die, but it does mean that I employ an entirely different standard for dealing with animals than I do with humans, and that I consider this a necessity due to our different natures.
Given a theoretical species that could cooperate in reasonable ways, they'd be moral agents for me in a flash though. The human species has no relevance. Our capabilities do.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I also find it rather simplistic to adopt the "Suffering is the measure of morality" approach of Singer. It fails, in the most spectacular way, to take into account that suffering is an unavoidable aspect of being alive. Killing someone could not possibly be regarded as wrong simply because you make other people suffer, for the simple reason that they're going to die at some point anyway and will suffer similarly at that point.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Our moral intuitions are far more complex than that and deal with things like how we imagine our actions will make us appear to other people(Threat assessments, our willingness to reciprocate etc), rather than naive inherent "rights" and "wrongs" that can be generalized to species that are incapable of viewing us as anything but "food".
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"doesn't that imply that Stephen Hawking has higher moral status than Paris Hilton?"
I've actually argued this, but I'm not sure I would say that I necessarily agree with the "type" of intelligence involved. This can get you out of the feeding of the mentally handicapped: I prefer to think of it in terms of more actualized rather than more intelligent. However, it doesn't truly justify the torture, because higher beings have an obligation to the lower.
insidetrip101 2 months ago
@Wushuki "Our morals are based on the idea that the interests of intelligent life weigh more heavily than those of lesser intelligent life." - depends on the philosophy applied. If you're an Schopenhaurian (?), your morality is based on compassion.
"If someone draws a line there, then on what ground can you disagree?" - that would imply that there's no ground whatsoever to disagree with any line at all, no?
MisterScrutinizer 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Love this newly discovered channel but come on seriously? So by your measurements it is perfectly acceptable to run down your local woodland and trample every flower you see because they feel no pain? You are also by default an utter utilitarianist because you believe pain and pleasure are the only measure of an ethical system... Come on you are better than that. Also, really? The infrastructure is there for us to all only eat vegan? It is simply not.
curzmg 2 months ago
@curzmg "So by your measurements it is perfectly acceptable to run down your local woodland and trample every flower you see because they feel no pain?"
Not at all. I said feeling pain is sufficient for moral status, I didn't say it was necessary. That doesn't make me a utilitarian, that makes me morally minimally decent. Anyone who denies that feeling pain is sufficient for status would be a moral monster.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Fair enough.
curzmg 2 months ago
@curzmg "The infrastructure is there for us to all only eat vegan? It is simply not."
You say that as if infrastructure is fixed and unchanging. As more people become vegetarian/vegan the market will react by developing new infrastructure to meet that demand.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I do not believe it will. Or at least I believe it would eventually but these things do not happen without great pain to many people. If I own a cattle farm, you stop buying, then I lose money. Many farms won't have the capability to retool and the people hardest hit would be the smaller farms. An example of this struggle in reality is the upcoming EU ban on battery cages for egg production. It clearly is not a cakewalk.
curzmg 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed What do you think would happen if we all only ate vegan? Well for a start it would simply be impossible, there just aren't enough resources. If we did not only would we fuck ourselves but we would also tank many economies that rely even somewhat on animal exports. So don't you think, as it is physically impossible, that it is somewhat wrong to moralise and chastise others for eating non-vegan when it is physically impossible for us to all eat vegan?
curzmg 2 months ago
@curzmg "t would simply be impossible, there just aren't enough resources."
You couldn't be more mistaken. Our current system is far more wasteful than a vegan system would be. Right now we take crops and feed them to cows, chickens and pigs, then eat them. If we simply ate the crops (after converting the land to human edible ones, of course) we could feed the entire planet on about 1/10th of the resources that we're currently using.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I should have said under current market conditions. Your line then is that you believe the market would retool and take up the demand. Well then this is a very sticky question. If we could all agree at one time that this was morally wrong, as we should if it is so, then we would also simultaneously cause an immoral mess of the economy. It is only moral to convert to veganism as long as we do it slowly enough for the economy to keep up.
curzmg 2 months ago
@curzmg "we would also tank many economies that rely even somewhat on animal exports."
Google "broken window fallacy." You're engaging in it right now.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I looked it up and I don't believe I am. This fallacy only works when we are concerned about the economy at large and not certain sectors. Clearly if my son never broke my windows ever again, in fact we all managed never to break our windows for a period, then the window fixing industry would tank. It would be relevant to the larger economy that the shoe or whatever industry blossomed but irrelevant to the tanking window fixing industry.
curzmg 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Meaning, despite the fact that other economies would benefit from growing arable demand, those that rely on livestock would still tank and we would notice it. This is a fallacy that doesn't take into account the geographic distribution of economical sectors. Still Jesus Christ, you are the first person I have ever spoken to that can run philosophical rings around me without a sweat. I will be sure to take time on any further responses to your videos just to keep up!
curzmg 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed (in response to "what most people believe is not a sound foundation for our own moral beliefs."
Morals change based on folks' understanding of what is normal or necessary or right from their perspective. I don't think there can be any utterly objective morality, though. The group/tradition may very well be wrong in light of new information, but it does not follow that they were wrong based on the information they had. Group morality is not perfect, but it's where we start.
Crunchy68 2 months ago
Too much time with nose in book. Not enough time in reality.
xESOTERlC 3 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy A quibble: "Meatarian?" I eat meat...and vegetables...lot's of 'em. In fact, I know for a fact I eat more green-leafy veggies, root veggies, etc., than most vegetarians, who I've watched for most of my life, eat grains and carb- and highly processed "vegie-protein" based diets. While "vegetarian" may be an apt label for those who eat only vegetable matter, "meatarian" seems a bit amiss as a comparable omnivorous diet.
hartforest 3 months ago
In a discussion with a friend pertaining to my recent choice to become a vegetarian, we've come across a line of reasoning for eating meat which seems strong, and which i haven't heard before.
Morality = Unnecessary suffering (simplified)
If the animal dies without suffering happening (in the animal or in parties caring for it), it is not immoral.
Therefore it would be immoral to eat social animals, or animals killed in a painful manner, but it is otherwise permissible.
IFE10M 4 months ago
@IFE10M First of all, there is no way to avoid killing animals in a painful manner if you're doing it on an industrial scale, and it's unlikely to be avoided even on a smaller scale. The idea of 'cruelty free farming' is simply a myth. Second, it's not just the killing of the animal that causes suffering, it's how they are kept and raised. There is also the good that would have constituted their life, had they not been killed prematurely. So I don't buy it, but that's just me.
SisyphusRedeemed 4 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I agree with your stance on factory farms. I do my best to avoid them. But, I don't see that as an argument in favor of vegetarianism per se. For one, I do see a distinction between factory farming and pasture raised animals. You rebut the idea that life feeds on life and do so through making distinctions between differing kinds of life. Yet, I don't see you taking that one step further...
hartforest 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed ...to what kind of death is in store for every living being. What vegetarians seem to forget is that these animals, like us, are not immortal. They die. In "nature" they rarely reach a ripe old age and dance in the daisies. Instead, they are brutally torn asunder by other animals, die of starvation, disease, drowning, etc. Could it not be that, in exchange for a healthy life, far more protected by disease, starvation, etc., the animal's life is better than otherwise?
hartforest 3 months ago
I respectfully agree with this statement but to your other point that non sentiant beings do not posses interest I would have to disagree. Consciousness is not a requisite to interest as the organism strives to reproduce and survive, perhaps out of biological determinacy.
andrewbandrew 3 months ago
@andrewbandrew right then that means you can't eat plants either. you'll have to be a fruitarian then, and only eat the parts of plants that evolved to be eaten.
IFE10M 3 months ago
Respond to this video... If one cannot favour the consumption of an being with a more complex consciousness over a less complex consciousness, then should they not favour a being of interest with a consciousness over one with consciousness on the principle of organizational hierarchical favoritism. What about eating higher beings? Much respect.
andrewbandrew 3 months ago
Cultured meat sounds like a good plan that will relieve the suffering of animals.
Chayrsone 4 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy Ask them questions like this: "Would you agree that it's better to live in a world with less suffering, rather than more suffering?" "Would you agree that animals can suffer?" "Would you agree that animals on factory farms suffer horribly?" "Would you agree that one way to make this a world with less suffering is to abolish factory farms?" "Would you agree that one way to help abolish factory farms is to not support them by buying their product?" I've found that works better.
SisyphusRedeemed 4 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy A statement like "there is nothing intrinsically wrong with X" is incredibly complicated. It involves a lot of tricky metaethical and metaphysical issues. Maybe they think there's nothing intrinsically wrong with X because they don't believe that ANYTHING is intrinsically wrong. So that's not the line to go after. All you need to show is that the person in question's own moral values already commit them to the immorality of eating meat. (cont'd)
SisyphusRedeemed 4 months ago
While I will be the last person to defend the sickening practices of factory farming, what shall we make of the claims of meat-eaters that eating meat actually helps animals by preventing them from being killed in a gruesome manner by nonhuman animals? Is the best option here neither factory farming nor vegetarianism? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 4 months ago
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair "what shall we make of the claims of meat-eaters that eating meat actually helps animals by preventing them from being killed in a gruesome manner by nonhuman animals?"
Nothing done in the state of nature even comes close to the horrors of what happens in factory farms. Nature is red in tooth and claw, but as in all things, mankind has managed to make a system that is even worse.
SisyphusRedeemed 4 months ago
This guy is the first vegetarian to have make sense to me on the subject.
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
I'm probably going to upset a lot of people but what it boils down to for the consumer is what's affordable, delicious, edible and emotionally satisfying.
Meat is something engrained deep into our instincts.
Until vegetable matter can become as interesting or as juicy without ridiculous preparations being involved, alternative consumer life-styles are never going to take off.
Talking about it is all fine and good but unless you're changing food, you're not changing the world.
osakanone 5 months ago
@osakanone As a description of people's actual psychology/behavior, you're probably right. But surely this isn't a justification for that psychology/behavior. Our instincts can't distinguish between cow flesh and human flesh, so if our instincts justify eating the former then perforce they justify eating the later.
SisyphusRedeemed 5 months ago
@MONSQUEEKY
Do you really think that? What it makes it immoral to kill a human for food but not immoral to do the same to a nonhuman animal, assuming they are both killed in a "painless" manner? Pigs are intelligent creatures that have as much of a desire to live as any human child. To defend speciesism by saying that the child will eventually grow into an adult is to resort to the same fallacy that strict pro-lifers use.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 5 months ago
There's nothing wrong with killing animals to eat. It's the WAY they are killed. Why not shoot pigs in the back of the head quickly and painlessly instead of hanging then upside down and watching them suffer after slitting their throat? And don't tell me it's because of lead poisoning. I can guarantee that a tiny bit of lead in our meat, is no where near as dangerous as all the Fluoride in all of our drinking water, because Fluoride is far more poisonous than lead.
MONSQUEEKY 5 months ago
Yes it is a fact that plants don't feel pain and animals do.
But it's also a fact that pain sensation is not equal in all animals.
For example human feels pain much more than a cow, moose or a rabbit.
A moose can be shot with a .308 lead tipped bullet straight in the gut and the moose just runs away for kilometers until blood loss does it in.
Try this with a human (if he/she doesn't die instantly from the shock) and you'll get a human lying on the ground incapable to move due to pain.
BlizBob 6 months ago
@BlizBob "human feels pain much more than a cow, moose or a rabbit."
In some circumstance yes, in others no. A cow has thicker skin than a human, so a slap of equal force will hurt a human more than a cow. But you can compensate for their skin by slapping harder. Their psychology can also make them more vulnerable: you can't explain to them that their pain will end soon, for example, like you can with a human.
SisyphusRedeemed 6 months ago
@BlizBob "Try this with a human "
Actually, that proves the opposite: if a human dies instantly, they feel no pain at all. If a moose lives after being shot for, say, 5 minutes, then it suffers for 5 minutes more than the human.
SisyphusRedeemed 6 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
No the pain sensation is not about just thicker skin. It's about mental capabilities.
Even in humans there is correlation between how painful something is and how intelligent the person is.
But even the most stupid person feels greater pain than a cow.
Cows aren't self-aware either. They do have self-preservation like all other mammals.
I wasn't talking about shock caused by pain. I was talking about the actual physical shock.
BlizBob 6 months ago
Wait...That rabbit was wearing glasses! Peter Cottontail. Oh, I should stop now.
boondocksaintmurphy 6 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Cannabalism just means you eat people. It doesn't mean you kill them to eat them. Armin Meiwes was only sent to jail on killing Brandes, not eating him. That's not to say everything that is legal is moral, to be clear, just to highlight the difference. Sometimes mother cats who have dead newborns will eat them. In fact, we might be morally obligated -to- eat our own dead after they've died so as to limit the amount of killing for meat that goes on.