Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmn6de wrote

Reply to comment by Meta_Digital in Lab-grown meat could let humanity ignore a serious moral failing by phileconomicus

Is it ever okay to kill an animal for food?

1

Meta_Digital t1_itmnvq8 wrote

My personal take is that if you're talking about the survival of one animal vs. the survival of another animal, then we're discussing something more primordial than ethics. That is; the prerequisites for ethics haven't been met.

If we're talking about eating an animal simply because it's pleasurable, though, then I think you'd have to somehow find a way to justify that animal's suffering and death to create that pleasure and I'm not sure this is possible to ethically justify.

7

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmq7nz wrote

What if cows were bred each year for decades so that you had a rolling supply of cows dying of natural causes? Is it ok to eat them then?

0

Meta_Digital t1_itmrcfr wrote

I suppose it depends on their treatment in that case; though we usually don't eat old animals after they die from natural causes so I'm not sure this is ever going to realistically happen.

3

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmun8n wrote

But it's ok to eat these animals, right?

−1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmv25j wrote

Probably not, because the use of resources needed to raise such animals is detrimental to the environment.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmx3l5 wrote

That's a dishonest evasion. Is it or is it not OK to eat a cow that has died of natural causes?

0

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmy5mw wrote

That wasn't your question. Your question was whether it's okay to raise and then eat a cow that dies from natural causes.

A wild cow? Probably also not, if you consider that a wild carcass is part of the ecosystem. But as for what you're really tacitly asking: no, you haven't done a moral harm to the cow per se by eating it then.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmzh2q wrote

You introduced a new variable to the scenario to try and stretch the goalpost a little further rather than just answering the question considering the context in which it was asked. That was dishonest from my perspective. You could see that the debate was about eating meat in the context of suffering. Regardless, you've answered.

Is it a moral harm to eat a man that died of natural causes?

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itn4urv wrote

It's a multi-faceted issue. The real dishonesty would be in ignoring that.

>Is it a moral harm to eat a man that died of natural causes?

Not to that man.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itn78ay wrote

So if no one knows about it cannibalism is alright?

0

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itn7zev wrote

Do you think that cannibalism harms that man? Or do you agree that this is another multi-faceted issue where other factors need to be taken into account?

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itn84vh wrote

Is cannibalism inherently wrong?

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itn8xe4 wrote

Yes, but not because of harm done to that person in particular. It's multi-faceted, don't you agree?

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itn9f1p wrote

I'm not so sure.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itn9ka9 wrote

Are you going to elaborate?

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnampr wrote

I don't believe in cannibalism.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itnasfa wrote

Okay, you've clearly run out of arguments to contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Let me know if you think of something of value to add.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnht7r wrote

Lol, I've not done anything but ask questions to discover if it was inherently wrong to eat meat, apparently not. I then asked whether it was inherently wrong to eat a human being, apparently it isn't. The problem is that I agree with the first but not the second.

As a human I can express my will not to be eaten (or have my organs harvested) in the event of my death. Animals don't seem to have the capacity for this particular will. But then again you can see even plants demonstrate a desire to survive/live in the way they reach deeper in search of water and stretch towards the sun. That desire to live doesn't seem to stop anyone from cutting them down in their prime and consuming them. Similarly when I watch videos of microorganisms moving around, hunting and eating under a microscope it becomes obvious that even they have a desire to survive/live but no one seems to mind consuming fermented foods and beverages. It seems to me that a desire to survive/live isn't enough to explain whether something should be eaten or not. Nonetheless I still believe it's okay for me to survive at the expense of other living things and at the same time I don't believe in cannibalism.

I imagine now that the real justification is something like: the more dissimilar from me something appears the more excusable it is for me to destroy for my benefit. As a result you get a hierarchy of value that goes something like humans>animals (mammals on top)>plants>simple organisms>molecules>... In terms of consumption I guess some people think it's okay to organize this as "humans>everything" and some people like to take it to "humans + animals > everything." I'm not so sure I'm content by that hypothesis. I think how far you decide you want to go down that ladder, what a person decides to consume, is entirely arbitrary; it's all wrong or it's all right.

I may think cannibalism is wrong but what if someone asked to be cannibalized? A man can't give their consent to be murdered. There must be something objectively wrong with the act of murdering another human so that it's not even okay if the "victim" requests to be murdered. Cannibalism is wrong, but is it OK if the dead man wills it? So does that make it different than murder somehow? I don't know if it is. I think once you eat a human, willed or not, your consumption changes from "human>everything" to "me>everything." Once you have established yourself as "me>everything" then whether a man wills to be eaten or not becomes irrelevant, just as the desire for survival/life of everything else isn't enough to save them. So, at that point, what makes eating humans different than eating other animals or a plants? It may be that murder and cannibalism aren't so different in this context. It may be as simple as "cannibalism is wrong."

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itnitpj wrote

I don't think you've addressed the issue at all.

Plant "desires", lifeform hierarchies, and murder all are irrelevant to the question at hand of cannibalism.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnjka0 wrote

Uh huh..

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itnkfao wrote

Well, does your monologue boil down to anything other than: "I think humans are special for really vague and spurious reasons, so I think their dead bodies are also strangely and inexplicably special." ?

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnkjcx wrote

Isn't that all it boils down to or is eating a human being ok?

0

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itnky2k wrote

That's what we call a false dichotomy.

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnln4d wrote

Either they're special and you can't eat a human or eating humans is okay = "false dichotomy." Okay, I can see you're not particularly keen on having a dialogue, you're just being toxic at this point.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itnor08 wrote

The issue is rather that you seem so uncomfortable with entertaining the notion that humans are not special or unique in moral value that you'd rather stoop to petty insults.

Edit: Sure, go ahead and block me rather than have to have a conversation that brings you face to face with the idea that maybe just maybe humans are not that special among animals and maybe just maybe that means you cannot just go around harming other animals. You'd rather insult me and block me and uncharitably assume I think we should harm humans than raise the status of other animals and think that maybe just maybe you should change your own habits. Just shows to go ya how deeply entrenched your ideology is.

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnqz66 wrote

What the hell, when the did I insult you? I simply criticized your [pattern of] objection. If you think humans aren't privileged in relation to all other life on earth in this context then it's OK to destroy humans for your benefit the same way it's OK to destroy other things for your benefit - since it's all the same, right? I really don't think you believe that. I think you actually agree with me but don't want to play along. I don't think you actually disagree with me but are rather in a bad way and don't want to play along with the discussion. While I'm trying to explore this idea you're trying to explore ways you can pick at my responses to you. I think my assessment was correct. You may disagree.

What I've gotten so far is:

X - asks a few questions

Y - You demand: "Give me more"

X - gives you more

Y - "it wasn't good enough!"

X - "OK.."

Y - *Well i don't like your answer"

X - "But isn't it basically the answer?"

Y - "Wrong!"

X - "You're wrong!"

Y - "DON'T YOU LOB PETTY INSULTS AT ME!" D:<

1

Blueberry_206 t1_itprino wrote

>If you think humans aren't privileged in relation to all other life on earth in this context then it's OK to destroy humans for your benefit the same way it's OK to destroy other things for your benefit - since it's all the same, right?

Maybe it's not OK to destroy anything for our benefit? That way - yes, it's all the same.

2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmnnbx wrote

Sure, in marginal cases. But arguments from marginal cases don't make good day to day ethics.

4