You must log in or register to comment.

sonic_tower t1_jbui4n3 wrote

Never seen Tinbergen's questions applied to ethics before. Seems like a bit of a mismatch.

First off, we are presupposing that animal welfare is morally good and that what humans value should align with what nonhuman animals value. You could make a case that this is what ought to be right, but that's not the thesis of this paper.

Second, and closer to the paper's argument, it's weird to think an animal's values will align with Tinbergens questions (answers). For example, every animal wants to consume food, but not every animal values becoming fat. Fish don't value having gills. Answering these questions in a satisfying way would also introduce circular logic, or absurd answers, like fish value gills but arent aware of their values, and humans value fat but deny it if you ask them.

Big fan of the four questions, and of animal welfare, but this paper doesn't use the former to help the latter.


Ill_Marsupial8785 t1_jbugkry wrote

Humans will look back on animal agriculture with the same disgust that we look back on the slave trade. Worrying about welfare is a step, but surely a high welfare slave is still a slave.

These animals are sentient beings who don't deserve to be subjugated for the taste preferences of another species.


jodsongraves t1_jbvf6xc wrote

I do think we need to investigate animals as sentient more and as we do, we'll likely stop eating them. This idea, however, is extremely progressive and even I --knowing it is a good idea-- cannot say I completely agree to it at THIS time.


DoktoroKiu t1_jbvhwc9 wrote

Why not at this time?


jodsongraves t1_jbvjbkd wrote

Well, spent a few decades eating meat and I don't know how to meet nutritional needs without meat. I need to learn and dont have time yet


DoktoroKiu t1_jbvlowc wrote

I understand and felt the same at first, but now I would compare it to learning a different way to tie shoe laces or something. It is not the complex thing it is often made out to be, unless you're trying to go whole foods only or some other such additional restriction.

There are many free introductory resources and meal plans to try to make it as easy as possible.


jodsongraves t1_jbvn1u9 wrote

But that's what I need you to understand. As much as it may sound like an excuse. Some people just don't have time. Personally, its on my list of things to do, but I care for a family and I'm working on a massive project (shameless plug at the end). I'll get to it.

For me its an ethical question and the OP's post is a convincing thought experiment. I want to get there, I see its good. Im just traveling through time


DoktoroKiu t1_jbvo6ed wrote

Yeah, and being convinced is a big and important step for sure. I only meant to reassure that it is almost certainly far easier than you're imagining.


[deleted] t1_jbw08k0 wrote



DoktoroKiu t1_jbw84oi wrote

Why hello there person I was not talking to.

Do you not think I made my own decision of my own free will after a preponderance of the evidence and the arguments available to me? Or did you have some image conjured up in your head of me seeing some viral tiktok and immediately going vegan because it's the next cool label to acquire to show people how progressive I am?

Do you not see the irony in labeling people who represent less than 1% of the population and who go against the majority as "subscribing to a herd mentality" when they are not the ones who simply follow the rest of the herd from birth to death just accepting the values they are given by their upbringing?

How weak you must see your own position when, instead of taking time to actually understand their position, you just convince yourself that those you disagree with are just thoughtlessly following the herd and merely feigning their sincerely held beliefs. It's certainly less work, I'll give you that, and you don't run the risk of changing your mind.


jacknikedisamotracia t1_jbys6u7 wrote

how about the fact that plants are earth lives too? what if we discover they are sentient too?


Ill_Marsupial8785 t1_jbyt7q4 wrote

Let's strongman your "plants feel pain" claim. Then we better go vegan since animal livestock are fed plants, and we could reduce overall plant losses by eating plants directly rather than filtering them through an animal.

That being said, a plant is not sentient. Stabbing a dog and cutting a carrot are not equivalent and if you think they are you need some help.


Cleistheknees t1_jbyzv12 wrote

Every zealot thinks history will eventually yield to their zealotry.

There are hundreds of thousands of animal species which consume other animals, in ways drastically more horrific than even the worst factory farming setup. Are those more immoral than livestock? They certainly die much more prolonged, painful, and stressful deaths. They’re often infants and juveniles as well.


Ill_Marsupial8785 t1_jbz2kdo wrote

Our morality shouldn't be based off of what happens in nature. We are not wild animals and can act on our moral agency and logic rather than needlessly harming animals when we sony have to.

If being anti animal abuse is zealous, consider me a zealot. What's that make you?


Cleistheknees t1_jbz7m32 wrote

Answer the question: would the world be better if animals didn’t consume other animals?

> Our morality shouldn’t be based off of what happens in nature.

Unless you believe in magic or other supernatural forces, everything comes from nature. There is nowhere else for things to come from.


Fluffy-Anything8235 t1_jburh2a wrote

I fully agree. Be vegan and be on the right side of history.

Any adult can choose today as the day they stop eating animals and stop buying animal products.


QuietGanache t1_jc2duto wrote

>Humans will look back on animal agriculture with the same disgust that we look back on the slave trade.


I hope not, because I believe it will represent a loss of understanding of the horrors of slavery. I'm reminded of the ADL reaction to PETA trying to compare the consumption of meat to the Holocaust:

>Rather than deepen our revulsion against what the Nazis did to the Jews, the project will undermine the struggle to understand the Holocaust and to find ways to make sure such catastrophes never happen again.
>Abusive treatment of animals should be opposed, but cannot and must not be compared to the Holocaust. The uniqueness of human life is the moral underpinning for those who resisted the hatred of Nazis and others ready to commit genocide even today.


Ill_Marsupial8785 t1_jc2g78y wrote

So, what would you say to the holocaust survivors who argued for veganism because of the similarities of animal agriculture to the holocaust? For example, books of survivors described the animal agriculture industry as an "eternal treblinka."

How about we go by the objective merits of comparisons/contrasts rather than appealing to emotion to dilute the horrors of the animal ag industry?

The animal ag industry by act IS slavery. The animal ag industry IS by definition a holocaust.

We don't diminish the horrors of The Holocaust by recognizing the suffering that animals go through.

Nearly a trillion animals each year endure a death of suffocation, throat slitting, gas chambers, etc. 1 God damn trillion. That means more animals endure a horrific death annually than nearly 10 times the amount of humans that EVER existed.

The question isn't "can they reason" but "can they suffer" and that is a resounding YES. 1 trillion of them can suffer, and the majority do so. In our capacity to suffer, a cow is a pig is a dog is a boy.

1 trillion beings, annually. Do ypu actually think you can comprehend the objective suffering going on there? I can't.

I'm tired of hearing "you can't compare it to this" when the only reason is the human ego. The numbers aren't on your side to say that.


QuietGanache t1_jc2h9y9 wrote

I'm sorry but to compare the modern methods used to slaughter animals to the raw barbarism of the Holocaust betrays a grotesque ignorance. There are centres for Holocaust education around the globe with plenty of free resources, I highly recommend that you educate yourself so that you can effectively contribute to ensuring such an outrage against humanity never happens again (you don't even have to be active but you can still help by not making such diminishing comparisons).


AutoModerator t1_jbuajit wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.