11 ms·

Non-human animal activities should not provide a logical or moral foundation for our behavior and it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet they

by noondip 11y ago

Non-human animal activities should not provide a logical or moral foundation for our behavior and it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet they do, especially as most of them are obligatory carnivores killing for survival, whereas humans physiologically resemble frugivores. Also your reasoning would justify killing companion animals and also humans - after all, "circle of life". More importantly, we recognize that unlike animals, we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences. So it is probably not useful to consider the behavior of fish when making decisions about our own behavior.

alexashka 11y ago
People have been killing each other since the beginning of time. Are we living on the same planet? Why do I have to give eating salmon any thought? Here's a question to ponder: what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for? For people to share common values so that we get along better, right? That's created by humans, FOR humans, that we want to get along with! For everything else, I don't really understand. I am nice to squirrels, I just happen to like them. Rats, I don't like. Cockroaches I really don't like - when I see one in my house, I take a slipper and kill that sucka. Am I supposed to justify stomping on a cockroach too? Where does this moralizing end?
- cnp 11y ago
  It ends when you finally recognize that killing the cockroach is arbitrary and unnecessary.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    You move in to a new apartment. Your first night, at 2 am, you hear a noise. You turn on the bedside lamp and see several cockroaches scurry under your bed. What do you do?
    - vertex-four 11y ago
      I used to live in India, that's the norm. We lived with them. The trick is that there's other things that eat cockroaches, that we also lived with, so it doesn't get too much of an issue. A house is part of an ecosystem, not a sterile environment. For the record, it's almost guaranteed that any rice you eat in India has had cockroaches in the rice sack. Not a lot you can do about it. That's why we wash and cook things.
      - AI_Overlord 11y ago
        Why would you not seal the sack? Seriously. That is what I do with food if I know there are roaches in the neighborhood. Trust me, no roaches are getting in my food.
        vertex-four 11y ago
        They're great huge sacks of rice - you can maybe fold over the top, but short of putting duct tape over it every time you need more rice, there's no sealing to do. I'm sure many people do that anyway, but I wouldn't trust many restaurants to, nor many shops.
      - alphapapa 11y ago
        That's interesting, thanks. Now, admitting that I'm largely ignorant about conditions in India, and recognizing that it's a very large country with wide variations--is it not the case that public health in India is generally worse than in more developed nations where e.g. cockroaches would be considered a pest to be eliminated, partially for health reasons? If so, could that attitude toward them be part of the reason for the worse public health? I'm asking out of curiosity; this is not an assertion. :)
        vertex-four 11y ago
        Quite possibly. On the other hand... we have immune systems for a reason - I see people in my developed country now who seem to become ill every month, and I do wonder whether our insistence on keeping a close-to-sterile environment has something to do with that. And in any case, there's more pressing issues like the general lack of clean water, even in many cities - all water should be boiled, but that doesn't always happen.
  - pythia__ 11y ago
    Unnecessary for your personal survival? That's true, but it's a very limited perspective to take. Cockroaches are known to affect our species' health adversely (e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11240940 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11240940). If you wish to reduce their and other insects' unnecessary suffering without compromising the interests of humans, a better thing to advocate for is that we use more humane pesticides (http://effective-altruism.com/ea/nx/humane_pesticides_as_the_most_marginally/ http://effective-altruism.com/ea/nx/humane_pesticides_as_the...), not that we refrain from killing them.
- okc 11y ago
  >Here's a question to ponder: what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for? For people to share common values so that we get along better, right? Thats not really how morals are defined. That is just one oversimplified and fairly self serving definition of ethics. But lets try this with your own view point: Try pondering the question you posed: >what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for? Now since you believe common values help us get along, and you therefore believe that forms the basis of ethical decision, then your question needs to be: "What common values do other people hold that may be different to mine?" It may come as a shock to you, that there is whole world of people and even animals and insects, that don't share your views - that see the world through totally different eyes. If they don't contribute to your idea of a common value, does that make them worthless and irrelevant to the world, the world they live in. By stomping on the cockroach (for no reason beyond what you like and don't like) - you are saying it has no value in your life, and therefore should not exist. To be honest, this isn't about morality - its about having a basic respect for anything that lives. Why, given the chance, would you not have this respect? (Edited: formatting)
  - alexashka 11y ago
    Ok let's be very clear about this - I stomp on a cockroach because I feel like it. I don't think and ponder that it should not exist anymore than I wonder if tea in a cup should not exist in the cup as I drink it. I happen to have what you call 'basic respect' for living things, I find a dude snapping the neck of a rabbit 'icky'. I see that as me having grown up in a city and never having to snap necks to make a meal that evening. If I end up living on a farm, I'm sure I'll quickly get used to snapping necks of chickens and rabbits no problem. See, your whole argument boils down to 'why aren't you more like me? Isn't being like me better than being like you?' That's one point of view, I'd much prefer other people be more like me as well, so that I can get along with them better etc. I just recognize that that's simply a self-serving preference.
    - okc 11y ago
      > See, your whole argument boils down to 'why aren't you more like me? Isn't being like me better than being like you?' If you want to make that point, please support it with an explanation to why and how I have led you to believe that? because I genuinely don't follow your logic. >Ok let's be very clear about this - I stomp on a cockroach because I feel like it. And you call that respect? That isn't what I call a basic respect for living things. Finding a rabbits neck breaking "icky", also isn't a basic respect. If you could provide a reason for killing, like a health one, I might start to understand. Let me try another tack thats a bit more 'on topic'. What behavior would a cockroach have to exhibit before you treat it like a human? (Edited: formatting.. again)
- noondip 11y ago
  > Why do I have to give eating salmon any thought? The same reason you would give thought to killing a Golden Retriever for food. Due to indoctrinated beliefs, people think it's alright to kill certain animals for food, but not others, and when asked why, the logical inconsistencies become very apparent. See http://www.carnism.org/ http://www.carnism.org/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4 > Am I supposed to justify stomping on a cockroach too? Where does this moralizing end? Any killing is self-defense in always justified. However, if there's an opportunity to practice non-violence, why not take it?
  - alexashka 11y ago
    Ok so your position boils down to 'why not?' My answer is because I don't feel like it on that day. Sometimes I feel like practicing non-violence, other days I feel like practicing it and letting off some steam. There is no inherent moral virtue in not picking up a stick when walking through a forest and slashing tall grass as you walk around. Now if tall grass can express discontent similar to human discontent and you happily ignore it, then the issue is that you're likely to inflict human violence with no second thought. THAT societies don't like. But don't get it twisted with empty moralizing - we want people to feel bad about violence to prevent violence to other humans within our tribe, that's it.
    - noondip 11y ago
      You've explained the inherent problem I believe to be facing humanity today - apathy and lack of empathy. We can't accept violence if we want to live in a free and peaceful society. All oppression has to eventually fall by the wayside and taking the opportunity to not torture many sentient animals is a good way to help. > you can recognize that fantasizing about a world that's impossible given human nature is simply a waste of time. I'm a vegan - I'm not fantasizing, I'm actually living in accordance with my beliefs.
      - alexashka 11y ago
        I see where you're coming from - it's an idealistic point of view. We have violence, violence is bad, if we want peace, we need to get rid of it. Makes sense. Is that realistic on any level? No. So either you can stick to idealistic notions and claim that the world is messed up because people are not like you, or you can recognize that fantasizing about a world that's impossible given human nature is simply a waste of time. Fantasizing about a better world is a good coping strategy that I use myself. I just don't believe it to be anything but a coping strategy. At the end of the day, I need a strategy to change the real world I'm living in, to my liking. Telling people 'why not be more like me?' is not a very good strategy :) I dare say you actually lack the nuanced understanding of the world to actually make it the way you want it. Let's put 100 people of your choosing, the ones with least apathy and most empathy on the planet, on an island. How well are you going to do? What if they're a bunch of non-apathetic, empathetic idiots? They light themselves on fire trying to make a campfire, they chop off their own fingers cutting up salad, but they are so empathetic towards each other. A few days later, you're all dead. The inherent problem is people are dumb - your current beliefs on what's wrong with people falls in the naive category. THAT is the problem - there's no lack of empathy, there's lack of intelligence. Lack of empathy is mostly short sightedness - most people don't think of anything but themselves and their immediate family because they're dumb, not because they are apathetic, they don't have the capacity for much is all.
Amezarak 11y ago
> Non-human animal activities should not provide a logical or moral foundation for our behavior Why not? What should provide a moral foundation for our behavior? That's a trick question. There is no objective basis for morality. We can make it whatever we like, preferably optimizing our value preferences. As for me, I like meat, so I will continue to enjoy eating animals. On the other hand, I personally dislike unnecessary cruelty, so I am not adverse to treating farm-raised animals better, up to some point where the tradeoff between lots of cheap meat and well-treated animals starts looking bad for me. There is, of course, no objectively "correct" value-preferences either, but since humans are social animals, you should probably abide by the norms of your social group if you want to fit in. Morality as herd instinct in the individual and all. > More importantly, we recognize that unlike animals, we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences. Sure we can. I want to, and that's all the justification I need. What is your basis for claiming that I need some special justification?
- noondip 11y ago
  There are victims which suffer as a consequence of your actions. I think that makes it clear the behavior is unethical. If "I want to" were all the justification needed, the world would be an even more terrible place to live. We wouldn't accept that excuse if made by a person kicking a dog, for example, so why should we for abuse of other non-human animal species? Edit (can't directly reply): > There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering There is plenty wrong with causing suffering. I think in the case of eating animals, society is quite detached from the experience, though. That's why we shy away from watching slaughterhouse videos, why we put pictures of happy cows on cartons of milk - why such an unbelievably rosy picture must be painted to justify ruthless and horrific violence taking place all the time. Anyway, I would like to share with you that it has been my experience watching those videos and learning more about how animals are treated for food and other purposes changed my perspective, and it might interest you, too. Earthlings is a powerful documentary, is available free on YouTube, and I recommend it. > The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. Exactly! To the same point, the reason it is acceptable to raise and kill billions of animals are also social norms and culture. Is the hypocrisy of it all not apparent? > I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better. It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior. Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of. Do check out the Earthlings documentary, it will really open your eyes.

by noondip 11y ago

alexashka 11y ago

People have been killing each other since the beginning of time. Are we living on the same planet? Why do I have to give eating salmon any thought? Here's a question to ponder: what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for? For people to share common values so that we get along better, right? That's created by humans, FOR humans, that we want to get along with! For everything else, I don't really understand. I am nice to squirrels, I just happen to like them. Rats, I don't like. Cockroaches I really don't like - when I see one in my house, I take a slipper and kill that sucka. Am I supposed to justify stomping on a cockroach too? Where does this moralizing end?

cnp 11y ago
It ends when you finally recognize that killing the cockroach is arbitrary and unnecessary.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  You move in to a new apartment. Your first night, at 2 am, you hear a noise. You turn on the bedside lamp and see several cockroaches scurry under your bed. What do you do?
  - vertex-four 11y ago
    I used to live in India, that's the norm. We lived with them. The trick is that there's other things that eat cockroaches, that we also lived with, so it doesn't get too much of an issue. A house is part of an ecosystem, not a sterile environment. For the record, it's almost guaranteed that any rice you eat in India has had cockroaches in the rice sack. Not a lot you can do about it. That's why we wash and cook things.
    - AI_Overlord 11y ago
      Why would you not seal the sack? Seriously. That is what I do with food if I know there are roaches in the neighborhood. Trust me, no roaches are getting in my food.
      - vertex-four 11y ago
        They're great huge sacks of rice - you can maybe fold over the top, but short of putting duct tape over it every time you need more rice, there's no sealing to do. I'm sure many people do that anyway, but I wouldn't trust many restaurants to, nor many shops.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      That's interesting, thanks. Now, admitting that I'm largely ignorant about conditions in India, and recognizing that it's a very large country with wide variations--is it not the case that public health in India is generally worse than in more developed nations where e.g. cockroaches would be considered a pest to be eliminated, partially for health reasons? If so, could that attitude toward them be part of the reason for the worse public health? I'm asking out of curiosity; this is not an assertion. :)
      - vertex-four 11y ago
        Quite possibly. On the other hand... we have immune systems for a reason - I see people in my developed country now who seem to become ill every month, and I do wonder whether our insistence on keeping a close-to-sterile environment has something to do with that. And in any case, there's more pressing issues like the general lack of clean water, even in many cities - all water should be boiled, but that doesn't always happen.
- pythia__ 11y ago
  Unnecessary for your personal survival? That's true, but it's a very limited perspective to take. Cockroaches are known to affect our species' health adversely (e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11240940 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11240940). If you wish to reduce their and other insects' unnecessary suffering without compromising the interests of humans, a better thing to advocate for is that we use more humane pesticides (http://effective-altruism.com/ea/nx/humane_pesticides_as_the_most_marginally/ http://effective-altruism.com/ea/nx/humane_pesticides_as_the...), not that we refrain from killing them.
okc 11y ago
>Here's a question to ponder: what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for? For people to share common values so that we get along better, right? Thats not really how morals are defined. That is just one oversimplified and fairly self serving definition of ethics. But lets try this with your own view point: Try pondering the question you posed: >what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for? Now since you believe common values help us get along, and you therefore believe that forms the basis of ethical decision, then your question needs to be: "What common values do other people hold that may be different to mine?" It may come as a shock to you, that there is whole world of people and even animals and insects, that don't share your views - that see the world through totally different eyes. If they don't contribute to your idea of a common value, does that make them worthless and irrelevant to the world, the world they live in. By stomping on the cockroach (for no reason beyond what you like and don't like) - you are saying it has no value in your life, and therefore should not exist. To be honest, this isn't about morality - its about having a basic respect for anything that lives. Why, given the chance, would you not have this respect? (Edited: formatting)
- alexashka 11y ago
  Ok let's be very clear about this - I stomp on a cockroach because I feel like it. I don't think and ponder that it should not exist anymore than I wonder if tea in a cup should not exist in the cup as I drink it. I happen to have what you call 'basic respect' for living things, I find a dude snapping the neck of a rabbit 'icky'. I see that as me having grown up in a city and never having to snap necks to make a meal that evening. If I end up living on a farm, I'm sure I'll quickly get used to snapping necks of chickens and rabbits no problem. See, your whole argument boils down to 'why aren't you more like me? Isn't being like me better than being like you?' That's one point of view, I'd much prefer other people be more like me as well, so that I can get along with them better etc. I just recognize that that's simply a self-serving preference.
  - okc 11y ago
    > See, your whole argument boils down to 'why aren't you more like me? Isn't being like me better than being like you?' If you want to make that point, please support it with an explanation to why and how I have led you to believe that? because I genuinely don't follow your logic. >Ok let's be very clear about this - I stomp on a cockroach because I feel like it. And you call that respect? That isn't what I call a basic respect for living things. Finding a rabbits neck breaking "icky", also isn't a basic respect. If you could provide a reason for killing, like a health one, I might start to understand. Let me try another tack thats a bit more 'on topic'. What behavior would a cockroach have to exhibit before you treat it like a human? (Edited: formatting.. again)
noondip 11y ago
> Why do I have to give eating salmon any thought? The same reason you would give thought to killing a Golden Retriever for food. Due to indoctrinated beliefs, people think it's alright to kill certain animals for food, but not others, and when asked why, the logical inconsistencies become very apparent. See http://www.carnism.org/ http://www.carnism.org/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4 > Am I supposed to justify stomping on a cockroach too? Where does this moralizing end? Any killing is self-defense in always justified. However, if there's an opportunity to practice non-violence, why not take it?
- alexashka 11y ago
  Ok so your position boils down to 'why not?' My answer is because I don't feel like it on that day. Sometimes I feel like practicing non-violence, other days I feel like practicing it and letting off some steam. There is no inherent moral virtue in not picking up a stick when walking through a forest and slashing tall grass as you walk around. Now if tall grass can express discontent similar to human discontent and you happily ignore it, then the issue is that you're likely to inflict human violence with no second thought. THAT societies don't like. But don't get it twisted with empty moralizing - we want people to feel bad about violence to prevent violence to other humans within our tribe, that's it.
  - noondip 11y ago
    You've explained the inherent problem I believe to be facing humanity today - apathy and lack of empathy. We can't accept violence if we want to live in a free and peaceful society. All oppression has to eventually fall by the wayside and taking the opportunity to not torture many sentient animals is a good way to help. > you can recognize that fantasizing about a world that's impossible given human nature is simply a waste of time. I'm a vegan - I'm not fantasizing, I'm actually living in accordance with my beliefs.
    - alexashka 11y ago
      I see where you're coming from - it's an idealistic point of view. We have violence, violence is bad, if we want peace, we need to get rid of it. Makes sense. Is that realistic on any level? No. So either you can stick to idealistic notions and claim that the world is messed up because people are not like you, or you can recognize that fantasizing about a world that's impossible given human nature is simply a waste of time. Fantasizing about a better world is a good coping strategy that I use myself. I just don't believe it to be anything but a coping strategy. At the end of the day, I need a strategy to change the real world I'm living in, to my liking. Telling people 'why not be more like me?' is not a very good strategy :) I dare say you actually lack the nuanced understanding of the world to actually make it the way you want it. Let's put 100 people of your choosing, the ones with least apathy and most empathy on the planet, on an island. How well are you going to do? What if they're a bunch of non-apathetic, empathetic idiots? They light themselves on fire trying to make a campfire, they chop off their own fingers cutting up salad, but they are so empathetic towards each other. A few days later, you're all dead. The inherent problem is people are dumb - your current beliefs on what's wrong with people falls in the naive category. THAT is the problem - there's no lack of empathy, there's lack of intelligence. Lack of empathy is mostly short sightedness - most people don't think of anything but themselves and their immediate family because they're dumb, not because they are apathetic, they don't have the capacity for much is all.

Amezarak 11y ago

> Non-human animal activities should not provide a logical or moral foundation for our behavior Why not? What should provide a moral foundation for our behavior? That's a trick question. There is no objective basis for morality. We can make it whatever we like, preferably optimizing our value preferences. As for me, I like meat, so I will continue to enjoy eating animals. On the other hand, I personally dislike unnecessary cruelty, so I am not adverse to treating farm-raised animals better, up to some point where the tradeoff between lots of cheap meat and well-treated animals starts looking bad for me. There is, of course, no objectively "correct" value-preferences either, but since humans are social animals, you should probably abide by the norms of your social group if you want to fit in. Morality as herd instinct in the individual and all. > More importantly, we recognize that unlike animals, we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences. Sure we can. I want to, and that's all the justification I need. What is your basis for claiming that I need some special justification?

noondip 11y ago
There are victims which suffer as a consequence of your actions. I think that makes it clear the behavior is unethical. If "I want to" were all the justification needed, the world would be an even more terrible place to live. We wouldn't accept that excuse if made by a person kicking a dog, for example, so why should we for abuse of other non-human animal species? Edit (can't directly reply): > There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering There is plenty wrong with causing suffering. I think in the case of eating animals, society is quite detached from the experience, though. That's why we shy away from watching slaughterhouse videos, why we put pictures of happy cows on cartons of milk - why such an unbelievably rosy picture must be painted to justify ruthless and horrific violence taking place all the time. Anyway, I would like to share with you that it has been my experience watching those videos and learning more about how animals are treated for food and other purposes changed my perspective, and it might interest you, too. Earthlings is a powerful documentary, is available free on YouTube, and I recommend it. > The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. Exactly! To the same point, the reason it is acceptable to raise and kill billions of animals are also social norms and culture. Is the hypocrisy of it all not apparent? > I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better. It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior. Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of. Do check out the Earthlings documentary, it will really open your eyes.