4 ms·

But we should. Future generations will judge us very poorly on this.

by azakai 11y ago

cookiecaper 11y ago
>Future generations will judge us very poorly on this. Generally, I find such speculative statements worthless. It's another way to say "I really think this should be obvious and that my idea will eventually be widely accepted to be correct". That's all well and good, but everyone thinks that about their own thoughts. It really doesn't contribute anything to the argument; it's an attempt to shame your opponent into agreeing with you by invoking his future childrens' potential disdain. I also think that if you really want to know what future generations will think of something, you should refer to what prior generations thought of it. By this standard, future generations are likely to taunt us mercilessly for caring so much about what we imagine to be a whale's internal monologue.
- azakai 11y ago
  I disagree. I think we do have ways to think about what future generations will judge us harshly about. Obviously some things we can't tell, like what clothes fashions will be in 50 or 100 years. But when you get down to matters of morality and ethics, I believe we do see a clear progression over time. And we can predict it, to some extent. That's the first reason I think we'll be judged harshly here. A second reason is that we can already see this trend happening. More and more people care about cruelty-free farming, as well as are becoming vegetarians or vegans. Of course, that trend might stop or reverse. But we have reasonable grounds to think it might continue. If it does, then eventually current society will look pretty bad. A third reason is that this isn't an arbitrary issue that we happen to see a trend on. A lot of people that eat meat realize there is something wrong with things like factory farming. They ignore it, and it's easy to ignore for the most part. But when they think about it, they realize it's immoral. Most people are good in the sense that they do not want to harm other living beings; caring about animal suffering is just a natural outcome of that. In other words, most people don't need to be convinced on the merits of the issue. What most don't yet realize is the huge extent of the problem, and that there are good alternatives. See also this article for further reasoning along these lines: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35667355 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35667355
  - sosborn 11y ago
    > More and more people care about cruelty-free farming, as well as are becoming vegetarians or vegans. Are there any reliable stats for this that also take into account what it likely to be increased meat consumption in places like China and other developing countries?
    - azakai 11y ago
      I was talking about countries I'm familiar with, like the US. I'm not sure about the situation in China.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    >But when you get down to matters of morality and ethics, I believe we do see a clear progression over time. "Morality" and "ethics" do not have clear objective definitions, nor do they exist on a straight continuum. Most practical applications of morality and ethics are complex and involve a substantial portion of grey area. Morality and ethics change based on the perspective of the culture; they change based on time and place. This should show that, barring a few simple cases, they are not objective verities. However, most humans do end up falling back to the same social structure and basic social codes. They do, after a few generations, admit defeat and openly reject what many a century prior had considered the society's moral manifest destiny. It is true that over time, numerous cultures and societies have attempted to modify these basic structural arrangements, but invariably these entities dissolve and humanity as a whole continues in a manner that is quite similar to how it has always continued. When you're discussing how future generations will perceive things, it is best to do it with a historical perspective that considers more than a single place and more than 100 years of history. I believe that if one does this, the likelihood that any specific social agenda that's not the basic one dictated by the fundamentals of human biology and sociology (the universal rules around pairing, mating, and raising children) will be accepted as self-evident truth becomes quite remote. >Most people are good in the sense that they do not want to harm other living beings; caring about animal suffering is just a natural outcome of that. In other words, most people don't need to be convinced on the merits of the issue. What most don't yet realize is the huge extent of the problem, and that there are good alternatives. There's a big difference between opposing the extreme tactics of factory farms and opposing animal captivity in general. Blackfish's producers and supporters oppose captivity in general, and are trying to generate outrage with the orca as their first test case.

But we should. Future generations will judge us very poorly on this.

by azakai 11y ago

But we should. Future generations will judge us very poorly on this.

>Future generations will judge us very poorly on this. Generally, I find such speculative statements worthless. It's another way to say "I really think this should be obvious and that my idea will eventually be widely accepted to be correct". That's all well and good, but everyone thinks that about their own thoughts. It really doesn't contribute anything to the argument; it's an attempt to shame your opponent into agreeing with you by invoking his future childrens' potential disdain. I also think that if you really want to know what future generations will think of something, you should refer to what prior generations thought of it. By this standard, future generations are likely to taunt us mercilessly for caring so much about what we imagine to be a whale's internal monologue.

azakai 11y ago
I disagree. I think we do have ways to think about what future generations will judge us harshly about. Obviously some things we can't tell, like what clothes fashions will be in 50 or 100 years. But when you get down to matters of morality and ethics, I believe we do see a clear progression over time. And we can predict it, to some extent. That's the first reason I think we'll be judged harshly here. A second reason is that we can already see this trend happening. More and more people care about cruelty-free farming, as well as are becoming vegetarians or vegans. Of course, that trend might stop or reverse. But we have reasonable grounds to think it might continue. If it does, then eventually current society will look pretty bad. A third reason is that this isn't an arbitrary issue that we happen to see a trend on. A lot of people that eat meat realize there is something wrong with things like factory farming. They ignore it, and it's easy to ignore for the most part. But when they think about it, they realize it's immoral. Most people are good in the sense that they do not want to harm other living beings; caring about animal suffering is just a natural outcome of that. In other words, most people don't need to be convinced on the merits of the issue. What most don't yet realize is the huge extent of the problem, and that there are good alternatives. See also this article for further reasoning along these lines: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35667355 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35667355
- sosborn 11y ago
  > More and more people care about cruelty-free farming, as well as are becoming vegetarians or vegans. Are there any reliable stats for this that also take into account what it likely to be increased meat consumption in places like China and other developing countries?
  - azakai 11y ago
    I was talking about countries I'm familiar with, like the US. I'm not sure about the situation in China.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  >But when you get down to matters of morality and ethics, I believe we do see a clear progression over time. "Morality" and "ethics" do not have clear objective definitions, nor do they exist on a straight continuum. Most practical applications of morality and ethics are complex and involve a substantial portion of grey area. Morality and ethics change based on the perspective of the culture; they change based on time and place. This should show that, barring a few simple cases, they are not objective verities. However, most humans do end up falling back to the same social structure and basic social codes. They do, after a few generations, admit defeat and openly reject what many a century prior had considered the society's moral manifest destiny. It is true that over time, numerous cultures and societies have attempted to modify these basic structural arrangements, but invariably these entities dissolve and humanity as a whole continues in a manner that is quite similar to how it has always continued. When you're discussing how future generations will perceive things, it is best to do it with a historical perspective that considers more than a single place and more than 100 years of history. I believe that if one does this, the likelihood that any specific social agenda that's not the basic one dictated by the fundamentals of human biology and sociology (the universal rules around pairing, mating, and raising children) will be accepted as self-evident truth becomes quite remote. >Most people are good in the sense that they do not want to harm other living beings; caring about animal suffering is just a natural outcome of that. In other words, most people don't need to be convinced on the merits of the issue. What most don't yet realize is the huge extent of the problem, and that there are good alternatives. There's a big difference between opposing the extreme tactics of factory farms and opposing animal captivity in general. Blackfish's producers and supporters oppose captivity in general, and are trying to generate outrage with the orca as their first test case.