5 ms·

> how can slaughtering [animals] for food be considered ethical? Life begets life. Death is part of life. Where necessary, living requires killing. Whe

> how can slaughtering [animals] for food be considered ethical? Life begets life. Death is part of life. Where necessary, living requires killing. Where people cultivate The Golden Rule, life will get better and death will get fewer.

tluyben2 11y ago
It is not required anymore. You can live fine without. So no.
- mitchtbaum 11y ago
  I definitely believe humans can live very well without killing. Mushrooms, cannabis seed pomace, spirulina, beans with grains, etc provide great nutrient sources. Still, some people depend on hunting and farm animals now, and it will take a challenging cultural shift and some resources to bootstrap an economically advantageous and (here, commonly viewed) ethical lifestyle change. For myself, I eventually want to sustain dogs, so I hope fermentation\pre-digestion would allow them to live well with these nutrient sources, but as of now, I believe I will need to start them with farmed prey animals that lived well first.
  - tluyben2 11y ago
    Yes it is not easy currently but possible. Especially for humans: I can live off my garden mostly and I do eat eggs of my own chickens (most of which too old to lay). My dogs eat the leftovers of a bar in the village which is cheating but as humans we do not kill (Also not indirectly). I am not opposed to eating meat though but I am and against discrimenation as well; I cannot eat bacon if I cannot eat dog and my chickens are nice; I cannot spare them and eat others. So I abstain. Animals eating pray is different; we humans however can choose and we do not need to. Even if I think if you (or someone else but not some bio factory) get up in the morning and chase your own boar, hang it and slaughter it then it is ok but buying some packet in the shop should at least give you pause. Let me know how the dogfood works out that would be good.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    Plants are living things too. You are killing them by eating them.
    - Falling3 11y ago
      Sentience is where we draw the line. You're not replying to anyone who said "killing" is wrong. We're talking specifically about the slaughter of animals. Reducing it all down to just "life" is fallacious.
      - alanwatts 11y ago
        Define sentience? The word originates from the Latin verb sentire, "to feel". Plants feel their environment. The Venus Fly Trap feels when an insect is on it, for example. >Plants are sessile, highly sensitive organisms that actively compete for environmental resources both above and below the ground. They assess their surroundings, estimate how much energy they need for particular goals, and then realise the optimum variant. They take measures to control certain environmental resources. They perceive themselves and can distinguish between ‘self’ and ‘non-self’. They process and evaluate information and then modify their behaviour accordingly. [1]Biocommunication of Plants, http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642235238 http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642235238 [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology... A more valid argument is that the sound or sight of killing an animal is more off-putting than killing a plant, which is of course a purely subjective sentiment, hence the deeming of "right vs wrong" which is itself a purely subjective sentiment.
        kpil 11y ago
        Neuron count is fine for me. Lobsters an wasps are having about the same neuron count, slightly more than mosquitos.
        Falling3 11y ago
        Plants don't feel their environment. They react to stimuli as all life does. Sentience is defined as the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Since we have very little understanding of how consciousness works and how to test discern whether an entity is conscious or not, I realize this is a sticking point for a lot of people. But I think you'll agree that there's a very real difference between killing a plant and killing a member of your family. And that distinction applies to many animals as well.
- virmundi 11y ago
  All food is killing. That mushroom that you pick dies earlier. Same for the lettuce, cabbage and carrots. Apparently there is a line somewhere near locomotion that says where to stop killing?
  - Falling3 11y ago
    Sentience is the line. Plucking a carrot out of the ground and slitting the throat of a cow can't be reasonably equated.
    - virmundi 11y ago
      Let's assume a purely materialistic view of reality. In such a system all truths will be defined from nature. 1) Animals in nature kill each other all the time for food and sport. 2) All eating after a certain cell count for a creature requires death in some way. 3) Death is inevitable; life is not. 4) Force is the determinate factor for making something happen. 5) The universe does not care for life or death. It is merely a thing. It too will die taking all life within it with it. Construct a moral set from those points (add more if necessary). I contend that you can't seat any ethics on it except might makes right. Anything other than that is merely a personal preference with no justification outside of the amount of force one can apply. As a result I see no distinction between what is food and what is friend. It is merely personal preference. Sentience does not provide any actual force. It might cause your force to act, but it does not, in and of itself, mean anything. To get out a head of it since it's been bandied about: cannibalism is impractical because it leads to the destruction of society when applied to the general population. I did not say it's wrong, for it is only death, which as we've seen is just part of nature. I say it makes commerce and society difficult if applied internally as well as outwardly. We, as a society, have a preference for this stability. We, as a group of actors, have the ability to force this view by our combined strength such as police and other law enforcement institutions.
      - Falling3 11y ago
        Of course, you have a valid point. But what you're ultimately arguing against is any form of moral reasoning. While I find the theoretical discussion of morality interesting, I'm far more driven by the practical discussions. People generally accept a moral axiom, explicitly or implicitly, something along the lines of "Harming other individuals unnecessarily is wrong". If that is the case, I'm going to argue for the consistent application of that principle, which is also where sentience enters the conversation. If they don't hold a similar moral axiom (which I've found is fairly rare), then I don't really have any ground to stand on in this debate. I'm certainly not equipped, if it's even possible, to make a moral argument from first principles.
Falling3 11y ago
And when it is not necessary, it can't be considered ethical.

tluyben2 11y ago

It is not required anymore. You can live fine without. So no.

mitchtbaum 11y ago
I definitely believe humans can live very well without killing. Mushrooms, cannabis seed pomace, spirulina, beans with grains, etc provide great nutrient sources. Still, some people depend on hunting and farm animals now, and it will take a challenging cultural shift and some resources to bootstrap an economically advantageous and (here, commonly viewed) ethical lifestyle change. For myself, I eventually want to sustain dogs, so I hope fermentation\pre-digestion would allow them to live well with these nutrient sources, but as of now, I believe I will need to start them with farmed prey animals that lived well first.
- tluyben2 11y ago
  Yes it is not easy currently but possible. Especially for humans: I can live off my garden mostly and I do eat eggs of my own chickens (most of which too old to lay). My dogs eat the leftovers of a bar in the village which is cheating but as humans we do not kill (Also not indirectly). I am not opposed to eating meat though but I am and against discrimenation as well; I cannot eat bacon if I cannot eat dog and my chickens are nice; I cannot spare them and eat others. So I abstain. Animals eating pray is different; we humans however can choose and we do not need to. Even if I think if you (or someone else but not some bio factory) get up in the morning and chase your own boar, hang it and slaughter it then it is ok but buying some packet in the shop should at least give you pause. Let me know how the dogfood works out that would be good.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  Plants are living things too. You are killing them by eating them.
  - Falling3 11y ago
    Sentience is where we draw the line. You're not replying to anyone who said "killing" is wrong. We're talking specifically about the slaughter of animals. Reducing it all down to just "life" is fallacious.
    - alanwatts 11y ago
      Define sentience? The word originates from the Latin verb sentire, "to feel". Plants feel their environment. The Venus Fly Trap feels when an insect is on it, for example. >Plants are sessile, highly sensitive organisms that actively compete for environmental resources both above and below the ground. They assess their surroundings, estimate how much energy they need for particular goals, and then realise the optimum variant. They take measures to control certain environmental resources. They perceive themselves and can distinguish between ‘self’ and ‘non-self’. They process and evaluate information and then modify their behaviour accordingly. [1]Biocommunication of Plants, http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642235238 http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642235238 [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology... A more valid argument is that the sound or sight of killing an animal is more off-putting than killing a plant, which is of course a purely subjective sentiment, hence the deeming of "right vs wrong" which is itself a purely subjective sentiment.
      - kpil 11y ago
        Neuron count is fine for me. Lobsters an wasps are having about the same neuron count, slightly more than mosquitos.
      - Falling3 11y ago
        Plants don't feel their environment. They react to stimuli as all life does. Sentience is defined as the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Since we have very little understanding of how consciousness works and how to test discern whether an entity is conscious or not, I realize this is a sticking point for a lot of people. But I think you'll agree that there's a very real difference between killing a plant and killing a member of your family. And that distinction applies to many animals as well.
virmundi 11y ago
All food is killing. That mushroom that you pick dies earlier. Same for the lettuce, cabbage and carrots. Apparently there is a line somewhere near locomotion that says where to stop killing?
- Falling3 11y ago
  Sentience is the line. Plucking a carrot out of the ground and slitting the throat of a cow can't be reasonably equated.
  - virmundi 11y ago
    Let's assume a purely materialistic view of reality. In such a system all truths will be defined from nature. 1) Animals in nature kill each other all the time for food and sport. 2) All eating after a certain cell count for a creature requires death in some way. 3) Death is inevitable; life is not. 4) Force is the determinate factor for making something happen. 5) The universe does not care for life or death. It is merely a thing. It too will die taking all life within it with it. Construct a moral set from those points (add more if necessary). I contend that you can't seat any ethics on it except might makes right. Anything other than that is merely a personal preference with no justification outside of the amount of force one can apply. As a result I see no distinction between what is food and what is friend. It is merely personal preference. Sentience does not provide any actual force. It might cause your force to act, but it does not, in and of itself, mean anything. To get out a head of it since it's been bandied about: cannibalism is impractical because it leads to the destruction of society when applied to the general population. I did not say it's wrong, for it is only death, which as we've seen is just part of nature. I say it makes commerce and society difficult if applied internally as well as outwardly. We, as a society, have a preference for this stability. We, as a group of actors, have the ability to force this view by our combined strength such as police and other law enforcement institutions.
    - Falling3 11y ago
      Of course, you have a valid point. But what you're ultimately arguing against is any form of moral reasoning. While I find the theoretical discussion of morality interesting, I'm far more driven by the practical discussions. People generally accept a moral axiom, explicitly or implicitly, something along the lines of "Harming other individuals unnecessarily is wrong". If that is the case, I'm going to argue for the consistent application of that principle, which is also where sentience enters the conversation. If they don't hold a similar moral axiom (which I've found is fairly rare), then I don't really have any ground to stand on in this debate. I'm certainly not equipped, if it's even possible, to make a moral argument from first principles.

Falling3 11y ago

And when it is not necessary, it can't be considered ethical.