6 ms·

But there's no need to stop. Animals kill and eat other animals without any guilt. We're doing the same thing, only more efficiently. That said, we should have

But there's no need to stop. Animals kill and eat other animals without any guilt. We're doing the same thing, only more efficiently. That said, we should have stricter rules on treating food animals better, which has proven to produce better food anyway.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Some argue the moral position of "lower animals do it; why not me?" is shaky. We're supposed to have empathy and be responsible stewards and so on. We've already got rules against eating our own babies for instance. So raising a race of mammals just to eat them seems cynical and cruel to some. We never need to stop. But we probably should.
- ewzimm 11y ago
  I do think the need part comes into play when you take into consideration resource constraints. If we end up poisoning the Earth beyond its ability to support life with rising demand for meat, we might need to stop.
ewzimm 11y ago
Are you implying that if animals treated each other better, we would be obliged to do so as well? Are animals now our role models? I thought it was the other way around, that we valued our unique human cultures with our ideas of ethics and reciprocity over our primitive instincts for survival. If it's the case that we should be emulating animals, maybe we should rethink this whole civilization thing.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  Reciprocity requires, well, reciprocity, a two-sided relationship. Only some animals have shown themselves capable of any moral relations with humans. Just pointing out.
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    Yes, you're right. To clarify, I was talking about the injection of ethics into relationships. The concept here is that animals treat each other in a certain way, a lack of reciprocity, and so we should follow their lead and act the same way. The implication is that if no reciprocity is offered initially, we should never take the initiative to create that kind of mutually beneficial relationship, the "Eye for an Eye" mentality. However, we have thousands of years of development of ideas of ethical behavior, and while there are many different takes on it, the majority have some version of the "Golden Rule," that we should take the initiative to create a symbiotic relationship rather than meet every hostile action with an equally hostile action. This is motivated not just by blind obedience to a moral principle but also the kind of environment it creates. If we always opt for hostility, we create a hostile and unlivable environment, not just toward the object of our hostility but in our mindset and culture. If we choose to nurture a symbiotic relationship with others and everything in our environment, we at least take the first steps toward a better situation for everyone involved, especially us. Although most animals might not show reciprocity now, we can look at extreme examples like dogs to show that it is possible over generations.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      >Although most animals might not show reciprocity now, we can look at extreme examples like dogs to show that it is possible over generations. Wolves are social mammals in the first place. The creation of dogs amounted to deliberately taming and selectively breeding wolves who would understand ever-more-slightly humanoid social structures in place of their previous wolf social structures. Even now, a dog does not carry a fully human sense of reciprocity and equality, merely a very nurturing and cooperative concept of pack-structure. (Actually, even now, most humans don't carry a fully human sense of reciprocity and equality. Most humans are more like the dogs than we care to admit in terms of which social structures we've trained them to understand: hierarchy and one-way domination over reciprocity and equality remain the human norm when we leave our armchairs.) Since many animals are not even social mammals, I think it would take radical measures to instill them with a humanoid moral sense capable of reciprocity, and that brings on its own ethical issues.
- kazinator 11y ago
  Also, which animals are our role models? For any behavior that you want to rationalize, you can cherry-pick the animal to be your role model.
- zardo 11y ago
  Absolutelty, if you encounter carebears, it is your moral obligation to treat them as you would want to be treated yourself. And we would be wise to try to emulate their society.
nefitty 11y ago
Yes, animals also shit in the woods and don't wipe themselves. At some point we realized we didn't have to do that anymore. We found more practical and hygienic ways to take care of business. Our burden now is to move away from exploitative behaviors, whether of animals or other humans, as much as possible, to progress morally as a species. To feel guilt, an animal would have to have a moral capacity.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  > Our burden now is to move away from exploitative behaviors, whether of animals or other humans, as much as possible, to progress morally as a species. Whose morality? Why is contemporary Western-elite morality the correct morality? How can we evaluate different moral systems? What is our reference? What does progress mean? I deny that moral feelings about animal exploitation have anything whatsoever to do with moral progress or any kind of objective moral superiority. It's simply 21st century Western-elite social norms that many would like to impose on the population at large. Since I like meat and do not feel the slightest moral feeling about eating it, I will do whatever I can to prevent that imposition. > To feel guilt, an animal would have to have a moral capacity. Morality is just herd instinct in the individual. Ergo, any social animal has moral capacity, though of course they probably can't reason about it in an abstract way. Humans have no special responsibility above other animals.
  - nefitty 11y ago
    I'm not a moral relativist. Animal abuse and murder is wrong, full stop. Those big questions you're putting up have never had universally satisfactory answers. The conversation I want to have is practical. You probably agree that exploitation is bad. I don't see what makes animals lesser beings because they happen to be a different species than me. The argument for animal rights is a sturdy edifice. I don't have time to delve into that now, a simple Google search would quench any curious person's thirst. Do you not believe in morality? Your argument seems to be, "Western ethics are only one way of thinking, therefore it can't be true." I believe we can uncover moral truths. The Western philosophical project has made great strides in this arena. I'm basically reading an unapologetic cynicism in your entire post. I can't convince you out of that position. IF you don't believe in morality, and you don't believe humans have responsibilities above and beyond animals, then our conversation can't go much further.
blacksmith_tb 11y ago
There are different sorts of 'need' - we have finite resources, and feeding 16lbs / 7kg of grain to a cow to produce a 1lb / .5kg of meat doesn't scale to feeding 7 x 10^9 humans.
- pixl97 11y ago
  The solution is simple. Soylent Green.
- sdegutis 11y ago
  This is starting to remind me of Minecraft recipes. There's all sorts of trade-offs, and we can eat lots of grain, but sometimes we need meat, so by "trading in" some grain plus an animal plus a little time, we get a little meat back.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

Some argue the moral position of "lower animals do it; why not me?" is shaky. We're supposed to have empathy and be responsible stewards and so on. We've already got rules against eating our own babies for instance. So raising a race of mammals just to eat them seems cynical and cruel to some. We never need to stop. But we probably should.

ewzimm 11y ago
I do think the need part comes into play when you take into consideration resource constraints. If we end up poisoning the Earth beyond its ability to support life with rising demand for meat, we might need to stop.

ewzimm 11y ago

Are you implying that if animals treated each other better, we would be obliged to do so as well? Are animals now our role models? I thought it was the other way around, that we valued our unique human cultures with our ideas of ethics and reciprocity over our primitive instincts for survival. If it's the case that we should be emulating animals, maybe we should rethink this whole civilization thing.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Reciprocity requires, well, reciprocity, a two-sided relationship. Only some animals have shown themselves capable of any moral relations with humans. Just pointing out.
- ewzimm 11y ago
  Yes, you're right. To clarify, I was talking about the injection of ethics into relationships. The concept here is that animals treat each other in a certain way, a lack of reciprocity, and so we should follow their lead and act the same way. The implication is that if no reciprocity is offered initially, we should never take the initiative to create that kind of mutually beneficial relationship, the "Eye for an Eye" mentality. However, we have thousands of years of development of ideas of ethical behavior, and while there are many different takes on it, the majority have some version of the "Golden Rule," that we should take the initiative to create a symbiotic relationship rather than meet every hostile action with an equally hostile action. This is motivated not just by blind obedience to a moral principle but also the kind of environment it creates. If we always opt for hostility, we create a hostile and unlivable environment, not just toward the object of our hostility but in our mindset and culture. If we choose to nurture a symbiotic relationship with others and everything in our environment, we at least take the first steps toward a better situation for everyone involved, especially us. Although most animals might not show reciprocity now, we can look at extreme examples like dogs to show that it is possible over generations.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    >Although most animals might not show reciprocity now, we can look at extreme examples like dogs to show that it is possible over generations. Wolves are social mammals in the first place. The creation of dogs amounted to deliberately taming and selectively breeding wolves who would understand ever-more-slightly humanoid social structures in place of their previous wolf social structures. Even now, a dog does not carry a fully human sense of reciprocity and equality, merely a very nurturing and cooperative concept of pack-structure. (Actually, even now, most humans don't carry a fully human sense of reciprocity and equality. Most humans are more like the dogs than we care to admit in terms of which social structures we've trained them to understand: hierarchy and one-way domination over reciprocity and equality remain the human norm when we leave our armchairs.) Since many animals are not even social mammals, I think it would take radical measures to instill them with a humanoid moral sense capable of reciprocity, and that brings on its own ethical issues.
kazinator 11y ago
Also, which animals are our role models? For any behavior that you want to rationalize, you can cherry-pick the animal to be your role model.
zardo 11y ago
Absolutelty, if you encounter carebears, it is your moral obligation to treat them as you would want to be treated yourself. And we would be wise to try to emulate their society.

nefitty 11y ago

Yes, animals also shit in the woods and don't wipe themselves. At some point we realized we didn't have to do that anymore. We found more practical and hygienic ways to take care of business. Our burden now is to move away from exploitative behaviors, whether of animals or other humans, as much as possible, to progress morally as a species. To feel guilt, an animal would have to have a moral capacity.

Amezarak 11y ago
> Our burden now is to move away from exploitative behaviors, whether of animals or other humans, as much as possible, to progress morally as a species. Whose morality? Why is contemporary Western-elite morality the correct morality? How can we evaluate different moral systems? What is our reference? What does progress mean? I deny that moral feelings about animal exploitation have anything whatsoever to do with moral progress or any kind of objective moral superiority. It's simply 21st century Western-elite social norms that many would like to impose on the population at large. Since I like meat and do not feel the slightest moral feeling about eating it, I will do whatever I can to prevent that imposition. > To feel guilt, an animal would have to have a moral capacity. Morality is just herd instinct in the individual. Ergo, any social animal has moral capacity, though of course they probably can't reason about it in an abstract way. Humans have no special responsibility above other animals.
- nefitty 11y ago
  I'm not a moral relativist. Animal abuse and murder is wrong, full stop. Those big questions you're putting up have never had universally satisfactory answers. The conversation I want to have is practical. You probably agree that exploitation is bad. I don't see what makes animals lesser beings because they happen to be a different species than me. The argument for animal rights is a sturdy edifice. I don't have time to delve into that now, a simple Google search would quench any curious person's thirst. Do you not believe in morality? Your argument seems to be, "Western ethics are only one way of thinking, therefore it can't be true." I believe we can uncover moral truths. The Western philosophical project has made great strides in this arena. I'm basically reading an unapologetic cynicism in your entire post. I can't convince you out of that position. IF you don't believe in morality, and you don't believe humans have responsibilities above and beyond animals, then our conversation can't go much further.

blacksmith_tb 11y ago

There are different sorts of 'need' - we have finite resources, and feeding 16lbs / 7kg of grain to a cow to produce a 1lb / .5kg of meat doesn't scale to feeding 7 x 10^9 humans.

pixl97 11y ago
The solution is simple. Soylent Green.
sdegutis 11y ago
This is starting to remind me of Minecraft recipes. There's all sorts of trade-offs, and we can eat lots of grain, but sometimes we need meat, so by "trading in" some grain plus an animal plus a little time, we get a little meat back.