4 ms·

I disagree. I think it takes intelligence to accept and realize the ambiguity, complexity and downright contradictions that are endemic to our existence.

techiferous 17y ago
I agree. Everything has edge cases, no matter what your position. The world doesn't neatly fit into our tidy little concepts of morality. However, ignore the edge cases and there isn't so much ambiguity. Take the average American sitting down to a meal--why does he choose to eat beef? Typically it is out of habit or to please the palate. In the typical case, this act is harmful to the health of this person. This act also ends the life of a sentient being whose brain is developed enough to experience pain, emotions, and even develop social relationships. I don't see much ethical gray area here: a desire to please the palate would be trumped by another sentient being's desire to continue living and live free of pain and suffering. Also, I doubt you would consistently hold to this position: "realize the ambiguity, complexity and downright contradictions that are endemic to our existence" if you were on the receiving end of the pain and suffering. If someone kidnapped your daughter and prostituted her out, for example, I doubt that you would find comfort in the fact that life is "ambiguous and complex".
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- cmars232 17y ago
  I'm not an objectivist, I just think intelligence has nothing to do with the choosing. Ultimately one decides animals should exist as a delicious, nutritious source of protein, or those who would harm one's family should painfully cease to. You can arrive at a completely different conclusion, but how is intelligence a factor in the choosing?
  - techiferous 17y ago
    Good point. Intelligence may not be a primary factor in the choosing. One reason why some people are vegetarians and others not is exposure to the information about factory farming. So if you don't know what's going on with animals, you could be highly intelligent and not be a vegetarian. Another reason is you could be intelligent and narcissistic. You may know about animal suffering, but not care. The reason I believe there could be a link (maybe a very small correlation; nothing big) is my own "anecdotal" observations. I've seen how a lack of intelligence can keep people from becoming a vegetarian. Often people don't address the issues in a well-reasoned, objective manner but react based on their emotions/desires ("but I just couldn't give up cheese!") or more often, simply avoiding the topic altogether. I have not once, ever, come across a sound, cogent reason for eating meat (barring edge cases--just talking about the typical case). But I've come across many different sound arguments for avoiding eating meat. The overwhelming truth and well-thought out arguments of vegetarians impresses me. For more context, I wasn't always vegetarian. I was raised with meat at every meal and I would complain if I didn't have meat. It was ultimately the cogency of the argument for vegetarianism that converted me. I would convert back if I came across an argument for eating meat. So after years of hearing poor arguments from the meat-eating side and sound arguments from the vegetarian side, it makes it believable when someone suggests there might be a link between vegetarianism and intelligence. (I'm actually quite impressed that this Hacker News discussion hasn't degenerated. In my experience online discussions about vegetarianism often degenerate into childish snark. Thanks for keeping it real.)

techiferous 17y ago

I agree. Everything has edge cases, no matter what your position. The world doesn't neatly fit into our tidy little concepts of morality. However, ignore the edge cases and there isn't so much ambiguity. Take the average American sitting down to a meal--why does he choose to eat beef? Typically it is out of habit or to please the palate. In the typical case, this act is harmful to the health of this person. This act also ends the life of a sentient being whose brain is developed enough to experience pain, emotions, and even develop social relationships. I don't see much ethical gray area here: a desire to please the palate would be trumped by another sentient being's desire to continue living and live free of pain and suffering. Also, I doubt you would consistently hold to this position: "realize the ambiguity, complexity and downright contradictions that are endemic to our existence" if you were on the receiving end of the pain and suffering. If someone kidnapped your daughter and prostituted her out, for example, I doubt that you would find comfort in the fact that life is "ambiguous and complex".

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
cmars232 17y ago
I'm not an objectivist, I just think intelligence has nothing to do with the choosing. Ultimately one decides animals should exist as a delicious, nutritious source of protein, or those who would harm one's family should painfully cease to. You can arrive at a completely different conclusion, but how is intelligence a factor in the choosing?
- techiferous 17y ago
  Good point. Intelligence may not be a primary factor in the choosing. One reason why some people are vegetarians and others not is exposure to the information about factory farming. So if you don't know what's going on with animals, you could be highly intelligent and not be a vegetarian. Another reason is you could be intelligent and narcissistic. You may know about animal suffering, but not care. The reason I believe there could be a link (maybe a very small correlation; nothing big) is my own "anecdotal" observations. I've seen how a lack of intelligence can keep people from becoming a vegetarian. Often people don't address the issues in a well-reasoned, objective manner but react based on their emotions/desires ("but I just couldn't give up cheese!") or more often, simply avoiding the topic altogether. I have not once, ever, come across a sound, cogent reason for eating meat (barring edge cases--just talking about the typical case). But I've come across many different sound arguments for avoiding eating meat. The overwhelming truth and well-thought out arguments of vegetarians impresses me. For more context, I wasn't always vegetarian. I was raised with meat at every meal and I would complain if I didn't have meat. It was ultimately the cogency of the argument for vegetarianism that converted me. I would convert back if I came across an argument for eating meat. So after years of hearing poor arguments from the meat-eating side and sound arguments from the vegetarian side, it makes it believable when someone suggests there might be a link between vegetarianism and intelligence. (I'm actually quite impressed that this Hacker News discussion hasn't degenerated. In my experience online discussions about vegetarianism often degenerate into childish snark. Thanks for keeping it real.)