4 ms·

Actually, I argue amorality in all things from an agnostic view. There is no such thing as a universal ethic. There is only force and its decay. For the genera

Actually, I argue amorality in all things from an agnostic view. There is no such thing as a universal ethic. There is only force and its decay. For the general concept of animal herd vs people collective (effectually herd vs herd), this doesn't much matter. The best argument one can muster its that we, being rational, should preserve a reasonable food chain. The idea goes like this: A stable, sustainable food chain allows us to continue living; continue living is a good thing; therefore we will manage the food chain. Nothing here says that we should exclude from the food chain anything with an intelligence. Such a pronouncement is merely a feel good. It's an extension onto the animals of the view that we, ourselves, would not like to be eaten. If such a measure were carried out without hypocrisy, one would not eat any animals. Drawing an arbitrary line is ok for the individual. It has no weight as moral imperative or generalizable postulate.

danans 10y ago
> Actually, I argue amorality in all things from an agnostic view. There is no such thing as a universal ethic. There is only force and its decay. There are personal (and group) ethics which the OP appeared to be reflecting on when they pondered whether or not to eat the octopus. These arise from a mix of rational, irrational, habitual, and even hypocritical thought processes, and that's all part of the human condition.
Falling3 10y ago
>If such a measure were carried out without hypocrisy, one would not eat any animals. A very reasonable, consistent position.
- virmundi 10y ago
  The trouble comes with eating plants. Do they want to be eaten? So far we pushed our desire to live onto animals. Why not push that view onto plants? At least to the core plant (seed bearing plants appear to need, and I guess therefore desire, for their fruit to be eaten to decimate their germs)? The trouble with the lauded projection is we are left with not eating anything. Perhaps after the singularity then?
  - Falling3 10y ago
    Sentience is the line I and many others use to make that distinction. Although there is a gray area the closer to the line you get (insects for example), that does not diminish the fact that we can say with high degree of certainly are sentient (cows) and are not sentient (wheat).
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      There's considerable evidence that plants are sentient by the usual external functional definitions (the traditional internal "subjective experience" definition is not directly testable), which is why some vegans have adopted structural standards regarding distinct "sense organs" so as to keep sentience restricted to animals.
      - Falling3 10y ago
        What would you say are the "usual functional definitions"? The only evidence I'm aware of that gets distorted into an argument for plant sentience is that plants are able to respond to their environment, which is a feature of all living organisms.
  - virmundi 10y ago
    @Falling3 > Sentience is the line I and many others use to make that distinction. Fine line you got there. Why do you have it? I'd take an actual response, but the question is rhetorical. I just want people to know why they make decisions they do. I also don't want people to harm others that don't agree. For example, you should have no power to prevent me from eating a chicken legally.
jcoffland 10y ago
> continue living is a good thing Why stop there? Why is continued living a good thing in the broader scope of the universe? > Nothing here says that we should exclude from the food chain anything with an intelligence. Then why not eat other humans too. If you do away with all ethics what argument do you have against it? To deny that human emotion and feeling have any value is to deny the value of humanity.
- virmundi 10y ago
  > Why stop there? Why is continued living a good thing in the broader scope of the universe? I don't necessarily think it is. I empathize with Joker in the dark night series. If I wasn't a Christian, I'd be a Nihilistic Existentialist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism). > Nothing here says that we should exclude from the food chain anything with an intelligence. I addressed this elsewhere. TL;DR: as long as you don't disturb society, go ahead. Disturbing society is a relativistic metric that I chose since it seems to make my life nicer.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

danans 10y ago

> Actually, I argue amorality in all things from an agnostic view. There is no such thing as a universal ethic. There is only force and its decay. There are personal (and group) ethics which the OP appeared to be reflecting on when they pondered whether or not to eat the octopus. These arise from a mix of rational, irrational, habitual, and even hypocritical thought processes, and that's all part of the human condition.

Falling3 10y ago

>If such a measure were carried out without hypocrisy, one would not eat any animals. A very reasonable, consistent position.

virmundi 10y ago
The trouble comes with eating plants. Do they want to be eaten? So far we pushed our desire to live onto animals. Why not push that view onto plants? At least to the core plant (seed bearing plants appear to need, and I guess therefore desire, for their fruit to be eaten to decimate their germs)? The trouble with the lauded projection is we are left with not eating anything. Perhaps after the singularity then?
- Falling3 10y ago
  Sentience is the line I and many others use to make that distinction. Although there is a gray area the closer to the line you get (insects for example), that does not diminish the fact that we can say with high degree of certainly are sentient (cows) and are not sentient (wheat).
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    There's considerable evidence that plants are sentient by the usual external functional definitions (the traditional internal "subjective experience" definition is not directly testable), which is why some vegans have adopted structural standards regarding distinct "sense organs" so as to keep sentience restricted to animals.
    - Falling3 10y ago
      What would you say are the "usual functional definitions"? The only evidence I'm aware of that gets distorted into an argument for plant sentience is that plants are able to respond to their environment, which is a feature of all living organisms.
- virmundi 10y ago
  @Falling3 > Sentience is the line I and many others use to make that distinction. Fine line you got there. Why do you have it? I'd take an actual response, but the question is rhetorical. I just want people to know why they make decisions they do. I also don't want people to harm others that don't agree. For example, you should have no power to prevent me from eating a chicken legally.

jcoffland 10y ago

> continue living is a good thing Why stop there? Why is continued living a good thing in the broader scope of the universe? > Nothing here says that we should exclude from the food chain anything with an intelligence. Then why not eat other humans too. If you do away with all ethics what argument do you have against it? To deny that human emotion and feeling have any value is to deny the value of humanity.

virmundi 10y ago
> Why stop there? Why is continued living a good thing in the broader scope of the universe? I don't necessarily think it is. I empathize with Joker in the dark night series. If I wasn't a Christian, I'd be a Nihilistic Existentialist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism). > Nothing here says that we should exclude from the food chain anything with an intelligence. I addressed this elsewhere. TL;DR: as long as you don't disturb society, go ahead. Disturbing society is a relativistic metric that I chose since it seems to make my life nicer.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]