4 ms·

If someone lets you live a happy life then hunts you down and kills you to eat, is that OK with you ? If it's ok for you to rule on the life of a pig, say, then

If someone lets you live a happy life then hunts you down and kills you to eat, is that OK with you ? If it's ok for you to rule on the life of a pig, say, then why isn't it ok for another human to decide on your life ? (I really don't agree with this position - just playing devil's advocate)

mehwoot 10y ago
If someone lets you live a happy life then hunts you down and kills you to eat, is that OK with you Yes, definitely. If the alternative was that I didn't exist at all- most pigs wouldn't be around if we didn't eat them (https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/). The way I ethically decide whether it's ok to eat meat is whether, if that animal could express a choice, it would likely choose to exist and then be eaten or not exist at all. If an animal is kept in so much pain that it would rather not exist, then I think that's unethical. But if it would still choose to exist, then it's better than nothing- don't forget that living in the wild is generally a pretty harsh life as well.
- pingec 10y ago
  Sorry but I completely disagree with this view. It's not about what options they have. They are already here and they do not want to not exist nor be treated badly, they want to live a happy life. It's us who deny them this because we prioritize our convenience over their life and suffering. If you applied the same thinking to slavery many people would be outraged.
  - mehwoot 10y ago
    They are already here and they do not want to not exist nor be treated badly They are only here because we eat them. Look at the link I gave- nearly every mammal (counted by total weight) that is alive on earth is so because it has some use to us (https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/). If we stopped eating them, the vast, vast majority of them wouldn't be alive. Economics demands it. Nobody is going to use land to raise herds of cattle and just let them exist. So you have to make a choice between either the animal not existing, or us eating it. If you applied the same thinking to slavery many people would be outraged. But in that case, the people who were slaves could have paid their own way and been useful to society outside of being slaves. Cattle can't do anything else useful. Either we eat them or they're not around. We can be kinder to them, but we can't (within any reasonable interpretation of the modern capitalist society we find ourselves in) just not eat them and have the same number around. They have no other function.
- tillom 10y ago
  I get what your saying. I think you've set a really low bar for how you decided wether something is good or bad though. For me something doesn't become ethical when an animal can just about tolerate bad conditions. I cant give you a hard line for where I decide, but it's not that. What about if an animal can have some positive experiences of a wild animal (some space) with fewer of the negatives (very painful death). We have given them a better alternative arguably.
  - stanfordkid 10y ago
    There really isn't a "good" or "bad" ... there is only "nature" ... and it's a beautiful hierarchical food-chain that should be appreciated and understood by all elements within it. Humans are one of the few that have the capacity to fully understand it. Sadly they still do not recognize the inherently hierarchical nature of even human society and this leads both the people at the bottom and top to hate each other. Humans are the only creatures that have somehow attached themselves to this strange idea that controlling their pleasure and pain response (rather than their freedom) is the most important thing in the world. Society and civilization should exist but only to protected freedom-- that doesn't mean that everyone should or can be happy. But rather freedom to compete and continue the threads of nature is what is important. Nature above all else.

mehwoot 10y ago

If someone lets you live a happy life then hunts you down and kills you to eat, is that OK with you Yes, definitely. If the alternative was that I didn't exist at all- most pigs wouldn't be around if we didn't eat them (https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/). The way I ethically decide whether it's ok to eat meat is whether, if that animal could express a choice, it would likely choose to exist and then be eaten or not exist at all. If an animal is kept in so much pain that it would rather not exist, then I think that's unethical. But if it would still choose to exist, then it's better than nothing- don't forget that living in the wild is generally a pretty harsh life as well.

pingec 10y ago
Sorry but I completely disagree with this view. It's not about what options they have. They are already here and they do not want to not exist nor be treated badly, they want to live a happy life. It's us who deny them this because we prioritize our convenience over their life and suffering. If you applied the same thinking to slavery many people would be outraged.
- mehwoot 10y ago
  They are already here and they do not want to not exist nor be treated badly They are only here because we eat them. Look at the link I gave- nearly every mammal (counted by total weight) that is alive on earth is so because it has some use to us (https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/). If we stopped eating them, the vast, vast majority of them wouldn't be alive. Economics demands it. Nobody is going to use land to raise herds of cattle and just let them exist. So you have to make a choice between either the animal not existing, or us eating it. If you applied the same thinking to slavery many people would be outraged. But in that case, the people who were slaves could have paid their own way and been useful to society outside of being slaves. Cattle can't do anything else useful. Either we eat them or they're not around. We can be kinder to them, but we can't (within any reasonable interpretation of the modern capitalist society we find ourselves in) just not eat them and have the same number around. They have no other function.
tillom 10y ago
I get what your saying. I think you've set a really low bar for how you decided wether something is good or bad though. For me something doesn't become ethical when an animal can just about tolerate bad conditions. I cant give you a hard line for where I decide, but it's not that. What about if an animal can have some positive experiences of a wild animal (some space) with fewer of the negatives (very painful death). We have given them a better alternative arguably.
- stanfordkid 10y ago
  There really isn't a "good" or "bad" ... there is only "nature" ... and it's a beautiful hierarchical food-chain that should be appreciated and understood by all elements within it. Humans are one of the few that have the capacity to fully understand it. Sadly they still do not recognize the inherently hierarchical nature of even human society and this leads both the people at the bottom and top to hate each other. Humans are the only creatures that have somehow attached themselves to this strange idea that controlling their pleasure and pain response (rather than their freedom) is the most important thing in the world. Society and civilization should exist but only to protected freedom-- that doesn't mean that everyone should or can be happy. But rather freedom to compete and continue the threads of nature is what is important. Nature above all else.