6 ms·

I bet a little bit of it in the modern world is rationalization for eating and generally mistreating animals.

by rtpg 9y ago

jahans3 9y ago
Wouldn't be surprised. The more we learn about the animals we eat the more we seem to learn that they're sentient, have a full range of emotions, and they most definitely experience suffering because of intensive farming and other things we put them through.
dorfsmay 9y ago
Which animal we morally can eat is a huge and difficult concept... In some cultures eating horse meat is normal, in others vegetarianism is the honourable goal. Have you ever asked yourself why you eat or why you don't eat some animals? It is typically a product of the culture we grew up in, rarely the product of an intentional thought process. Would you eat another human? What about another ape? An elephant? A monkey? A cat? A rabbit? A cow? Where do you draw the line? I once decided that the "mirror test"[1] was my litmus test for eating or not an animal. But then as I looked more into it I realised that that test isn't as straight forward as I thought, lots of false positive, methodology issues (eg: some animal start passing the test after being exposed to mirrors for a long time). And the final blow was that most humans under 6 months fail the test and I decided not to use this test rather than starting to eat human infants. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  Why not draw the line at consciousness? don't eat animals that science has proven to have IQ that approaches human 1-3 year old IQ, like parrots, crows, dolphins, etc. all other animals are fair game.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    So we can eat humans that also do not have that IQ, right? Thing about consciousness, in the philosophical sense that you clearly mean it, is that it is completely unempirical and therefore does not exist within the scientific model. I know I have consciousness because I experience it, I assume you have consciousness because you are very like me, you assume these low IQ animals don't have consciousness because they are not like you. There exists no objective measurement of consciousness.
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      yeah, but there exist objective measurements of ability. As in my parakeet objectively cannot be taught to read and understand a book, for example. no, we wouldn't eat humans who do not have IQ of 1-3 year old, because we would recognize that they are human and don't have that IQ from disease or misfortune, not because of their inherent incapability of having it.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        Why should that matter? Your philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings that have lower IQ, the fact that they are biologically human is irrelevant.
        vasilipupkin 9y ago
        it's relevant. My philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings, who are not human, who have low IQ. I assign low worth to individuals who belong to low IQ species, not to low IQ individuals.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        And I'm saying, why? What does it matter what species they are? Your original claim implied that you believe this is because lower IQ equates to a lack of consciousness, which as I've already described cannot be objectively determined and is therefore a poor metric. If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that it's really the species that determines consciousness, which is equally invalid. Either you are taking it on pure faith that certain species have consciousness and others do not, in which case there is little point in further discussion, or you are trying to claim that certain species are worth more than others because they seem to have a greater aptitude in certain categories. For some reason, this does not apply on an individual basis. How convenient for you, then, that these categories align perfectly with all the areas your species has great aptitude! I invite you to consider this possibility: Your belief is not based on rational reasoning, you are just rationalizing your behavior.
- nine_k 9y ago
  Widely eaten animals are those easy to farm. This limits them mostly to land herbivores, like cows, and water herbi/omnivores, like shrimp or tilapia. The level of intelligence plays little role, as long as the animals don't use it to actively try to fight back or escape. E.g. pigs are no less smart than dogs.
  - dorfsmay 9y ago
    I'll argue it is more complicated. Horse meat for example is eaten in continental Europe and Asia but taboo in the UK and U.S. And on your point about pig vs dogs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat
    - nine_k 9y ago
      Indeed! I just think thad dog meat can't be anything but an expensive delicacy, because to produce one unit of dog meat you already need many more units of other meat, to feed the dog. This helps dogs and cats stay pets, largely protected from eating by human emotional attachment, while cows or pigs get pushed to the cattle sector, emotionally detached for food purposes.
- hnaccy 9y ago
  >Which animal we morally can eat is a huge and difficult concept... I'd say it's rather simple, the issue is most people are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to live morally. Given their clear intelligence and ability to suffer the ease with which people deny that animals are moral beings is disgusting.
  - dorfsmay 9y ago
    Plants release pheromones when being collected, cut etc...[1] which some people argue is a way to express suffering and has lead some people to "eat only fallen fruit" [2]. The whole debate of vegetarianism vs vegan, is exploiting animal for food (milk, eggs) ethical? Some people argue that a pure vegetarian lifestyle is unhealthy... This is why I am saying that one needs to draw a line, and that it isn't necessarily easy. It sounds like you made your choice and that it was easy for you, but that isn't the case for everybody. [1]: https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/ https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism
    - hnaccy 9y ago
      I fail to see how the possibility of further debate in the finer details makes the answer to your original question, what animals are moral to consume, less obvious. Would you accept a plantation owner claiming slavery's immorality was not obvious because there were arguments to be had about the ethics of "wage slavery" etc? >but that isn't the case for everybody. This is a moral failing.
  - pathseeker 9y ago
    Where does the implication that other animals are moral come from? Is a wolf that eats pigs moral? If so, then why is a human eating pigs immoral or even 'disgusting' as you put it?
    - hnaccy 9y ago
      By moral being I do not mean they act morally but that they deserve moral consideration. If this were not true why are we repulsed by the beating of an animal? Why do we invent such paradoxical concepts as the "humane" slaughterhouse? Our moral intuition leads us to the answer but cultural norms and casuistry let us avoid it.
- indubitable 9y ago
  In my opinion it's quite simple. I eat what I would be willing to personally kill and butcher myself. I think trying to justify why 'A' and not 'B' to ourselves is somewhat unproductive. Two people watch a movie, one person likes it - the other dislikes it. Both can give their reasons for such, but neither is right or wrong. Attempting to quantify subjective matters is arguably one of the big reasons so many of the social sciences are facing replication crises. There are so many factors in play that the quantifications, or justifications, we provide to explain social phenomena like this are not very meaningful even if we think they are! The most important thing is to be aware of the facts, so much as possible, but beyond that simply to take your opinion as what it is - a subjective view based on a complex series of mental interactions that even you are not fully privy to.
  - hnaccy 9y ago
    Is justifying the wrongness of slavery unproductive? Was it just a subjective discussion with no right or wrong answer?
    - indubitable 9y ago
      This is interesting as slavery is something that ostensibly has no room for shades of gray. So let's try it. Can you justify to me why you believe slavery is wrong? And to be clear, I am not suggesting that it is not - but rather I think you'll find that creating completely coherent arguments for why it is - without exception, is not as easy as you would think.
  - dorfsmay 9y ago
    So if your neighbour is willing to kill and butcher a human being, you're OK with that? What about another ape or an elephant?
    - indubitable 9y ago
      I'm not really sure by what you mean "OK with that." I'm perfectly fine with people having views I find detestable. Going further there, I suspect if we were all 100% honest then any two people could find at least some reason to find the other detestable.
127 9y ago
I believe that's pretty much it. I remember going fishing with my uncle as a kid and I was disturbed what I was doing to these animals but my uncle told me that fish can't feel pain. I didn't believe it then, and even less now. To combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception. Without it, you can only pick two. For evolutionary reasons, it's obvious why eating meat is very beneficial. Today, it might not even be necessary for good health.
- xj9 9y ago
  combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception i'm at peace with killing animals for food. i know that they feel pain, but life is pain in general. maybe i'm a terrible person or something, but a good bbq is def worth more than the life of a pig or a cow.
  - mortenjorck 9y ago
    In my worldview, it is simply an immutable law of nature that more complex genera prey upon less complex ones. But as we are complex enough to empathize, we also have the moral responsibility to make the best of our predatory nature, whether that means minimizing the suffering of our prey, or minimizing the ecological impact of our predation.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    As long as you accept then that there is no moral problem with some superior species coming along and and deciding the same about you, at least your backwards philosophy will be consistent.
    - xj9 9y ago
      oh yeah, totally fine! if i can't stop them, "moral superiority" isn't going to protect me anyway ;)
  - gadders 9y ago
    The thing is though, animals die anyway. And it's not like they die peacefully in their sleep, either. They mostly either get injured or old and starve to death, or get eaten by predators.
Momquist 9y ago
I think another point to add is that raising animals for food can be seen as a symbiotic relationship. If not for the development of animal husbandry, would pigs, chickens, and such be as successful (from a total population pov)? I think not. Many animals have the chance to be alive, only because they are supported by humans. This relationship is not only one-way: they are protected from predators, sheltered, and fed. Of course this doesn't justify mistreatment. But it puts in perspective the idea that turning vegetarian, and banning meat would be good for those animals in question. It wouldn't: they wouldn't be alive in the first place. By the way, even animal husbandry is not specific to humans. Ants for example, have "farmed" aphids for millions of years. They milk them for honeydew and eventually eat them.
- tspike 9y ago
  True- though it does not have to be binary. Our current levels of meat consumption are unsustainable and the levels of production required make treating the animals well a laughable proposition. I've tried to greatly reduce my meat consumption recently.
- swombat 9y ago
  > Of course this doesn't justify mistreatment. But it puts in perspective the idea that turning vegetarian, and banning meat would be good for those animals in question. It wouldn't: they wouldn't be alive in the first place. It's highly arguable whether they are better off being "alive", when this "aliveness" is so far off what they are genetically programmed to enjoy as a normal life. For example, if an alien species took over Earth's biosphere and treated humans like we treat cows, raising them in overcrowded pens, feeding them food that occasionally contains human meat, forcefully inseminating the females every year and separating them from their young 24 hours after birth, then killing the females when they reach their mid-twenties because their fertility drops, and basically using a tiny proportion of males to make sperm and slaughtering the rest at a young age... would you make the argument that there's a two-way relationship there? That humans are benefitting in some way? Even if they took these domesticated humans and spread them to the stars, ensuring their survival for millions of years, and protection from other predator alien species, so long as these "humans" were treated in this way we would not consider this to be beneficial to our species in any way. At least I wouldn't: better extinction than such a "life". Obviously we can't ask the cows what they would prefer (or perhaps we can, we just don't have much interest in figuring out how to do it). If we did ask them, though, I doubt they'd see this relationship as beneficial to them in any way.

I bet a little bit of it in the modern world is rationalization for eating and generally mistreating animals.

by rtpg 9y ago

I bet a little bit of it in the modern world is rationalization for eating and generally mistreating animals.

Wouldn't be surprised. The more we learn about the animals we eat the more we seem to learn that they're sentient, have a full range of emotions, and they most definitely experience suffering because of intensive farming and other things we put them through.

dorfsmay 9y ago

Which animal we morally can eat is a huge and difficult concept... In some cultures eating horse meat is normal, in others vegetarianism is the honourable goal. Have you ever asked yourself why you eat or why you don't eat some animals? It is typically a product of the culture we grew up in, rarely the product of an intentional thought process. Would you eat another human? What about another ape? An elephant? A monkey? A cat? A rabbit? A cow? Where do you draw the line? I once decided that the "mirror test"[1] was my litmus test for eating or not an animal. But then as I looked more into it I realised that that test isn't as straight forward as I thought, lots of false positive, methodology issues (eg: some animal start passing the test after being exposed to mirrors for a long time). And the final blow was that most humans under 6 months fail the test and I decided not to use this test rather than starting to eat human infants. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

vasilipupkin 9y ago
Why not draw the line at consciousness? don't eat animals that science has proven to have IQ that approaches human 1-3 year old IQ, like parrots, crows, dolphins, etc. all other animals are fair game.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  So we can eat humans that also do not have that IQ, right? Thing about consciousness, in the philosophical sense that you clearly mean it, is that it is completely unempirical and therefore does not exist within the scientific model. I know I have consciousness because I experience it, I assume you have consciousness because you are very like me, you assume these low IQ animals don't have consciousness because they are not like you. There exists no objective measurement of consciousness.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    yeah, but there exist objective measurements of ability. As in my parakeet objectively cannot be taught to read and understand a book, for example. no, we wouldn't eat humans who do not have IQ of 1-3 year old, because we would recognize that they are human and don't have that IQ from disease or misfortune, not because of their inherent incapability of having it.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
      Why should that matter? Your philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings that have lower IQ, the fact that they are biologically human is irrelevant.
      - vasilipupkin 9y ago
        it's relevant. My philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings, who are not human, who have low IQ. I assign low worth to individuals who belong to low IQ species, not to low IQ individuals.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        And I'm saying, why? What does it matter what species they are? Your original claim implied that you believe this is because lower IQ equates to a lack of consciousness, which as I've already described cannot be objectively determined and is therefore a poor metric. If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that it's really the species that determines consciousness, which is equally invalid. Either you are taking it on pure faith that certain species have consciousness and others do not, in which case there is little point in further discussion, or you are trying to claim that certain species are worth more than others because they seem to have a greater aptitude in certain categories. For some reason, this does not apply on an individual basis. How convenient for you, then, that these categories align perfectly with all the areas your species has great aptitude! I invite you to consider this possibility: Your belief is not based on rational reasoning, you are just rationalizing your behavior.
nine_k 9y ago
Widely eaten animals are those easy to farm. This limits them mostly to land herbivores, like cows, and water herbi/omnivores, like shrimp or tilapia. The level of intelligence plays little role, as long as the animals don't use it to actively try to fight back or escape. E.g. pigs are no less smart than dogs.
- dorfsmay 9y ago
  I'll argue it is more complicated. Horse meat for example is eaten in continental Europe and Asia but taboo in the UK and U.S. And on your point about pig vs dogs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat
  - nine_k 9y ago
    Indeed! I just think thad dog meat can't be anything but an expensive delicacy, because to produce one unit of dog meat you already need many more units of other meat, to feed the dog. This helps dogs and cats stay pets, largely protected from eating by human emotional attachment, while cows or pigs get pushed to the cattle sector, emotionally detached for food purposes.
hnaccy 9y ago
>Which animal we morally can eat is a huge and difficult concept... I'd say it's rather simple, the issue is most people are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to live morally. Given their clear intelligence and ability to suffer the ease with which people deny that animals are moral beings is disgusting.
- dorfsmay 9y ago
  Plants release pheromones when being collected, cut etc...[1] which some people argue is a way to express suffering and has lead some people to "eat only fallen fruit" [2]. The whole debate of vegetarianism vs vegan, is exploiting animal for food (milk, eggs) ethical? Some people argue that a pure vegetarian lifestyle is unhealthy... This is why I am saying that one needs to draw a line, and that it isn't necessarily easy. It sounds like you made your choice and that it was easy for you, but that isn't the case for everybody. [1]: https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/ https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism
  - hnaccy 9y ago
    I fail to see how the possibility of further debate in the finer details makes the answer to your original question, what animals are moral to consume, less obvious. Would you accept a plantation owner claiming slavery's immorality was not obvious because there were arguments to be had about the ethics of "wage slavery" etc? >but that isn't the case for everybody. This is a moral failing.
- pathseeker 9y ago
  Where does the implication that other animals are moral come from? Is a wolf that eats pigs moral? If so, then why is a human eating pigs immoral or even 'disgusting' as you put it?
  - hnaccy 9y ago
    By moral being I do not mean they act morally but that they deserve moral consideration. If this were not true why are we repulsed by the beating of an animal? Why do we invent such paradoxical concepts as the "humane" slaughterhouse? Our moral intuition leads us to the answer but cultural norms and casuistry let us avoid it.
indubitable 9y ago
In my opinion it's quite simple. I eat what I would be willing to personally kill and butcher myself. I think trying to justify why 'A' and not 'B' to ourselves is somewhat unproductive. Two people watch a movie, one person likes it - the other dislikes it. Both can give their reasons for such, but neither is right or wrong. Attempting to quantify subjective matters is arguably one of the big reasons so many of the social sciences are facing replication crises. There are so many factors in play that the quantifications, or justifications, we provide to explain social phenomena like this are not very meaningful even if we think they are! The most important thing is to be aware of the facts, so much as possible, but beyond that simply to take your opinion as what it is - a subjective view based on a complex series of mental interactions that even you are not fully privy to.
- hnaccy 9y ago
  Is justifying the wrongness of slavery unproductive? Was it just a subjective discussion with no right or wrong answer?
  - indubitable 9y ago
    This is interesting as slavery is something that ostensibly has no room for shades of gray. So let's try it. Can you justify to me why you believe slavery is wrong? And to be clear, I am not suggesting that it is not - but rather I think you'll find that creating completely coherent arguments for why it is - without exception, is not as easy as you would think.
- dorfsmay 9y ago
  So if your neighbour is willing to kill and butcher a human being, you're OK with that? What about another ape or an elephant?
  - indubitable 9y ago
    I'm not really sure by what you mean "OK with that." I'm perfectly fine with people having views I find detestable. Going further there, I suspect if we were all 100% honest then any two people could find at least some reason to find the other detestable.

127 9y ago

I believe that's pretty much it. I remember going fishing with my uncle as a kid and I was disturbed what I was doing to these animals but my uncle told me that fish can't feel pain. I didn't believe it then, and even less now. To combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception. Without it, you can only pick two. For evolutionary reasons, it's obvious why eating meat is very beneficial. Today, it might not even be necessary for good health.

xj9 9y ago
combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception i'm at peace with killing animals for food. i know that they feel pain, but life is pain in general. maybe i'm a terrible person or something, but a good bbq is def worth more than the life of a pig or a cow.
- mortenjorck 9y ago
  In my worldview, it is simply an immutable law of nature that more complex genera prey upon less complex ones. But as we are complex enough to empathize, we also have the moral responsibility to make the best of our predatory nature, whether that means minimizing the suffering of our prey, or minimizing the ecological impact of our predation.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  As long as you accept then that there is no moral problem with some superior species coming along and and deciding the same about you, at least your backwards philosophy will be consistent.
  - xj9 9y ago
    oh yeah, totally fine! if i can't stop them, "moral superiority" isn't going to protect me anyway ;)
- gadders 9y ago
  The thing is though, animals die anyway. And it's not like they die peacefully in their sleep, either. They mostly either get injured or old and starve to death, or get eaten by predators.

Momquist 9y ago

I think another point to add is that raising animals for food can be seen as a symbiotic relationship. If not for the development of animal husbandry, would pigs, chickens, and such be as successful (from a total population pov)? I think not. Many animals have the chance to be alive, only because they are supported by humans. This relationship is not only one-way: they are protected from predators, sheltered, and fed. Of course this doesn't justify mistreatment. But it puts in perspective the idea that turning vegetarian, and banning meat would be good for those animals in question. It wouldn't: they wouldn't be alive in the first place. By the way, even animal husbandry is not specific to humans. Ants for example, have "farmed" aphids for millions of years. They milk them for honeydew and eventually eat them.

tspike 9y ago
True- though it does not have to be binary. Our current levels of meat consumption are unsustainable and the levels of production required make treating the animals well a laughable proposition. I've tried to greatly reduce my meat consumption recently.
swombat 9y ago
> Of course this doesn't justify mistreatment. But it puts in perspective the idea that turning vegetarian, and banning meat would be good for those animals in question. It wouldn't: they wouldn't be alive in the first place. It's highly arguable whether they are better off being "alive", when this "aliveness" is so far off what they are genetically programmed to enjoy as a normal life. For example, if an alien species took over Earth's biosphere and treated humans like we treat cows, raising them in overcrowded pens, feeding them food that occasionally contains human meat, forcefully inseminating the females every year and separating them from their young 24 hours after birth, then killing the females when they reach their mid-twenties because their fertility drops, and basically using a tiny proportion of males to make sperm and slaughtering the rest at a young age... would you make the argument that there's a two-way relationship there? That humans are benefitting in some way? Even if they took these domesticated humans and spread them to the stars, ensuring their survival for millions of years, and protection from other predator alien species, so long as these "humans" were treated in this way we would not consider this to be beneficial to our species in any way. At least I wouldn't: better extinction than such a "life". Obviously we can't ask the cows what they would prefer (or perhaps we can, we just don't have much interest in figuring out how to do it). If we did ask them, though, I doubt they'd see this relationship as beneficial to them in any way.