4 ms·
Although that is true, we do value the character of independence of a conscious existence. That argument would never hold regarding the killing of humans for fo
by chicob 9y ago
Although that is true, we do value the character of independence of a conscious existence. That argument would never hold regarding the killing of humans for food.
When trying to properly answer the question "Is is acceptable to kill a human being for food, (caeteris paribus)", it is impossible, in the process, to avoid the recognition of the right to self-determination, and I find it difficult not to anchor that right to the perception of self, and to an independent sense of existence.
So it's not just that we will have to kill in order to eat, eventually: it's that sometimes that involves the destruction of a being that can, in some particular way, experience its own existence, which would make that killing ethically unacceptable.
If we value our own right to existence, how transmissible is that right? To what extent are non-human mammals, and vertebrates in general, etc, entitled to it?
Maybe humane killing is still wrong, for some animals.
Personally, I could not avoid considering the implications of the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in adjusting my behaviour, and not only in terms of my diet.
- nurettin 9y agoHuman is a terrible source of food, just like any omnivore or carnivore is. This is because carnivores are unable to excrete most of the heavy metals they acquire over the years. As such, they become toxic to ingest. Even people who only eat seafood are susceptible to Mercury poisoning for this very reason. And dare I say this is the reason societies evolved in a way to avoid cannibalism of aged people.
- Thiez 9y agoSo if you were to practice cannibalism, it really would be healthier to eat vegetarians?
- chicob 9y agoI was not making a case for cannibalism.
- nurettin 9y agoYou can't practically make a case for cannibalism. It isn't even about morals.
- chicob 9y agoPractically? What does that even mean? Of course there are moral questions regarding the practice of cannibalism! Cannibalism still existed as a traditional practice in the twentieth century, so it is a moral question. And ethically speaking, there are many things to say about it. The reason I brought it up is because I think it sets a line when discussing the right to kill for food: there are cases in which no harm comes of it, and other cases in which the practice would be highly objectionable.
- nurettin 9y agoMaking a moral case against cannibalism is like making a moral case against eating poisonous mushrooms. It does not benefit you in any way.
- chicob 9y agoWhat??
- nurettin 9y agoI am making the case that in order for you to claim a moral high ground against an actor, the actor needs to benefit from the action they do. In this case, they don't. If you start a human carcass diet, you poison yourself. Your body reacts to it in terrible ways. Clear enough?
- chicob 9y agoIt seems to me that you are confusing utility with morality. The fact that eating human flesh might not be good for us (which, being a questionable claim, let's take for granted for the sake of this discussion) is beside the point. The question is not "is it good for us in a dietary perspective?" but "even if it were good, would it be acceptable?". A consequence of what you are saying is that it is impossible to claim a higher ground against a murderer if the murderer doesn't benefit from the murder or if an accuser can't make a case for it. Besides, benefits are relative most of the time: you say there isn't one, but someone else may just as well argue there is. But if you absolutely need a benefit, so be it: imagine someone eating human flesh simply to satiate one's appetite for it. It would still be a morally questionable practice because of other values put into question. Anyway, this was a thread about fish feeling pain, so I insist: maybe there are many species we should treat in a different way, independently of whether they feel pain or not. Some scientists have reclaimed the statute of non-human personhood for great apes and cetaceans, for example. So killing them painlessly still raises questions.