5 ms·
Takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to try and convince yourself there's some "kind" way to take a sentient creature's life. The "kindest" thing to do would
by jamesgagan 9y ago
Takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to try and convince yourself there's some "kind" way to take a sentient creature's life. The "kindest" thing to do would just be to leave them alone.
- drharby 9y agoNow you are simply moving goalposts and repivoting the talking point. It doesnt take any mental gymnastics to think of a solution when you are set on having butter soaked lobster meat for dinner.
- spraak 9y agoBut it does take deep entrenched conditioned cognitive dissonance to believe that a lobster is food when there is a multitude of other more peaceful choices available.
- phil248 9y agoI'd argue otherwise. You'd have to ignore literally the entirety of the natural world to even begin to think that lobsters are not food.
- cageface 9y agoHumans were a tasty meal for predators for most of our history. I guess that makes us food too?
- barrkel 9y agoOf course we are. We're just a lot harder to catch these days.
- jaredhansen 9y agoYes, exactly. And all evidence suggests that lobsters, to the debatable extent that they're capable of emotions, would be more than happy to eat us were they large enough to do so.
- rosser 9y agoWhich justifies precisely nothing. Morality is about what you choose to do.
- flukus 9y agoYes, we still are food when we step (or swim) into the wrong environment. Our predators aren't nearly as concerned about our suffering either.
- rosser 9y agoThey quite possibly aren't capable of being concerned about it. We are.
- rosser 9y agoThis is just the is-ought problem, or naturalistic fallacy. That my cat, or any other animal, kills things in order to eat them in no way obligates me to do so.
- scruffyprodigy 9y agoSince the original question is an is question (specifically, “Given that you want to eat Lobster, what is the method that will get it to your plate with the least amount of suffering”), I’m not sure why you’re trying to turn it into an ought question (about whether we should all be vegetarians)
- rosser 9y agoI'm really not. The is in this particular thread is what "literally the entirety of the natural world" thinks is "food". The ought is whether we should "think" likewise, or use our purported rationality to consider the implications of that behavior. The "naturalistic fallacy" — normally used to deride people we like to think, rightly or otherwise, are less rational than ourselves — is, literally, "if it's natural, it must be good/right/proper." The notion under discussion is exactly that. It's not about whether or not we should all be vegetarians; it's about fallacious "arguments" that we shouldn't.
- loopmeinonthis 9y agoAnimals eat other animals. Some of us in more privileged positions of society have the knowledge and means to avoid eating those animals if we so choose. This doesn't mean that certain animals are NOT food... There are plenty of reasons to not eat meat but attributing consumption of meat to "conditioned cognitive dissonance" is not only a vast oversimplification, it's just a dumb point.
- irrational 9y agoLike the delicious peaceful cows out in the pasture.
- Bromskloss 9y ago> deep entrenched conditioned cognitive dissonance What do you mean by this? Are you talking about Pavlovian conditioning? Also, just to make sure that we are on the same page, my understanding is that _cognitive dissonance_ refers to a discomfort felt when holding views that contradict each other.
- khedoros1 9y agoI think that their argument relies on assumptions something like these: - One should avoid causing unnecessary harm to another conscious being - Many non-human animals are conscious beings - It is practical to survive on nutrients not derived from the harm of conscious beings If you accept those three statements, then you should be uncomfortable with the idea of consuming nutrients derived from the harm of something conscious. If you choose to do it anyhow, you'll experience cognitive dissonance (where the definitions of "harm" and "consciousness" remain constant throughout the described scenario).
- spraak 9y agoThanks for the eloquent explanation, that's what I meant!
- oh_sigh 9y agoBut the lobster is food. It provides calories and nutrients to the human organism when digested. Lobsters don't un-become food because plants exist.
- goldenkey 9y agoThey become something known as "excesses," you know..things people don't need but they have anyways. Because of evil, greed, or just plain stubbornness? ie. cake, slavery, child porn, etc.. (although clearly these are not on the same level to anyone except the lobster.)
- gm-conspiracy 9y agohttps://gizmodo.com/lobsters-were-once-only-fed-to-poor-people-and-prisoner-1612356919 https://gizmodo.com/lobsters-were-once-only-fed-to-poor-peop...
- qbrass 9y agoThat's basically the history of most delicacies.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- r00fus 9y agoWhen we're already destroying their habitat (ocean acidification, pollution, warming) it's easy to justify killing them out of mercy.
- spraak 9y ago"You're upbringing from your parents was abusive, so we should just kill you." No.
- QAPereo 9y agoThat sounds distressingly like the logic of killing humans as well... Test: do you want that kind of mercy levied on you?
- Bromskloss 9y agoI'm guessing that the point was, not that it would be beneficial for the individual who gets killed, but that it would save future generations from existence.
- QAPereo 9y agoI don’t know, mercy killing is a hell of a broad license.
- betenoire 9y agoWhen I die, I hope it is in a kind manner. Even though moments later it won't have mattered.
- xupybd 9y agoI don't think so. You are correct that the "kindest" thing to do is to not kill something. But if you've already made the decision to kill something it's kind to pick the least painful method to kill it. For example if someone has been sentenced to death it's kind to do so with a lethal injection, but unkind to do so by crucifixion as the Romans used to love to do. The killing method can't justify the killing but the assumption here is that you've already made your piece with eating the animal. So the only thing left is to try not make is suffer more than required for you to eat it. Nature is generally not so kind. Many predators eat their pray alive, it'd be a rather horrific way to go. I suspect you may not agree with eating animals at all, if so I think that is a separate argument.