8 ms·

Just rest assured that whatever you do to a lobster, nature has done far, far worse to uncountable trillions of creatures over a few billion years.

goldenkey 9y ago
Nature isn't intelligent/sentient as far as we know. Intelligence comes with responsibility. To complete your argument: Many animals eat their children (hamsters for example.) "Rest assured, if you eat your children, nature has done far worse"
- hprotagonist 9y ago
  Implicit assumption: humans aren't natural.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Why does intelligence come with responsibility?
  - goldenkey 9y ago
    Because it allows one to even consider and understand consequences. Therefore one becomes "responsible" for the vices they commit-- as hard as they try to deny and forget their actions. In fact, some people turn themselves in to the police, or commit suicide as a result of things they've done and feel guilty about.
    - t0mbstone 9y ago
      But one could argue that there don't seem to be any difference in consequences for anyone involved, regardless of whether or not the lobster feels pain. It ends up dead and eaten, regardless. Worrying about whether your food feels pain when you kill it is nothing more than human imagination and projection. The only lasting consequence is that you may or may not feel guilty about having caused pain to something that you have killed.
      - rosser 9y ago
        The thing in question being dead isn't a lasting consequence? Or did you mean besides that?
        goldenkey 9y ago
        He is saying that torture is irrelevant if you plan to kill someone. Change the subject from lobster to person. And his argument becomes quite repulsive to most people. Some morals really can't be taught as much as they are obvious to anyone with a full range of emotion. I did respond to his argument anyhow above.
        Y_Y 9y ago
        Maybe it's because i don't have a "full range of emotion" but I don't believe there are any absolute moral truths, let alone obvious ones. I think it's very dangerous to assume others don't put the save care and effort into living their lives as well as they can, and if they have come up with a different way of doing that (popular or otherwise) that's it's because they're defective or stupid. I don't necessarily agree with the point your arguing against, but it's not wrong on its face.
      - goldenkey 9y ago
        People live and die too. What happens between the two points in time is the subject of a great many stories. Just because something will die does not make it a worthless endeavor to treat it nicely. This nihilism is a cop out-- everything will die, all planets lost, all protons decayed. If your ultimate response to that is to live by no code, no ethics, because all marks will be lost..then be my guest. But be aware the majority of folk will find you to be in great disdain. And if the laws of probability are of any bearing, you may find yourself as the bound victim-- you played a side as if it was no consequence, even advertised openly for it-- and now your team has the knife in your back. But don't despair, you were going to die anyway! The immense pain you are about to endure is of no consequence. Just remember the lobster :-)
        9y ago
ryanianian 9y ago
I think your comment is mostly in jest (and it's funny), but... Most of nature doesn't have a "choice" in its cruelty - eat the thing or die. Humans have a choice most of the time. You can say that you killing X isn't worse than its natural predator doing so, but the reality is that you could survive without killing it and yet you chose eating it over its living. Personally I'm not pro- or anti-killing of food animals, but reducing the argument to "I'm not worse than nature so I can painfully and slowly kill cows like lions do!" isn't being totally honest about the agency that you have. IMHO if you're going to decide that you'd like to kill something to eat it, do it in a "respectful" way that doesn't cause more suffering than necessary - doing any less is more or less reckless cruelty (to put it harshly)
- Bromskloss 9y ago
  I don't think I agree with either of you. :-) To your parent comment, I would say that, when deciding how I should act, it's irrelevant what previous suffering nature has brought upon people and lobsters. To you, I'd say that it's irrelevant whether nature had other options. Suppose nature did have other, more gentle, options, but chose to incur suffering nonetheless. Would that make it more legitimate for me to cause suffering too?
  - rosser 9y ago
    It's not whether nature has other or better options. It's whether we do.
  - ryanianian 9y ago
    Good points.
  - Y_Y 9y ago
    I think all three of you raise good points and am delighted to see such a thoughtful and civil conversation on hn.
sithadmin 9y ago
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Why would the fact that many animals meet an unpleasant but natural demise somehow excuse or otherwise dampen the implications of inflicting suffering or death onto an animal? I don't generally have qualms about killing animals for food, but "it's okay/less bad because this lobster might have been eaten by something else, or perhaps crushed beneath a rock somewhere" isn't a consideration that would ever play a serious role in my moral calculus of whether or not I should eat a lobster.
cortic 9y ago
..who first said that, Ted Bundy?
cageface 9y ago
Uncountable numbers of humans have met very nasty deaths at the hands of nature and humans over the millennia. What does that have to do with what we do today?
- Y_Y 9y ago
  There's a kind of "irresponsible" utilitarianism that says that we should try to minimise suffering, regardless of the cause. In such a framework i think it's fair to point out that there lion's share of lobster suffering occurs elsewhere.

goldenkey 9y ago

Nature isn't intelligent/sentient as far as we know. Intelligence comes with responsibility. To complete your argument: Many animals eat their children (hamsters for example.) "Rest assured, if you eat your children, nature has done far worse"

hprotagonist 9y ago
Implicit assumption: humans aren't natural.
oh_sigh 9y ago
Why does intelligence come with responsibility?
- goldenkey 9y ago
  Because it allows one to even consider and understand consequences. Therefore one becomes "responsible" for the vices they commit-- as hard as they try to deny and forget their actions. In fact, some people turn themselves in to the police, or commit suicide as a result of things they've done and feel guilty about.
  - t0mbstone 9y ago
    But one could argue that there don't seem to be any difference in consequences for anyone involved, regardless of whether or not the lobster feels pain. It ends up dead and eaten, regardless. Worrying about whether your food feels pain when you kill it is nothing more than human imagination and projection. The only lasting consequence is that you may or may not feel guilty about having caused pain to something that you have killed.
    - rosser 9y ago
      The thing in question being dead isn't a lasting consequence? Or did you mean besides that?
      - goldenkey 9y ago
        He is saying that torture is irrelevant if you plan to kill someone. Change the subject from lobster to person. And his argument becomes quite repulsive to most people. Some morals really can't be taught as much as they are obvious to anyone with a full range of emotion. I did respond to his argument anyhow above.
        Y_Y 9y ago
        Maybe it's because i don't have a "full range of emotion" but I don't believe there are any absolute moral truths, let alone obvious ones. I think it's very dangerous to assume others don't put the save care and effort into living their lives as well as they can, and if they have come up with a different way of doing that (popular or otherwise) that's it's because they're defective or stupid. I don't necessarily agree with the point your arguing against, but it's not wrong on its face.
    - goldenkey 9y ago
      People live and die too. What happens between the two points in time is the subject of a great many stories. Just because something will die does not make it a worthless endeavor to treat it nicely. This nihilism is a cop out-- everything will die, all planets lost, all protons decayed. If your ultimate response to that is to live by no code, no ethics, because all marks will be lost..then be my guest. But be aware the majority of folk will find you to be in great disdain. And if the laws of probability are of any bearing, you may find yourself as the bound victim-- you played a side as if it was no consequence, even advertised openly for it-- and now your team has the knife in your back. But don't despair, you were going to die anyway! The immense pain you are about to endure is of no consequence. Just remember the lobster :-)
      - 9y ago

ryanianian 9y ago

I think your comment is mostly in jest (and it's funny), but... Most of nature doesn't have a "choice" in its cruelty - eat the thing or die. Humans have a choice most of the time. You can say that you killing X isn't worse than its natural predator doing so, but the reality is that you could survive without killing it and yet you chose eating it over its living. Personally I'm not pro- or anti-killing of food animals, but reducing the argument to "I'm not worse than nature so I can painfully and slowly kill cows like lions do!" isn't being totally honest about the agency that you have. IMHO if you're going to decide that you'd like to kill something to eat it, do it in a "respectful" way that doesn't cause more suffering than necessary - doing any less is more or less reckless cruelty (to put it harshly)

Bromskloss 9y ago
I don't think I agree with either of you. :-) To your parent comment, I would say that, when deciding how I should act, it's irrelevant what previous suffering nature has brought upon people and lobsters. To you, I'd say that it's irrelevant whether nature had other options. Suppose nature did have other, more gentle, options, but chose to incur suffering nonetheless. Would that make it more legitimate for me to cause suffering too?
- rosser 9y ago
  It's not whether nature has other or better options. It's whether we do.
- ryanianian 9y ago
  Good points.
- Y_Y 9y ago
  I think all three of you raise good points and am delighted to see such a thoughtful and civil conversation on hn.

sithadmin 9y ago

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Why would the fact that many animals meet an unpleasant but natural demise somehow excuse or otherwise dampen the implications of inflicting suffering or death onto an animal? I don't generally have qualms about killing animals for food, but "it's okay/less bad because this lobster might have been eaten by something else, or perhaps crushed beneath a rock somewhere" isn't a consideration that would ever play a serious role in my moral calculus of whether or not I should eat a lobster.

cortic 9y ago

..who first said that, Ted Bundy?

cageface 9y ago

Uncountable numbers of humans have met very nasty deaths at the hands of nature and humans over the millennia. What does that have to do with what we do today?

Y_Y 9y ago
There's a kind of "irresponsible" utilitarianism that says that we should try to minimise suffering, regardless of the cause. In such a framework i think it's fair to point out that there lion's share of lobster suffering occurs elsewhere.