4 ms·

I'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 ago
Humans were a tasty meal for predators for most of our history. I guess that makes us food too?
- barrkel 9y ago
  Of course we are. We're just a lot harder to catch these days.
- jaredhansen 9y ago
  Yes, 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 ago
    Which justifies precisely nothing. Morality is about what you choose to do.
- flukus 9y ago
  Yes, 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 ago
    They quite possibly aren't capable of being concerned about it. We are.
rosser 9y ago
This 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 ago
  Since 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 ago
    I'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.

cageface 9y ago

Humans were a tasty meal for predators for most of our history. I guess that makes us food too?

barrkel 9y ago
Of course we are. We're just a lot harder to catch these days.
jaredhansen 9y ago
Yes, 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 ago
  Which justifies precisely nothing. Morality is about what you choose to do.
flukus 9y ago
Yes, 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 ago
  They quite possibly aren't capable of being concerned about it. We are.

rosser 9y ago

This 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 ago
Since 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 ago
  I'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.