5 ms·
It’s odd people talk about ethics here but have no problem torturing and killing pigs so they can eat them.
by fogzen 8y ago
It’s odd people talk about ethics here but have no problem torturing and killing pigs so they can eat them.
- joe_the_user 8y agoMost people would not be concerned if this were somehow just something people did and could only do to pigs. But the thing is that this is clearly showing what might be possible to do with people in a little bit.
- jacquesm 8y agoPigs are not typically tortured before they are killed for consumption.
- horsecaptin 8y agoDo you not think that hitting them, packing them into cramped conditions, transporting them in similar conditions is torturous?
- gtirloni 8y agoPeople eating pork don't think their meat as coming from such conditions and/or want/expect that to happen. So it's not fair to say "people" are okay with that and not the brain experiment. Producers might be okay but that's a different argument to which the one you're replying in this thread.
- Sharlin 8y agoPeople don’t want to know what’s going on on factory farms about it because it makes them uncomfortable. A textbook example of cognitive dissonance. From ethics point of view that’s better than wholeheartedly endorsing it but not by a large margin.
- jacquesm 8y agoThere is plenty wrong with the bio-industry but to compare that and this experiment is not helping the discussion. It's the same as saying that what was happening at Guantanamo bay was no worse than what was happening elsewhere so why all the fuss?
- horsecaptin 8y agoCould you provide more specific examples of "what was happening everywhere else"? An animal doesn't know if it is being raised for experimentation or food. They are simply being treated cruelly until they are slaughtered. They may even be leading a better life if they are being raised for experimentation than for slaughter. We on the other hand are trying to wipe our conscious clean by rationalizing the reasons behind the slaughter and putting food over knowledge. We don't need to eat meat to survive or thrive, so saying "but it is for food" holds no higher a moral ground than "but it is for an experiment".
- red75prime 8y agoOn the plus side they aren't being eaten alive as it happens in the wild.
- horsecaptin 8y agoIn the wild, they get to be free until the day they are killed by a predator. In captivity they are treated cruelly, fattened, and slaughtered with no chance of escape. How is that a "plus side"?
- red75prime 8y agoThe alternative lifestyle for them is not frolicking on a green grass, but non-existence. We are the cause that they exists. They don't know about "no chance of escape", you do. I'm all for labgrown meat, but mixing your own feelings and objective information about their assessment of quality of their own life (which you don't have) is not helping your cause.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- horsecaptin 8y agoFeelings are there for a reason, mate. Mine tell me that an animal would rather not exist than being born into a life of torture followed by slaughter.
- red75prime 8y agoSo a next step should be redesigning biosphere to eliminate suffering or eliminating all sufficiently intelligent animals. Their life is a struggle for survival followed by death, after all.
- fogzen 8y agoYes, they are. We can split hairs over what qualifies as torture, but I invite you to familiarize yourself with how commodity pigs are raised and slaughtered.
- throwaway413 8y agoSeconded and proud that fellow HNers are ethically conscious of their food.
- throwaway413 8y agoWow, most downvotes I’ve ever gotten, for simply showing support for other people on this site, nice...keep ‘em coming!
- jacquesm 8y agoI am quite aware of that and it's a good reason why I consume very little meat. But it is as nothing compared to keeping a brain alive outside of the body. If we did that to a human without their consent there would be blood in the streets. Keep in mind that the whole reason pigs were used for this experiment is because they are biologically similar to humans.
- jonknee 8y ago> If we did that to a human without their consent there would be blood in the streets The same could be said for almost anything we do with pigs
- jacquesm 8y agoThere is a big difference between the way pigs are treated for consumption and what is happening in this experiment. For all we know the rest of the pig was discarded. To me there is a huge difference between killing animals for food and conducting ethically questionable experiments on them. Another bothersome element here is that pigs are super smart and even though they state they are sure the pig(s) never regained consciousness you have to wonder what kind of extreme stress they would have cause if that had not worked out. Animal research is something that I hope we can do without in the near future. And if we all ate less meat (or none at all) then that would be for the better as well, though ironically that would likely mean that there would be no more domesticated animals kept for food at all except for cows (for milk) and chickens (for eggs).
- QML 8y agoIt’s one thing to kill a pig; it’s another to bring them back.
- clavalle 8y agoI'd prefer an animal not be tortured before I eat them. And that's the concern, here; torture.
- trhway 8y agoindustrial scale meat production is basically a life-long torture for animals. Note: i gave up on pork and beef, still eat chicken, fish. Hope to get easy on chicken with time too. Artificial meat can't come too soon. Its impact on our civilizations would hardly be possible to overestimate. We'll be able to go off the hypocrisy of "only humans have soul" and finally look with open eyes and meet other intelligent creatures beside ourselves (i mean i hope we're intelligent creatures).
- Karlozkiller 8y agoI did find the experiment a bit more eerie than 'killing for food'. But that aside, some of the ethical problems they discussed in the article were regarding whether the possible revival of ones brain would mean that the person and his juridical status as a person would also follow, as well as his thoughts etc. As opposed to if we experiment on some dead persons liver, if we experiment on his revived brain we might actually be experimenting on a conscious being (human), is what I believe is the main thing here.
- staticassertion 8y agoThe people talking about ethics here are not necessarily people who would have no problem torturing and killing pigs for food.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- musage 8y agoMaybe respond to an actual person saying a specific thing, or state your own opinion, but thoughts about some mish-mash person that doesn't exist aren't even odd, they're just nothing.
- dschuetz 8y agoHmm, but killing plants and fungi is totally OK then, yes?
- tao_oat 8y agoYes. There’s a huge difference between a sentient being and a plant. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that these are morally equivalent.
- dschuetz 8y agoHow do you distinct sentient beings? There are some plants which display indications for rudimentary sentience, some molds and fungi can also be sentient. Does your rather bold statement also apply there?
- pavelrub 8y agoWhy is it odd? Those are very different kinds of "torture". This is like saying that it's odd that people are against waterboarding, but are fine with keeping people locked in prisons, even when done for purely retributive reasons. Vegans have this bizarre tendency of reducing human ethics to a bunch of incorrect generalizations (i.e. a dog is sort of like a cow, therefore it's "odd" that people eat cows but consider it wrong to eat dogs), and are then baffled that the world doesn't follow their artificial ethical formalism.