5 ms·

I’m curious. What is your basis for determining that it is okay to do this to pigs? Could we also do this to dogs? Dolphins? Elephants? Monkeys?

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Cats? Mice? Ants? Paramecium caudatum? Bacteria? We need a better framework for this issue than "where do you draw the line" Vegan Billboard[0]. -- [0] - https://imgur.com/gallery/h9tbwcH https://imgur.com/gallery/h9tbwcH
thefounder 8y ago
Well, we eat the pigs so doing some science experiments on them should be acceptable considering we have so many food alternatives and still eat pigs. I believe people who eat dogs don't see an issue with dog experiments.
- tertius 8y ago
  I'll take cows as an example as I don't eat pig... If the meat I buy is from someone who mutilated the cow and optimized for maximum pain in the death of the cow then I would not buy that meat. So there is a spectrum here. Just because we kill animals for food does not mean that it's ethical along the rest of the spectrum of harm.
  - drusepth 8y ago
    >If the meat I buy is from someone who mutilated the cow and optimized for maximum pain in the death of the cow then I would not buy that meat. What if more pain directly correlated with better-tasting meat (or some other tangible advantage, like health benefits or medicinal properties)? I think you'd find many, many people who'd be okay with cows inflicted maximum pain for maximum yum meat, let alone meat that made them healthier than the alternative. If there's a spectrum here, an instance of that spectrum exists for each individual too. Is it rational to believe we could ever agree on a single universal line on that spectrum for everyone?
  - thefounder 8y ago
    What if the "mutilated" cow would save your life or just fix a small health issue(i.e backpain)? Would you still accept the procedure? We test on animals so that we don't have to test on us(first). I find using animals for science experiments(even if they are painful) more ethical than killing them for their good taste. If you replace the animals with humans (eating vs experiments) there is no question which one is more wrong.
    - tertius 8y ago
      What if the mutilated cow (in the slaughterhouse) could save my life? Cows that are ill treated before they dead actually produce worse meat. So I think it's provable that tortured cow meat is bad for me. Now I know you weren't referring to that. As far as animal experimentation goes, it's pretty much illegal to do torturous experimentation on animals. Getting IRB approval is difficult for anything besides normal life for an animal. Yes you can inject drugs into it etc., but pain to the animal plays a very large role in if you'll be allowed to do it. * My wife is a cancer biologist who maintains and works with mouse models. > If you replace the animals with humans (eating vs experiments) there is no question which one is more wrong. Consent is the only issue here. What you're talking about isn't really ethics, more disgust.
williamdclt 8y ago
It's very personal, but for me "it could reasonnably be useful for humans" (ie it's not cruelty for fun) and "they are not humans" makes it okay to do this to pigs. So yeah, dogs/dolphin/elephants/monkeys would be okay too. But I do appreciate that other people might have different sensibility or empathy with animals
matz1 8y ago
For me, I drew the line at human and non human. I'm okay to do anything to non human.
- wvlia5 8y ago
  Isn't that kind of arbitrary? What if I said "for me, I drew the line at white people and non white people. I'm okay to do anything to non white"
  - matz1 8y ago
    It is preference and yes your line might be different too.
  - mr_overalls 8y ago
    Our lives and laws are necessarily filled with quasi-arbitrary lines and conventions. What is the age of consent for marriage? What threshold of blood-alcohol is too much to drive a motor vehicle? When is someone considered dead? Comparing the acknowledgement of such lines with racism is ridiculous.
    - wvlia5- 8y ago
      Ok, so let's propose another quasi-arbitrary line and convention: black people can be enslaved, white people cannot. So, this rule would be just as arbitrary and valid as any other. Or is there a ethical justification against it?
  - bumby 8y ago
    Where do you personally draw the line? I'm not trying to be adversarial, just trying to understand how cogent your argument is. I think the race argument is a bit reductio ad adsurdum. Why is that any different than if you decide to only eat plants? That draws the line at the kingdom classification which is just another human convention. Drawing the line between species seems to have some logic to it at least, given there is a stronger biological definition rather than a contrived race argument. (e.g., we can strictly define a species, in part, by their ability to produce viable offspring)
de_watcher 8y ago
What will we do when our technology gets to the level of the living things? Is it forbidden to reverse-engineer to get there faster?
- perfmode 8y ago
  See: substratism

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Cats? Mice? Ants? Paramecium caudatum? Bacteria? We need a better framework for this issue than "where do you draw the line" Vegan Billboard[0]. -- [0] - https://imgur.com/gallery/h9tbwcH https://imgur.com/gallery/h9tbwcH

thefounder 8y ago

Well, we eat the pigs so doing some science experiments on them should be acceptable considering we have so many food alternatives and still eat pigs. I believe people who eat dogs don't see an issue with dog experiments.

tertius 8y ago
I'll take cows as an example as I don't eat pig... If the meat I buy is from someone who mutilated the cow and optimized for maximum pain in the death of the cow then I would not buy that meat. So there is a spectrum here. Just because we kill animals for food does not mean that it's ethical along the rest of the spectrum of harm.
- drusepth 8y ago
  >If the meat I buy is from someone who mutilated the cow and optimized for maximum pain in the death of the cow then I would not buy that meat. What if more pain directly correlated with better-tasting meat (or some other tangible advantage, like health benefits or medicinal properties)? I think you'd find many, many people who'd be okay with cows inflicted maximum pain for maximum yum meat, let alone meat that made them healthier than the alternative. If there's a spectrum here, an instance of that spectrum exists for each individual too. Is it rational to believe we could ever agree on a single universal line on that spectrum for everyone?
- thefounder 8y ago
  What if the "mutilated" cow would save your life or just fix a small health issue(i.e backpain)? Would you still accept the procedure? We test on animals so that we don't have to test on us(first). I find using animals for science experiments(even if they are painful) more ethical than killing them for their good taste. If you replace the animals with humans (eating vs experiments) there is no question which one is more wrong.
  - tertius 8y ago
    What if the mutilated cow (in the slaughterhouse) could save my life? Cows that are ill treated before they dead actually produce worse meat. So I think it's provable that tortured cow meat is bad for me. Now I know you weren't referring to that. As far as animal experimentation goes, it's pretty much illegal to do torturous experimentation on animals. Getting IRB approval is difficult for anything besides normal life for an animal. Yes you can inject drugs into it etc., but pain to the animal plays a very large role in if you'll be allowed to do it. * My wife is a cancer biologist who maintains and works with mouse models. > If you replace the animals with humans (eating vs experiments) there is no question which one is more wrong. Consent is the only issue here. What you're talking about isn't really ethics, more disgust.

williamdclt 8y ago

It's very personal, but for me "it could reasonnably be useful for humans" (ie it's not cruelty for fun) and "they are not humans" makes it okay to do this to pigs. So yeah, dogs/dolphin/elephants/monkeys would be okay too. But I do appreciate that other people might have different sensibility or empathy with animals

matz1 8y ago

For me, I drew the line at human and non human. I'm okay to do anything to non human.

wvlia5 8y ago
Isn't that kind of arbitrary? What if I said "for me, I drew the line at white people and non white people. I'm okay to do anything to non white"
- matz1 8y ago
  It is preference and yes your line might be different too.
- mr_overalls 8y ago
  Our lives and laws are necessarily filled with quasi-arbitrary lines and conventions. What is the age of consent for marriage? What threshold of blood-alcohol is too much to drive a motor vehicle? When is someone considered dead? Comparing the acknowledgement of such lines with racism is ridiculous.
  - wvlia5- 8y ago
    Ok, so let's propose another quasi-arbitrary line and convention: black people can be enslaved, white people cannot. So, this rule would be just as arbitrary and valid as any other. Or is there a ethical justification against it?
- bumby 8y ago
  Where do you personally draw the line? I'm not trying to be adversarial, just trying to understand how cogent your argument is. I think the race argument is a bit reductio ad adsurdum. Why is that any different than if you decide to only eat plants? That draws the line at the kingdom classification which is just another human convention. Drawing the line between species seems to have some logic to it at least, given there is a stronger biological definition rather than a contrived race argument. (e.g., we can strictly define a species, in part, by their ability to produce viable offspring)

de_watcher 8y ago

What will we do when our technology gets to the level of the living things? Is it forbidden to reverse-engineer to get there faster?

perfmode 8y ago
See: substratism