6 ms·

I eat Octopus because they are delicious, not because I think they are dumb. I know they are very smart, but this fact doesn’t makes them less delicious to me.

I eat Octopus because they are delicious, not because I think they are dumb. I know they are very smart, but this fact doesn’t makes them less delicious to me. Also, the fact that I —and millions of other people— don’t feel any affection towards these cephalopods makes the argument of “farming octopuses is unethical […]” less agreeable. Many people in America eat cows, while they are considered sacred in Hinduism. > […] Numerous videos on the internet of octopuses escaping from their tanks or stealing fishermen's catches have fuelled a human fascination with the only invertebrate that the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness considers sentient alongside mammals and birds. Mammals and birds, I hope everyone read that. --- People are going against my comment thinking I am on the wrong side of the argument. And I feel like explaining my point of view even further will just increase the anger in the people that already expressed their counter arguments below. We will see if the public agrees with the thesis in this article and changes their eating habits to protect one of the hundreds of animals that are also considered sentient.

martimarkov 7y ago
No it does not make more agreeable. We had slavery back in the day, in some instances we still have it, but just because we have enough ppl doing something does not make it more “agreeable”. Ethics is not something dictated by a number of ppl sharing a belief.
- abfan1127 7y ago
  this seems like the idea that Americans eat cows and pigs, but not horses and dogs... not necessarily an ethical issue, but more a social norms issue.
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    > not necessarily an ethical issue, but more a social norms issue. I'm not convinced these two things are mutually exclusive. I'd even guess that social norms are most often spurred to change by people who start the conversation about the flawed "ethics" of a given social norm.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  >Ethics is not something dictated by a number of ppl sharing a belief. Unless you believe ethics is given from some sort of higher authority, ethics is dictated by the number of people sharing a belief.
  - john-radio 7y ago
    Nope, that's a false dichotomy. The ethical system you're proposing signs off on cannibalism of 49% of people as long as 51% of people click their heels together and really wish that cannibalism were ethical...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - martimarkov 7y ago
    My argument is that a higher number of believers doesn’t make something more ethically correct. My personal belief is that we have a responsibility for all species on our planet (as the most intelligent, evolved, smart, etc of them). Even if everyone believes except 1 person that does not make their argument less or our argument more valid. Purely from an ethical perspective.
    - throwaway8879 7y ago
      I understand your perspective, but as the GP said, ethics is exactly whatever the collective Haas decided it is. Unless we're involving God or some kind of external divine guidelines on ethics, it's pretty much something we've collectively agreed to. Let's at least be honest about our moral/ethical frameworks. They are useful for social cohesiveness, peace and order. But they're still just made up.
      - bscphil 7y ago
        > I understand your perspective, but as the GP said, ethics is exactly whatever the collective Haas decided it is. Unless we're involving God or some kind of external divine guidelines on ethics, it's pretty much something we've collectively agreed to. I don't have time for a complete response, but as an expert in this field (ethics) I feel compelled to let you know that nearly every professional philosopher (particularly in ethics) disagrees with this position. Ethics is not simply whatever the majority says it is. You're not going to get anyone in ethics (including those who think ethics are in some sense "made up") to sign off on that.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
john-radio 7y ago
> I know they are very smart, but this fact doesn’t makes them less delicious to me. There are lots of experiences that feel "delicious," but that doesn't make it moral to rip that experience for yourself out of the flesh of a sentient being. Maybe you consider cephalopods potentially sentient or maybe you don't, but the argument is "It's immoral to eat them because they can have thoughts and an internal experience, just like us," and "But they taste good" is not a counterargument. > and millions of other people That is also not any kind of an ethical defense of one's behavior. > don’t feel any affection towards these cephalopods makes the argument of “farming octopuses is unethical […]” less agreeable. One thing about logical reasoning - it doesn't really matter how "agreeable" its conclusion feels.
- fkdo 7y ago
  > "It's immoral to eat them because they can have thoughts and an internal experience, just like us," and "But they taste good" is not a counterargument. There is an implied "We are on top of the food chain" along with "they taste good". There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator. Ultimately market forces should align the price to equal the cost of framing / hunting. Additionally we have huge ethical problems in how humans treat each other we should work on before even worrying about an invertebrate's problems. I don't actually hold those worldviews, but they are implied with the sentence "but they taste good"
  - DFHippie 7y ago
    > There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator. It's more like it's definitional of an apex predator that it eats what it pleases. It isn't a question of legitimacy.
  - lprubin 7y ago
    > There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator. Many men are strong enough to forcibly overpower many women and therefore there is some legitimacy to the idea that they should rape whoever they please. Might does not make right.
rootoor 7y ago
I eat Children because they are delicious, not because I think they are dumb. I know they are very smart, but this fact doesn’t makes them less delicious to me. Also, the fact that I —and millions of other people— don’t feel any affection towards these small humans makes the argument of “farming children is unethical […]” less agreeable. Many people in America eat cows, while they are considered sacred in Hinduism. > […] Numerous videos on the internet of children escaping from their cells or stealing guards lunches have fuelled a human fascination with the only subset of people that the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness considers sentient alongside mammals and birds. Mammals and birds, I hope everyone read that. --- People are going against my comment thinking I am on the wrong side of the argument. And I feel like explaining my point of view even further will just increase the anger in the people that already expressed their counter arguments below. We will see if the public agrees with the thesis in this article and changes their eating habits to protect one of the hundreds of animals that are also considered sentient.
- matz1 7y ago
  Which, If you believe that, I will acknowledge that it is your morality. Its as valid as mine even though I might not agree with it.
  - unethical_ban 7y ago
    No, it isn't. Get that moral relativism bullshit out of here.

martimarkov 7y ago

No it does not make more agreeable. We had slavery back in the day, in some instances we still have it, but just because we have enough ppl doing something does not make it more “agreeable”. Ethics is not something dictated by a number of ppl sharing a belief.

abfan1127 7y ago
this seems like the idea that Americans eat cows and pigs, but not horses and dogs... not necessarily an ethical issue, but more a social norms issue.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  > not necessarily an ethical issue, but more a social norms issue. I'm not convinced these two things are mutually exclusive. I'd even guess that social norms are most often spurred to change by people who start the conversation about the flawed "ethics" of a given social norm.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
>Ethics is not something dictated by a number of ppl sharing a belief. Unless you believe ethics is given from some sort of higher authority, ethics is dictated by the number of people sharing a belief.
- john-radio 7y ago
  Nope, that's a false dichotomy. The ethical system you're proposing signs off on cannibalism of 49% of people as long as 51% of people click their heels together and really wish that cannibalism were ethical...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- martimarkov 7y ago
  My argument is that a higher number of believers doesn’t make something more ethically correct. My personal belief is that we have a responsibility for all species on our planet (as the most intelligent, evolved, smart, etc of them). Even if everyone believes except 1 person that does not make their argument less or our argument more valid. Purely from an ethical perspective.
  - throwaway8879 7y ago
    I understand your perspective, but as the GP said, ethics is exactly whatever the collective Haas decided it is. Unless we're involving God or some kind of external divine guidelines on ethics, it's pretty much something we've collectively agreed to. Let's at least be honest about our moral/ethical frameworks. They are useful for social cohesiveness, peace and order. But they're still just made up.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      > I understand your perspective, but as the GP said, ethics is exactly whatever the collective Haas decided it is. Unless we're involving God or some kind of external divine guidelines on ethics, it's pretty much something we've collectively agreed to. I don't have time for a complete response, but as an expert in this field (ethics) I feel compelled to let you know that nearly every professional philosopher (particularly in ethics) disagrees with this position. Ethics is not simply whatever the majority says it is. You're not going to get anyone in ethics (including those who think ethics are in some sense "made up") to sign off on that.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

john-radio 7y ago

> I know they are very smart, but this fact doesn’t makes them less delicious to me. There are lots of experiences that feel "delicious," but that doesn't make it moral to rip that experience for yourself out of the flesh of a sentient being. Maybe you consider cephalopods potentially sentient or maybe you don't, but the argument is "It's immoral to eat them because they can have thoughts and an internal experience, just like us," and "But they taste good" is not a counterargument. > and millions of other people That is also not any kind of an ethical defense of one's behavior. > don’t feel any affection towards these cephalopods makes the argument of “farming octopuses is unethical […]” less agreeable. One thing about logical reasoning - it doesn't really matter how "agreeable" its conclusion feels.

fkdo 7y ago
> "It's immoral to eat them because they can have thoughts and an internal experience, just like us," and "But they taste good" is not a counterargument. There is an implied "We are on top of the food chain" along with "they taste good". There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator. Ultimately market forces should align the price to equal the cost of framing / hunting. Additionally we have huge ethical problems in how humans treat each other we should work on before even worrying about an invertebrate's problems. I don't actually hold those worldviews, but they are implied with the sentence "but they taste good"
- DFHippie 7y ago
  > There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator. It's more like it's definitional of an apex predator that it eats what it pleases. It isn't a question of legitimacy.
- lprubin 7y ago
  > There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator. Many men are strong enough to forcibly overpower many women and therefore there is some legitimacy to the idea that they should rape whoever they please. Might does not make right.

rootoor 7y ago

I eat Children because they are delicious, not because I think they are dumb. I know they are very smart, but this fact doesn’t makes them less delicious to me. Also, the fact that I —and millions of other people— don’t feel any affection towards these small humans makes the argument of “farming children is unethical […]” less agreeable. Many people in America eat cows, while they are considered sacred in Hinduism. > […] Numerous videos on the internet of children escaping from their cells or stealing guards lunches have fuelled a human fascination with the only subset of people that the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness considers sentient alongside mammals and birds. Mammals and birds, I hope everyone read that. --- People are going against my comment thinking I am on the wrong side of the argument. And I feel like explaining my point of view even further will just increase the anger in the people that already expressed their counter arguments below. We will see if the public agrees with the thesis in this article and changes their eating habits to protect one of the hundreds of animals that are also considered sentient.

matz1 7y ago
Which, If you believe that, I will acknowledge that it is your morality. Its as valid as mine even though I might not agree with it.
- unethical_ban 7y ago
  No, it isn't. Get that moral relativism bullshit out of here.