7 ms·

Ethical compared to what? Coyotes eating a cow alive while she laid down in a field to calve, starting with her hind quarters? A killer whale slowly nibbling an

Ethical compared to what? Coyotes eating a cow alive while she laid down in a field to calve, starting with her hind quarters? A killer whale slowly nibbling another whale's calf to death over hours? So how do we measure the ethicality of a cow that has spent most of its life pampered, fed and protected, and in the end goes to a feedlot? How do we score that? What metrics do we use to compare? Because it certainly had a better life than a wolf casually stumbling upon it as a newborn.

svrtknst 6y ago
why are wild animals only used as an ethical measure tape when it comes to animal consumption?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  What else can we use? We can compare against the natural state (as GP did), which is mostly horror. We can compare against what would happen if we suddenly left these animals to live by themselves - which is even worse, and followed by extinction. We can compare against hypothetically caring about all animals as pets - but that's beyond our logistical capabilities and thus would cause great suffering for both animals and humans. There is no good measure tape available.
  - j_kao 6y ago
    I don't disagree that animals (cows in this case) in nature (whatever that looks like at this point) do suffer and are constantly under fear of predators. However, I think saying that there is "no good measure tape available" might be intellectually dishonest since we can probably come up with a rough model to optimize for the minimization of global suffering of all beings involved. Obviously, most mental models have a higher weight biased for humans rather than animals, so a suffering factor for humans would have a higher multiple than for animals. That is where most of the controversy seems to be.
    - s0rce 6y ago
      I'm not an expert but the extinct ancestor of the modern cow, the Auroch was quite a large mammal and at least according to wikipedia [citing van Vuure, T. (Cis) (2005). Retracing the Aurochs – History, Morphology and Ecology of an extinct wild Ox. Sofia-Moscow: Pensoft Publishers. ISBN 954-642-235-5] claims that the main predators were big cats (lions and tigers) and hyenas). Across much of the cows modern range those predators don't exist. Possibly a wolf, Siberian tiger or large brown bear would predate a cow, similiar to the predators of a moose but it doesn't seem like they are under constant fear of predators any more. Cows are often left to pasture across vast unfenced area of basically wilderness and don't seem particularly afraid nor at risk of predation (otherwise they'd need to be guarded).
  - badRNG 6y ago
    >There is no good measure tape available. There's a difference between having moral worth and being a moral agent. Non-human animals (generally) cannot contemplate the ethical character of their actions, so they are not moral agents, nor should we consider them such. This does not mean they are unworthy of moral consideration. What is being evaluated is the ethics of the behavior of people who are moral agents, and there have been guide sticks for the behavior of people for as long as people have been thinking about ethics.
- merpnderp 6y ago
  Hate to quote myself but "How do we score that? What metrics do we use to compare?"
  - badRNG 6y ago
    The answers seem sort of trivial: using the same ethical framework that informs your decision-making process on other ethical questions. Regardless of the unique flavor of one's moral tradition, most seek to limit the suffering of sentient beings.
  - Jack000 6y ago
    Most mammals have a similar brain architecture. Humans share the limbic system with animals like dogs, cows and pigs. This means these animals have extremely similar subjective experiences of pain, fear, joy and other emotions. For a consistent framework of ethics, these animals should be treated essentially as lobotomized humans.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Because our ethics distinguish us in many other aspects of life. Rape, murder and cannibalism are generally frowned upon, we have international laws governing warfare, we're waking up go the destructive nature of our expanding population, we have medical care that generally exists to remediate the sick and wounded, etc etc etc. But slavery and torture are open questions in this millennium, and who would expect us to draw a line for animals where we're reluctant to do so for humans?
JamesBarney 6y ago
I think one benchmark should be would "is this animal be better off to have never been born than the conditions we let it live in?" And a second is "how much better or worse is this animals life compared to a similar animal in the wild?" My personal opinion is anything that doesn't meet the first benchmark is evil. Anything that is between the too is in a gray area. And anything past the second I don't need to feel too concerned about, or I'd describe it as ethical husbandry. It's clear that there are plenty of chickens whose lives are soo terrible that don't meet the first benchmark and their extinction would be preferable to their current experience
- ralusek 6y ago
  That first metric is highly subjective. There is a growing movement of anti-natalists that believe that having children is immoral, because being born a human is worse than never having existed, and people can't consent to their existence. I don't think we'll be able to move beyond subjectivity for the morality of this, but I do think we can be more precise.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Such people, when met in real life face to face, inevitably remind me of Aesop's fable concerning a fox who wanted grapes but couldn't reach them.
    - BeefySwain 6y ago
      Interesting. We tend to feel the same way about those who disagree with that premise.
    - theonemind 6y ago
      It hardly matters. The ethics hold, or they don't.
    - jpcooper 6y ago
      In the case, the fox did get to the grapes and verified that they are indeed sour.
ralusek 6y ago
Wild animals also kill for sport, and rape, and steal, and eat their own babies. I do think it's important to understand that humans are animals, and that they are not uniquely immoral within the animal kingdom, but the fact that something happens in nature isn't sufficient in order to morally justify it. Humans ARE unique in their capability to reflect on the morality of behavior at a high level. Where I think your argument is strongest, as I said, is in response to the claims that humans are uniquely malevolent, as if most species aren't constantly maximizing their acquisition of resources within the boundaries of their capabilities. That just doesn't mean that we have carte blanche on all behavior we can observe in nature.
3131s 6y ago
Why are you even comparing it to life in the wild anyway? These are animals that we're bringing into existence and the alternative is no existence at all. You clearly have no clue as to the intelligence of these animals and the complexity of their desires beyond being "pampered, fed, and protected". If it were you, would you rather take a chance on surviving in the wild? Or being enslaved, separated from your children, shackled, fattened, and eventually butchered is preferable?

svrtknst 6y ago

why are wild animals only used as an ethical measure tape when it comes to animal consumption?

TeMPOraL 6y ago
What else can we use? We can compare against the natural state (as GP did), which is mostly horror. We can compare against what would happen if we suddenly left these animals to live by themselves - which is even worse, and followed by extinction. We can compare against hypothetically caring about all animals as pets - but that's beyond our logistical capabilities and thus would cause great suffering for both animals and humans. There is no good measure tape available.
- j_kao 6y ago
  I don't disagree that animals (cows in this case) in nature (whatever that looks like at this point) do suffer and are constantly under fear of predators. However, I think saying that there is "no good measure tape available" might be intellectually dishonest since we can probably come up with a rough model to optimize for the minimization of global suffering of all beings involved. Obviously, most mental models have a higher weight biased for humans rather than animals, so a suffering factor for humans would have a higher multiple than for animals. That is where most of the controversy seems to be.
  - s0rce 6y ago
    I'm not an expert but the extinct ancestor of the modern cow, the Auroch was quite a large mammal and at least according to wikipedia [citing van Vuure, T. (Cis) (2005). Retracing the Aurochs – History, Morphology and Ecology of an extinct wild Ox. Sofia-Moscow: Pensoft Publishers. ISBN 954-642-235-5] claims that the main predators were big cats (lions and tigers) and hyenas). Across much of the cows modern range those predators don't exist. Possibly a wolf, Siberian tiger or large brown bear would predate a cow, similiar to the predators of a moose but it doesn't seem like they are under constant fear of predators any more. Cows are often left to pasture across vast unfenced area of basically wilderness and don't seem particularly afraid nor at risk of predation (otherwise they'd need to be guarded).
- badRNG 6y ago
  >There is no good measure tape available. There's a difference between having moral worth and being a moral agent. Non-human animals (generally) cannot contemplate the ethical character of their actions, so they are not moral agents, nor should we consider them such. This does not mean they are unworthy of moral consideration. What is being evaluated is the ethics of the behavior of people who are moral agents, and there have been guide sticks for the behavior of people for as long as people have been thinking about ethics.
merpnderp 6y ago
Hate to quote myself but "How do we score that? What metrics do we use to compare?"
- badRNG 6y ago
  The answers seem sort of trivial: using the same ethical framework that informs your decision-making process on other ethical questions. Regardless of the unique flavor of one's moral tradition, most seek to limit the suffering of sentient beings.
- Jack000 6y ago
  Most mammals have a similar brain architecture. Humans share the limbic system with animals like dogs, cows and pigs. This means these animals have extremely similar subjective experiences of pain, fear, joy and other emotions. For a consistent framework of ethics, these animals should be treated essentially as lobotomized humans.
klyrs 6y ago
Because our ethics distinguish us in many other aspects of life. Rape, murder and cannibalism are generally frowned upon, we have international laws governing warfare, we're waking up go the destructive nature of our expanding population, we have medical care that generally exists to remediate the sick and wounded, etc etc etc. But slavery and torture are open questions in this millennium, and who would expect us to draw a line for animals where we're reluctant to do so for humans?

JamesBarney 6y ago

I think one benchmark should be would "is this animal be better off to have never been born than the conditions we let it live in?" And a second is "how much better or worse is this animals life compared to a similar animal in the wild?" My personal opinion is anything that doesn't meet the first benchmark is evil. Anything that is between the too is in a gray area. And anything past the second I don't need to feel too concerned about, or I'd describe it as ethical husbandry. It's clear that there are plenty of chickens whose lives are soo terrible that don't meet the first benchmark and their extinction would be preferable to their current experience

ralusek 6y ago
That first metric is highly subjective. There is a growing movement of anti-natalists that believe that having children is immoral, because being born a human is worse than never having existed, and people can't consent to their existence. I don't think we'll be able to move beyond subjectivity for the morality of this, but I do think we can be more precise.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Such people, when met in real life face to face, inevitably remind me of Aesop's fable concerning a fox who wanted grapes but couldn't reach them.
  - BeefySwain 6y ago
    Interesting. We tend to feel the same way about those who disagree with that premise.
  - theonemind 6y ago
    It hardly matters. The ethics hold, or they don't.
  - jpcooper 6y ago
    In the case, the fox did get to the grapes and verified that they are indeed sour.

ralusek 6y ago

Wild animals also kill for sport, and rape, and steal, and eat their own babies. I do think it's important to understand that humans are animals, and that they are not uniquely immoral within the animal kingdom, but the fact that something happens in nature isn't sufficient in order to morally justify it. Humans ARE unique in their capability to reflect on the morality of behavior at a high level. Where I think your argument is strongest, as I said, is in response to the claims that humans are uniquely malevolent, as if most species aren't constantly maximizing their acquisition of resources within the boundaries of their capabilities. That just doesn't mean that we have carte blanche on all behavior we can observe in nature.

3131s 6y ago

Why are you even comparing it to life in the wild anyway? These are animals that we're bringing into existence and the alternative is no existence at all. You clearly have no clue as to the intelligence of these animals and the complexity of their desires beyond being "pampered, fed, and protected". If it were you, would you rather take a chance on surviving in the wild? Or being enslaved, separated from your children, shackled, fattened, and eventually butchered is preferable?