8 ms·

I feel like this is a slow-creep argument (unsure of the actual term, thinking similarly of the Overton window) Back before we humanly killed animals, an argum

I feel like this is a slow-creep argument (unsure of the actual term, thinking similarly of the Overton window) Back before we humanly killed animals, an argument could be made “well it would be better to humanly kill animals as painlessly as possible, versus a painful death. Therefore I’d prefer and support the humane killing” Now that humane killing is the norm, the act of killing became bad, or at least has become more popular. Obviously the more popular today notion of killing animals being unethical existed back then. Now we’re onto the argument of consent, regardless of pain (sampling cultures versus not). The next step will be, even having these animals on pastures is unethical, as they cannot be free to go where they want (despite these essentially domesticated livestock being unable to live in the wild without heavy evolutionary pressures I.e. massive death or extinction) So as “extreme” as it may seem to proclaim that it’s unethical to sample cells from an animal, regardless of pain, I think it’ll surely shift to being more mainstream and acceptable as a viewpoint. I also think the latter vs in your statement is a straw man, and a poor one at that. To say all livestock grown for meat consumption are “tortured” is a gross generalization. Sure it exists, but so does ethically raised, pasture raised livestock that are humanly killed (and such practices increasing at a great rate, as grass fed/finished becomes more desirable) Lastly, this personification of all animals is a misrepresentation of many species. I think there are a few animals we can truly question their sentience (dolphins come to mind), while others I think we can say to a reasonable degree are less sentient than humans, and therefore if killed in the most painless way possible is ethically okay. Obviously this is a philosophical can of worms.

jhanschoo 6y ago
> I feel like this is a slow-creep argument You're thinking about what some others (including newscasters, politicians, etc.) call a slippery slope[1]. I'm wary about criticizing arguments via slippery slope, because. 1. Most optimal-ethically choices sit at a middle-point of a slope when you consider only one dimension; e.g. a limited right to free speech. 2. With respect to shifting mores, one can also consider the situation of empire and slavery. The argument goes that communication and automation respectively were insufficiently developed in the past that these structures were in fact the most empirically ethical, but that they are generally no longer optimally good given today's communication and automation technology. Analogously, as we have better dietary options today, the ethically optimal option might have shifted. That is, the point in the single dimension has shifted because we have shifted wrt the other dimensions. [1]: note that this is a misuse and misunderstanding about an actual slippery slope fallacy. In the valid usage, the slippery slope is exhibited completely within the fallacious argument so that the evidence is exaggerated to support the conclusion when the conclusion actually does not follow. In the misuse, one worries that the proposed conclusion would lead to a change in what people think is accepted, such that bad things become accepted.
marci 6y ago
> Now we’re onto the argument of consent, regardless of pain (sampling cultures versus not). The next step will be, even having these animals on pastures is unethical, as they cannot be free to go where they want (despite these essentially domesticated livestock being unable to live in the wild without heavy evolutionary pressures I.e. massive death or extinction) The only way for this massive death/extinction (within the current system) is if everyone adopts this vision overnight. What's more likely to happen is by people eating less and less meat, animals will be less and less bred by farmers. Probably something similar to when cars supplanted horses in cities.
Viliam1234 6y ago
> Now that humane killing is the norm Is it? As far as I know, most animals are "factory farmed" in conditions so inhuman that some countries have laws against... documenting their conditions on video.
meowface 6y ago
>To say all livestock grown for meat consumption are “tortured” is a gross generalization. I'm aware, and wasn't trying to say that (hence "trillions" instead of "all"). I just said that, for an average (say) cow, if you assume current trends continue for decades and centuries, with no lab-grown alternatives, it is likely that over time trillions of cows will be raised in cruel conditions and killed for food. While this is happening, there may also simultaneously be billions (or more) of cows that are raised with a lot of open space to graze on and are treated well before being killed. Relative percentages aside, it's still a high absolute number of animals tortured and killed.

jhanschoo 6y ago

> I feel like this is a slow-creep argument You're thinking about what some others (including newscasters, politicians, etc.) call a slippery slope[1]. I'm wary about criticizing arguments via slippery slope, because. 1. Most optimal-ethically choices sit at a middle-point of a slope when you consider only one dimension; e.g. a limited right to free speech. 2. With respect to shifting mores, one can also consider the situation of empire and slavery. The argument goes that communication and automation respectively were insufficiently developed in the past that these structures were in fact the most empirically ethical, but that they are generally no longer optimally good given today's communication and automation technology. Analogously, as we have better dietary options today, the ethically optimal option might have shifted. That is, the point in the single dimension has shifted because we have shifted wrt the other dimensions. [1]: note that this is a misuse and misunderstanding about an actual slippery slope fallacy. In the valid usage, the slippery slope is exhibited completely within the fallacious argument so that the evidence is exaggerated to support the conclusion when the conclusion actually does not follow. In the misuse, one worries that the proposed conclusion would lead to a change in what people think is accepted, such that bad things become accepted.

marci 6y ago

> Now we’re onto the argument of consent, regardless of pain (sampling cultures versus not). The next step will be, even having these animals on pastures is unethical, as they cannot be free to go where they want (despite these essentially domesticated livestock being unable to live in the wild without heavy evolutionary pressures I.e. massive death or extinction) The only way for this massive death/extinction (within the current system) is if everyone adopts this vision overnight. What's more likely to happen is by people eating less and less meat, animals will be less and less bred by farmers. Probably something similar to when cars supplanted horses in cities.

Viliam1234 6y ago

> Now that humane killing is the norm Is it? As far as I know, most animals are "factory farmed" in conditions so inhuman that some countries have laws against... documenting their conditions on video.

meowface 6y ago

>To say all livestock grown for meat consumption are “tortured” is a gross generalization. I'm aware, and wasn't trying to say that (hence "trillions" instead of "all"). I just said that, for an average (say) cow, if you assume current trends continue for decades and centuries, with no lab-grown alternatives, it is likely that over time trillions of cows will be raised in cruel conditions and killed for food. While this is happening, there may also simultaneously be billions (or more) of cows that are raised with a lot of open space to graze on and are treated well before being killed. Relative percentages aside, it's still a high absolute number of animals tortured and killed.