4 ms·

Drawing the line at cognizance is not something you do "in theory". That is where the vast majority of people on the planet draw the line. You going one step fu

Drawing the line at cognizance is not something you do "in theory". That is where the vast majority of people on the planet draw the line. You going one step further doesn't make the line you've drawn any more objective.

fossuser 6y ago
It's not that the line is drawn 'in theory'. It's that they think they've drawn it in the right place (usually humans on one side and everything else on the other). I think this is pretty empirically wrong and I don't think humans are likely to get it right. Even ignoring that, there's still the suffering issue. There is objectivity at drawing the line to the left of neural nets.
- jimmygrapes 6y ago
  If at some point in the future we discovered a way to identify and measure "suffering" in all creatures, and (given this) further found that the animals we eat do not experience it, then what? What if we managed to measure the opposite of suffering (whatever you want to call that; I'll go with pleasure for now)? What if the animals experience quantifiable higher pleasure when raised as food? What then? I'm sure you have thought of these scenarios in some way and have a more nuanced judgement, as most people I've talked to have. I'm just curious what are your reasons? Maybe they'll convince me!
  - fossuser 6y ago
    > "If at some point in the future we discovered a way to identify and measure "suffering" in all creatures, and (given this) further found that the animals we eat do not experience it, then what?" Then I'm okay with it (assuming in this hypothetical the result is true). I'd be surprised since fear/suffering is a pretty base level thing, but it'd change my mind. > "What if the animals experience quantifiable higher pleasure when raised as food?" There's still the issue of slaughtering them and the suffering/fear associated with that. Maybe you could argue on net that it's ethical from a utilitarian standpoint if their happy life outweighs their unhappy end. I think though, that I'd find it hard to overcome the negative suffering value they'd incur from getting killed. One thought experiment is imagine a pig that was historically bred to get happiness from being eaten. Its life dream is to get killed and eaten and that's its main purpose/goal in life, its only source of happiness. In this instance while breeding this animal may have been unethical, it already exists. Now is it ethical to not eat the pig? I think in the above example I think it'd be fine, but it's also pretty far removed from reality. Reminds me a bit of this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HawFh7RvDM4RyoJ2d/three-worlds-collide-0-8 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HawFh7RvDM4RyoJ2d/three-worl...
    - jjkaczor 6y ago
      > "One thought experiment is imagine a pig that was historically bred to get happiness from being eaten" Otherwise known as the 'Ameglian Major Cow' - https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Ameglian_Major_Cow https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Ameglian_Major_Cow
  - uxcolumbo 6y ago
    Watch the documentary Earthlings and tell me those animals are not suffering. Watch a slaughterhouse video, cows fighting for their life, pigs screaming and shivering out of fear. Animals have the same pain receptors as us. Carl Sagan was right... they are too much like us. If you take a completely logical and humanistic approach to this, then you’d realise that factory farming is barbaric and unnecessary. Most humans don’t need meat anymore to survive... it’s purely for pleasure and we just happily ignore the associated cost with that.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Sure they have pain receptors, but they have no meta-cognition which allows them to understand pain. Pain on its own is just a response to stimuli, which plants have too.
      - uxcolumbo 6y ago
        Can you explain what you mean? How does understanding pain relate to how we humans or other animals feel pain? I don't get your point.
        fastball 6y ago
        Basically the point is that I think it's first and foremost on you to prove that pain is an objectively bad quality in all cases. Or if not that, to demonstrate why pain is a morally bad thing to cause in animals, without relying on your experience as a human being (who has meta-cognition, which animals do not).
        uxcolumbo 6y ago
        Thankfully it's been already established that animals experience pain and that it's bad. Even the veterinary community created guidelines for pain management in animals [0]. But let's say the above wasn't the case, basically your argument seems to be that because animals can't think about thinking, the pain they experience isn't bad. But luckily there are a few thought experiments you can do: If you have a dog, what do you think would happen if you try to cut your dog with a box cutter? Do you think it would yelp, try to run away or even bite you? If so, why? Another one... so metacognition also implies self-awareness. Pigs have demonstrated that they possess this, by passing the mirror test [1]. Children under 2 can't pass this test. So using your theory, do you think it's OK to inflict pain, since kids under 2 can't experience 'bad quality' pain yet? We probably will never know how other sentient beings experience pain, since we don't physically experience their pain. If you hurt yourself I can empathize however, I can see that you're experiencing pain. It's the same with animals, humans can recognize when other animals are in pain and we usually have an urge to help. Seriously, go watch Earthlings [2] and tell me what you see is not 'bad quality' pain or is not a morally bad thing. If you think it's totally fine what you see and it's morally OK then I guess you are also disagreeing with ethic scholars like Peter Singer or Richard Dawkins [3]. Richard Dawkins even says animals might experience pain more severely than we do and wouldn't it be better to give them the benefit of the doubt? --- [0] https://wsava.org/global-guidelines/global-pain-council-guidelines/ https://wsava.org/global-guidelines/global-pain-council-guid... [1] Smart Pigs vs Kids | Extraordinary Animals | BBC Earth - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mza1EQ6aLdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mza1EQ6aLdg [2] https://www.nationearth.com/ https://www.nationearth.com/ [3] Richard Dawkins: No Civilized Person Accepts Slavery So Why Do We Accept Animal Cruelty? | Big Think - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4SnBCPzBl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4SnBCPzBl0
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
I don't think this is true. People don't care about the thoughts and emotions of the animals we eat and we can eat other huamns, just as cognizant as ourselves, easily enough. Cannibalism is common throughout human history and there have been even quite advanced societies that practiced it widely, for instance the Aztecs. In any case humans have killed other humans for all sorts of reasons that do not include eating them, again throughout history. Why is invading another peoples' land and killing them to take their stuff any better than killing them to eat their meat?
- fastball 6y ago
  I dunno, but 99.9% of human societies have outlawed murder. Name one that has outlawed killing all animals for food.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    I can't. Can you name one society that has outlawed war? Because I was talking about war, not murder.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      By cross-referencing the list of states without armed forces[0] against the list of states which have ratified the amendment to the Rome Statute outlawing the crime of aggression under international law[1], I would say a reasonable list of countries would be: Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Samoa. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_arme... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#States_parties_to_the_amendment_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Rome_Statute...

fossuser 6y ago

It's not that the line is drawn 'in theory'. It's that they think they've drawn it in the right place (usually humans on one side and everything else on the other). I think this is pretty empirically wrong and I don't think humans are likely to get it right. Even ignoring that, there's still the suffering issue. There is objectivity at drawing the line to the left of neural nets.

jimmygrapes 6y ago
If at some point in the future we discovered a way to identify and measure "suffering" in all creatures, and (given this) further found that the animals we eat do not experience it, then what? What if we managed to measure the opposite of suffering (whatever you want to call that; I'll go with pleasure for now)? What if the animals experience quantifiable higher pleasure when raised as food? What then? I'm sure you have thought of these scenarios in some way and have a more nuanced judgement, as most people I've talked to have. I'm just curious what are your reasons? Maybe they'll convince me!
- fossuser 6y ago
  > "If at some point in the future we discovered a way to identify and measure "suffering" in all creatures, and (given this) further found that the animals we eat do not experience it, then what?" Then I'm okay with it (assuming in this hypothetical the result is true). I'd be surprised since fear/suffering is a pretty base level thing, but it'd change my mind. > "What if the animals experience quantifiable higher pleasure when raised as food?" There's still the issue of slaughtering them and the suffering/fear associated with that. Maybe you could argue on net that it's ethical from a utilitarian standpoint if their happy life outweighs their unhappy end. I think though, that I'd find it hard to overcome the negative suffering value they'd incur from getting killed. One thought experiment is imagine a pig that was historically bred to get happiness from being eaten. Its life dream is to get killed and eaten and that's its main purpose/goal in life, its only source of happiness. In this instance while breeding this animal may have been unethical, it already exists. Now is it ethical to not eat the pig? I think in the above example I think it'd be fine, but it's also pretty far removed from reality. Reminds me a bit of this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HawFh7RvDM4RyoJ2d/three-worlds-collide-0-8 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HawFh7RvDM4RyoJ2d/three-worl...
  - jjkaczor 6y ago
    > "One thought experiment is imagine a pig that was historically bred to get happiness from being eaten" Otherwise known as the 'Ameglian Major Cow' - https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Ameglian_Major_Cow https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Ameglian_Major_Cow
- uxcolumbo 6y ago
  Watch the documentary Earthlings and tell me those animals are not suffering. Watch a slaughterhouse video, cows fighting for their life, pigs screaming and shivering out of fear. Animals have the same pain receptors as us. Carl Sagan was right... they are too much like us. If you take a completely logical and humanistic approach to this, then you’d realise that factory farming is barbaric and unnecessary. Most humans don’t need meat anymore to survive... it’s purely for pleasure and we just happily ignore the associated cost with that.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Sure they have pain receptors, but they have no meta-cognition which allows them to understand pain. Pain on its own is just a response to stimuli, which plants have too.
    - uxcolumbo 6y ago
      Can you explain what you mean? How does understanding pain relate to how we humans or other animals feel pain? I don't get your point.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Basically the point is that I think it's first and foremost on you to prove that pain is an objectively bad quality in all cases. Or if not that, to demonstrate why pain is a morally bad thing to cause in animals, without relying on your experience as a human being (who has meta-cognition, which animals do not).
        uxcolumbo 6y ago
        Thankfully it's been already established that animals experience pain and that it's bad. Even the veterinary community created guidelines for pain management in animals [0]. But let's say the above wasn't the case, basically your argument seems to be that because animals can't think about thinking, the pain they experience isn't bad. But luckily there are a few thought experiments you can do: If you have a dog, what do you think would happen if you try to cut your dog with a box cutter? Do you think it would yelp, try to run away or even bite you? If so, why? Another one... so metacognition also implies self-awareness. Pigs have demonstrated that they possess this, by passing the mirror test [1]. Children under 2 can't pass this test. So using your theory, do you think it's OK to inflict pain, since kids under 2 can't experience 'bad quality' pain yet? We probably will never know how other sentient beings experience pain, since we don't physically experience their pain. If you hurt yourself I can empathize however, I can see that you're experiencing pain. It's the same with animals, humans can recognize when other animals are in pain and we usually have an urge to help. Seriously, go watch Earthlings [2] and tell me what you see is not 'bad quality' pain or is not a morally bad thing. If you think it's totally fine what you see and it's morally OK then I guess you are also disagreeing with ethic scholars like Peter Singer or Richard Dawkins [3]. Richard Dawkins even says animals might experience pain more severely than we do and wouldn't it be better to give them the benefit of the doubt? --- [0] https://wsava.org/global-guidelines/global-pain-council-guidelines/ https://wsava.org/global-guidelines/global-pain-council-guid... [1] Smart Pigs vs Kids | Extraordinary Animals | BBC Earth - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mza1EQ6aLdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mza1EQ6aLdg [2] https://www.nationearth.com/ https://www.nationearth.com/ [3] Richard Dawkins: No Civilized Person Accepts Slavery So Why Do We Accept Animal Cruelty? | Big Think - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4SnBCPzBl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4SnBCPzBl0

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago

I don't think this is true. People don't care about the thoughts and emotions of the animals we eat and we can eat other huamns, just as cognizant as ourselves, easily enough. Cannibalism is common throughout human history and there have been even quite advanced societies that practiced it widely, for instance the Aztecs. In any case humans have killed other humans for all sorts of reasons that do not include eating them, again throughout history. Why is invading another peoples' land and killing them to take their stuff any better than killing them to eat their meat?

fastball 6y ago
I dunno, but 99.9% of human societies have outlawed murder. Name one that has outlawed killing all animals for food.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  I can't. Can you name one society that has outlawed war? Because I was talking about war, not murder.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    By cross-referencing the list of states without armed forces[0] against the list of states which have ratified the amendment to the Rome Statute outlawing the crime of aggression under international law[1], I would say a reasonable list of countries would be: Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Samoa. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_arme... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#States_parties_to_the_amendment_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Rome_Statute...