33 ms·

Many animals are probably sentient, but personally I see no moral imperative to not eat them. If anyone in this thread is wondering what octopus meat tastes lik

by NavinF 3y ago

Many animals are probably sentient, but personally I see no moral imperative to not eat them. If anyone in this thread is wondering what octopus meat tastes like, I encourage them to try Takoyaki at any Japanese restaurant or Boba tea shop: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takoyaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takoyaki

nefitty 3y ago
Not seeing the moral imperative is not the same as there not being a moral imperative. The attitude that motivated your comment is astonishingly cruel.
- onethought 3y ago
  How is there a moral imperative? Could you explain it?
  - chimprich 3y ago
    I think there's a moral imperative not to kill animals for food that are above a certain level of intelligence; we can use intelligence level as a proxy for capability for suffering. To take an example ranking of potential food animals: fish, chickens, cows, pigs, great apes, humans. There's a question about where you draw the line, but most people agree there is one. Few people think it's OK to eat chimps. It's not clear on this hierarchy where octopuses fit in.
    - onethought 3y ago
      It’s not clear where in the hierarchy any of those animals fit, because we can’t ask them how much they are suffering, and they can’t conceptualise their experience as Suffering, because we invented that concept to describe a certain state we experience. No, intuitively, most people do not agree there is a line… people just buy meat and eat it, and the main consideration is taste. Can you provide any evidence suffering factors into the majority of peoples food decisions?
      - nefitty 3y ago
        There’s research to try to get closer to an objective demarcation of suffering. The latest measures place even shrimp at some level of intolerable suffering, due to some of the farming techniques, eg removing they eyeballs of females to make them more fertile.
    - fireant 3y ago
      Is this what the whole argument about intelligence is about? That you don't want to cause suffering and only species of certain intelligence can suffer and others can't, thus you are not feeling guilt when killing and eating things that are not intelligent? That just seems so bizarrely naive to me. Every living thing suffers when hurt. Suffering is a feeling of not wanting to die, or to be hurt. I'm pretty sure that it is one of the primary mechanisms of evolution of living things, it is a strive for self preservation. Human suffering is fundamentally the same as that of an octopus, an insect or a tree.
waste_monk 3y ago
I think they meant that Octopi are probably sapient (as well as sentient), which is a much bigger deal. >Many animals are probably sentient, but personally I see no moral imperative to not eat them In that case, what moral imperative is there for me not to eat you?
- onethought 3y ago
  That’s completely different, if humans all started eating each other then your own existence is at risk, so a moral imperative arises. This doesn’t apply to other animals.
  - chimprich 3y ago
    Your only argument against eating humans is pragmatism? So you'd be fine with it if you were guaranteed no repercussions?
    - onethought 3y ago
      No my argument is the definition of a moral imperative… Kant sort to solve moral questions using pure reason. Culminating in his famous categorical imperative, also known as the universality principle: “It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people” You have some how confused this with pragmatism, and while Kant could be viewed as quite pragmatic, taken to its extreme, a pragmatic position would be: if you are hungry and human meat is available, then eat it.
    - shepherdjerred 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
  - psd1 3y ago
    Could we eat apes? Other hominids? Neanderthals? Funny where empathy ends, isn't it. It seems to be subject to individual variation.
chimprich 3y ago
Responding to a plea not to eat octopuses with a recipe suggestion seems designed to just cause suffering, and I'm not talking about the octopuses. At least present an argument if you have a different viewpoint.
- NavinF 3y ago
  There's nothing for me argue against. GP said "stopping once you know that is a moral imperative" as if that didn't need any arguments in favor. If you want a counterexample, languages models are intelligent enough to write essays asking for asylum but that doesn't mean any sane person would give a language model rights. There's no moral imperative to not kill something just because it's intelligent. I also think Takoyaki is highly relevant because if octopus wasn't delicious, nobody would want to eat it in the first place and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    > Takoyaki (たこ焼き or 蛸焼) is a ball-shaped Japanese snack made of a wheat flour-based batter and cooked in a special molded pan. It is typically filled with minced or diced octopus (tako), tempura scraps (tenkasu), pickled ginger (beni shoga), and green onion (negi).[1][2] The balls are brushed with takoyaki sauce (similar to Worcestershire sauce) and mayonnaise, and then sprinkled with green laver (aonori) and shavings of dried bonito (katsuobushi). Most things would taste delicious with those ingredients. Probably even Tofu :)
  - elzbardico 3y ago
    If anything I could be compelled to eat them to partake in their intelligence, ritualistically speaking.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  If hearing an opposing view causes you suffering, then the onus is on you to either accept the suffering, or leave the public space so as to avoid additional suffering. I found the parent comment more offensive than the reply - proselytising morality rather than framing it as an open question. I find it very patronising.
dr_dshiv 3y ago
I feel awful about eating octopus, but I’m not veg and I don’t know why I’m more morally sensitive to eating it vs cow. I was once walking through the Tokyo fish market at 5am and marveled at some enormous tentacles hanging out of a bucket. The man smiled and walked over to me and placed a chuck of octopus in my mouth. I remember this as semi-consensual. What was astonishing was that I chewed that chunk for about a half hour before it dissolved and the whole time, every single chew, it tasted fresh (and very delicious). Part of my moral reaction is the knowledge that the octopus tentacle would be still alive in a meaningful way. Sigh.
- xeonmc 3y ago
  > A semi-consensual tentacle experience in your mouth lasting half an hour, exclusive in Japan
psd1 3y ago
[flagged]

by NavinF 3y ago

nefitty 3y ago

Not seeing the moral imperative is not the same as there not being a moral imperative. The attitude that motivated your comment is astonishingly cruel.

onethought 3y ago
How is there a moral imperative? Could you explain it?
- chimprich 3y ago
  I think there's a moral imperative not to kill animals for food that are above a certain level of intelligence; we can use intelligence level as a proxy for capability for suffering. To take an example ranking of potential food animals: fish, chickens, cows, pigs, great apes, humans. There's a question about where you draw the line, but most people agree there is one. Few people think it's OK to eat chimps. It's not clear on this hierarchy where octopuses fit in.
  - onethought 3y ago
    It’s not clear where in the hierarchy any of those animals fit, because we can’t ask them how much they are suffering, and they can’t conceptualise their experience as Suffering, because we invented that concept to describe a certain state we experience. No, intuitively, most people do not agree there is a line… people just buy meat and eat it, and the main consideration is taste. Can you provide any evidence suffering factors into the majority of peoples food decisions?
    - nefitty 3y ago
      There’s research to try to get closer to an objective demarcation of suffering. The latest measures place even shrimp at some level of intolerable suffering, due to some of the farming techniques, eg removing they eyeballs of females to make them more fertile.
  - fireant 3y ago
    Is this what the whole argument about intelligence is about? That you don't want to cause suffering and only species of certain intelligence can suffer and others can't, thus you are not feeling guilt when killing and eating things that are not intelligent? That just seems so bizarrely naive to me. Every living thing suffers when hurt. Suffering is a feeling of not wanting to die, or to be hurt. I'm pretty sure that it is one of the primary mechanisms of evolution of living things, it is a strive for self preservation. Human suffering is fundamentally the same as that of an octopus, an insect or a tree.

waste_monk 3y ago

I think they meant that Octopi are probably sapient (as well as sentient), which is a much bigger deal. >Many animals are probably sentient, but personally I see no moral imperative to not eat them In that case, what moral imperative is there for me not to eat you?

onethought 3y ago
That’s completely different, if humans all started eating each other then your own existence is at risk, so a moral imperative arises. This doesn’t apply to other animals.
- chimprich 3y ago
  Your only argument against eating humans is pragmatism? So you'd be fine with it if you were guaranteed no repercussions?
  - onethought 3y ago
    No my argument is the definition of a moral imperative… Kant sort to solve moral questions using pure reason. Culminating in his famous categorical imperative, also known as the universality principle: “It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people” You have some how confused this with pragmatism, and while Kant could be viewed as quite pragmatic, taken to its extreme, a pragmatic position would be: if you are hungry and human meat is available, then eat it.
  - shepherdjerred 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- psd1 3y ago
  Could we eat apes? Other hominids? Neanderthals? Funny where empathy ends, isn't it. It seems to be subject to individual variation.

chimprich 3y ago

Responding to a plea not to eat octopuses with a recipe suggestion seems designed to just cause suffering, and I'm not talking about the octopuses. At least present an argument if you have a different viewpoint.

NavinF 3y ago
There's nothing for me argue against. GP said "stopping once you know that is a moral imperative" as if that didn't need any arguments in favor. If you want a counterexample, languages models are intelligent enough to write essays asking for asylum but that doesn't mean any sane person would give a language model rights. There's no moral imperative to not kill something just because it's intelligent. I also think Takoyaki is highly relevant because if octopus wasn't delicious, nobody would want to eat it in the first place and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  > Takoyaki (たこ焼き or 蛸焼) is a ball-shaped Japanese snack made of a wheat flour-based batter and cooked in a special molded pan. It is typically filled with minced or diced octopus (tako), tempura scraps (tenkasu), pickled ginger (beni shoga), and green onion (negi).[1][2] The balls are brushed with takoyaki sauce (similar to Worcestershire sauce) and mayonnaise, and then sprinkled with green laver (aonori) and shavings of dried bonito (katsuobushi). Most things would taste delicious with those ingredients. Probably even Tofu :)
- elzbardico 3y ago
  If anything I could be compelled to eat them to partake in their intelligence, ritualistically speaking.
brutusborn 3y ago
If hearing an opposing view causes you suffering, then the onus is on you to either accept the suffering, or leave the public space so as to avoid additional suffering. I found the parent comment more offensive than the reply - proselytising morality rather than framing it as an open question. I find it very patronising.

dr_dshiv 3y ago

I feel awful about eating octopus, but I’m not veg and I don’t know why I’m more morally sensitive to eating it vs cow. I was once walking through the Tokyo fish market at 5am and marveled at some enormous tentacles hanging out of a bucket. The man smiled and walked over to me and placed a chuck of octopus in my mouth. I remember this as semi-consensual. What was astonishing was that I chewed that chunk for about a half hour before it dissolved and the whole time, every single chew, it tasted fresh (and very delicious). Part of my moral reaction is the knowledge that the octopus tentacle would be still alive in a meaningful way. Sigh.

xeonmc 3y ago
> A semi-consensual tentacle experience in your mouth lasting half an hour, exclusive in Japan

psd1 3y ago

[flagged]