4 ms·

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 s

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.
- ace_of_spades 3y ago
  But that’s a rather simplistic perspective because a moral imperative in the Kantian sense can already apply much earlier. For instance, don‘t inflict unnecessary harm on living animals if it can be reasonably avoided. At least to me this sounds like a pretty reasonable rule that I would be willing to follow and could prevent a lot of suffering in the world.
cfiggers 3y ago
Just to play devil's advocate for fun... what follows is not a sincerely held position on my part, just enjoying the dialogue— I don't want a lion to eat me. But I don't have a moral complaint against the lion for wanting to, trying to, or even succeeding. I'd be pissed, of course, but my objection is purely that I don't want to be eaten at all, period. There's not a moral dimension to it at all. I also don't want YOU to eat me. But unlike the lion, I DO have a moral objection against you, on top of the simple not-wanting-to-be-eaten-at-all thing. In conjunction with that, I find that I also have a moral objection against MYSELF, when it comes to the thought of ME eating YOU. So, although I don't know for sure yet what the basis of that moral objection is, I have learned that there does exist one. And, I can conjecture that whatever the foundation of that objection is, that's the same basis for my moral objection against you eating me. But, whatever that basis is, it doesn't seem to apply to a lion who wants to eat me, because I don't morally object against the lion. So, although that doesn't guarantee anything one way out the other just yet, perhaps it's justified that I don't feel any moral discomfort with me eating the lion[0], while absolutely having immense moral discomfort with you doing so, or even really wanting to. The situation, morally, with the lion seems to be a different thing, morally, than you eating me or vice-versa. ([0] This is speaking in the moral abstract, anyway—as it happens, there's not really enough lions left in the world to waste eating them, but that's separate from the question of whether it's moral to do so in general, if situational stuff like species extinction and other ($n)th-order effects weren't a factor).
Prickle 3y ago
There is no moral imperative, outside of general moral prohibitions that guide you to do your best to avoid killing the same species. Medically, there is the risk of Prion disease. This is a major threat to yourself, and in a few cases it is contagious. So you would have the medical imperative to avoid it to keep the people around you safe.
- 93po 3y ago
  > There is no moral imperative, outside of general moral prohibitions that guide you to do your best to avoid killing the same species. We don't want our future AI overlords to kill us because we're 1000x dumber than them and also not the same species. I think it's only fair for us to extend the same morals to animals.
  - Prickle 3y ago
    Well no. That depends on whether our future AI overlords need to eat us or not. The issue, at least for eating animals or humans is a need for sustenance.
    - 93po 3y ago
      I'm more alluding to what the other comment did - it's about resources. The AGI has its own goals and values and it'd accomplish them a lot faster without 6 billion humans using all the electricity and natural resources and space and asking it stupid questions about how to write their term papers.
    - ornornor 3y ago
      You can sustain yourself perfectly without eating any animal or animal byproduct. In rich developed countries where alternatives are findable, there is just no need for animal products. In less developed countries, it would also be achievable if priorities were set to do so. There is nothing inherently difficult about not eating animal products except access to the alternatives.
    - ace_of_spades 3y ago
zzo38computer 3y ago
I think there isn't a moral imperative for you not to eat me (or vice versa), but it would not be very sensible for you to come here all the way (if you do not live here) just to do that, and anyways I should have the right to defend myself (and if you want to catch a octopus to eat then the octopus should have the right to defend themself, too). Everyone (humans or not) must have the right to defend themself. I think you shouldn't try to eat endangered species so much, but I am not a endangered species, isn't it? I also think eating some kind of animal is not a valid excuse to treat them so badly, and that they should not mass kill everyone just to eat it (or for any other purpose). And, plants should not be treated so badly either. But, if you are omnivore then you can eat animals and plants. (And, I don't want you to eat me at this time anyways, but that isn't a moral imperative; it is just an opinion. And I have no intention to eat you; I have other stuff to eat.)

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.
ace_of_spades 3y ago
But that’s a rather simplistic perspective because a moral imperative in the Kantian sense can already apply much earlier. For instance, don‘t inflict unnecessary harm on living animals if it can be reasonably avoided. At least to me this sounds like a pretty reasonable rule that I would be willing to follow and could prevent a lot of suffering in the world.

cfiggers 3y ago

Just to play devil's advocate for fun... what follows is not a sincerely held position on my part, just enjoying the dialogue— I don't want a lion to eat me. But I don't have a moral complaint against the lion for wanting to, trying to, or even succeeding. I'd be pissed, of course, but my objection is purely that I don't want to be eaten at all, period. There's not a moral dimension to it at all. I also don't want YOU to eat me. But unlike the lion, I DO have a moral objection against you, on top of the simple not-wanting-to-be-eaten-at-all thing. In conjunction with that, I find that I also have a moral objection against MYSELF, when it comes to the thought of ME eating YOU. So, although I don't know for sure yet what the basis of that moral objection is, I have learned that there does exist one. And, I can conjecture that whatever the foundation of that objection is, that's the same basis for my moral objection against you eating me. But, whatever that basis is, it doesn't seem to apply to a lion who wants to eat me, because I don't morally object against the lion. So, although that doesn't guarantee anything one way out the other just yet, perhaps it's justified that I don't feel any moral discomfort with me eating the lion[0], while absolutely having immense moral discomfort with you doing so, or even really wanting to. The situation, morally, with the lion seems to be a different thing, morally, than you eating me or vice-versa. ([0] This is speaking in the moral abstract, anyway—as it happens, there's not really enough lions left in the world to waste eating them, but that's separate from the question of whether it's moral to do so in general, if situational stuff like species extinction and other ($n)th-order effects weren't a factor).

Prickle 3y ago

There is no moral imperative, outside of general moral prohibitions that guide you to do your best to avoid killing the same species. Medically, there is the risk of Prion disease. This is a major threat to yourself, and in a few cases it is contagious. So you would have the medical imperative to avoid it to keep the people around you safe.

93po 3y ago
> There is no moral imperative, outside of general moral prohibitions that guide you to do your best to avoid killing the same species. We don't want our future AI overlords to kill us because we're 1000x dumber than them and also not the same species. I think it's only fair for us to extend the same morals to animals.
- Prickle 3y ago
  Well no. That depends on whether our future AI overlords need to eat us or not. The issue, at least for eating animals or humans is a need for sustenance.
  - 93po 3y ago
    I'm more alluding to what the other comment did - it's about resources. The AGI has its own goals and values and it'd accomplish them a lot faster without 6 billion humans using all the electricity and natural resources and space and asking it stupid questions about how to write their term papers.
  - ornornor 3y ago
    You can sustain yourself perfectly without eating any animal or animal byproduct. In rich developed countries where alternatives are findable, there is just no need for animal products. In less developed countries, it would also be achievable if priorities were set to do so. There is nothing inherently difficult about not eating animal products except access to the alternatives.
  - ace_of_spades 3y ago

zzo38computer 3y ago

I think there isn't a moral imperative for you not to eat me (or vice versa), but it would not be very sensible for you to come here all the way (if you do not live here) just to do that, and anyways I should have the right to defend myself (and if you want to catch a octopus to eat then the octopus should have the right to defend themself, too). Everyone (humans or not) must have the right to defend themself. I think you shouldn't try to eat endangered species so much, but I am not a endangered species, isn't it? I also think eating some kind of animal is not a valid excuse to treat them so badly, and that they should not mass kill everyone just to eat it (or for any other purpose). And, plants should not be treated so badly either. But, if you are omnivore then you can eat animals and plants. (And, I don't want you to eat me at this time anyways, but that isn't a moral imperative; it is just an opinion. And I have no intention to eat you; I have other stuff to eat.)