4 ms·

I understand that paradox. The way I rationalize when it comes to food is that we wouldn't feel bad for a lion eating a gazelle... well we might but it would b

I understand that paradox. The way I rationalize when it comes to food is that we wouldn't feel bad for a lion eating a gazelle... well we might but it would be required as lions eat that food. We're somewhere on that spectrum of omnivores who eat meat and that means eating animals.

ceejayoz 3y ago
The lion doesn't really have our capacity to reason (to the same extent) or come up with alternatives. Lions can't make an Impossible Burger; we can, which changes the ethical calculus a bit.
- reformedveget 3y ago
  That's because the lion doesn't have an abundance of resources that allow it care about "ethical calculus." It simply eats, mates, socializes, and sleeps; and it is satisfied with this arrangement -- never feeling the need for "more." In my opinion, thought that verges beyond: "how to acquire food," "how to acquire mate," "how to acquire friend," and "how to acquire sleep" is "too much," and a neuroses. Or maybe all of our actions are predicated on fulfilling these base needs? And that our civilization has created an environment where these needs can no longer be simply attained, so we come up with ever more complex ways to attempt attaining them. One can also make the distinction that those needs are also simply just "feel good" and "don't feel bad." For a lion, the aforementioned things are enough to "feel good." But for us people, the simple pleasures have become unattainable in any sustainable sense. So we once again try to find something to make us feel good. For the GP, that might be practicing vegetarianism; for the readers of Hacker News, it might be stuffing their minds full of information of only temporary utility. And for what? So we can feel good, and escape the bad. "Ethical calculus" is no different. It's simply a rationalization of our base needs. Though I wish the simpler pleasures were more readily available... I'm getting awfully tired of working harder and smarter to find outlets!
hombre_fatal 3y ago
> we wouldn't feel bad for a lion eating a gazelle Most people probably do feel bad. Presumably you'd also feel bad if a lion attacked and ate a human even though it was just doing what you purport to be "required". Where it goes south is when people cherry pick the behavior of animals to justify their own actions.
- xutopia 3y ago
  Say you're driving down the road and get into an accident. A choice in front of you is that you either hit a squirrel or a child. Would you feel better or worse?
inkcapmushroom 3y ago
Chimps kill and eat monkeys and even other chimps. Not sure what I should rationalize through that behavior.
- jaredhallen 3y ago
  Maybe that we should incarcerate chimps?

ceejayoz 3y ago

The lion doesn't really have our capacity to reason (to the same extent) or come up with alternatives. Lions can't make an Impossible Burger; we can, which changes the ethical calculus a bit.

reformedveget 3y ago
That's because the lion doesn't have an abundance of resources that allow it care about "ethical calculus." It simply eats, mates, socializes, and sleeps; and it is satisfied with this arrangement -- never feeling the need for "more." In my opinion, thought that verges beyond: "how to acquire food," "how to acquire mate," "how to acquire friend," and "how to acquire sleep" is "too much," and a neuroses. Or maybe all of our actions are predicated on fulfilling these base needs? And that our civilization has created an environment where these needs can no longer be simply attained, so we come up with ever more complex ways to attempt attaining them. One can also make the distinction that those needs are also simply just "feel good" and "don't feel bad." For a lion, the aforementioned things are enough to "feel good." But for us people, the simple pleasures have become unattainable in any sustainable sense. So we once again try to find something to make us feel good. For the GP, that might be practicing vegetarianism; for the readers of Hacker News, it might be stuffing their minds full of information of only temporary utility. And for what? So we can feel good, and escape the bad. "Ethical calculus" is no different. It's simply a rationalization of our base needs. Though I wish the simpler pleasures were more readily available... I'm getting awfully tired of working harder and smarter to find outlets!

hombre_fatal 3y ago

> we wouldn't feel bad for a lion eating a gazelle Most people probably do feel bad. Presumably you'd also feel bad if a lion attacked and ate a human even though it was just doing what you purport to be "required". Where it goes south is when people cherry pick the behavior of animals to justify their own actions.

xutopia 3y ago
Say you're driving down the road and get into an accident. A choice in front of you is that you either hit a squirrel or a child. Would you feel better or worse?

inkcapmushroom 3y ago

Chimps kill and eat monkeys and even other chimps. Not sure what I should rationalize through that behavior.

jaredhallen 3y ago
Maybe that we should incarcerate chimps?