4 ms·

That seems a pretty reasonable one to me and one applied by many tribal culture to feel that we are just part of nature. Applying one's non-universal (even acc

That seems a pretty reasonable one to me and one applied by many tribal culture to feel that we are just part of nature. Applying one's non-universal (even accros its own specy) moral system to other species seems odd to me. Pain is just the evolutionnary response to avoid self-life threatening situation, nothing else. So at most i would say it makes me root for bio-engineered pig without nociceptors.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
Well, we can't apply an animal's moral system. If you did that you could justify torturing cats (have you seen a cat play with a mouse?) or raping animals because they do it to each other. That's why I think we need to consider from our perspective, which is capable of introspection and empathy.
- allan_s 3y ago
  I think we agree on the premice and we diverge on the conclusion. (Which is fine , by no way i think i'm more right than you) My point of view is my moral system apply to my specy only, i dont see a point on applying to other specy (as i already dont apply 100% of my moral system to other human from different culture for which their moral system contradict some point of mine). And i do as such because applying empathy to pig would have for final conclusion that we should bio engineer pig without pain receptors as its the path that for me minimize change (the genus of domesticated pig still get to exists, their suffering is now out of the question, i still get to eat bacon , my neighbor working in a farm still get a job etc. And science get to progress) and it does not need the modern-man-centric "dying is bad" . So being pragmatic , i think that the current status quo is enough waiting for that.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  I'd murder a hundred pigs so a single person doesn't have to be hooked up to a dialysis machine for the rest of a short miserable life. Not doing that is the easy path, not the noble one.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago

Well, we can't apply an animal's moral system. If you did that you could justify torturing cats (have you seen a cat play with a mouse?) or raping animals because they do it to each other. That's why I think we need to consider from our perspective, which is capable of introspection and empathy.

allan_s 3y ago
I think we agree on the premice and we diverge on the conclusion. (Which is fine , by no way i think i'm more right than you) My point of view is my moral system apply to my specy only, i dont see a point on applying to other specy (as i already dont apply 100% of my moral system to other human from different culture for which their moral system contradict some point of mine). And i do as such because applying empathy to pig would have for final conclusion that we should bio engineer pig without pain receptors as its the path that for me minimize change (the genus of domesticated pig still get to exists, their suffering is now out of the question, i still get to eat bacon , my neighbor working in a farm still get a job etc. And science get to progress) and it does not need the modern-man-centric "dying is bad" . So being pragmatic , i think that the current status quo is enough waiting for that.
willcipriano 3y ago
I'd murder a hundred pigs so a single person doesn't have to be hooked up to a dialysis machine for the rest of a short miserable life. Not doing that is the easy path, not the noble one.