4 ms·

They're violating the rule: "Food that talks is not food." [0] You can use a framework of moral relativism where intelligent spiders have no need to adhere to

They're violating the rule: "Food that talks is not food." [0] You can use a framework of moral relativism where intelligent spiders have no need to adhere to human-centric rules, and all, but I prefer the moral absolutism that no one who can understand I don't want to be eaten is morally permitted to eat me. [0] https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2003-11-30 https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2003-11-30

soperj 3y ago
It's kind of ignoring the history of cannibalism within the human race. It's tempting to say that we're past that, but most stuff comes back into vogue at some point in time.
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
There is not a single animal that wants to be eaten, what are you talking about? We just draw a line saying: this is ok, this is not, arbitrarily. Nobody, nothing, wants to suffer. That's one of the rare things life universally agrees on. There is no need for words to express that. And I think it's ok to do so, but if we can eat whales, octopus, and take cows and chickens and make their existence hell until we consume them, labeling a spider as "evil" because it likes eating humans is far fetched.
- saalweachter 3y ago
  I mean, my moral framework may be simple, but it's consistent, and more importantly, it makes it morally impermissible to kill and eat me. If the giant spiders were unintelligent, they'd not be moral actors, and then eating people might be a bad thing, but it wouldn't be a morally bad (evil) thing. If their prey weren't intelligent, my moral framework doesn't (currently) include an absolute prohibition on killing and eating animals, so that would be morally acceptable. But because both the spider and their prey were intelligent, my rules kick in and it is immoral for the spiders to eat people, or vice versa. (Now, there may be a loophole in that killing people for the purposes of eating them is always unacceptable, but there are circumstances where it is at least forgivable to kill [eg, self defense], and also circumstances where it is likewise acceptable to eat already dead intelligent creatures, but you have to be careful not to create a moral hazard where the killing is done on a pretext.)
havblue 3y ago
I'll note that Aragog in Harry Potter, an intelligent spider who wanted to feed Harry and Ron to her spawn, isn't likely evil. She isn't exactly good either of course. I think the "evil" concept is baked into the themes of the books. While men are capable of evil, Shelob, Morgoth, Sauron etc are basically the embodiment of sin and incapable of good. So the only way you can say they aren't evil is if you ignore the prose and judge them by their actions against the worst humanity can accomplish.

soperj 3y ago

It's kind of ignoring the history of cannibalism within the human race. It's tempting to say that we're past that, but most stuff comes back into vogue at some point in time.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

There is not a single animal that wants to be eaten, what are you talking about? We just draw a line saying: this is ok, this is not, arbitrarily. Nobody, nothing, wants to suffer. That's one of the rare things life universally agrees on. There is no need for words to express that. And I think it's ok to do so, but if we can eat whales, octopus, and take cows and chickens and make their existence hell until we consume them, labeling a spider as "evil" because it likes eating humans is far fetched.

saalweachter 3y ago
I mean, my moral framework may be simple, but it's consistent, and more importantly, it makes it morally impermissible to kill and eat me. If the giant spiders were unintelligent, they'd not be moral actors, and then eating people might be a bad thing, but it wouldn't be a morally bad (evil) thing. If their prey weren't intelligent, my moral framework doesn't (currently) include an absolute prohibition on killing and eating animals, so that would be morally acceptable. But because both the spider and their prey were intelligent, my rules kick in and it is immoral for the spiders to eat people, or vice versa. (Now, there may be a loophole in that killing people for the purposes of eating them is always unacceptable, but there are circumstances where it is at least forgivable to kill [eg, self defense], and also circumstances where it is likewise acceptable to eat already dead intelligent creatures, but you have to be careful not to create a moral hazard where the killing is done on a pretext.)

havblue 3y ago

I'll note that Aragog in Harry Potter, an intelligent spider who wanted to feed Harry and Ron to her spawn, isn't likely evil. She isn't exactly good either of course. I think the "evil" concept is baked into the themes of the books. While men are capable of evil, Shelob, Morgoth, Sauron etc are basically the embodiment of sin and incapable of good. So the only way you can say they aren't evil is if you ignore the prose and judge them by their actions against the worst humanity can accomplish.