7 ms·

This argument is however not on solid ground. It's not OK to cause pain and suffering to a creature capable of intelligence and emotions just because it's less

This argument is however not on solid ground. It's not OK to cause pain and suffering to a creature capable of intelligence and emotions just because it's less intelligent than an arbitrary, conveniently chosen threshold.

NewJazz 2y ago
Yep. One might consider how it only takes an evolutionary moment for the veil of ignorance to be lifted slightly higher.
apsurd 2y ago
a hard truth I agree with. but so very easy to out-of-sight-out-of-mind x_X ugh
adolph 2y ago
Reduction of suffering is part of Temple Grandin's work: Grandin also developed an objective, numerical scoring system for assessing animal welfare at slaughtering plants. The use of this scoring system resulted in significant improvements in animal stunning and handling during slaughter. This work is described in "Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices in slaughter plants" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin
TehShrike 2y ago
We raised chickens when I was a kid. They had a pretty good life, plenty of room to roam plus I fed them every day. When their time came, we gave them a quick painless death. No regrets
- timeon 2y ago
  > When their time came Were they mature?
  - TehShrike 2y ago
    Yeah, they were mostly for eggs and pest control, most of them lived 2+ years. They didn't make the best meat to be honest
- 000ooo000 2y ago
  There's always one of these in these discussions. "We thought we were nice to them so bringing them into existence simply to consume them feels ok"
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    What is the issue with it? If they lead fairy nice long lives, I don't get it? You must fundamentally have a problem with existence because nearly any creature that lives in the wild is going to have a very gruesome, painful lonely death. If the worst thing that can happen is a chicken is protected, fed, given medicine when sick, have offspring and then eventually slaughtered in a rather human way after adulthood, I don't really see how it's so terrible.
    - anonzzzies 2y ago
      But where does that stop: I can replace chicken here with your kids; still ok? What’s the difference? Dogs? Chimpansees? Dolphins? Why chickens ok and the rest not in the same example?
      - bamboozled 2y ago
        If a much more intelligent species comes to earth and says, we'll kill you all now , or we'll farm you for organs, at age 70; However, we'll help your species have a fairly good life and chance of survival overall ? I'd take it. Even if my kids were impacted. Then imagine if they said: "it's likely that due to advancements in science, in 50 years we won't need to do this anymore because we'll have lab grown organs so we'll just leave you guys alone when we have what we need". I would double take that deal. This is likely where we are now. The major difference with all of this discussion though is that obviously, animals are conscious, I don't believe they're capable of reasoning where they would be disturbed or troubled by such a deal. We're capable of understanding that our kids will be slaughtered for organs in 70 years from their birth. We also have strong emotions tied to this. So we'd be upset about it so I think that makes it a worse deal. Not the worst possible deal in such a theoretical circumstance, but it would be better than annihilation. Definitely not saying this means this is ideal for anyone, animals or humans, nothing is perfect, I just don't think it's catastrophic.
felipeerias 2y ago
Whether it is OK or not is in itself an arbitrary decision. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, merely pointing out that ultimately every moral system rests on non-observable abstract principles. Metaphysics, in other words.
- luqtas 2y ago
  empathy isn't abstract, it's in our brain as a mechanism that promoted survival... now if you are telling me that modern people (knowing that modern nutrition already stablished that in 99,9% of the cases, it's perfectly possible to live off a plant based diet, with B12 [livestock is also supplemented ]) don't feel empathy for animals in the ballpark of birds/mammalian is pretty naive... considering that people are actually aware of what takes to kill an animal & what's the state of stuff like "battery cages" when raising eggs at commercial scale; i think either you are one of those rare meat heads that can kill stuff, butcher and eat or you aren't aware (go watch Dominion or whatever)... because most city people buying fancy fatty meat or cheap burguers, would feel nausea/sorrow by killing anything & probably would stop if they need to kill to eat meat
  - felipeerias 2y ago
    The basic mechanisms of empathy are probably biological, but everything else is cultural. Consider that different civilisations in the past even engaged in systematic cannibalism. I grew up in a farm. In my experience, the people less likely to feel empathy for animals were those who actually worked with them every day. This does not mean that they were cruel, at all, but rather that they understood rising and killing animals as fundamental for their livelihood. This reality is very remote for many urban dwellers, for whom animal products come into existence in the supermarket aisle, and who mostly only see live animals as pets.
    - WalterSear 2y ago
      >This does not mean that they were cruel, at all, but rather that they understood rising and killing animals as fundamental for their livelihood. The banality of evil. Enron executives' behaviour was also fundamental to their livelihood.
VS1999 2y ago
[flagged]
tacocataco 2y ago
Chop me up and feed me to the chickens when I die.
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  It’s a shame this is not allowed in most/all countries. So much meat wasted by cremation and burial and solid boxes. Feed me to the pigs after harvesting my organs.
DEADMINCE 2y ago
The threshold should be self-awareness - nothing arbitrary about it.
shrimp_emoji 2y ago
The threshold isn't actually intelligence; it's reciprocation. Chimps have superhuman short-term memory, but they're not granted personhood. A tree can be infinitely intelligent. If it doesn't do anything with that intelligence and can't communicate, and we couldn't profit from that intelligence in any way, we wouldn't care about it -- even if we somehow noticed it. If the tree can benefit us if we don't harm it, we suddenly care. If it can hurt us if we hurt it, we care. If other entities which can help us will do so as long as we don't hurt the tree -- or if they will hurt us if we hurt the tree, we care. (For example, this can be other humans with respect to their pets.) If it exhibits the specific kinds of intelligence that we care about, like talking, or if it simply moves us emotionally, we'll care. These are all reciprocations of social contracts we're forced, by our biology and by game theory, to respond to. That's the threshold. Power grows from the barrel of a gun, not an abstract notion of intelligence or consciousness (which, spoiler: is a religious nonsense concept) or whatever.

NewJazz 2y ago

Yep. One might consider how it only takes an evolutionary moment for the veil of ignorance to be lifted slightly higher.

apsurd 2y ago

a hard truth I agree with. but so very easy to out-of-sight-out-of-mind x_X ugh

adolph 2y ago

Reduction of suffering is part of Temple Grandin's work: Grandin also developed an objective, numerical scoring system for assessing animal welfare at slaughtering plants. The use of this scoring system resulted in significant improvements in animal stunning and handling during slaughter. This work is described in "Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices in slaughter plants" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin

TehShrike 2y ago

We raised chickens when I was a kid. They had a pretty good life, plenty of room to roam plus I fed them every day. When their time came, we gave them a quick painless death. No regrets

timeon 2y ago
> When their time came Were they mature?
- TehShrike 2y ago
  Yeah, they were mostly for eggs and pest control, most of them lived 2+ years. They didn't make the best meat to be honest
000ooo000 2y ago
There's always one of these in these discussions. "We thought we were nice to them so bringing them into existence simply to consume them feels ok"
- bamboozled 2y ago
  What is the issue with it? If they lead fairy nice long lives, I don't get it? You must fundamentally have a problem with existence because nearly any creature that lives in the wild is going to have a very gruesome, painful lonely death. If the worst thing that can happen is a chicken is protected, fed, given medicine when sick, have offspring and then eventually slaughtered in a rather human way after adulthood, I don't really see how it's so terrible.
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    But where does that stop: I can replace chicken here with your kids; still ok? What’s the difference? Dogs? Chimpansees? Dolphins? Why chickens ok and the rest not in the same example?
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      If a much more intelligent species comes to earth and says, we'll kill you all now , or we'll farm you for organs, at age 70; However, we'll help your species have a fairly good life and chance of survival overall ? I'd take it. Even if my kids were impacted. Then imagine if they said: "it's likely that due to advancements in science, in 50 years we won't need to do this anymore because we'll have lab grown organs so we'll just leave you guys alone when we have what we need". I would double take that deal. This is likely where we are now. The major difference with all of this discussion though is that obviously, animals are conscious, I don't believe they're capable of reasoning where they would be disturbed or troubled by such a deal. We're capable of understanding that our kids will be slaughtered for organs in 70 years from their birth. We also have strong emotions tied to this. So we'd be upset about it so I think that makes it a worse deal. Not the worst possible deal in such a theoretical circumstance, but it would be better than annihilation. Definitely not saying this means this is ideal for anyone, animals or humans, nothing is perfect, I just don't think it's catastrophic.

felipeerias 2y ago

Whether it is OK or not is in itself an arbitrary decision. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, merely pointing out that ultimately every moral system rests on non-observable abstract principles. Metaphysics, in other words.

luqtas 2y ago
empathy isn't abstract, it's in our brain as a mechanism that promoted survival... now if you are telling me that modern people (knowing that modern nutrition already stablished that in 99,9% of the cases, it's perfectly possible to live off a plant based diet, with B12 [livestock is also supplemented ]) don't feel empathy for animals in the ballpark of birds/mammalian is pretty naive... considering that people are actually aware of what takes to kill an animal & what's the state of stuff like "battery cages" when raising eggs at commercial scale; i think either you are one of those rare meat heads that can kill stuff, butcher and eat or you aren't aware (go watch Dominion or whatever)... because most city people buying fancy fatty meat or cheap burguers, would feel nausea/sorrow by killing anything & probably would stop if they need to kill to eat meat
- felipeerias 2y ago
  The basic mechanisms of empathy are probably biological, but everything else is cultural. Consider that different civilisations in the past even engaged in systematic cannibalism. I grew up in a farm. In my experience, the people less likely to feel empathy for animals were those who actually worked with them every day. This does not mean that they were cruel, at all, but rather that they understood rising and killing animals as fundamental for their livelihood. This reality is very remote for many urban dwellers, for whom animal products come into existence in the supermarket aisle, and who mostly only see live animals as pets.
  - WalterSear 2y ago
    >This does not mean that they were cruel, at all, but rather that they understood rising and killing animals as fundamental for their livelihood. The banality of evil. Enron executives' behaviour was also fundamental to their livelihood.

VS1999 2y ago

[flagged]

tacocataco 2y ago

Chop me up and feed me to the chickens when I die.

anonzzzies 2y ago
It’s a shame this is not allowed in most/all countries. So much meat wasted by cremation and burial and solid boxes. Feed me to the pigs after harvesting my organs.

DEADMINCE 2y ago

The threshold should be self-awareness - nothing arbitrary about it.

shrimp_emoji 2y ago

The threshold isn't actually intelligence; it's reciprocation. Chimps have superhuman short-term memory, but they're not granted personhood. A tree can be infinitely intelligent. If it doesn't do anything with that intelligence and can't communicate, and we couldn't profit from that intelligence in any way, we wouldn't care about it -- even if we somehow noticed it. If the tree can benefit us if we don't harm it, we suddenly care. If it can hurt us if we hurt it, we care. If other entities which can help us will do so as long as we don't hurt the tree -- or if they will hurt us if we hurt the tree, we care. (For example, this can be other humans with respect to their pets.) If it exhibits the specific kinds of intelligence that we care about, like talking, or if it simply moves us emotionally, we'll care. These are all reciprocations of social contracts we're forced, by our biology and by game theory, to respond to. That's the threshold. Power grows from the barrel of a gun, not an abstract notion of intelligence or consciousness (which, spoiler: is a religious nonsense concept) or whatever.