3 ms·

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

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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
      Nature itself is evil by this standard
      - WalterSear 3y ago
        1. Yes. 2. That's irrelevant on multiple levels 3. Cognitive abstractions aren't beings, can't have a morality to evaluate. "As moral as Darwinian Evolution" is not a good look, particularly in regards to livelihood rather than survival.
  - luqtas 2y ago
    it's not probably, it's what it's! go read where neuroscience reason about that... and i typed _modern people_ from cities & despite city people sometimes contributing or doing great crimes for money, i don't know if that is justifiable to use as a counter argument... as we are chatting about how a modern people, who is probably empathetic/civilized enough to realize that killing an animal is unfair/horrible when there isn't a plausible reason to do it ¶ are rural people aware the complexity of a mammalian? because i can see the love for cats and dogs and some bird species... negating pigs and cows or rats feels a specie prejudice! specially, again, when we proved already that it's more economical, ecological and if done correctly more healthy (animal protein is synthesized differently and if we were black and white, plant and fungi based are easier to swallow [but just a curiosity, as that may only build up to diabetes or cancer if one eats like an average +medium-class North American or the likes]). not long ago, like less than 8 generations, we slaved and raped people in America while building churches talking about Christ love... so i don't think we can go back "the days we eat carcass and hunt mammoths" to justify stuff if we truly want to evolve "not eating animal products is the bare minimum you can do", actually edit: a bunch of errors, i'm sleep deprived but do you know that even FLIES suffer from indecision? fungi have the capacity of memory (tho i think we can eat those :), ants are a pretty complex organism for the amount of neurons they have... maybe the day we stop to anthropomorphizing intelligence we'll figure out the holocaust (rolling right now)

luqtas 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
    Nature itself is evil by this standard
    - WalterSear 3y ago
      1. Yes. 2. That's irrelevant on multiple levels 3. Cognitive abstractions aren't beings, can't have a morality to evaluate. "As moral as Darwinian Evolution" is not a good look, particularly in regards to livelihood rather than survival.
- luqtas 2y ago
  it's not probably, it's what it's! go read where neuroscience reason about that... and i typed _modern people_ from cities & despite city people sometimes contributing or doing great crimes for money, i don't know if that is justifiable to use as a counter argument... as we are chatting about how a modern people, who is probably empathetic/civilized enough to realize that killing an animal is unfair/horrible when there isn't a plausible reason to do it ¶ are rural people aware the complexity of a mammalian? because i can see the love for cats and dogs and some bird species... negating pigs and cows or rats feels a specie prejudice! specially, again, when we proved already that it's more economical, ecological and if done correctly more healthy (animal protein is synthesized differently and if we were black and white, plant and fungi based are easier to swallow [but just a curiosity, as that may only build up to diabetes or cancer if one eats like an average +medium-class North American or the likes]). not long ago, like less than 8 generations, we slaved and raped people in America while building churches talking about Christ love... so i don't think we can go back "the days we eat carcass and hunt mammoths" to justify stuff if we truly want to evolve "not eating animal products is the bare minimum you can do", actually edit: a bunch of errors, i'm sleep deprived but do you know that even FLIES suffer from indecision? fungi have the capacity of memory (tho i think we can eat those :), ants are a pretty complex organism for the amount of neurons they have... maybe the day we stop to anthropomorphizing intelligence we'll figure out the holocaust (rolling right now)