5 ms·

I decided on pigs as the smart threshold because they were as smart as my dogs, and I would never eat my dog. Mutton, lamb, or chicken is no problem whatsoever.

I decided on pigs as the smart threshold because they were as smart as my dogs, and I would never eat my dog. Mutton, lamb, or chicken is no problem whatsoever. You grab them by the neck, stare deep into their eyes, and you will see the back of their skull.

GrantMoyer 2y ago
I feel the same way about some people.
spaceman_2020 2y ago
My wife is grossed out if I eat anything other than chicken or fish. She says that cow, goat, and pig feel too "present" to eat. I begrudgingly agree.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
  I mean they're all mammals, just like us. Intelligence is just one thing we can consider when deciding what's morally acceptable to kill and consume. Genetic proximity to humans clearly matters to many people as well: lots of people stick to seafood and/or poultry despite the fact that octopuses and some birds can be quite intelligent. Sociability could be a third factor. Pigs are smarter than dogs, cows are smarter than horses, but we choose not to eat dogs and horses because they more readily comprehend and obey our commands, enabling us to connect with them on a basic social level.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Intelligence is just one thing we can consider when deciding what's morally acceptable to kill and consume. Genetic proximity to humans clearly matters to many people as well: lots of people stick to seafood and/or poultry despite the fact that octopuses and some birds can be quite intelligent. Sure, but it's pretty obvious that fish and chicken are very stupid animals, and those mammals are much smarter, so I'm not sure that genetic proximity is as important as you think it is. Octopuses are the only real standout here: they really are quite intelligent, which is even more remarkable because they're invertebrates. And yes, some birds are quite intelligent (like crows), but we don't eat those types of birds (probably because they're just not very good as food). >cows are smarter than horses, but we choose not to eat dogs and horses because they more readily comprehend and obey our commands Who's "we"? Horsemeat is very easy to find in restaurants here in Japan. It's not bad if cooked properly, but it's a lot like deer meat. Deer are pretty stupid too (probably about as smart as cows), but they aren't normally eaten either, and it's because most people just don't like the taste that much (it's "gamey"), and it's difficult to cook. Cows taste better than horses because they have a lot more fat. Also, octopuses have been mentioned here many times, but in the US they aren't a terribly popular food item, whereas here in Japan they're very common (along with squid). So differing cultures and culinary traditions I think have a lot to do with it too, just as with horses above.
    - naasking 2y ago
      > Sure, but it's pretty obvious that fish and chicken are very stupid animals, and those mammals are much smarter Does "smartness" carry inherent moral worth? That would be an interesting principle to hold, given what it might entail for humans.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        >Does "smartness" carry inherent moral worth? Well that seems to be the assumption in this discussion thread. >That would be an interesting principle to hold, given what it might entail for humans. If you're implying that stupid people should be used as food, that's already been addressed elsewhere in this thread: cannibalism is very rare among other animals that are much stupider than us, and for good reason: there's a big risk of disease (such as prion diseases). However, if we were visited by aliens that found humans tasty, the morality of offering up our stupidest members of society as food for them might be an interesting argument.
        naasking 2y ago
        It's more that it justifies treating other human beings like we do animals. Not just for food, but sterilizing them, confining them, abusing them, etc. This is crossing right into the old tragedies of eugenics.
wut-wut 2y ago
HA!
steveoscaro 2y ago
reminds me of Werner Herzog's classic rant on the stupidity of chickens.. "Look into the eyes of a chicken and you will see real stupidity. It is a kind of bottomless stupidity, a fiendish stupidity. They are the most horrifying, cannibalistic and nightmarish creatures in the world."
- merry_flame 2y ago
  The eye of the beholder... I've had hens understand how to jump on handles to open doors. Certainly, they lacked the subtlety to shut up once they started gobbling up food, but they knew how to open doors, creep in and stay silent until they reached the kitchen. Nobody trained them to do so, and they certainly had never tried jumping against doors before that happened. Not only did a hen figure out what we were up to with those door handles but suddenly, from one week to the next, each one of our 4 or 5 hens got the memo. I'd venture the guess that most humans find it more convenient to disparage whatever creature they happen to exploit.
golergka 2y ago
You have to consider that eating meat or not is not matter of life and death for an animal. It's a matter of either living and then being killed, or not being born at all. When people don't eat meat, farmers don't breed the animals. Now, you still might think that not being born at all is a better alternative, of course. I'm only pointing out it's a different dilemma.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  Your point is correct, but it's also a view on life/death that is typically not accepted. We don't look at human life in that lens, it's a whole can of worm, but we can agree that ending someone's life is viewed separately from whether that person could have not existed in the first place.

GrantMoyer 2y ago

I feel the same way about some people.

spaceman_2020 2y ago

My wife is grossed out if I eat anything other than chicken or fish. She says that cow, goat, and pig feel too "present" to eat. I begrudgingly agree.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
I mean they're all mammals, just like us. Intelligence is just one thing we can consider when deciding what's morally acceptable to kill and consume. Genetic proximity to humans clearly matters to many people as well: lots of people stick to seafood and/or poultry despite the fact that octopuses and some birds can be quite intelligent. Sociability could be a third factor. Pigs are smarter than dogs, cows are smarter than horses, but we choose not to eat dogs and horses because they more readily comprehend and obey our commands, enabling us to connect with them on a basic social level.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Intelligence is just one thing we can consider when deciding what's morally acceptable to kill and consume. Genetic proximity to humans clearly matters to many people as well: lots of people stick to seafood and/or poultry despite the fact that octopuses and some birds can be quite intelligent. Sure, but it's pretty obvious that fish and chicken are very stupid animals, and those mammals are much smarter, so I'm not sure that genetic proximity is as important as you think it is. Octopuses are the only real standout here: they really are quite intelligent, which is even more remarkable because they're invertebrates. And yes, some birds are quite intelligent (like crows), but we don't eat those types of birds (probably because they're just not very good as food). >cows are smarter than horses, but we choose not to eat dogs and horses because they more readily comprehend and obey our commands Who's "we"? Horsemeat is very easy to find in restaurants here in Japan. It's not bad if cooked properly, but it's a lot like deer meat. Deer are pretty stupid too (probably about as smart as cows), but they aren't normally eaten either, and it's because most people just don't like the taste that much (it's "gamey"), and it's difficult to cook. Cows taste better than horses because they have a lot more fat. Also, octopuses have been mentioned here many times, but in the US they aren't a terribly popular food item, whereas here in Japan they're very common (along with squid). So differing cultures and culinary traditions I think have a lot to do with it too, just as with horses above.
  - naasking 2y ago
    > Sure, but it's pretty obvious that fish and chicken are very stupid animals, and those mammals are much smarter Does "smartness" carry inherent moral worth? That would be an interesting principle to hold, given what it might entail for humans.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >Does "smartness" carry inherent moral worth? Well that seems to be the assumption in this discussion thread. >That would be an interesting principle to hold, given what it might entail for humans. If you're implying that stupid people should be used as food, that's already been addressed elsewhere in this thread: cannibalism is very rare among other animals that are much stupider than us, and for good reason: there's a big risk of disease (such as prion diseases). However, if we were visited by aliens that found humans tasty, the morality of offering up our stupidest members of society as food for them might be an interesting argument.
      - naasking 2y ago
        It's more that it justifies treating other human beings like we do animals. Not just for food, but sterilizing them, confining them, abusing them, etc. This is crossing right into the old tragedies of eugenics.

wut-wut 2y ago

HA!

steveoscaro 2y ago

reminds me of Werner Herzog's classic rant on the stupidity of chickens.. "Look into the eyes of a chicken and you will see real stupidity. It is a kind of bottomless stupidity, a fiendish stupidity. They are the most horrifying, cannibalistic and nightmarish creatures in the world."

merry_flame 2y ago
The eye of the beholder... I've had hens understand how to jump on handles to open doors. Certainly, they lacked the subtlety to shut up once they started gobbling up food, but they knew how to open doors, creep in and stay silent until they reached the kitchen. Nobody trained them to do so, and they certainly had never tried jumping against doors before that happened. Not only did a hen figure out what we were up to with those door handles but suddenly, from one week to the next, each one of our 4 or 5 hens got the memo. I'd venture the guess that most humans find it more convenient to disparage whatever creature they happen to exploit.

golergka 2y ago

You have to consider that eating meat or not is not matter of life and death for an animal. It's a matter of either living and then being killed, or not being born at all. When people don't eat meat, farmers don't breed the animals. Now, you still might think that not being born at all is a better alternative, of course. I'm only pointing out it's a different dilemma.

makeitdouble 2y ago
Your point is correct, but it's also a view on life/death that is typically not accepted. We don't look at human life in that lens, it's a whole can of worm, but we can agree that ending someone's life is viewed separately from whether that person could have not existed in the first place.