4 ms·

It was not a statement of direct equivalence and I stand by the comparison. Do you believe that animals have a lesser capacity for feeling than children? Their

by dejb 17y ago

It was not a statement of direct equivalence and I stand by the comparison. Do you believe that animals have a lesser capacity for feeling than children? Their is intellectual capacity is at a similar level. Doesn't it make sense that they have the same capacity to feel pain as a child? Where do you draw the line at being OK with causing extreme pain to other beings? We where surprised to find that we shared so much DNA with other animals and it seems likely that we will find that the neural processes have a lot in common as well. My guess is that we will find that animal consciousness is much like our own with an obviously reduced inferential capacity. The comparison with slavery is valid in the sense something that was once considered normal (or more likely 'unpleasant but convenient/necessary') can become abhorrent. There were probably a lot of people who knew deep down that it wasn't right but it was so convenient. In the history books those that promoted slavery don't tend to come off so well. The difference now is that the pace of change is faster and our lifespan may also grow considerably. As for the term 'torturepreneur', I thought was an apt response to the title.

ars 17y ago
By your comparison you think you are increasing the status of animals, but really you are decreasing the status of humans. And once you make humans into animals humans no longer care about such things - animals sure don't. There is a massive and fundamental difference between animals and humans that no amount of comparing "DNA similarity or neural processes" is going to bridge. When peta runs ads about humans also being meat, then think people will stop eating animals. But actually what happens is that people think about eating humans. Do not try to increase animals to the level of humans - it does not work, and it's incorrect. Instead increase the level of humans even higher, and emphasize the difference to animals even more.
- dejb 17y ago
  I am stating reality as I see it and then deriving my morals from that view of reality. Your argument starts from a desired result (the 'elevation of humans') and works back toward reality from there. Humans are meat. That is reality. Even if the consequences of realising this was rampant cannibalism it wouldn't change that fact. To me the thing that separates humans from animals is also the thing that would make us not want to torture them. We are able to model reality in more detail and to do this we need to be able to consider each situation from all perspectives. Considering reality from the view of an animal in pain would cause any empathetic being some degree of pain. Those that block this or just can't see this part of reality have a second rate existence in my view and are frankly little better than animals.
  - ars 17y ago
    Leaving aside for the moment your assumption that eating animals is equal to torturing them (which is not true). Your request is to view the world from the point of view of the animal. Well animals do not care in the slightest about the pain of another animal. So I reject that idea. I prefer to view the world from the point of view of a human. And humans do care, but to a human an animal is food, and a human is not. To an animal everything is food, there is no category "not food". So by saying humans are meat (and therefor food), you are basically advocating for humans to act as animals.
    - dejb 17y ago
      > Leaving aside for the moment your assumption that eating animals is equal to torturing them I don't assume or believe this. What I referred to was modern factory farming or feedlots. Pigs in particular are subject to some of the most horrific living circumstances. But you have had enough opportunities to state that you believe the torture of animals is in any way wrong. Since you have failed to do so I think it is reasonable to proceed with the view that you believe it to be OK if there is even a small utility value in it. > Your request is to view the world from the point of view of the animal. Well animals do not care in the slightest about the pain of another animal. So now you are arguing that we should be taking our moral cues from animals? This is somewhat akin to the argument about the terrorist being so evil that we need to resort to their tactics - except the 'terrorists' here are defenceless animals. The second sentence here is almost certainly untrue. Such broad statement should require at least some evidence. > I prefer to view the world from the point of view of a human. The more angles you can view a situation from, the better your model of reality is. In chess you need to view the game from your opponent's perspective and in relationships you need to try to understand how your partner feels. Similarly in interactions with animals it makes sense to try to model their behaviour by taking their perspective. This is the case if you have a pet, are hunting or are being hunted. I believe this is an advantageous and natural human trait. Because we have more surplus brain power we can do it better than other animals. A necessary part of running this model accurately is to glimpse at some of the likely/obvious feelings of the animal being modelled. Those who don't feel any discomfort at the extreme pain of an animal are either censoring their view or they simply don't have the mental capacity to construct an accurate model. Either way I believe it is an impoverished way of viewing reality. Hopefully this extend description has at least allowed you to understand my argument. > To an animal everything is food, there is no category "not food". This is an obviously incorrect statement. Koala bears only eat Eucalyptus leaves. In percentage terms roughly 90% the of animal biomass is necessarily formed through eating plants. Carnivorous animals are by necessity a small minority. > So by saying humans are meat (and therefor food), you are basically advocating for humans to act as animals. This is a silly argument that doesn't follow from anything I have said. Even under your logic there is another option - don't eat meat. But that is a different argument.

by dejb 17y ago

ars 17y ago

By your comparison you think you are increasing the status of animals, but really you are decreasing the status of humans. And once you make humans into animals humans no longer care about such things - animals sure don't. There is a massive and fundamental difference between animals and humans that no amount of comparing "DNA similarity or neural processes" is going to bridge. When peta runs ads about humans also being meat, then think people will stop eating animals. But actually what happens is that people think about eating humans. Do not try to increase animals to the level of humans - it does not work, and it's incorrect. Instead increase the level of humans even higher, and emphasize the difference to animals even more.

dejb 17y ago
I am stating reality as I see it and then deriving my morals from that view of reality. Your argument starts from a desired result (the 'elevation of humans') and works back toward reality from there. Humans are meat. That is reality. Even if the consequences of realising this was rampant cannibalism it wouldn't change that fact. To me the thing that separates humans from animals is also the thing that would make us not want to torture them. We are able to model reality in more detail and to do this we need to be able to consider each situation from all perspectives. Considering reality from the view of an animal in pain would cause any empathetic being some degree of pain. Those that block this or just can't see this part of reality have a second rate existence in my view and are frankly little better than animals.
- ars 17y ago
  Leaving aside for the moment your assumption that eating animals is equal to torturing them (which is not true). Your request is to view the world from the point of view of the animal. Well animals do not care in the slightest about the pain of another animal. So I reject that idea. I prefer to view the world from the point of view of a human. And humans do care, but to a human an animal is food, and a human is not. To an animal everything is food, there is no category "not food". So by saying humans are meat (and therefor food), you are basically advocating for humans to act as animals.
  - dejb 17y ago
    > Leaving aside for the moment your assumption that eating animals is equal to torturing them I don't assume or believe this. What I referred to was modern factory farming or feedlots. Pigs in particular are subject to some of the most horrific living circumstances. But you have had enough opportunities to state that you believe the torture of animals is in any way wrong. Since you have failed to do so I think it is reasonable to proceed with the view that you believe it to be OK if there is even a small utility value in it. > Your request is to view the world from the point of view of the animal. Well animals do not care in the slightest about the pain of another animal. So now you are arguing that we should be taking our moral cues from animals? This is somewhat akin to the argument about the terrorist being so evil that we need to resort to their tactics - except the 'terrorists' here are defenceless animals. The second sentence here is almost certainly untrue. Such broad statement should require at least some evidence. > I prefer to view the world from the point of view of a human. The more angles you can view a situation from, the better your model of reality is. In chess you need to view the game from your opponent's perspective and in relationships you need to try to understand how your partner feels. Similarly in interactions with animals it makes sense to try to model their behaviour by taking their perspective. This is the case if you have a pet, are hunting or are being hunted. I believe this is an advantageous and natural human trait. Because we have more surplus brain power we can do it better than other animals. A necessary part of running this model accurately is to glimpse at some of the likely/obvious feelings of the animal being modelled. Those who don't feel any discomfort at the extreme pain of an animal are either censoring their view or they simply don't have the mental capacity to construct an accurate model. Either way I believe it is an impoverished way of viewing reality. Hopefully this extend description has at least allowed you to understand my argument. > To an animal everything is food, there is no category "not food". This is an obviously incorrect statement. Koala bears only eat Eucalyptus leaves. In percentage terms roughly 90% the of animal biomass is necessarily formed through eating plants. Carnivorous animals are by necessity a small minority. > So by saying humans are meat (and therefor food), you are basically advocating for humans to act as animals. This is a silly argument that doesn't follow from anything I have said. Even under your logic there is another option - don't eat meat. But that is a different argument.