5 ms·

No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Wo

by kaoD 13y ago

No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Would it be moral to raise human children, give them a nice childhood and then kill them before they reach adulthood because they're super tasty then? I'm not saying I agree (or don't) with GP, just noting that you missed his point.

PetrolMan 13y ago
Nothing is ever so black and white. I'd argue that there is a difference between killing an insect and killing a human. The difference, in my mind, is that we think an insect lacks the same capacity for experiencing pain. Edit: In the US, a lot of how cruelty is valued is based on how alike the animal is to us. Mammals get more attention than birds, which get more attention than fish. There is a hierarchy and I think it's based on how closely the animal resembles us, a part of which is the capacity for pain and suffering.
- kaoD 13y ago
  > we think an insect lacks the same capacity for experiencing pain Who thinks that? Is it true or you'd just like to think it that way? It isn't even relevant. We're talking about meat here. Animals made of meat have the same capacity for experiencing pain and self-awareness. Animals want to live and try avoid death. Even mosquitoes.
  - PetrolMan 13y ago
    We do know that insects are far, far less complicated creatures. The difference between a human brain at 100 trillion or so synapses and a fruit fly at a few million is huge. I'm simply arguing that the necessary level of complexity isn't there for a fruit fly. I'm also arguing that this is more of a continuum than a clear line. > Animals made of meat have the same capacity for experiencing pain. This is what I don't see as a clear and obvious truth. You shouldn't get on my case for throwing something out there without any kind of validation and then do the same thing yourself.
    - kaoD 13y ago
      > This is what I don't see as a clear and obvious truth. So their nervous system and brain pain centers (which look just like ours), the physical reaction to pain, the chemical reaction to pain (stress, releasing adrenaline...) and all the death avoidance... that's just a ploy? I'm not sure about mosquitoes, but I'm pretty sure meaty animals do feel pain.
coldtea 13y ago
>No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. That's a tautology. It doesn't tell us anything. The real question is, what makes EVERY killing wrong? Are you wrong for taking antibiotics? If not, why not? After all "killing is killing". Are you a murderer for killing a mosquito? Why not? Since, you know, "killing is killing". Should a lion be punished for eating an antelope? Why not? After all, "killing is killing". Should a man that caught 10 fish be put to prison for life, just the same as a man that killed 10 people? If not, why, since "killing is killing"? Perhaps you were wrong, and now you see that not all killing is equal?
- kaoD 13y ago
  Using antibiotics is a defensive reaction against an attack. It's not killing if you're legitimately defending yourself (even law considers this situation). Indeed, you're a murderer for killing a mosquito without a reason. About the lion/fishing analogies, bringing law here doesn't make sense. Law is an artificial system. Punishment is essentially arbitrary. Both the lion and the fisher are essentially murderers anyway, regardless of their punishment. --- After some downvotes I think I have to say this again: I don't hold these views and acknowledge it's a muddy topic, but you can't ignore these facts! These are legitimate points. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. My personal opinion is: the lion would eat you. The mosquito would eat you (if it could). That's just how nature works. But then again, killing another person is just how nature works too, right? I eat meat and will eat meat forever, though I can't help but feel like such an hypocrite for doing so while condemning murdering people. Not killing people is just an implicit agreement. I won't kill you if you don't kill me. It's not "morally good" or "morally bad", not killing other people is just convenient! The punishment for murder is just the punishment for breaking this agreement.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >But then again, killing another person is just how nature works too, right? I eat meat and will eat meat forever, though I can't help but feel like such an hypocrite for doing so while condemning murdering people. I fail to see the hypocrisy. You condemn murdering people because a) they are your OWN kind, and b) they have brains capable of writing HN posts. How about just constraining our moral obligation to just: don't eat/murder your own kind? Let's get to that first, abolishing capital penalty, war, murder and such, and then we can worry about eating steaks and/or prawns...
astalwick 13y ago
So, but, that's just ignoring the reality of the world. Fact is: people eat meat. People will continue to eat meat, that's not something that's going to change (in the short term, anyway). Given that, how can we improve the treatment of these animals? I feel that equating eating meat with murder is just sacrificing the good for the perfect. Lets find a way to give consumers better choice. We should be aware of the treatment of the meat we consume (and articles like these are helpful in that sense), and we should be able to make purchasing choices on that basis. We should be able to buy ethically raised / humanely slaughtered meats at the grocery store.
- kaoD 13y ago
  No, you're ignoring the reality of the issue! Whether people eat meat or not doesn't matter. How is "a lot of people do it" even a point? Slavery was a "world reality" too. Would you have suggested a compromise instead of just banning slavery?
gambiting 13y ago
I didn't. You equal animal life to human life, hence your statements like "Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death?". I do not find them equal - I find animals worth carrying about, I would like them to have decent lives, but ultimately - they are food and if they are killed quickly and painlessly then I don't have a problem with it.
- kaoD 13y ago
  Not sure if your argument holds. We're essentially food too, so it'd be okay to kill and eat you.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    Well, yes. It used to be OK. In some parts of Africa and the Amazon, it still is. But human society as a whole has moved on from the practice of cannibalism.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Not sure if your argument holds. We're essentially food too, so it'd be okay to kill and eat you. Only we have laws that prevent you for doing so, and a culture that says it's bad. Otherwise, have a go at it. Canibals, which lack such laws and culture are totally fine with eating other people.
  - kaoD 13y ago
    Precisely my point.
  - theorique 13y ago
    Cultures in which this was acceptable did not generally do it to members of their own tribe (in-group). It was only something to be done to rival tribe members (out-group) who were defeated in battle. It was an expression of domination and disrespect to opponents. (At least in Papua New Guinea - other regions YMMV)

by kaoD 13y ago

PetrolMan 13y ago

Nothing is ever so black and white. I'd argue that there is a difference between killing an insect and killing a human. The difference, in my mind, is that we think an insect lacks the same capacity for experiencing pain. Edit: In the US, a lot of how cruelty is valued is based on how alike the animal is to us. Mammals get more attention than birds, which get more attention than fish. There is a hierarchy and I think it's based on how closely the animal resembles us, a part of which is the capacity for pain and suffering.

kaoD 13y ago
> we think an insect lacks the same capacity for experiencing pain Who thinks that? Is it true or you'd just like to think it that way? It isn't even relevant. We're talking about meat here. Animals made of meat have the same capacity for experiencing pain and self-awareness. Animals want to live and try avoid death. Even mosquitoes.
- PetrolMan 13y ago
  We do know that insects are far, far less complicated creatures. The difference between a human brain at 100 trillion or so synapses and a fruit fly at a few million is huge. I'm simply arguing that the necessary level of complexity isn't there for a fruit fly. I'm also arguing that this is more of a continuum than a clear line. > Animals made of meat have the same capacity for experiencing pain. This is what I don't see as a clear and obvious truth. You shouldn't get on my case for throwing something out there without any kind of validation and then do the same thing yourself.
  - kaoD 13y ago
    > This is what I don't see as a clear and obvious truth. So their nervous system and brain pain centers (which look just like ours), the physical reaction to pain, the chemical reaction to pain (stress, releasing adrenaline...) and all the death avoidance... that's just a ploy? I'm not sure about mosquitoes, but I'm pretty sure meaty animals do feel pain.

coldtea 13y ago

>No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. That's a tautology. It doesn't tell us anything. The real question is, what makes EVERY killing wrong? Are you wrong for taking antibiotics? If not, why not? After all "killing is killing". Are you a murderer for killing a mosquito? Why not? Since, you know, "killing is killing". Should a lion be punished for eating an antelope? Why not? After all, "killing is killing". Should a man that caught 10 fish be put to prison for life, just the same as a man that killed 10 people? If not, why, since "killing is killing"? Perhaps you were wrong, and now you see that not all killing is equal?

kaoD 13y ago
Using antibiotics is a defensive reaction against an attack. It's not killing if you're legitimately defending yourself (even law considers this situation). Indeed, you're a murderer for killing a mosquito without a reason. About the lion/fishing analogies, bringing law here doesn't make sense. Law is an artificial system. Punishment is essentially arbitrary. Both the lion and the fisher are essentially murderers anyway, regardless of their punishment. --- After some downvotes I think I have to say this again: I don't hold these views and acknowledge it's a muddy topic, but you can't ignore these facts! These are legitimate points. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. My personal opinion is: the lion would eat you. The mosquito would eat you (if it could). That's just how nature works. But then again, killing another person is just how nature works too, right? I eat meat and will eat meat forever, though I can't help but feel like such an hypocrite for doing so while condemning murdering people. Not killing people is just an implicit agreement. I won't kill you if you don't kill me. It's not "morally good" or "morally bad", not killing other people is just convenient! The punishment for murder is just the punishment for breaking this agreement.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >But then again, killing another person is just how nature works too, right? I eat meat and will eat meat forever, though I can't help but feel like such an hypocrite for doing so while condemning murdering people. I fail to see the hypocrisy. You condemn murdering people because a) they are your OWN kind, and b) they have brains capable of writing HN posts. How about just constraining our moral obligation to just: don't eat/murder your own kind? Let's get to that first, abolishing capital penalty, war, murder and such, and then we can worry about eating steaks and/or prawns...

astalwick 13y ago

So, but, that's just ignoring the reality of the world. Fact is: people eat meat. People will continue to eat meat, that's not something that's going to change (in the short term, anyway). Given that, how can we improve the treatment of these animals? I feel that equating eating meat with murder is just sacrificing the good for the perfect. Lets find a way to give consumers better choice. We should be aware of the treatment of the meat we consume (and articles like these are helpful in that sense), and we should be able to make purchasing choices on that basis. We should be able to buy ethically raised / humanely slaughtered meats at the grocery store.

kaoD 13y ago
No, you're ignoring the reality of the issue! Whether people eat meat or not doesn't matter. How is "a lot of people do it" even a point? Slavery was a "world reality" too. Would you have suggested a compromise instead of just banning slavery?

gambiting 13y ago

I didn't. You equal animal life to human life, hence your statements like "Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death?". I do not find them equal - I find animals worth carrying about, I would like them to have decent lives, but ultimately - they are food and if they are killed quickly and painlessly then I don't have a problem with it.

kaoD 13y ago
Not sure if your argument holds. We're essentially food too, so it'd be okay to kill and eat you.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Well, yes. It used to be OK. In some parts of Africa and the Amazon, it still is. But human society as a whole has moved on from the practice of cannibalism.
coldtea 13y ago
>Not sure if your argument holds. We're essentially food too, so it'd be okay to kill and eat you. Only we have laws that prevent you for doing so, and a culture that says it's bad. Otherwise, have a go at it. Canibals, which lack such laws and culture are totally fine with eating other people.
- kaoD 13y ago
  Precisely my point.
- theorique 13y ago
  Cultures in which this was acceptable did not generally do it to members of their own tribe (in-group). It was only something to be done to rival tribe members (out-group) who were defeated in battle. It was an expression of domination and disrespect to opponents. (At least in Papua New Guinea - other regions YMMV)