a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by bioemerl
bioemerl  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Is an animal’s marked intelligence really reason enough not to eat it?

Reasons I can see, outside of "objective morality" that morality even exists.

+Without it society wouldn't work.

-You can't trust a person that would kill you

-You can't trust a society that will off you if you ever end up disabled

-You can't trust a society that will be fine if you are killed for another's gain

-A society works best when people respect and do not actively get in each other's way

-A society works best when all it's members are in a healthy mental, emotional, and physical state.

Animals are not part of society. I don't care how smart they are, until they are smart enough to respect property rights or get a job, I will feel zero remorse for eating them.

Animals that are peoples pets are a part of society. I do care about my pets, and it will hurt me if you hurt my pets. If you eat an animal that is commonly a pet, you will run a high risk of eating someone's pet. Secondly, sometimes people just don't like doing things because culture. Many countries eat dogs, cats, horses, and some treat cows as pets.

Abuse of an animal causes a) that animal to remain alive and fearful of humans, it may very well go on to kill someone. I'm sure there are stories of dogs getting out and killing after mistreatment. B) abuse of an animal reflects on your personality. I do not want to share a house, a street, or a mcdonalds with someone who will hurt to make themselves feel better.

___

So there it is. "Why is abuse of animals bad when we eat them!", "Why is it moral to kill pigs that are smarter than dogs", "what about disabled people, why not eat them". All of those questions are misleading and based on a kinder-gardeners understanding of morals. "hurting things is bad" "you should share" "no tattling".

And if we find aliens that are delicious, or aliens find us delicious... Well, we better hope we/they have comparable societies. Otherwise we/they just found a new source of food and/or war.

(also any intelligent species would wage war, making eating their meat not worth it at all.)





rob05c  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I think your definition of morality is a higher abstraction of Ethical Egoism, or Randianism. Most Ethical theories are value-based. That humans have inherent value, aside from their value to society. Without a value-based system, serious problems arise.

    "Why is abuse of animals bad when we eat them!", "Why is it moral to kill pigs that are smarter than dogs", "what about disabled people, why not eat them". All of those questions are misleading and based on a kinder-gardeners understanding of morals.

Can you provide a defense of why your value-less system does not imply those things, rather than an ad hominem attack?

    Abuse of an animal causes

Those statements are anecdotal and cherry-picked to support a preconceived belief.

    I do not want to share a house, a street, or a mcdonalds with someone who will hurt to make themselves feel better.

So, you object to BSDM neighbors?

But I'm mostly interested in your defense of why your ethical position doesn't support eating disabled people.

bioemerl  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Without a value-based system, serious problems arise.

I see none.

    Can you provide a defense of why your value-less system does not imply those things, rather than an ad hominem attack?

It does have all those things. It doesn't simply state them as true because they are true. Things need reason and context, unless they are universal truths.

    Those statements are anecdotal and cherry-picked to support a preconceived belief.

Can you state a positive thing that comes from animal abuse?

    So, you object to BSDM neighbors?

BDSM is not "hurting someone".

    But I'm mostly interested in your defense of why your ethical position doesn't support eating disabled people.

I love it when I get to quote myself

    -You can't trust a society that will off you if you ever end up disabled

    -A society works best when all it's members are in a healthy mental, emotional, and physical state.

How do you think killing the disabled effects their mothers, their families? How and who are you to say if a disabled person is actually useless or not?

_refugee_  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Can you clarify on how BDSM is not "hurting someone"? I'll definitely give that it's not non-consensually hurting someone. I'll also give that people who are into BDSM are into different things that fall under that umbrella, and not all of them involve physical pain.

But I've also read about BDSM practices (and know people who've partaken in them) that involve getting whipped; hanging themselves from the ceiling via hooks inserted in their skin; insertion of needles, often many needles, into the hundreds, into their skin; biting so hard that bruises arise (and I'm sure some people experience broken skin), etc, etc, etc. It is undeniable that these practices cause pain.

I'm thinking that your answer may lie in the fact that BDSM is consensual - which is basically the only reason that the treatment of a person in such a manner is okay - but to be honest, I have often struggled with this being the only thing that makes BDSM okay, because after all a cutter for instance is cutting him or herself with consent, but we do not allow that in society regardless.

bioemerl  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Can you clarify on how BDSM is not "hurting someone"?

A couple that does BDSM are not going to be negatively effected in their lives. Heck, they may be positively effected from their kinky sexy times.

    It is undeniable that these practices cause pain

Pain is a feeling, being hurt is more than pain.

    because after all a cutter for instance is cutting him or herself with consent, but we do not allow that in society regardless.

A cutter risks killing themselves. It also not really looked well upon based on the whole fact that "cutting" is a very bad way of dealing with negative emotions. Cutting is a sign that something is fucked up and needs fixed. There is a reason it's teens with little emotional control that do "cut".

_refugee_  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    A cutter risks killing themselves....There is a reason it's teens with little emotional control that do "cut".

Neither of these are accurate statements though. It's common for instance in adult sufferers of bipolar disease. In addition, cutting isn't done with suicide in mind and it doesn't even have to occur on the wrists - thighs, stomach, etc - and with no potential to kill.

bioemerl  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Neither of these are accurate statements though.

I'm sorry?

    It's common for instance in adult sufferers of bipolar disease.

How does that contradict " little emotional control "?

    In addition, cutting isn't done with suicide in mind and it doesn't even have to occur on the wrists

It most often does, however. Secondly, there remains risk of infection or death with cutting. BDSM rarely gets to that point AFAIK(which is very little admittedly). You don't have to have suicide in mind to nick an artery, and it's really easy to do when cutting yourself regularly with a knife.

_refugee_  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It negates "teens."

I don't think you know enough about BDSM in order to be accurate in your statements. I'm familiar enough with it to know that plenty of it involves breaking the skin, risking as much infection / if not more (another partner = foreign bodily fluids, spit semen whatever, that are full of foreign bacteria).

bioemerl  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I'm familiar enough with it to know that plenty of it involves breaking the skin, risking as much infection / if not more (another partner = foreign bodily fluids, spit semen whatever, that are full of foreign bacteria).

It's still minor in comparison to cutting.

_refugee_  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

How? A secondary partner ensures that blades are cleaned between use? That scissors are disinfected? Lashings from a whip are a-ok as long as someone else administers them?

bioemerl  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

How? In cutting you are directly cutting yourself, multiple times with a knife blade. You can very easily hit an artery while doing so.

A whip, however, is not likely to do so, and will probably leave no more than surface scratches.

Secondly, cutting still hints at underlying issues that need to be solved. BDSM does not.

_refugee_  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Nope. You're making a ton of assumptions here.

bioemerl  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Because I'm sure that those who cut are happy, healthy, human beings.

_refugee_  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

And I'm equally sure that that can be said of all or even most individuals who practice bdsm

bioemerl  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

BDSM is something that is present in a random set of the population, you can't really pin it on a personality or state of mind.

Cutting, however, represents a not-so-stable emotional state.

rob05c  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Can you state a positive thing that comes from animal abuse?

The lack of a positive doesn't make something morally wrong.

    -You can't trust a society that will off you if you ever end up disabled

The "trust" thing is a rather weak argument. I think society would continue to function if disabled people were "euthanized." Societies in the past have. Besides, what if it's a genetic disability that I'll never get? Then I don't have to worry.

    A society works best when all it's members are in a healthy mental, emotional, and physical state.

Um, that sounds like a Utilitarian argument that we should kill permanently disabled people to me.

    How do you think killing the disabled effects their mothers, their families?

How do you think eating animals makes vegans feel?

Sorry, my arguments are somewhat aggressive. I should clarify: I'm not attacking you. I'm certainly not defending animal abuse or forced euthanasia. I'm not even defending vegetarianism. I think there are plenty of good arguments against it…I just don't buy your ethical system.

bioemerl  ·  3463 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    The lack of a positive doesn't make something morally wrong.

The lack of a positive along with the existence of negatives does, however.

    The "trust" thing is a rather weak argument. I think society would continue to function if disabled people were "euthanized."

It would also continue to function if we killed and ate half of the babies that were born.

I'd rather have a better society than a functional one.

    Besides, what if it's a genetic disability that I'll never get?

Saying "lets kill everyone with a disability because they aren't productive" does not only specify genetic disabilities. Saying "lets try to cut out genetic disabilities" cannot be done without also cutting down diversity and hurting humanity more than you help it.

    How do you think eating animals makes vegans feel?

Unless the vegan knows the animals in question personally, I honestly don't care. The question of "I think this is immoral" is different than the question of "you killed my pet". It is not traumatizing for vegans to know that other people eat meat. It is traumatizing to have your kid killed for the better good.