- Like many animals, the octopus is occasionally cannibalistic—does that make it any more or less O.K. to eat? And if we could grow octopus meat in a lab, would it still be palatable? Last year, the Times Magazine ran a story about Dylan Mayer, a teen-ager who legally wrestled, caught, and ate a giant Pacific octopus off the coast of Seattle, causing an uproar. “Mayer’s real offense,” the piece concludes, “may have been forcing a community to realize that just because they’ve embraced local fare doesn’t mean they’re necessarily ready to see, in gory detail, it slaughtered or hunted or punched out and dragged from the bay.” In my opinion, Mayer is on solid footing—he swam for his dinner. It’s the rest of us, outsourcing death to the supply chain, who have something to think about. It is impossible for us to fully know the inner lives of octopuses, but the more we continue to study them and other forms of life, the closer we can come to a working definition of “intelligence.” The real quandary here is, when we find them, what if aliens turn out to be delicious?
Not for me. I've never found value in any of the vegetarian/vegan movements. It's all very nice on paper to not want to eat an animal, but it just strikes me as ridiculous. I'm quite positive I'll anger some by having this opinion, but here I go anyway. It seems to me like some people never got over the death of a pet as a child, and as a result, carry around a guilt about killing animals, then rationalize it in any way they can. I grew up on a farm. When I wasn't raising poultry of some sort (usually chickens, ducks, pheasants, but also sometimes peacocks and other animals (we didn't eat peacocks)), I was helping my Uncle with his hog farm. I loved my animals. I had a Rhode Island Red hen that'd sit on my arm while I was feeding the others. I love animals in general. That doesn't mean I'm not going to eat them. Intending to eat them doesn't mean I'm going to be cruel to them. I AM completely against the GMO chickens and all of that (being massively uneducated in that, I don't know the name). I don't like the industrialization of the farm, with overgrown chickens who can't move (animal cruelty, in my opinion) and the grinders that kill and destroy unneeded chicks. I find the use of cattle guns and leaving open holes in the side of cattle intolerably cruel. All of this is very bad. I don't care if an animal is intelligent or not, it shouldn't be the subject of cruelty. I've had to kill animals before eating them before, and I've always done it as quickly and as close to painlessly as possible. I learned to the first time I failed to kill a rooster because I was using a dull blade, and had to suffocate it to put it out of the misery I'd accidentally forced it into. Endangered animals should be protected, and I'd be all for putting restrictions on the incorporation of the farm and moving back to open range farms (all of the farms I've been on have been open range). But when it comes down to it, I'm eating that damn chicken. It's tasty. Morality is great, but to say it should prevent us from eating our prey is fallacy. Every time this discussion comes up, I'm reminded of the lion from Futurama. Sure, you can survive without eating meat, and if you want to do that more power to you, but it's a valuable food source. --- Animals are assholes. I, more than once, saw hogs trample over one another and kill the smaller ones to get to food. They weren't starving, they got fed at least twice a day, and there's constantly food in the trough. They just want it NOW because they hear it. They're not hungry. They hear food, and they want it now. Same way it works anywhere else. Prey = kill. And because of that, they end up trampling and killing the others around them. More than once I saw hogs eat the trampled. Disgusting, right? They don't care. It's food. --- I'm not saying any of this is "right" or even that there is a "right." This is just how I see it. For me, it's more cultural than ethical or moral. Some regions of the world eat cats and serve fish while they're still alive. To me, that'd disgusting. I'm sure some people have the same reaction when I chow down on fried chicken or catfish. I've read Omnivore's Dilemma, and then about six months later had the misfortune of being shoved into a University class revolving around the book. I yawned all the way through it. As for tasty aliens, I think it's laughable to even raise the point. I just don't care. It's a God Argument with no basis in present reality, it only exists to make the reader feel guilty.
I think maybe I should clarify this for anyone who isn't familiar with Ethics theory. Ought implies can means if something is physically impossible, you can't possibly say someone is morally obligated to do it. Kant formalized it. You can certainly not eat an animal if you're starving to death, and let yourself die. I'm actually bastardizing Kant here, by suggesting someone isn't morally obligated to do something which would result in their own death. Which isn't necessarily true, depending on the ethical theory you subscribe to. Kant would probably smack me.
If morality exists, I think it must needs be concerned with intelligence, rather than speciesism. If we say "only humans have value," that's just another form of Ethical Egoism. Which is as much an ethical theory as atheism is a religion. It hadn't occurred to me that humans might have an ethical obligation to domesticated animals, specifically because of the domestication. I don't think I believe it. It smells very Egoist. From Heinlein's Have Spacesuit, Will Travel: "Haven't you guessed? They're moving in on us." "You mean that they are going to kill us off and take over Earth?" She hesitated. "It might not be anything that nice." "Uh... make slaves of us?" "You're getting warmer. Kip--I think they eat meat..."unlike domesticated animals, octopuses don’t have what Pollan calls a “bargain with humanity,”
when we find them, what if aliens turn out to be delicious?
"What are they up to?" I asked.
mk, I know you have some thoughts on this and have been attempting to steer clear of octopus since having a "moment." Currently, I am sitting in what is supposed to be one of the best BBQ joints in Memphis, which puts it up there (in theory) as one of the best in the world. I just ordered a rack of pork ribs. I'm going to successfully tune out the fact that I'm eating something that once foraged, thought, and felt and enjoy. Game on!!
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.)
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. Can you provide a defense of why your value-less system does not imply those things, rather than an ad hominem attack? Those statements are anecdotal and cherry-picked to support a preconceived belief. 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."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.
Abuse of an animal causes
I do not want to share a house, a street, or a mcdonalds with someone who will hurt to make themselves feel better.
I see none. 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. Can you state a positive thing that comes from animal abuse? BDSM is not "hurting someone". I love it when I get to quote myself 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?Without a value-based system, serious problems arise.
Can you provide a defense of why your value-less system does not imply those things, rather than an ad hominem attack?
Those statements are anecdotal and cherry-picked to support a preconceived belief.
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.
-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.
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.
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. Pain is a feeling, being hurt is more than pain. 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".Can you clarify on how BDSM is not "hurting someone"?
It is undeniable that these practices cause pain
because after all a cutter for instance is cutting him or herself with consent, but we do not allow that in society regardless.
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.A cutter risks killing themselves....There is a reason it's teens with little emotional control that do "cut".
I'm sorry? How does that contradict " little emotional control "? 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.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
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).
It's still minor in comparison to cutting.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).
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.
The lack of a positive doesn't make something morally wrong. 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. Um, that sounds like a Utilitarian argument that we should kill permanently disabled people to me. 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.Can you state a positive thing that comes from animal abuse?
-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?
The lack of a positive along with the existence of negatives does, however. 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. 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. 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.The lack of a positive doesn't make something morally wrong.
The "trust" thing is a rather weak argument. I think society would continue to function if disabled people were "euthanized."
Besides, what if it's a genetic disability that I'll never get?
How do you think eating animals makes vegans feel?