Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmi9mm wrote

Reply to comment by Meta_Digital in Lab-grown meat could let humanity ignore a serious moral failing by phileconomicus

> Is the question of harming animals anything but an ethical question? What else would it be?

That sounds like the same sort of reasoning that suggests that carnivores should be genetically modified to be herbivores. Which is nonsense. Nature has made us what we are. I believe that to be a justification for being that way.

2

Meta_Digital t1_itmig8i wrote

This just sounds like the naturalistic fallacy to me.

It's also a red herring because we are omnivores and thus capable of making a choice one way or another. This is where ethics come in.

13

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmkjk3 wrote

Which ethics is that?

0

Meta_Digital t1_itml22m wrote

The question of whether or not we can justify the animal suffering and death necessary to perpetuate meat consumption.

6

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmlb17 wrote

Sure, but don't you think you'll end up at a different conclusion depending on where you start? What ethical framework are you using for your own conclusions?

−1

Meta_Digital t1_itmm2qy wrote

I don't know of an ethical framework that's yet been able to launch a successful defense for eating meat, honestly.

4

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmn11j wrote

Which is exactly why people are commenting that this isn't philosophy/ethics. Easier to dismiss outright than face something they don't want to acknowledge.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmn6de wrote

Is it ever okay to kill an animal for food?

1

Meta_Digital t1_itmnvq8 wrote

My personal take is that if you're talking about the survival of one animal vs. the survival of another animal, then we're discussing something more primordial than ethics. That is; the prerequisites for ethics haven't been met.

If we're talking about eating an animal simply because it's pleasurable, though, then I think you'd have to somehow find a way to justify that animal's suffering and death to create that pleasure and I'm not sure this is possible to ethically justify.

7

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmq7nz wrote

What if cows were bred each year for decades so that you had a rolling supply of cows dying of natural causes? Is it ok to eat them then?

0

Meta_Digital t1_itmrcfr wrote

I suppose it depends on their treatment in that case; though we usually don't eat old animals after they die from natural causes so I'm not sure this is ever going to realistically happen.

3

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmun8n wrote

But it's ok to eat these animals, right?

−1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmv25j wrote

Probably not, because the use of resources needed to raise such animals is detrimental to the environment.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmx3l5 wrote

That's a dishonest evasion. Is it or is it not OK to eat a cow that has died of natural causes?

0

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmy5mw wrote

That wasn't your question. Your question was whether it's okay to raise and then eat a cow that dies from natural causes.

A wild cow? Probably also not, if you consider that a wild carcass is part of the ecosystem. But as for what you're really tacitly asking: no, you haven't done a moral harm to the cow per se by eating it then.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmzh2q wrote

You introduced a new variable to the scenario to try and stretch the goalpost a little further rather than just answering the question considering the context in which it was asked. That was dishonest from my perspective. You could see that the debate was about eating meat in the context of suffering. Regardless, you've answered.

Is it a moral harm to eat a man that died of natural causes?

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itn4urv wrote

It's a multi-faceted issue. The real dishonesty would be in ignoring that.

>Is it a moral harm to eat a man that died of natural causes?

Not to that man.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itn78ay wrote

So if no one knows about it cannibalism is alright?

0

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itn7zev wrote

Do you think that cannibalism harms that man? Or do you agree that this is another multi-faceted issue where other factors need to be taken into account?

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itn84vh wrote

Is cannibalism inherently wrong?

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itn8xe4 wrote

Yes, but not because of harm done to that person in particular. It's multi-faceted, don't you agree?

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itn9f1p wrote

I'm not so sure.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itn9ka9 wrote

Are you going to elaborate?

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnampr wrote

I don't believe in cannibalism.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itnasfa wrote

Okay, you've clearly run out of arguments to contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Let me know if you think of something of value to add.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnht7r wrote

Lol, I've not done anything but ask questions to discover if it was inherently wrong to eat meat, apparently not. I then asked whether it was inherently wrong to eat a human being, apparently it isn't. The problem is that I agree with the first but not the second.

As a human I can express my will not to be eaten (or have my organs harvested) in the event of my death. Animals don't seem to have the capacity for this particular will. But then again you can see even plants demonstrate a desire to survive/live in the way they reach deeper in search of water and stretch towards the sun. That desire to live doesn't seem to stop anyone from cutting them down in their prime and consuming them. Similarly when I watch videos of microorganisms moving around, hunting and eating under a microscope it becomes obvious that even they have a desire to survive/live but no one seems to mind consuming fermented foods and beverages. It seems to me that a desire to survive/live isn't enough to explain whether something should be eaten or not. Nonetheless I still believe it's okay for me to survive at the expense of other living things and at the same time I don't believe in cannibalism.

I imagine now that the real justification is something like: the more dissimilar from me something appears the more excusable it is for me to destroy for my benefit. As a result you get a hierarchy of value that goes something like humans>animals (mammals on top)>plants>simple organisms>molecules>... In terms of consumption I guess some people think it's okay to organize this as "humans>everything" and some people like to take it to "humans + animals > everything." I'm not so sure I'm content by that hypothesis. I think how far you decide you want to go down that ladder, what a person decides to consume, is entirely arbitrary; it's all wrong or it's all right.

I may think cannibalism is wrong but what if someone asked to be cannibalized? A man can't give their consent to be murdered. There must be something objectively wrong with the act of murdering another human so that it's not even okay if the "victim" requests to be murdered. Cannibalism is wrong, but is it OK if the dead man wills it? So does that make it different than murder somehow? I don't know if it is. I think once you eat a human, willed or not, your consumption changes from "human>everything" to "me>everything." Once you have established yourself as "me>everything" then whether a man wills to be eaten or not becomes irrelevant, just as the desire for survival/life of everything else isn't enough to save them. So, at that point, what makes eating humans different than eating other animals or a plants? It may be that murder and cannibalism aren't so different in this context. It may be as simple as "cannibalism is wrong."

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itnitpj wrote

I don't think you've addressed the issue at all.

Plant "desires", lifeform hierarchies, and murder all are irrelevant to the question at hand of cannibalism.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnjka0 wrote

Uh huh..

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itnkfao wrote

Well, does your monologue boil down to anything other than: "I think humans are special for really vague and spurious reasons, so I think their dead bodies are also strangely and inexplicably special." ?

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnkjcx wrote

Isn't that all it boils down to or is eating a human being ok?

0

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itnky2k wrote

That's what we call a false dichotomy.

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnln4d wrote

Either they're special and you can't eat a human or eating humans is okay = "false dichotomy." Okay, I can see you're not particularly keen on having a dialogue, you're just being toxic at this point.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itnor08 wrote

The issue is rather that you seem so uncomfortable with entertaining the notion that humans are not special or unique in moral value that you'd rather stoop to petty insults.

Edit: Sure, go ahead and block me rather than have to have a conversation that brings you face to face with the idea that maybe just maybe humans are not that special among animals and maybe just maybe that means you cannot just go around harming other animals. You'd rather insult me and block me and uncharitably assume I think we should harm humans than raise the status of other animals and think that maybe just maybe you should change your own habits. Just shows to go ya how deeply entrenched your ideology is.

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itnqz66 wrote

What the hell, when the did I insult you? I simply criticized your [pattern of] objection. If you think humans aren't privileged in relation to all other life on earth in this context then it's OK to destroy humans for your benefit the same way it's OK to destroy other things for your benefit - since it's all the same, right? I really don't think you believe that. I think you actually agree with me but don't want to play along. I don't think you actually disagree with me but are rather in a bad way and don't want to play along with the discussion. While I'm trying to explore this idea you're trying to explore ways you can pick at my responses to you. I think my assessment was correct. You may disagree.

What I've gotten so far is:

X - asks a few questions

Y - You demand: "Give me more"

X - gives you more

Y - "it wasn't good enough!"

X - "OK.."

Y - *Well i don't like your answer"

X - "But isn't it basically the answer?"

Y - "Wrong!"

X - "You're wrong!"

Y - "DON'T YOU LOB PETTY INSULTS AT ME!" D:<

1

Blueberry_206 t1_itprino wrote

>If you think humans aren't privileged in relation to all other life on earth in this context then it's OK to destroy humans for your benefit the same way it's OK to destroy other things for your benefit - since it's all the same, right?

Maybe it's not OK to destroy anything for our benefit? That way - yes, it's all the same.

2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmnnbx wrote

Sure, in marginal cases. But arguments from marginal cases don't make good day to day ethics.

4

After_Kick_4543 t1_itmvt61 wrote

How about one along the lines of I am part of nature and I am an animal, no matter how smart I may be to deny my nature is to deny myself? Plus animals can be treated well and still killed for meat.

−3

Meta_Digital t1_itmwmsk wrote

Sure, I think there's actually a compelling argument that we're animals and this goes beyond ethics to some degree. I don't think this is an excuse to escape entirely from ethics, but I do think it serves as a framework for understanding our own limitations when enforcing upon ourselves a rigorous and unforgiving ethical mandate.

Should the lack of a defense for meat eating eradicate all meat consumption? I think that's an interesting question honestly, and I suspect that addressing it helps to also calm the fears of meat lovers who feel threatened by calls for vegetarianism or veganism.

5

After_Kick_4543 t1_itmxvwq wrote

Yeah no for sure just cause we eat meat doesn’t mean we should treat the animals we eat terribly while they’re alive and that we shouldn’t balance the benefits of eating meat with the moral, practical, and environment costs. I just don’t feel the idea of completely getting rid of one of our basic food sources makes sense.

1

Meta_Digital t1_itmyo12 wrote

Personally I eat meat, though not very often. This is consistent with a lot of humans throughout history and it's very easy to maintain a healthy diet doing it. It's what I would advocate as the next step. As I see it, advocating for veganism is a little like advocating for communism. It might be something that is easily possible in the distant future, but we need to take steps if we wish to one day get there. It would be a radical reorganization of the food industry to shift to my diet, much less a fully vegetarian one.

1

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmin6f wrote

Is it not the case that the reason that we as a species developed our large brain and reasoning faculties is because we ate meat?

−1

Meta_Digital t1_itmisbm wrote

Our brain probably evolved through natural selection, which is a very distinct process from ethics.

10

Your_Trash_Daddy t1_itn9e88 wrote

But it's generally the considered consensus in evolution that our brains became large because our archaic ancestors started eating meat.

0

Meta_Digital t1_itnab2c wrote

I think this line of reasoning is still contentious. It might have been correlative rather than causal. It might have been coincidental or accidental. After all, plenty of pea brained animals also eat meat.

Even if it's true, it's still not a very convincing argument for meat consumption being ethical.

5

Your_Trash_Daddy t1_itndtb3 wrote

Is it more ethical when the animals are hunted, rather than farmed?

1

Meta_Digital t1_itne4l7 wrote

As I said in another reply, if you're hunting for survival then you're engaging in an activity too primordial for the preconditions for ethical behavior to even exist.

If you're killing animals just because the taste and texture of their flesh gives you pleasure, then you're going to have a hard time finding an ethical argument for doing so.

That being said, hunting is significantly better than factory farms.

3

Orel_T t1_itpf9rv wrote

Neuroscientist here, This line of reasoning is not contentious at all. We are the only species that in a short amount of time (evolution terms) changed so drastically and it is generally agreed upon that it is because we learned to hunt and cook meat, extracting way more calories from that. That also cleared out schedule enough to be more social and inventive.

No other animal cooks meat.

After thousands of years of evolution eating meat and relying on it for many vitamins and minerals it is not so simple to remove it entirely without consequences. Plant protein, and some vitamins and minerals do net get absorbed efficiently. Studies have shown the possibilities of health issues. That sound like a moral argument to me. harm to animals Vs. harm to self.

1

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmixs3 wrote

But without that process, there would be no ability to understand and consider ethics.

−1

Meta_Digital t1_itmjbga wrote

So is your point that because evolution brought us to the point where we can consider things ethically that we should not consider things ethically and instead just appeal only to evolution?

12

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmjxoz wrote

No, my point is that the ethics we choose should make allowance for who we are and where we come from. The idea that there is some absolute ethics imposed from above is anathema to me.

0

Meta_Digital t1_itmllzy wrote

Well, sure, I agree that an externally imposed ethics isn't the best. At the same time, this doesn't excuse us from ethics. We still have to be able to create an ethical justification for meat consumption. I'm not aware of one, but should one emerge, then it would lend more weight to the decision to eat meat.

8

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmkz59 wrote

How high above are we talking? Where does objective morality come from? Are you arguing there is no objective morality?

3

AllanfromWales1 t1_itml7db wrote

Absolutely I'm arguing there is no objective morality unless you believe in a transcendent Deity who defines such a morality. I don't.

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmlfy0 wrote

So everything is permitted - so long as you can get away with it I suppose. Good and evil are just a matter of what's trendy.

−3

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmmfii wrote

That's very much not what I said. In my opinion, ethics should be based on the ways to act which are best for, in descending order, the social group, society at large, humanity, the biosphere and the universe as a whole. There will be competing interests here, of course, and for me that is the valid area for ethical debate.

−1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmncmx wrote

Animals don't belong in any of those categories for ethical consideration?

3

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmnjfd wrote

Animals form part of the biosphere.

−1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmnskd wrote

Yes, so, coming back to your original comment, talking about how we ought to treat them very much IS a moral issue.

4

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmosbw wrote

Indeed, but their welfare does not trump other issues.

0

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmphla wrote

You haven't really supported that argument either, other than simply stating your preferred hierarchy.

3

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmqsde wrote

Again, that is my personal view of how a non-absolute morality could be derived, based on the concept of a 'common good' with expanding circles of commonality. I am sure there are alternative options, and am happy to consider them. What I'm not willing to consider is an imposed morality from 'above'.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmr96a wrote

Do you have any actual arguments to support your personal view? I agree that we needn't have a morality "from above," but when your critique of the article is that it doesn't support a moral assumption, I would assume you have something more solid and supported to counter it with.

2

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmrtpy wrote

What I said was:
> Absolute nonsense from beginning to end. It makes the a priori assumption that harming animals is a moral issue, and never questions that position.

Now I'm not saying there isn't a moral argument to be made, just that assuming it without question is not good philosophy.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmsd7m wrote

You already admitted that it is a moral issue. Just because you don't agree with the moral conclusion the author makes doesn't mean it's suddenly not a moral issue.

2

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmstiq wrote

Just because I think it's a moral issue doesn't mean that it can be assumed without question. Also, the paper treats it as a moral imperative, which is something else entirely.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmt30y wrote

I doubt you make that claim when an article makes the case against human trafficking.

2

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmtxry wrote

Doubt on.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmu33d wrote

So I guessed right.

Edit to add: You're setting a bar for this article that we obviously don't set for a multitude of other issues, simply because you disagree with it. That's bad faith right there.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmpg9q wrote

Sure but there is no objective morality so all morality is simply a matter of opinion. There's nothing real about morality, it's just that a mode of behaviour is more or less trendy within the "social group, society at large, humanity," and so on. You didn't have to explicitly state that was the case, it follows from your assertion that it must be the case. If there is no objective good then good is whatever I say it is and I can do whatever I like so long as I have the power to do so (e.g., "the state of nature"). It's actually a pretty rational take on things if you don't believe in objective morality. The Romans weren't wrong to the Romans. The Nazis weren't wrong to 9/10 Germans. Whether Alexander was great or terrible depends on where you lived. It's not a novelty.

0

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmq4oy wrote

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying, which isn't this. The concept of the 'common good' is a perfectly valid basis for a moral perspective. The issue is around what counts as 'common', who (or what) is in the community. What you are suggesting is no morality at all. I think that's a stupid position to adopt.

2

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmu73j wrote

Why do you consider there to be "no morality" rather than 8 billion people with their own subjective take on morality? If my moral compass allows me to kill you then certainly I'm still moral by my own measure, you just don't like my measure. Well, I don't like yours so we're even.

I'm simply trying to illustrate what's permissible without objective morality (i.e., everything). If there is no objective morality then morality isn't a "real" thing that exists. If "murder is wrong" doesn't exist objectively somewhere out there then it doesn't actually exist at all. We avoid murdering because we don't happen to find it trendy (it has been before) or because we don't have the power to actualize our will to commit murder (people have before).

I think what you're imagining is a scenario where you and some other people get together to decide among yourselves a version of morality you can force upon the world. So long as everyone is obeying your group's subjective morality it's as though an objective morality actually exists, but what makes YOUR moral code the correct one? You decide that it's because it satisfies conditions A, B, C but you just decided that those conditions had to be satisfied. I could decide that morality needs to satisfy X, Y, Z instead and conclude an entirely different system of morality that opposes yours completely. What's wrong for you, of course may be right for me. You can get the allies behind you, I'll get the axis behind me and the result is whoever is more powerful decides which subjective moral system survives. This isn't unlike the world today (sovereigns are still in the state of nature).

1

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmuow1 wrote

You really don't understand at all what I've been saying. I've tried enough, if you won't or can't understand so be it. But just for my interest, where do you believe objective morality comes from?

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmwu4d wrote

Who said I believed in objective morality? If there is an objective morality of the universe then the universe must have a design, right? Then there must be a designer which imbued the universe with that objective moral truth, right? This is the line one would have to argue.

I found the "so is it good because God says so or is God simply the messenger of what is good?" argument to be pretty good at discrediting the objective moral goodness of God until I heard an argument that went something like "Goodness is an essential element of the concept of God" (Craig). I'll paste a quote about this below.

Either way, you don't have to believe in objective morality to recognize that without it morality is not actually "real." It would be up to everyone to decide for themselves, even if that includes rape and murder.

"You state your fundamental question as follows: How do we know that God is good?Now at one level, as I explained in last week’s Question #294, that question is easy to answer: it is conceptually necessary that God be good. That is to say, goodness belongs to the very concept of God, just as being unmarried belongs to the concept of a bachelor. For (i) by definition God is a being worthy of worship, and only a being which is perfectly good would be worthy of worship; and (ii) as the greatest conceivable being God must be morally perfect, since it is better to be morally perfect than morally flawed."

That's from this page: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/on-the-goodness-of-god

1

AllanfromWales1 t1_itnaoga wrote

For what it's worth, that argument only really applies if God is transcendent. If God is purely immanent, it makes little sense.

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itni931 wrote

Please, go on. I've not heard this criticism before.

1

AllanfromWales1 t1_itp0uxd wrote

A copypasta (with minor modifications) from elsewhere on Reddit:

>Immanent vs Transcendent Deity

> For me, the key issue is the distinction between a transcendent deity and an immanent deity. YHWH is a transcendent deity - He exists outside of the world, created it, rules over it, and judges us for the extent to which we obey him. For me Deity is immanent rather than transcendent - it is in and of the world, not an external creator, but rather a manifestation of Nature itself. In other words, it doesn't rule over the world, it is the world. It is certainly not judgemental. The only incentive to worship it is the joy and inner peace you can get from being close to nature.

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itprw47 wrote

God is supposed to be the first cause so it should always be transcendent, or it isn't God, but I imagine it's also of this world since it's supposed to be omnipresent.

Explain why the argument doesn't work if it's immanent. Is the idea that if God is all things of reality then God is also in all evil things? I've considered this before. Is this what you mean?

1

AllanfromWales1 t1_itq1zpt wrote

Not a great believer in the good/evil dichotomy. Nature is 'red in tooth and claw', so if my Deity is immanent in nature, it includes that side of things. I don't accept that is evil, though.

1

After_Kick_4543 t1_itmsxay wrote

But the option in being an omnivore is not to stop being an omnivore but in the balance of meat and plants you will eat not in throwing one of those out

−4

Meta_Digital t1_itmtlsx wrote

To be a vegetarian, you have to first be an omnivore and then decide not to eat meat. This doesn't stop you from being an omnivore. Herbivores can't make this decision; they have to eat plants. Same with carnivores. They don't get to decide.

Similarly, you can't decide to stop being an omnivore any more than you can decide to stop being a carbon based lifeform. You can only decide what to do as an omnivore.

7

After_Kick_4543 t1_itmuf2a wrote

Maybe definitionally but if you decide to stop eating meat completely you’ve functionally stopped being an omnivore. Plus the idea that despite having a choice one of those choices is always wrong no matter what just doesn’t sound realistic. Eating meat has advantages either in the fact that certain nutrients are more easily digestibly accessible through meat or the fact that the animals we get meat from also provide fertilizer for our plants and often are fed with waste products from crops that humans cannot eat to begin with.

−3

Meta_Digital t1_itmvw7d wrote

Well, again, an omnivore who decides not to eat meat isn't an herbivore. There's a decision there and that decision is what we call ethics. So it's an important distinction.

The claim that there's advantages to eating meat isn't very well supported. It's certainly easier, but that's largely due to the fact that meat consumption is the norm (more than in any historical period in fact).

We synthesize most of our fertilizers thanks to the Nazi tech we employ. If we wanted to maximize the use of animal produced fertilizers, we'd have them grazing in our fields rather than using fossil fuels to transport it. Also, it wouldn't be necessary to eat those animals.

6

After_Kick_4543 t1_itmx3w0 wrote

I understand but I think that’s more of a technicality.

Ok but your decision is nonsensical it’s like saying that because you’re breathing carbon dioxide and there’s too much carbon dioxide in the air you shouldn’t breath air out in the open but should instead stay inside a bubble that filters out the carbon.

Then tell me what’s not supported.

And finally you can probably make the calculation on the amount of fertilizer a cow will produce over a given period of time and how much that will improve your crop yield versus the nutrition you’d get from simply eating it. And you can further perform the calculation on the carbon cost of transporting the manure versus creating it in a factory

0

Your_Trash_Daddy t1_itn97p4 wrote

The problem is, that's a straw man argument. You start off with it being the killing of animals. I could easily start it off with the necessary eating of other life forms. Both are true, but expressing it as if that is the issue, killing animals, is disingenuous at best, and as I said, definitely a strawman.

1