PETA's idea: Call fish 'Sea Kittens'

[Kitsune]

Can ethical considerations based upon suffering therefore be discarded, so long as the eaters don't over-consume the eatees?

So we should not at least try to put cows and pigs down in as humane a way as possible within reason?

[Kanastrous]

Can ethical considerations based upon suffering therefore be discarded, so long as the eaters don't over-consume the eatees?

So we should not at least try to put cows and pigs down in as humane a way as possible within reason?

I'm not actually advocating policy; I'm trying to feel out Aly's position. I'm personally in favor of the most humane practicable standards that don't require discarding the utilization of animals where beneficial to us.

[Junghalli]

Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On

Don't expect many advances against cancer, heart disease, disabling injuries, or aging any time soon if we follow this advice.

If you mean 'prey population crashes due to over hunting, wolf population crashes due to starvation, prey population boom, wolf population boom, repeat' then sure. In fact predators do go locally extinct from time to time due to over-hunting.

Yeah, the "problem" isn't that we're more rapacious than other predators, it's that our populations aren't as tied to those of our prey species so the natural factors that regulate predator populations (basically starvation culling the excess predators) don't apply to us as much.

[Count Chocula]

Humane treatment of, for example a cow, would in my opinion mean bringing them to a harvestable weight without deliberately inflicted suffering, and then killing them as humanely as possible. In crowded conditions, that means keeping them fed, watered, vaccinated, sheltered, etc. until they're put down with an air hammer bolt in the head.

My understanding of PETA's position is that the above condition is unethical and harmful to the cattle. There's also the inconvenient truth that PETA links to this "Meat Means Misery For The World's Hungry" vegetarian site. Their marketing ploys I've seen do very little to change matters the way they want, and probably will continue to fail as long as steak smells better than broccoli.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Somehow it seems to me that his evolutionary position is all the justification a wolf needs, to kill and eat a sheep, regardless of the degree of suffering involved on the sheep's end.

If good enough for wolves (if), then why not good enough, for humans?

Because Wolves dont despoil everything they touch. The organisms they eat co-evolved with them, and they interact to create a dynamic equilibrium with eachother's populations.

If the populations of our prey become to low, they become more economically valuable, and we create more efficient, and cost effective ways to drive their population even further down the road to oblivion.

Can ethical considerations based upon suffering therefore be discarded, so long as the eaters don't over-consume the eatees?

A wolf eating a deer is meeting a physical need for food that it has. If it does not eat the dear, it starves, and suffers, additionally, the dear are relieved of predation pressure, overshoot their carrying capacity, and starve. Predators eating their prey keeps the net-balance of suffering at its minimum. Not that the animals care.

We however base our ethics, in the end, on moral sentiment. Empathy. It is inconsistent logically for us to treat people in this way (maximize utility) but not also do the same with animals. The simple fact is, our practices right now are deeply unethical. We dont have to go as far as being vegans. But we do need to change our current practices.

[Kanastrous]

My-kind-versus-all-other-kinds is not a sufficient distinction?

[Alyrium Denryle]

My-kind-versus-all-other-kinds is not a sufficient distinction?

No. There is not anything special about any given species that can elevate them over another in any way that is not accounted for by a sliding scale of sentience.

[Kanastrous]

Except that by definition your species - the one to which you belong - occupies a privileged place, when it comes to you, and other members of that same species.

Well, unless you fall in with the PETA types who can't distinguish between slaughtering a chicken, and slaughtering a baby. Although I strongly suspect that if you were to put a knife in their hand and offer them a chicken and a baby, they would suddenly find it possible to make the distinction.

[Darth Wong]

My-kind-versus-all-other-kinds is not a sufficient distinction?

It was for Adolf Hitler.

[Kanastrous]

My-kind-versus-all-other-kinds is not a sufficient distinction?

It was for Adolf Hitler.

There seems to be a bright line between species, that does not exist between mere subgroups within the same species. Call it division-by-interfertility. If you can breed with it, it's your kind.

[Gandalf]

And there's nothing on the PETA site that is against humans owning pets, which kinda conflicts with point four above.

I think it's because when one has a pet, you spend your time caring for it and improving their quality of life. You don't raise it for food, or some other "nefarious" purpose.

[Kanastrous]

Not 'pet;' animal companion.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

How do you practically commensurate different species in a calculation of how much of x is worth y, though? This is a question in response to Aly's mice statement. A one-to-one seems fairly easy, but I can't see a practical way to weigh them without being arbitrary.

[Samuel]

And there's nothing on the PETA site that is against humans owning pets, which kinda conflicts with point four above.

I think it's because when one has a pet, you spend your time caring for it and improving their quality of life. You don't raise it for food, or some other "nefarious" purpose.

I'm pretty sure if you owned a person for that purpose, it would be illegal.

My-kind-versus-all-other-kinds is not a sufficient distinction?

It was for Adolf Hitler.

There seems to be a bright line between species, that does not exist between mere subgroups within the same species. Call it division-by-interfertility. If you can breed with it, it's your kind.

So it is okay to kill sterile people?

How do you practically commensurate different species in a calculation of how much of x is worth y, though? This is a question in response to Aly's mice statement. A one-to-one seems fairly easy, but I can't see a practical way to weigh them without being arbitrary.

If they are food, are needs come before theirs. Otherwise we deal with ethical calculations.

[Darth Wong]

My-kind-versus-all-other-kinds is not a sufficient distinction?

It was for Adolf Hitler.

There seems to be a bright line between species, that does not exist between mere subgroups within the same species. Call it division-by-interfertility. If you can breed with it, it's your kind.

Explain what this "bright line" has to do with ethics.

I can predict right now that you will be completely unable to justify your position without resorting to circular logic.

[Mayabird]

My-kind-versus-all-other-kinds is not a sufficient distinction?

It was for Adolf Hitler.

There seems to be a bright line between species, that does not exist between mere subgroups within the same species. Call it division-by-interfertility. If you can breed with it, it's your kind.

Do you know anything at all about biology? For instance, a little thing called a ring species? Or hybridization? Or how that definition of species fails for parthenogenic species like rotifers? Or hell, any species that doesn't do the whole DNA exchange thing for reproduction (all the bacteria, which also at times pick up DNA from other bacteria)? Bright line my ass.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Except that by definition your species - the one to which you belong - occupies a privileged place, when it comes to you, and other members of that same species.

Well, unless you fall in with the PETA types who can't distinguish between slaughtering a chicken, and slaughtering a baby. Although I strongly suspect that if you were to put a knife in their hand and offer them a chicken and a baby, they would suddenly find it possible to make the distinction.

Actually, that definitional claim does not hold water. In fact, it is a non-sequitur. What reason do you have to preferentially treat members of your species, versus a species with identical intelligence?

By your logic advanced aliens of intelligence equal to our own would be perfectly justified using us in an unlimited capacity for experiments or eating our babies purely to satisfy their subjective wants, or even for the purposes of deriving sadistic pleasure from our pain, because their balance of pleasure vs pain is metaphysically different from our own.

There seems to be a bright line between species, that does not exist between mere subgroups within the same species. Call it division-by-interfertility. If you can breed with it, it's your kind.

First off, this line does not actually exist. You know that thing called the biological species concept? It died when Ernst Mayr did. There are a lot of species that interbreed with eachother if given the opportunity. We have abandoned the BSC in favor of an evolutionary species concept which deals with the relationships between distinct lineages and monophyletic clades. Works much better. But it also leaves your particular half-formed argument struggling for breath like quasimodo with an airway obstruction.

How do you practically commensurate different species in a calculation of how much of x is worth y, though? This is a question in response to Aly's mice statement. A one-to-one seems fairly easy, but I can't see a practical way to weigh them without being arbitrary.

You are right. It is difficult to quantify, but so is any utilitarian calculation. Approximation however is possible, and even if it is difficult, it is possible to rank your options fairly accurately.

[Darth Wong]

Hypothetical question for Kanastrous: let's suppose that we're in some sci-fi future where humanity has expanded to other planets, and the isolated groups have become inter-sterile. Would you argue that genocidal campaigns committed by one subgroup against another would therefore be completely ethical from each side's point of view?

[Duckie]

I kind of have a question in regards to pets, especially PETA defining 'pet' as 'you don't eat it':

What is technically wrong about raising an animal to eat it? I wouldn't eat a cat, because they're funner alive than they are tasty*. But if I were to keep little dormice or something and breed them and roast up little mice cutlets as a snack?

As long as I take care of the things and kill them cleanly, I don't see why it's a massive sin on the order of raping a baby to kill a pet and eat it, as PETA and some posters seem to be implying. I could still put them in a little wheel or give them cheese or something and make them happy if I wanted, since they're kinda cute. I'd just eat them too. 'Twouldn't be like a factory farm. Hell, it's probably nicer than a factory farm.

I don't see what's so wrong with that. It worked for the Romans.

That said when I can go get a salami sandwich from a sandwich shop for a couple bucks or a frozen dinner with chicken in it for a dollar, it'd be quite silly to go through all the trouble of raising one's own food. Gross, too, to have to butcher it yourself.

*Ignoring the technical problems in the cost incurred for learning butchery, gaining butcher's equipment, meat storage, hygiene, learning to cook effectively, startup expenses for a breeding pair of animals, food for animals, the grossness of butchering, low yield, high cost compared to just buying a sandwich for a long or perhaps permanent time due to startup costs, etc. This is more a theoretical question.

[Coyote]

Raising an animal for food isn't a "pet", it's a different name: "livestock".

[Duckie]

Raising an animal for food isn't a "pet", it's a different name: "livestock".

Well, true, I guess. I was just wondering why the default was treated that you can't treat an animal nicely and eat it at different times (well, the latter last for obvious reasons) and that you can either have 'animals as pets' or 'animals as factory farm slaughterfest' which is the dichotomy PETA seems to be pushing on there.

I dunno, I was just curious. I've heard PETA say a lot about factory farms and meat industry, but very little about a farmer eating his own chickens, and even less about someone having a pet dog (although I know at least one guy, Gary Yoroufsky, who does talks at colleges across the country wants animal seperatism (!) and repayment of debts and sins for all the animals we've wronged, like fur-coat wearers to be raped to death, etc (!!) )

[Ryan Thunder]

What reason do you have to preferentially treat members of your species, versus a species with identical intelligence?

Because it's my fucking species? What's wrong with that?

[Alyrium Denryle]

What reason do you have to preferentially treat members of your species, versus a species with identical intelligence?

Because it's my fucking species? What's wrong with that?

Because there is nothing metaphysically special about your species. If you accept your premise, then you must also accept that it would be ethical for an alien civ to enslave and consume us if they are able to do it.

[Ryan Thunder]

What reason do you have to preferentially treat members of your species, versus a species with identical intelligence?

Because it's my fucking species? What's wrong with that?

Because there is nothing metaphysically special about your species. If you accept your premise, then you must also accept that it would be ethical for an alien civ to enslave and consume us if they are able to do it.

Well, aside from it being our species. You're thinking too abstractly; think practically. We want to survive. That comes first.

Why should we expect it of ourselves to follow the same ethical rules we impose on them? Actually, why should we expect them to have ethics that make sense to us, anyways?

It might seem harsh, but frankly, who gives a shit about the aliens anyway? If we can both survive together, great! If not, fuck them.

EDIT: Oh god, I'm tired. Sorry if that's hard to read...

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, aside from it being our species. You're thinking too abstractly; think practically. We want to survive. That comes first.

Then you are committing yourself to an inconsistent view of ethics. At least you admit your blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Why should we expect it of ourselves to follow the same ethical rules we impose on them? Actually, why should we expect them to have ethics that make sense to us, anyways?

See that point? It sailed over your head.

Let me break this down into something your tiny brain can understand. Yes, I am always this snippy.

You and I can both agree that the distinction between people of different ethnic groups is arbitrary ethically. We can extend this to race, Age, Religion, Sexual Orientation etc. The dstinction between species is equally meaningless when it comes to ethics. We cannot say that causing suffering to people is bad, but causing suffering to a lizard is not bad, and remain consistent. This does not mean that we have to weigh one lizard and one person the same. But it does mean that when given two options: one causing a marginal gain in utility for people while causing a catastrophic loss in utility for lizards (Like building a housing development and bulldozing lizard habitat); and another option that might even decrease our marginal utility but massively increase the utility for the lizards (an example of this would be NOT building a suburban housing development and preserving the lizard habitat, and instead building high rise apartment complexes), we much choose the second option.

It might seem harsh, but frankly, who gives a shit about the aliens anyway? If we can both survive together, great! If not, fuck them.

Oh, it would be very very easy for everything needs to be met. The problem is idiots who refuse to even consider limits on human reproduction, or decreases in their ridiculous levels of consumption (these two groups might well be partially separate groups). Survival and Zerg-Like exponential growth and are two very very different things. And if we continue on the path we are headed, we will end up with a Malthusian collapse anyway.