Intelligence and Food Animals

[salm]

I don't eat animals I have a personal relationship with, like pets. I would find it a bit hard to eat an animal I have spent some time with and given a name...
Dogs and cats are a bit of the above, only stronger. I grew up with dogs and cats, so they have a special place in my heart and I'd have to think about them if I was to eat one...

And I don't eat anything I find icky or gross (or have been "taught" to find so) like insects...

See for me, insects are the ideal protein source, I just cant easily get them in a store under healthy conditions. I dont want to be eating something loaded with parasites like what you get at say, a pet store. But if I could find a place to get food grade termites... I could roast them pumpkin seeds

Would the parasites even be a problem if you roast them sufficiently? I guess they´d all die off and it would be safe to eat the insects.

[Dahak]

I don't eat animals I have a personal relationship with, like pets. I would find it a bit hard to eat an animal I have spent some time with and given a name...
Dogs and cats are a bit of the above, only stronger. I grew up with dogs and cats, so they have a special place in my heart and I'd have to think about them if I was to eat one...

And I don't eat anything I find icky or gross (or have been "taught" to find so) like insects...

See for me, insects are the ideal protein source, I just cant easily get them in a store under healthy conditions. I dont want to be eating something loaded with parasites like what you get at say, a pet store. But if I could find a place to get food grade termites... I could roast them pumpkin seeds

I don't eat just to have some nutrients. I eat because I like to eat tasty stuff. "It's a great source of X" is not going to cut it, if it either tastes disgustingly or if I simply don't want to eat it because it's gross. Like insects...

[Darmalus]

So, what would you eat? More specifically, where do you draw the line? What, if anything, do you use as your criteria? Again, this is not in an emergency situation, this is for day-to-day eating.

I will eat anything that is tasty, edible and non-toxic to me. I won't eat another human being under normal circumstances, but in an emergency, everyone is on the menu.

[Shogoki]

I always try to eat anything that's put in front of me at least once, and if it's tasty enough, keep on going, of course there are always things that make you think twice, but i'll try it anyway.

I've eaten a few insects that i found pretty tasty thanks to that, grasshoppers, some kind of ant larvae and corn ear worms are all pretty good eats.

[Korto]

So, what would you eat? More specifically, where do you draw the line? What, if anything, do you use as your criteria? Again, this is not in an emergency situation, this is for day-to-day eating.

I would be hesitant eating anything I haven't been culturally acclimatised to, but I'm confident I could shake off such qualms. As long as there was someone else eating it, too. I'm not going to be the only one eating the sheeps eyeballs!

Only... reluctant...to eat chimp? How do you justify eating an animal that is on par with small children in terms of intelligence?

I don't have to. Intelligence has as much bearing as skin colour to my decision whether it can be on my plate. Its closeness to human, however, would give me qualms.

[Singular Intellect]

I give very little thought to the intelligence of animals that I consume.

After all, why would I? I'm not going to whine or cry if some giant bear or shark intents to eat me and it doesn't take into account my intelligence level.

I've helped raise both beef and pork, and I had no qualms about what their ultimate purpose was. This didn't stop me from treating them as nice as possible and making their lives as enjoyable a possible for how long they had.

We evolved into omnivores and I see no reason to apologize for something completely beyond our current control.

I certainly do agree that humans could cut back on the meat intake; but then consuming meat than needed is only one of many excess activities humans are guilty of.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't have to. Intelligence has as much bearing as skin colour to my decision whether it can be on my plate. Its closeness to human, however, would give me qualms.

So you would be fine say, eating an intelligent alien species so long as it had no relation to humans? Do you see how broken that is?

[Mayabird]

I don't have to. Intelligence has as much bearing as skin colour to my decision whether it can be on my plate. Its closeness to human, however, would give me qualms.

So you would be fine say, eating an intelligent alien species so long as it had no relation to humans? Do you see how broken that is?

It's been my assertion for a while that if we did find an intelligent alien species (or uplifted some species to have human intelligence) the common definition of cannibalism would shift to mean "the eating of other intelligent organisms" and not just "eating others of your own species," (though biologists would probably keep using the original and current definition, which the folks on the street would find odd, just as they always do when specialists use some term differently from common usage.)

[Knife]

I don't have to. Intelligence has as much bearing as skin colour to my decision whether it can be on my plate. Its closeness to human, however, would give me qualms.

So you would be fine say, eating an intelligent alien species so long as it had no relation to humans? Do you see how broken that is?

No. Actually I don't. If they were 'intelligent' they wouldn't submit to being food would they?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't have to. Intelligence has as much bearing as skin colour to my decision whether it can be on my plate. Its closeness to human, however, would give me qualms.

So you would be fine say, eating an intelligent alien species so long as it had no relation to humans? Do you see how broken that is?

No. Actually I don't. If they were 'intelligent' they wouldn't submit to being food would they?

Most animals dont submit to being food if they can help it. Even a cow, if it does not feel safe right before the pneumatic spike goes through its head, will struggle. Don't insult my intelligence.

The way this guy's logic flows, assuming the fight for life of this hypothetical alien species could be overpowered, he has no problem eating it, because it is not evolutionarily close to humans. Aside from the prima facia brokenness there, it rests on the false premise that humans are somehow "special" and worthy of moral consideration because they have human DNA, rather than other less arbitrary categories, like the characteristics we build ethical systems upon. Like the ability to form preferences, or feel different types of pleasure and suffering.

[Knife]

Most animals dont submit to being food if they can help it. Even a cow, if it does not feel safe right before the pneumatic spike goes through its head, will struggle. Don't insult my intelligence.

Indeed, but fight or flight is hardly a hall mark of intelligence and your intelligence gets preened around here enough you just might need it insulted once in a while.

The way this guy's logic flows, assuming the fight for life of this hypothetical alien species could be overpowered, he has no problem eating it, because it is not evolutionarily close to humans. Aside from the prima facia brokenness there, it rests on the false premise that humans are somehow "special" and worthy of moral consideration because they have human DNA, rather than other less arbitrary categories, like the characteristics we build ethical systems upon.

False premise like a successful predatory behavior? Has nothing to do with 'special' as you put it and more with successful.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

What does more powerful and successful have to do with ethical behaviour towards others? So if humans are more powerful than an alien species, that means you can do as you please to them?

[Knife]

What does more powerful and successful have to do with ethical behaviour towards others? So if humans are more powerful than an alien species, that means you can do as you please to them?

It's pretty much what we do isn't it?

[Singular Intellect]

What does more powerful and successful have to do with ethical behaviour towards others? So if humans are more powerful than an alien species, that means you can do as you please to them?

It's pretty much what we do isn't it?

One need look no further than how humans can treat other humans to back up that point. Non human treatment becomes even less of an issue to many people.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What does more powerful and successful have to do with ethical behaviour towards others? So if humans are more powerful than an alien species, that means you can do as you please to them?

That is pretty much what he is saying.

Indeed, but fight or flight is hardly a hall mark of intelligence and your intelligence gets preened around here enough you just might need it insulted once in a while.

How about you not move goal posts around in your pathetic attempt at propping up an untenable position that from the looks of it boarders on vendetta posting.

You dont get to say "If they are intelligent, why do they submit to being food"(paraphrase) when referencing non-human aliens, and when it is pointed out that no animal we eat submits to being food and that these aliens probably wouldnt either, that a fight or flight response is irrelevant.

The predation avoidance was your shitty argument. Not mine. I cant help it if you are incompetent.

Argue honestly and competently or dont argue at all.

False premise like a successful predatory behavior? Has nothing to do with 'special' as you put it and more with successful.

Hear that sound? That is the sound of The Point, flying in a sublime arc right over your head.

Lets give you a refresher so this does not happen again

Humans are not special. By this I mean that you cannot create a consistent ethical system on the premise that humans are somehow specially endowed by the universe to the sole beings worthy of moral consideration.

Ex. If I kick a dog and I kick a person, say, everything is the same. The pleasure I derive from the kicking, the suffering of the person and the dog etc what is more wrong?

If you say the person, you are engaging in a special pleading fallacy. The only answer to the question phrased as such (and I phrased it that way to deliberatly equalize it. So picking apart the scenario would be a red-herring)

When Korto said that intelligence is equivalent to skin color, and that humanness was what mattered, he committed that same special pleading fallacy because there is nothing about humans (or evolutionary closeness with humans) that makes them specially endowed with moral worth.

But his position leaves him in the situation where eating a sapient alien is perfectly ethical.

I can combine that with somewhat amusing results with your defense of him.(because you obviously agree, and your poorly thought out defense left the door wide open to this)

If intelligence (and thus everything that derives from it like the capacity to suffer) is irrelevant and humanity as the metric of moral worth is fallacious, and what, as you seem to think, is the real metric of whether or not we can eat something is a successful predation event...

So long as I stalk you, and successfully run you down, pounce on you, and rip out your throat with my teeth, I am perfectly justified in consuming your flesh. But that is wrong on its face, now isnt it?

Well, maybe to me... I honestly cant say about you, eaten any babies lately?

It's pretty much what we do isn't it?

Casebook naturalistic fallacy. You know, sometimes I accidentally stumble into these because when I discuss how ethics evolved I sometimes rhetorically (even if they are separate in my head) conflate what should be, with the forces that create our conception of what should be...

this I want to think you walked into on purpose.

[Alyrium Denryle]

ghetto edit: I forgot half a sentence. Funny when I accuse my opponent of incompetence

If you say the person, you are engaging in a special pleading fallacy. The only answer to the question phrased as such (and I phrased it that way to deliberatly equalize it. So picking apart the scenario would be a red-herring) is that the two are equally wrong.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I just realized Knife, that your argument does more than justify Baby Eating. It justifies rape, slavery, the holocaust, other forms of genocide, and pretty much everything that involves exerting power over someone or something else. You (it seems now Bubble Boy, why am I not surprised) really, really need to rethink your position.

[Singular Intellect]

You (it seems now Bubble Boy, why am I not surprised) really, really need to rethink your position.

I have to rethink the idea that humans are dangerous and violent killers that will exploit other species for their own personal benefit?

[Knife]

Actually, I think my point sailed over your head.

Anyway;

Ex. If I kick a dog and I kick a person, say, everything is the same. The pleasure I derive from the kicking, the suffering of the person and the dog etc what is more wrong?

Humans are NOT special, I won't argue that and I don't think anyone else is. So humans are animals that need to eat. We eat things that taste good to us, they taste good to us because they have the necessary nutrients, just like other animals (see, not special).

As non special animals, its hard to visualize the ethical system you want to put in place to stop us from eating other 'intelligent' non special animals without making us 'special' which is pretty much an underpinning of your argument.

[Mayabird]

What does more powerful and successful have to do with ethical behaviour towards others? So if humans are more powerful than an alien species, that means you can do as you please to them?

It's pretty much what we do isn't it?

One need look no further than how humans can treat other humans to back up that point. Non human treatment becomes even less of an issue to many people.

Wait, are you saying that because humans are bastards if they're not taught better (or if they have a fucked up culture that messes them up...Saudi Arabia I am totally looking at you) that we should just throw out ethics entirely? That's like saying that if you don't teach people to read, they'll be illiterate, so we should give up on books.

We're talking ETHICS here, remember? Or does your ethical belief consist entirely of mob rule or "might makes right"?

Intelligence isn't some on-off switch where you either have it or don't. There ARE degrees of it, you know. Some animals run mostly on instinct. Some have a limited degree of cognitive ability. No cognitive function of humans isn't seen to some degree in other animal species. The only difference is that we have a hell of a lot more of it (though this obviously varies from person to person...people with extremely severe brain defects, like this kid near where I lived who didn't have a brain, just a brain stem, are, to be frank, non-sentient.)

[Knife]

I just realized Knife, that your argument does more than justify Baby Eating. It justifies rape, slavery, the holocaust, other forms of genocide, and pretty much everything that involves exerting power over someone or something else. You (it seems now Bubble Boy, why am I not surprised) really, really need to rethink your position.

You want to equate eating with rape, slavery and genocide and I'm making red herrings and need to rethink my position?

[Alyrium Denryle]

You (it seems now Bubble Boy, why am I not surprised) really, really need to rethink your position.

I have to rethink the idea that humans are dangerous and violent killers that will exploit other species for their own personal benefit?

Do you read posts, or merely skip to the parts that are advantageous for you to take out of context?

Naturalistic Fallacy. DO I have to explain this to you? We are talking about ethics, the question of how the world SHOULD be. Not how it is. I am fully aware that humans fuck up everything we touch. That does not mean we should, that does not mean it is right, and it does not mean we can justify it. In fact, we cannot.

You are committing a naturalistic fallacy and an appeal to common practice.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I just realized Knife, that your argument does more than justify Baby Eating. It justifies rape, slavery, the holocaust, other forms of genocide, and pretty much everything that involves exerting power over someone or something else. You (it seems now Bubble Boy, why am I not surprised) really, really need to rethink your position.

You want to equate eating with rape, slavery and genocide and I'm making red herrings and need to rethink my position?

When we are talking about non-human sentients, and in case you have not forgotten, we are... YES!'

Your "might makes right" position justifies all of them.

And good job dodging the point by the way.

[Singular Intellect]

One need look no further than how humans can treat other humans to back up that point. Non human treatment becomes even less of an issue to many people.

Wait, are you saying that because humans are bastards if they're not taught better (or if they have a fucked up culture that messes them up...Saudi Arabia I am totally looking at you) that we should just throw out ethics entirely? That's like saying that if you don't teach people to read, they'll be illiterate, so we should give up on books.

And just where the hell have I said that?

I've done nothing more than point out that humans are a selfish species and the concerns of other species are mostly secondary to our own, and the concerns of fellow humans people are also very often secondary to personal ones.

We're talking ETHICS here, remember? Or does your ethical belief consist entirely of mob rule or "might makes right"?

Nope. My ethical system would, in simpliest terms, consist of 'this is how the world works, don't cry about things beyond our power to change'.

Intelligence isn't some on-off switch where you either have it or don't. There ARE degrees of it, you know. Some animals run mostly on instinct. Some have a limited degree of cognitive ability. No cognitive function of humans isn't seen to some degree in other animal species. The only difference is that we have a hell of a lot more of it (though this obviously varies from person to person...people with extremely severe brain defects, like this kid near where I lived who didn't have a brain, just a brain stem, are, to be frank, non-sentient.)

Personally, I'm all for an existence where we could eat meat (or plant material) without having to kill anything, or not needing to eat at all for that matter.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.

[Singular Intellect]

I have to rethink the idea that humans are dangerous and violent killers that will exploit other species for their own personal benefit?

Do you read posts, or merely skip to the parts that are advantageous for you to take out of context?

Naturalistic Fallacy. DO I have to explain this to you? We are talking about ethics, the question of how the world SHOULD be. Not how it is. I am fully aware that humans fuck up everything we touch. That does not mean we should, that does not mean it is right, and it does not mean we can justify it. In fact, we cannot.

You are committing a naturalistic fallacy and an appeal to common practice.

Ah, so what you're saying is you have a understanding of how the world works, but you have a personal model of how you think it should work. And you base this model upon your personal idea of morality and ethics, correct?

So why not simply jump to the meat of the matter and explain to people why your personal idea of how the world should work is superior to anything else?

Perhaps humans are the inevitable result of the evolution of life; it eventually extinquishes itself, and perhaps this is how it 'should' be.