Intelligence and Food Animals

[Akhlut]

The fact we're so much better at it is not something we should apologize for. If someone genuinely wants a scapegoat, go scream at evolution for producing us.

The fact we are such a successful species is being proven right now, whereas individuals like Alyrium Denryle can sit behind a comfortable computer desk and argue/ponder the morality of eating specific species; as opposed to the vast majority of all other species who couldn't afford that luxury even if they were capable of it.

However, now that we've reached a point wherein we can think about these things and speculate on morality, that means we probably should give ethical situations more priority. It is because we have the luxury of not having to harm creatures that are demonstrably intelligent and have brains different from ours mainly in quantity and not quality that we can and should debate the moral implications of it. It is similar the the situation of our ancestors 5,000 or 10,000 years ago or longer. The morality of children doing hard labor for 16 hours a day can now be debated because it is no longer necessary for them to work the fields like it was necessary in the fields around Babylon or the use of violence and terror to maintain hydrolic societies to maintain agriculture.

Just to summarize: because we're not locked in struggles to survive everyday, we can and should make moral decisions differently based on various criteria. For instance, cannibalism is bad except when you're starving. Therefore, if we aren't starving to death and have the ability to, we should eat animals that can't feel suffering or feel very little of it, because now we have the power to do so.

Otherwise, as Aly's pointed out, our morality is just based on might makes right.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is worth noting, a lot of what we eat is cultural momentum. Depite their intelligence people eat octopus because we have been doing it for thousands of years and it is embedded in our culture as an acceptable food (despite how wrong I think that is)

If the Galgameks came down in a spaceship, or if we just discovered octopus and started doing research into their cognitive abilities, I have rather large doubts that we would feel comfortable putting them on a plate.

And now to get to Bubbleboy's prior post.

1) Morality is subjective. What is 'right' or 'wrong' to one person isn't necessarily right to another.

This I think is where we fundamentally differ. I dont think morality is subjective, OR objective. I think it is functional, or rather, the capacity for it is. We evolved the cognitive and emotional framework upon which morality is built as part of a suit of other adaptations to social living. When we sit down and try to codify our moral intuitions into an ethical system (IE normative ethics) we are constrained by two things. Our emotions and social intelligence (empathy, theory of mind etc) and logical constraints (like consistency)

As a result, there are a number of ethical systems one can build which are consistent with both. Various consequentialist and deontological ethical systems. The one that I think most closely represents the maximization of both variables (logical and emotional/social consistency) is a form of Preference utilitarianism.

Any number however, functionally work.

2) Morality is a dynamic system, not a static one. History has proven this.

Agreed

3) The universe as we understand it is an immoral system.

Nitpick: Amoral. Immoral implies malice or the conscious rejection of morality. Amoral is the proper term.

In this case, the universe does not care. But a process within the universe can give us the capacity to care. You could say that while the universe does not care, we function as if it does by nature of our evolution.

4) Any one version of morality is not a requirement for survival.

Not actually true. Maybe if you live as a hermit, but there are certain moral precepts that are required for a society to not collapse in upon itself. Things like in-group cooperation and parental care. How you get there is between you and your brain.

5) Declaration of any moral system as superior to another is dependent enirely upon subjective criteria.

No, there are definitely some functional constraints. Logical consistency for example. If my ethical system is more internally consistent, mine wins. As an example. It wins because it can more easily guide my behavior rather than have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of holding two different value sets

[Singular Intellect]

The fact we're so much better at it is not something we should apologize for. If someone genuinely wants a scapegoat, go scream at evolution for producing us.

The fact we are such a successful species is being proven right now, whereas individuals like Alyrium Denryle can sit behind a comfortable computer desk and argue/ponder the morality of eating specific species; as opposed to the vast majority of all other species who couldn't afford that luxury even if they were capable of it.

However, now that we've reached a point wherein we can think about these things and speculate on morality, that means we probably should give ethical situations more priority.

One should remember that this luxury is not as common as some people might think.

Several billion people in the world today are either going very hungry or starving. Things like clean drinking water, medical care or just having nice neighbors who won't kill you for something you have (or just for fun) are luxuries many of these people simply don't have.

Quite frankly, regardless of how bad I might feel for intelligent animals being killed for food, the fact remains huge populations of my fellow human beings are suffering and I would concern myself with them before, say, an octopus.

It is because we have the luxury of not having to harm creatures that are demonstrably intelligent and have brains different from ours mainly in quantity and not quality that we can and should debate the moral implications of it. It is similar the the situation of our ancestors 5,000 or 10,000 years ago or longer. The morality of children doing hard labor for 16 hours a day can now be debated because it is no longer necessary for them to work the fields like it was necessary in the fields around Babylon or the use of violence and terror to maintain hydrolic societies to maintain agriculture.

Just to summarize: because we're not locked in struggles to survive everyday, we can and should make moral decisions differently based on various criteria. For instance, cannibalism is bad except when you're starving. Therefore, if we aren't starving to death and have the ability to, we should eat animals that can't feel suffering or feel very little of it, because now we have the power to do so.

Again, one should point out on a select few in the world have this luxury.

Otherwise, as Aly's pointed out, our morality is just based on might makes right.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the status quo for humans, and I see very little chance of that changing anytime soon.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Quite frankly, regardless of how bad I might feel for intelligent animals being killed for food, the fact remains huge populations of my fellow human beings are suffering and I would concern myself with them before, say, an octopus.

Understandable, but also a false choice. The two conflict less than you might think they do. It is very easy to forgo octopus at the dinner table. I have been doing it for years. The people (in say, southeast asia) that eat octopus now, dont have a choice. But by working together we can help them someday have one.

Just because something is ethical does not mean that it is feasible to achieve it over night. But we can work for it. We are obligated to work for it. Even if we have a different set of moral goals, we are both obligated to work toward our respective visions, at least if we want to be consistent.

[Akhlut]

One should remember that this luxury is not as common as some people might think.

I realize this, but I didn't want to write another 4-5 paragraphs worth of things (though, suppose I'll get to that now).

Quite frankly, regardless of how bad I might feel for intelligent animals being killed for food, the fact remains huge populations of my fellow human beings are suffering and I would concern myself with them before, say, an octopus.

That's a false bifurcation there, though. The US primarily, and Europeans to a lesser extent, eat a lot more meat than we need to. A lot of that meat, or even just the land used to raise the plants used to raise the animals, could be put toward feeding our fellow humans and a lot of the resources put toward livestock, such as the vast majority of antibiotics used (~70%), could be put toward our fellow man (note: I know livestock antibiotics are different compared to human ones; it is just that the technology and resources used for that could be used for human vaccines or other medicines).

Unfortunately, that seems to be the status quo for humans, and I see very little chance of that changing anytime soon.

Eh, I have hope yet. It is taking a lot of time, certainly, and it lurches forward and backward, and is more advanced in some areas a lot more than in others, but we seem to be moving toward a more humane society. For instance, at least most countries on earth try to maintain the facade of an elected republic instead of just out-and-out stating lifelong dicatorships and monarchies, and, hell, even some of them are elected republics, despite horrible corruption and a slew of other problems. So, yes, things need to be done to help our fellow man, but I think we can get somewhere nice from where we are, even if it does take a long period of time.

[Singular Intellect]

Quite frankly, regardless of how bad I might feel for intelligent animals being killed for food, the fact remains huge populations of my fellow human beings are suffering and I would concern myself with them before, say, an octopus.

Understandable, but also a false choice. The two conflict less than you might think they do. It is very easy to forgo octopus at the dinner table. I have been doing it for years.

I've done so all my life, so apparently I have you beat.

Mind you, I'd have to admit this is do to the idea of eating octopus itself as somehow unpalatable, not because I've considered it's intelligence level.

The people (in say, southeast asia) that eat octopus now, dont have a choice. But by working together we can help them someday have one.

But if at the point where they do have that choice, and they still wish to do so, what then? Would you declare them immoral or bad poeple?

Just because something is ethical does not mean that it is feasible to achieve it over night. But we can work for it. We are obligated to work for it. Even if we have a different set of moral goals, we are both obligated to work toward our respective visions, at least if we want to be consistent.

Agreed.

But I'd like to ask your opinion on my perspective, AD:

From my point of view, eating any non human creature is acceptable (it must be non human, because I see regarding fellow humans as a food source contradictory to our survival as a species), so long as the process of killing it (and raising if applicable) is done as humanely as possible. .

I'm experienced here since I've helped raised both beef and pork to feed myself and family. Before they were killed, they had a very pleasant and happy life. To do otherwise I would take extreme offense too.

Furthermore, I also have no qualms about any other creature regarding human beings as food, with no consideration for our intelligence level.

To me this is a consistent point of view.

[Junghalli]

That is actually the basis for Preference Utilitarianism. As for morality being subjective... the ethical system you use might be (within limits, some are clearly incorrect) but the goal orientated nature of them is not. The end goal of any ethical system is to maximize good. What that good is? Well, the best way to put it is the satisfaction of held interests, as it encompases every value that humans have that are used to build other ethical systems.

I would argue with this. Ethical systems often disagree on what exactly the greatest good is, and it's not always the greatest good for the greatest number. For instance, religions hold the wishes of the gods above the good of human beings. An ethical system that holds the preservation of society itself at all costs as the highest good is quite practical and could justify some truly awful things done against individuals, since it doesn't consider the particularly valuable except as parts of the whole.

I wouldn't want to live in such societies, but they have are viable.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I've done so all my life, so apparently I have you beat. Wink
Mind you, I'd have to admit this is do to the idea of eating octopus itself as somehow unpalatable, not because I've considered it's intelligence level.

See, I grew up in alaska were seafood was plentiful. I was raised on things pulled out of the drink, and have always loved octopus. But I learned that they were intelligent and felt... uncomfortable... So I have been in the process of nixing out my love of their tastiness. It is slow going (because I have an inner hedonism bot) but that is life.

But if at the point where they do have that choice, and they still wish to do so, what then? Would you declare them immoral or bad poeple?

That depends. Are they making an informed choice? Do they actually know that octopus are intelligent? Do they believe it? If they dont they are just factually wrong but behaving ethically given their premises.

If they know and accept the intelligence of octopus, then yeah. They are doing something unethical but are not necessarily bad people (no body is perfect). If they seem to revel in the suffering.... yeah they are evil.

You have to make the distinction between a person behaving unethically, and being unethical.

To me this is a consistent point of view.

So long as you are not like most people and are screaming "NO! HUMANS ARE SPECIALLY EXEMPT!" then yeah, it is fairly consistent. No less consistent than a lot of viewpoints anyway. I dont necessarily agree with it, but you never know. I could be a strange strange individual with an unusually strong ability to identify with other organisms.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh, I can assure you that I for one would be several million times more likely to sleep with a sapient alien than eat one, and if I found Bubble Boy trying to kill and eat a sapient alien, I'd kill him, because to my moral system that would be unquestionably stopping a premeditated murder.

[Singular Intellect]

See, I grew up in alaska were seafood was plentiful. I was raised on things pulled out of the drink, and have always loved octopus. But I learned that they were intelligent and felt... uncomfortable... So I have been in the process of nixing out my love of their tastiness. It is slow going (because I have an inner hedonism bot) but that is life.

*nods* Fair enough.

I'd like to point out that while octopus are intelligent, I don't think one of them would have a problem eating you if the chance presented itself and it was hungry.

So long as you are not like most people and are screaming "NO! HUMANS ARE SPECIALLY EXEMPT!" then yeah, it is fairly consistent. No less consistent than a lot of viewpoints anyway. I dont necessarily agree with it, but you never know. I could be a strange strange individual with an unusually strong ability to identify with other organisms.

I don't think so, honestly. My whole immediate family, including myself, also easily empathize with non human organisms, although with the knowledge that the vast majority of them don't have the level of intelligence or sentience like ourselves.

Let me put it this way: if there's a spider in my room, I prefer to capture it and put it outside rather than simply kill it.

That said, I'm honestly quite comfortable with the fact that my life demands the death of other forms of life, plant or animal, intelligent or not. I'm also part of that system, and my death could easily come about for the purpose of another creature to survive. The circle of life, as it were. I can't bring myself to resent it, it is responsible for my existence.

Ultimately, if I could snap my fingers and turn a rock into a juicy steak or salad, no other form of life would die for the purpose of consumption by me. But I don't live in that world (at least yet ) so I freely accept the one I do live in.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, I can assure you that I for one would be several million times more likely to sleep with a sapient alien than eat one, and if I found Bubble Boy trying to kill and eat a sapient alien, I'd kill him, because to my moral system that would be unquestionably stopping a premeditated murder.

Well, that is one way to look at it... I must admit the thought crossed my mind (though I am pretty close to being a pacifist). Operationally though, I am also pretty sure he couldnt bring himself to do it. It is one thing to talk about it as an abstract. It is another to rip out a galgamek's throat (equivalent) with your teeth.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

To reply to the latest post: If I'm ever stuck with bubble-boy and a six-limbed reptile astrophysicist on a mountain and we've run out of food, bubble-boy is being eaten, not the astrophysicist. Hopefully that would give us enough energy to walk out, so with luck he's really fat.

[Singular Intellect]

Oh, I can assure you that I for one would be several million times more likely to sleep with a sapient alien than eat one, and if I found Bubble Boy trying to kill and eat a sapient alien, I'd kill him, because to my moral system that would be unquestionably stopping a premeditated murder.

It would be an interesting scenario if said sapient alien didn't share your personal morality and considered you a perfectly viable food source. Or if a race of aliens did so.

I'm guessing you are arrogantly assuming said aliens will share your idea of morality.

As to your specific scenario, am I starving? Confined with no other source of nourishment? My 'desire' to kill and eat a sentient alien lifeform would require ridiculasly extreme circumstances.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, I can assure you that I for one would be several million times more likely to sleep with a sapient alien than eat one, and if I found Bubble Boy trying to kill and eat a sapient alien, I'd kill him, because to my moral system that would be unquestionably stopping a premeditated murder.

It would be an interesting scenario if said sapient alien didn't share your personal morality and considered you a perfectly viable food source. Or if a race of aliens did so.

I'm guessing you are arrogantly assuming said aliens will share your idea of morality.

As to your specific scenario, am I starving? Confined with no other source of nourishment? My 'desire' to kill and eat a sentient alien lifeform would require ridiculasly extreme circumstances.

Thing is, this thread is about your every day eating habits. It is one thing to say it is OK to kill and eat say, a 6 armed reptilian astrophysicist when starving. It is another to casually walk down the to grocery store and get a kilogram of their flesh....

[Singular Intellect]

To reply to the latest post: If I'm ever stuck with bubble-boy and a six-limbed reptile astrophysicist on a mountain and we've run out of food, bubble-boy is being eaten, not the astrophysicist. Hopefully that would give us enough energy to walk out, so with luck he's really fat.

I daresay in such a drastic situation where one of the members is going to be sacrificed to provide nourishment for the others, the smallest and weakest one is going to be the one that gets the short straw. And between you and me, I guarantee that isn't me.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It would be an interesting scenario if said sapient alien didn't share your personal morality and considered you a perfectly viable food source. Or if a race of aliens did so.

I'd be needed to get off the mountain anyway, since I know earth terrain. It's not like I'd trust a human companion in such a situation anyway, the first rule being Don't Show Weakness.

I'm guessing you are arrogantly assuming said aliens will share your idea of morality.

No, I'm assuming that their morality is functionalist just like our's, and that by extension any alien species intelligent enough to produce astrophysicists would also be capable of realizing that other sapients are far more valuable dead than alive. Your supposed "Ooh they'd have different morality" is less a claim that they would be different and more a humanocentric declaration that they'd be stupid.

As to your specific scenario, am I starving? Confined with no other source of nourishment? My 'desire' to kill and eat a sentient alien lifeform would require ridiculasly extreme circumstances.

If I saw you trying to kill a sapient alien like a meat cow, I'd gun you down regardless of any circumstance short of it being obvious it had just attacked you. I'd do the same in that situation regardless of who or what was involved--that is morality, people who try to kill others, regardless of who they are (short of their being killers themselves, obviously), need to be stopped.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I daresay in such a drastic situation where one of the members is going to be sacrificed to provide nourishment for the others, the smallest and weakest one is going to be the one that gets the short straw. And between you and me, I guarantee that isn't me.

Tee-hee, that means you USE MORE CALORIES than I do, dumbass. You really don't think about this stuff very much, do you?

[Singular Intellect]

I daresay in such a drastic situation where one of the members is going to be sacrificed to provide nourishment for the others, the smallest and weakest one is going to be the one that gets the short straw. And between you and me, I guarantee that isn't me.

Tee-hee, that means you USE MORE CALORIES than I do, dumbass. You really don't think about this stuff very much, do you?

So now rational thinking is a valid concern when you just proposed a situation of starvation so dire that a cannabilistic event is about to occur?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So now rational thinking is a valid concern when you just proposed a situation of starvation so dire that a cannabilistic event is about to occur? :lol:

Yes, of course it is. You want to maximize group survival. Or else you SHOULD. Anyway, our six-limbed reptilianoid friend is the one who's armoured and clawed to do the killing, and she's going to be quite methodical about it, I fancy. You'll provide more food dead and I'll provide less calorie consumption alive. The combination is awesome and obvious.

[Singular Intellect]

So now rational thinking is a valid concern when you just proposed a situation of starvation so dire that a cannabilistic event is about to occur?

Yes, of course it is. You want to maximize group survival. Or else you SHOULD. Anyway, our six-limbed reptilianoid friend is the one who's armoured and clawed to do the killing, and she's going to be quite methodical about it, I fancy. You'll provide more food dead and I'll provide less calorie consumption alive. The combination is awesome and obvious.

So what your arguement basically boils down to is that if given a choice between eating an non human or eating a human, you'd pick the human.

A rather odd point of view, I must say, one which I've understood not to be shared by most people. I tend to put my fellow humans above other forms of life in any moral situation, unless that other lifeform's differences were insufficient to the point where they would be declared equal to or greater than humans.

Ultimately when it comes to cannibalism, I would actually rather just expire than murder a fellow human. If they died by other means, then cannibalism becomes a viable option.

Anyhow, I obviously can't really argue against your fictional hypothetical alien, since you can give it whatever attributes, value, moral system and mindset you care to to pull out of the air.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Anyhow, I obviously can't really argue against your fictional hypothetical alien, since you can give it whatever attributes, value, moral system and mindset you care to to pull out of the air.

Which is the point. An alien could indeed have any attributes, values, moral system and mindset that you can think of. And yet you prefer to blindly pick human solidarity over evaluating those attribuets, values, and etc. Which tells us very little about the subject at hand, though quite a lot about you.

[Singular Intellect]

Anyhow, I obviously can't really argue against your fictional hypothetical alien, since you can give it whatever attributes, value, moral system and mindset you care to to pull out of the air.

Which is the point. An alien could indeed have any attributes, values, moral system and mindset that you can think of. And yet you prefer to blindly pick human solidarity over evaluating those attribuets, values, and etc. Which tells us very little about the subject at hand, though quite a lot about you.

I made it quite clear that by default I will always favorably pick my fellow humans over an alien or other creature, unless (and here I shall quote my last post you obviously didn't read):

I tend to put my fellow humans above other forms of life in any moral situation, unless that other lifeform's differences were insufficient to the point where they would be declared equal to or greater than humans.

[madd0ct0r]

Although, by the duchess's logic, eating bubbleboy is only the best option if the two of them can't take down a fat (high calorie content) and weak 6 limbed astrophysicist.

Assuming convergent development and using the observation that earth astrophysicists come in two subspecies - lanky and comic book guy I'd say it's a fifty% chance.

Unless they were gentlemanly and drew straws.

[Singular Intellect]

Although, by the duchess's logic, eating bubbleboy is only the best option if the two of them can't take down a fat (high calorie content) and weak 6 limbed astrophysicist.

One could've tried playing her game and pointed out things like it makes more sense to eat the smallest and weakest individual who is least likely to survive anyhow, since killing them would also be easier, you can carry leftovers much easier, you're not wasting a lot since you're not leaving a large body behind (unless you're going to stupidly drag it with you which is completely counter productive).

But it was transparently obviously said alien was just Duchess of Zeon 2.0 with the label 'alien' slapped on it, and she would continiously define said 'alien' to be 100% in agreement with herself about who gets eaten, and said alien wouldn't eat her despite confirmed willingness and capability to eat a human. As opposed to her human companion (me) who admitted that I'd starve before killing and eating another human, and would only eat an alien lifeform if I obviously don't percieve it as equal or greater in status compared to humans.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Uhm, whatever. You're just endlessly semantic-whoring and trying to force definitions of aliens when the goddamned point that Aly and I are trying to make is that you can't make generalist statements. Whereas you seem to think that the aliens by definition will be the bugs from Starship Troopers or something, we're observing that they could easily think quite like us. And you're simply ignoring it, because you've got a set idea of aliens in your head, though it's nice that you finally acknowledge that you'd have an exception for aliens quite similar to us, which really does finish the argument.

Anyway, you dragged out my example much to far and tried to make an argument out of it when that argument ended up having no connection to the subject at hand.