Intelligence and Food Animals

[Singular Intellect]

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.

Actually, in this case I can. On our own planet we are surrounded by millions of different species of life, out of which none I'm aware of I percieve as higher in value than humans unless faced with extreme circumstances like a human child rapist/murder, in which case I could see preferirng the continued existence of another animal like an elephant. But that's an obvious exception, not the 'generalist statement' I'm actually standing by.

My point is quite valid; generally speaking, I will always pick my fellow humans over another species, alien or not.

What the fuck is it about being more attached and loyal to my own species than another that confuses you so? (and to think AD called me a sociopath)

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.

Ah, I see. Millions of examples of life around us on our own planet whereas none qualify as equal in status to humans, but throw the label 'alien' in front of other life and suddenly I'm supposed to act as if it's likely said alien life will think and behave just like us?

Let me put it this way: Apes and primates are vastly more related to, act and look like us than any likely proposed 'alien' life. If a human infant is in lethal danger at the same time as a ape/primate infant and I can only save one, guess which one I'm going so save?

That's right, I'll immediately pick my own species first and be upset about other's death later. Oh, what a fucking monster am I!

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.

I should clarify my position and also point out that if all things are completely equal, I will still tend to favorably pick my own species first rather than an alien life that is very similiar to human.

If you find this offensive, that's your problem.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What the fuck is it about being more attached and loyal to my own species than another that confuses you so? (and to think AD called me a sociopath)

I would evaluate SAPIENT RATIONAL ACTORS based on their independent worth as individuals. Species doesn't enter into the equation. The fact that it does for you--that you are willing to reduce SAPIENT RATIONAL ACTORS into tribalistic groups--is what doesn't confuse me, but shocks me.

Ah, I see. Millions of examples of life around us on our own planet whereas none qualify as equal in status to humans, but throw the label 'alien' in front of other life and suddenly I'm supposed to act as if it's likely said alien life will think and behave just like us?

IF they do, IF they do, and therefore MEET THE DEFINITION OF SAPIENT RATIONAL ACTORS, would you respect them as such and treat them as equal to humans?

Let me put it this way: Apes and primates are vastly more related to, act and look like us than any likely proposed 'alien' life. If a human infant is in lethal danger at the same time as a ape/primate infant and I can only save one, guess which one I'm going so save?

Apes are not sapient and rational actors in the same sense as humans.

That's right, I'll immediately pick my own species first and be upset about other's death later. Oh, what a fucking monster am I! :roll:

In the case WE have been describing, where the aliens have an organized society and advanced knowledge of astrophysics, you ARE a fucking monster, okay? If they're, like, alien chimpanzees that we bring back to Earth and who start running around throwing shit on things and you want some jungle meat, go knock yourself out. That isn't what I was discussing, however, so it's irrelevant.

I should clarify my position and also point out that if all things are completely equal, I will still tend to favorably pick my own species first rather than an alien life that is very similiar to human.

If you find this offensive, that's your problem.

Yes, it's my problem that I'm part of the same species that produces horrendous people like you who belong in the ranks of the Nazi party for statements like that.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Let me put it this way: Apes and primates are vastly more related to, act and look like us than any likely proposed 'alien' life. If a human infant is in lethal danger at the same time as a ape/primate infant and I can only save one, guess which one I'm going so save?

Ahhh, but what if you were dealing with an anacephalic infant instead? If you dismiss intelligence, awareness as the moral criteria, would you say that you would choose the fully human, biologically, anacephalic over the perfectly normal chimp?

If both were in danger of being "killed", I know I would rather choose the chimp, all things else being equal. The chimp has more to lose, even though it's not human.

[Singular Intellect]

What the fuck is it about being more attached and loyal to my own species than another that confuses you so? (and to think AD called me a sociopath)

I would evaluate SAPIENT RATIONAL ACTORS based on their independent worth as individuals. Species doesn't enter into the equation. The fact that it does for you--that you are willing to reduce SAPIENT RATIONAL ACTORS into tribalistic groups--is what doesn't confuse me, but shocks me.

Right, so all those human qualities of protecting your family first, loving your children/family first...those are just disgusting examples of tribalistic behavior, right?

Apparently if you witnessed a mother who saved her retarded child over another child who was extremely intelligent, you'd call her a fucking monster who disgusts you because she didn't evaluate independent worth, right?

Ah, I see. Millions of examples of life around us on our own planet whereas none qualify as equal in status to humans, but throw the label 'alien' in front of other life and suddenly I'm supposed to act as if it's likely said alien life will think and behave just like us?

IF they do, IF they do, and therefore MEET THE DEFINITION OF SAPIENT RATIONAL ACTORS, would you respect them as such and treat them as equal to humans?

I would treat them the same way I would treat human infants. As equally as possible and with respect, until moral a decision requires me chosing which one to favor/protect/save; mine or someone else's.

Guess which one I'm going to chose? If you think any decent parent is going to save someone's else's child at the expense of their own, you're a fucking ignorant moron. If you dare to suggest that preference is a monstrous act, you're mentally disfunctional and practically any parent on this board will tell you so.

Let me put it this way: Apes and primates are vastly more related to, act and look like us than any likely proposed 'alien' life. If a human infant is in lethal danger at the same time as a ape/primate infant and I can only save one, guess which one I'm going so save?

Apes are not sapient and rational actors in the same sense as humans.

But it clearly illustrates that your average moral human being has basic guidelines that favors their own species over that of others. This is no more criminal than favoring the welfare of one's child over a stranger's.

This doesn't make a person a monster or immoral, it demostrates they have priorities.

In the example we're discussing, you're postulating the existence of a human and alien whom you've defined as equal in status. Therefore I will pick my fellow human being.

Apparently in your twisted little world, this constitutes some sort of barbaric 'tribalistic' evil doing, as opposed to simply following a very understandable, very human and very logical nature.

That's right, I'll immediately pick my own species first and be upset about other's death later. Oh, what a fucking monster am I!

In the case WE have been describing, where the aliens have an organized society and advanced knowledge of astrophysics, you ARE a fucking monster, okay? If they're, like, alien chimpanzees that we bring back to Earth and who start running around throwing shit on things and you want some jungle meat, go knock yourself out. That isn't what I was discussing, however, so it's irrelevant.

Then by all means explain why preferring to save a fellow human being over that of an alien being of equal status constitutes an immoral act.

By that same token, explain why saving an alien of equal status to a particular human is the better choice.

Or you can just skip all that and explain why any act that necessitates favoring survival of your own species over another (sentient or not) is an immoral act.

Perhaps you can then apply your logic to a situation where a parent favors the welfare of their child over someone else's, and point out to the rest of us why this is a disgusting behavior and an immoral act. Refer back to my other example whereas a mother saves her own child which is argueably 'independently less worthy' than another child.

I should clarify my position and also point out that if all things are completely equal, I will still tend to favorably pick my own species first rather than an alien life that is very similiar to human.

If you find this offensive, that's your problem.

Yes, it's my problem that I'm part of the same species that produces horrendous people like you who belong in the ranks of the Nazi party for statements like that.

I'm an individual who if forced into chosing between saving his own kid and someone else's, I will chose my child. If given a choice between saving my brother's life and some stranger's, I will chose my brother. If forced to chose between saving a fellow human being or an alien, I will save my fellow human. (I've clearly stated assuming they have equal status in my eyes, which is actually going beyond the criteria of my previous two examples that most rational and moral people don't have a fucking problem with).

Quite frankly Duchess, your argued viewpoint here is outright fucking scary. You're essentially using an arguement that if applied to any other situation (ie: parenting), would declare parents inhumane monsters because they dare to put the welfare of their child above another's without evaluating 'independent worth'.

[Junghalli]

I'm an individual who if forced into chosing between saving his own kid and someone else's, I will chose my child. If given a choice between saving my brother's life and some stranger's, I will chose my brother.

Yes, you do so because evolution has primed you to value the lives of people in your family and tribe over the lives of those outside it. I couldn't fault somebody for acting this way since the instinct to do so is so strong, but I'm not sure I'd consider unfiltered gut instinct to be the best basis for an ethical system.

[Singular Intellect]

Let me put it this way: Apes and primates are vastly more related to, act and look like us than any likely proposed 'alien' life. If a human infant is in lethal danger at the same time as a ape/primate infant and I can only save one, guess which one I'm going so save?

Ahhh, but what if you were dealing with an anacephalic infant instead? If you dismiss intelligence, awareness as the moral criteria, would you say that you would choose the fully human, biologically, anacephalic over the perfectly normal chimp?

Nope, I would obviously pick the chimp for the exact reason you cited.

My arguement of chosing human over alien is based upon the assumption of equal status which Duchess has been pushing heavily. There's admittedly even a gray area where I'd likely pick the human over the alien even if it's argueably superior to the human in some objective way.

However, that is only as immoral and criminal as the parent who choses to save their own child who may be (as Duchess put it) 'independently less worthy' than someone else's child. I'm interested in seeing if she also declares that priority a monstrous and evil act.

I've previously stated that a particular situation could actually make me easily favor the survival of a non human over a human (like say a innocent elephant over that of a violent human murder/rapist).

If both were in danger of being "killed", I know I would rather choose the chimp, all things else being equal. The chimp has more to lose, even though it's not human.

Quite agreed. But this doesn't change the fact that I will generally favor my own species first over that of another (sentient or not).

[Singular Intellect]

I'm an individual who if forced into chosing between saving his own kid and someone else's, I will chose my child. If given a choice between saving my brother's life and some stranger's, I will chose my brother.

Yes, you do so because evolution has primed you to value the lives of people in your family and tribe over the lives of those outside it. I couldn't fault somebody for acting this way since the instinct to do so is so strong, but I'm not sure I'd consider unfiltered gut instinct to be the best basis for an ethical system.

So you understand the drive to protect one's family and loved one's first and openly stated you really can't fault a person for that. That is my perspective as well.

But why then should that interpretation suddenly change when it deals with cross species interaction, whereas sentience equal to humans is the only unusual factor?

It's basically saying that we can't fault a person for having priorities by chosing one sentient human over another sentient human, but when it's a sentient human and a sentient alien situation, suddenly we're supposed to be more accountable?

Seriously, what kind of fucking logic is that?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Some amount of in-group preference is understandable from a utilitarian view, such as the example of family vs strangers. To an extent, it's good for society to show loyalty to one's closest friends and family before strangers. Having a sense of such duty keeps society together.

But I think that weakens quite a bit when you expand it to the whole of the species.

I likely wouldn't pick an alien over a human if they were of similar intelligence, unless the alien has some special use or function or circumstances over the human based on the situation. I'd rather save a benign alien vs a violent criminal human also.

[Singular Intellect]

Some amount of in-group preference is understandable from a utilitarian view, such as the example of family vs strangers. To an extent, it's good for society to show loyalty to one's closest friends and family before strangers. Having a sense of such duty keeps society together.

But I think that weakens quite a bit when you expand it to the whole of the species.

Why?

I likely wouldn't pick an alien over a human if they were of similar intelligence, unless the alien has some special use or function or circumstances over the human based on the situation. I'd rather save a benign alien vs a violent criminal human also.

Which is why I've been repeating Duchess's criteria of 'assume equal status' so much.

I've repeatedly pointed out I could easily favor an animal (like a chimp or elephant) over a human being if the factors are weighed enough in it's favor.

I'm just having trouble believing Duchess's arguement that being a member of one's own species isn't a important factor, or said factor is an 'immoral' one.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, let me qualify that it is highly dependent on circumstances. If there were only 5,000 humans alive and therefore the survival of the species itself was at risk, I'd start favouring humans over aliens. But if I have to kick one of two people out of an airplane in the modern day and age where there's more humans than we can feed, and one is an alien with their equivalent of a college degree and the other is a hambeast (white trash whore) who flips burgers at Wendy's, I'm kicking the hambeast out of the plane.

[Singular Intellect]

Well, let me qualify that it is highly dependent on circumstances. If there were only 5,000 humans alive and therefore the survival of the species itself was at risk, I'd start favouring humans over aliens. But if I have to kick one of two people out of an airplane in the modern day and age where there's more humans than we can feed, and one is an alien with their equivalent of a college degree and the other is a hambeast (white trash whore) who flips burgers at Wendy's, I'm kicking the hambeast out of the plane.

I agree, but that is neatly side stepping your own assertion of 'equal status'. (Presumeaby this action of chosing to kick one out of the plane is dependent upon a very dire situation which requires you to make this life or death decision)

Replace your two characters with both being equally intelligent, productive members of their respective societes. Assume all other factors are equal to the point where the only real difference is one is a member of your own species, the other is not.

Who do you chose then?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Why?

Why for which part? The part about it being okay to have some loyalty to the group or the last part about me not being sure whether it should extend to something as abstract as a whole species.

I am not really sure if it should apply to the latter, because it's rather aloof and abstract. The connections between any two people on Earth is rather weak, but if society were never to show any loyalty to members of the family, the family system wouldn't work: and that's an important functional institution.

Imagine what would happen if, for example, we took Utilitarian requirements for impartiality to the extreme and donated most of our resources to people in other countries who technically were far more poor, neglecting almost entirely our own family/children.

Do you think society would function like that or that the system would break down? I would think that basic needs of your relatives/family would come first before others unless our psychology changed and we are all okay with taking care of others before our own.

We don't have that much of a connection to people abroad now, which is one reason why we allow 6 children to die every 11 minutes of easily treatable problems and yet still find the time to buy shit we don't need. There's not nearly as much a connection to global humanity as there is to relatives. I doubt, but could be wrong, the impact of neglect to strangers would have the same impact as neglect to close groups. Perhaps there would be some problem when you reach a certain level of impartiality.

But generally, the rule of thumb in utilitarianism is equal consideration for like interests. Aliens are an extension, as are non-related, distant human groups. There's a probably a practical limitation as to what will maintain society, yet still be consistent and fair in treatment.

[Junghalli]

So you understand the drive to protect one's family and loved one's first and openly stated you really can't fault a person for that. That is my perspective as well.

But why then should that interpretation suddenly change when it deals with cross species interaction, whereas sentience equal to humans is the only unusual factor?

It's basically saying that we can't fault a person for having priorities by chosing one sentient human over another sentient human, but when it's a sentient human and a sentient alien situation, suddenly we're supposed to be more accountable?

Seriously, what kind of fucking logic is that?

The logic is that justifying it by saying "my instincts tell me to act this way, therefore it's ethical" is a bit of a naturalistic fallacy. Just because you have powerful instincts to act in a certain way doesn't necessarily make it an ethical choice.

[Singular Intellect]

The logic is that justifying it by saying "my instincts tell me to act this way, therefore it's ethical" is a bit of a naturalistic fallacy. Just because you have powerful instincts to act in a certain way doesn't necessarily make it an ethical choice.

To which I then ask what makes saving a member of another species more ethical when all other factors are considered either irrelevent or equal?

Basically, what makes the desire to favor one's own species wrong when all other factors do not tip the scale?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

What makes the desire to favour one's own ethnic group wrong hen all other factors are considered equal if the only criterion for choosing is group membership?

How can anyone argue against racism, but then defend speciest behaviour? In neither case are any characteristics of the being evaluated on their merits, only what group they belong to.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I agree, but that is neatly side stepping your own assertion of 'equal status'. (Presumeaby this action of chosing to kick one out of the plane is dependent upon a very dire situation which requires you to make this life or death decision)

Replace your two characters with both being equally intelligent, productive members of their respective societes. Assume all other factors are equal to the point where the only real difference is one is a member of your own species, the other is not.

Who do you chose then?

Whichever one listened to their music more quietly on the flight, read a book more interesting to me, or didn't munch their chips loudly. Or didn't make me get up twelve times in three hours so they could go to the bathroom over and over. Etc.

[Korto]

Bloody hell.
Sorry for being gone so long. It seems I've shit into a high speed fan and the mess has spread over five pages. I'll work through what I can here.

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?

...and a couple of posts down...

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.

"Ethics" is a survival strategy we evolved for the survival of ourselves. I agree with the progression stated for the expansion of ethical protection (family, tribe, nation, all humanity), but its central purpose is the protection of ourselves.
I stated I would feel qualms about eating a chimpanzee due to its closeness to human. This was honest estimate of my emotional response, not a statement of a logical tenet. Human morality acts to protect humans, and the closer something is to human, the more it can give a moral response even though you know it is not human. I would feel qualms walking across a glass bridge over a five hundred foot drop, even though I know it's perfectly safe; it still looks like a plunge to my death.
So, no, there is nothing ethically wrong with eating an intelligent alien species. Our ethics have not expanded to include "intelligent alien species" yet. They may never do so. Equally, there's nothing wrong with their eating of us, we're not "Special". It would, however, be unethical for me to help them do so.
Sudden thought - Our ethics probably will expand to fit in the alien as a self-defence mechanism, as long as the alien goes along with it.
[tangent] An ethical restriction on predation I accept as rational and good is not to endanger another species' survival. This would actually rule out eating said chimp, as the species is endangered. [/tangent]

Being intelligent, alas, does not make you "Special"

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?

Our ethics (mine, too) have expanded to the point when senseless cruelty against animals is regarded as wrong.

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?

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.

They're only doing something unethical if you accept the premise that being intelligent makes you special. As an evolved trait, the only outside yardstick of moral right and wrong is how it affects our own survival, by which measure both moral codes seem equal.
Your moral code is more all-inclusive than mine. Is yours better because it's bigger? Who's to judge? Me? I'm biased. You? Same problem. We're all biased to believe our own moral code is right, and the only outside yardstick is too crude to choose between them.

(ah shit, publish and be damned)

[madd0ct0r]

I think the argument was that greater intelligence = greater capacity to suffer


If i was given the choice of living an uncertain life with pain or living comfortably but destined to be killed age 30 I'd probably choose the former.

That would be because I value independence more then comfort. Of course, we don't give the animal's that choice so we do not know.

Perhaps we should not eat any animal that tries to escape captivity but munch on those that stay?
seems a good enough rule of thumb.