| Since other animals are conscious living beings with emotions just like us, what gives us the right to eat them? We're more intelligent than tigers, lions etc. so we can actually consider the consequences of killing an animal. Why can't we just be vegetarians instead to avoid taking lives? |
OlwenMay 3, 2015 12:40 PM
| but plants/vegetables are living too. we must eat rocks |
Jessicakes said: but plants/vegetables are living too. we must eat rocks Changed the distinction to "conscious living beings." |
| animals eat other animals, are we going to make them go on vegan diets too? because we totally have enough farmland to feed 7 billion people extra food to replace meat without them being malnourished |
| am I the only one that likes eating animals? |
 |
Syrup- said: am I the only one that likes eating animals? yea u are the only one |
| No, it's unnatural not to eat them. |
| ethics are made up. |
 |
| What is unethical is subjective, Im a pacifist so I don't agree to any form of violence, so I don't eat meat. |
 |
Syrup- said: Most definitely.am I the only one that likes eating animals? |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
| When lions stop of eating zebras i will stop of eating chickens |
 |
| Who is to say plants don't have a self-consciousness either though? I mean they fulfil the MRS GREN criteria just like humans and animals... why shouldn't they think or have personalities (we know they communicate)? |
 |
| Truth be told, I feel bad when I eat animals. I gave up red meat entirely because of this (I also don't think red meat tastes that good anyways, so I rarely ate it when I still ate it at all). I still eat chickens, though, because sadly I am incapable of giving up meat completely. I'm such a picky eater that if I gave up eating chicken, I would legitimately be living off of mushrooms, broccoli, brown rice and ice cream. |
 |
| What's with your obsession with this topic? |
 |
| No it's not. Besides plants are living and we eat those too and plants feel pain as well so the bleeding hearts shouldn't eat at all. |
 |
Olwen said: Jessicakes said: but plants/vegetables are living too. we must eat rocks Changed the distinction to "conscious living beings." good :) I think its because we dont value and respect animals lives enough to stop eating them since its beneficial to us. sure their consciousness counts for something, but its not enough |
Wyzdm said: Olwen said: Changed the distinction to "conscious living beings." http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants The article doesn't say that they're conscious. |
-shotz said: You just told him/her what to do, what gives?marriage said: i'm not gonna sit here and tell people what to do, but it should be obvious that it takes much less farmland to produce plants than meat. The WHO encourages people to center their diets more around plant-based foods for this reason. next time use a little common sense before you go about spouting out shit.animals eat other animals, are we going to make them go on vegan diets too? because we totally have enough farmland to feed 7 billion people extra food to replace meat without them being malnourished |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
Spooky_Love said: and you should know this.ethics are made up. Not to imply that you should ignore laws because that would pose trouble for yourself. |
 |
Cabron said: -shotz said: You just told him/her what to do, what gives?i'm not gonna sit here and tell people what to do, but it should be obvious that it takes much less farmland to produce plants than meat. The WHO encourages people to center their diets more around plant-based foods for this reason. next time use a little common sense before you go about spouting out shit. What if he was standing while telling him/her what to do? |
 |
Wyzdm said: Olwen said: The article doesn't say that they're conscious. Did you even read the article? Plants can do incredible things. They do seem to remember stresses and events, like that experiment. They do have the ability to respond to 15 to 20 environmental variables," Pollan says. "The issue is, is it right to call it learning? Is that the right word? Is it right to call it intelligence? Is it right, even, to call what they are conscious. Some of these plant neurobiologists believe that plants are conscious — not self-conscious, but conscious in the sense they know where they are in space ... and react appropriately to their position in space." Did you even read the part that you quoted? Seriously. Computers can do that too (know where they are in space), but they're not conscious in the sense that we are. |
eririri said: Spooky_Love said: and you should know this.ethics are made up. Not to imply that you should ignore laws because that would pose trouble for yourself. So what if ethics are made up? Should I go to your house and kill you because there's no ethical justification why I shouldn't? |
Olwen said: Wyzdm said: Did you even read the article? Did you even read the part that you quoted? Seriously. Computers can do that too (know where they are in space), but they're not conscious in the sense that we are. does that mean i shouldn't eat a computer? |
Kyonin said: You crazy.Cabron said: You just told him/her what to do, what gives? What if he was standing while telling him/her what to do? |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
Zeally said: Olwen said: Did you even read the part that you quoted? Seriously. Computers can do that too (know where they are in space), but they're not conscious in the sense that we are. does that mean i shouldn't eat a computer? No, I'm saying it's ok to eat plants and computers because they're not conscious. |
Wyzdm said: Olwen said: Did you even read the part that you quoted? Seriously. Computers can do that too (know where they are in space), but they're not conscious in the sense that we are. The article says they are conscious and you said it didn't say that. Anyways so what if they are not conscious, they are still living creatures. Are you trying to say that them not being conscious gives you the right to kill them? If so then I can argue that other animals not being as intelligent as us humans gives us the right to kill them. They are conscious IN A DIFFERENT SENSE FROM US. Same word, different meaning! And yes, not being conscious does give us the right to kill them. We'd starve to death otherwise! Intelligent /=/ consciousness... basic logical fallacy. |
Olwen said: eririri said: and you should know this. Not to imply that you should ignore laws because that would pose trouble for yourself. So what if ethics are made up? Should I go to your house and kill you because there's no ethical justification why I shouldn't? They are a social-construct, we have adapted the notion that killing is bad since it doesn't really benefit us & could bring about revenge which in turn can get ourselves killed. |
| |
| How do you know animals have 'emotions'? |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
-shotz said: marriage said: i'm not gonna sit here and tell people what to do, but it should be obvious that it takes much less farmland to produce plants than meat. The WHO encourages people to center their diets more around plant-based foods for this reason. next time use a little common sense before you go about spouting out shit.animals eat other animals, are we going to make them go on vegan diets too? because we totally have enough farmland to feed 7 billion people extra food to replace meat without them being malnourished typical vegan who thinks soil exhaustion doesnt happen go eat your grass in peace |
Geni-2-ol said: How do you know animals have 'emotions'? Well how do we have emotions, since humans are also animals? |
| |
Olwen said: eririri said: and you should know this. Not to imply that you should ignore laws because that would pose trouble for yourself. So what if ethics are made up? Should I go to your house and kill you because there's no ethical justification why I shouldn't? You probably wouldn't want to do that since that is likely to get you into trouble. To live is to subsist at the cost of countless lives, be it animal, insect, microbes or plants. Suffering as an inherent evil is also bunk. |
|
Zergneedsfood said: Olwen said: Sure, we can consider the consequences, and I think on balance I think the ethical considerations that we take into account do not outweigh the utility we receive from ingesting steak, pork chops, etc.We're more intelligent than tigers, lions etc. so we can actually consider the consequences of killing an animal. Does it really? Think about it. For one person to have meat for their lifetime, how many animals have to die? How many tons of meat is required? rjimenez said: Olwen said: So what if ethics are made up? Should I go to your house and kill you because there's no ethical justification why I shouldn't? They are a social-construct, we have adapted the notion that killing is bad since it doesn't really benefit us & could bring about revenge which in turn can get ourselves killed. Yes, but that just means we have to make up ethical rules to counteract the bad consequences. Why not make up a rule to ban the killing of animals? |
Olwen said: Zergneedsfood said: Sure, we can consider the consequences, and I think on balance I think the ethical considerations that we take into account do not outweigh the utility we receive from ingesting steak, pork chops, etc. Does it really? Think about it. For one person to have meat for their lifetime, how many animals have to die? How many tons of meat is required? rjimenez said: They are a social-construct, we have adapted the notion that killing is bad since it doesn't really benefit us & could bring about revenge which in turn can get ourselves killed. Yes, but that just means we have to make up ethical rules to counteract the bad consequences. Why not make up a rule to ban the killing of animals? The reason there isn't a rule is cuz the majority disagrees & humanity might cease to exist before we get anywhere near there. |
| |
Wyzdm said: Olwen said: And yes, not being conscious does give us the right to kill them. We'd starve to death otherwise! Other animals being less intelligent than us gives us the right to kill them then. Also plants cannot give us vitamin B12. My mom is a vegetarian and she has a deficiency in that vitamin. A deficiency in B12 can cause a lot of problems and since she's so hellbent on never eating meat she has to take B12 capsules. Than that gives me the right to kill mentally handicapped people by that logic. |
| |
Olwen said: You can or you can choose not to. But should you? What does that even mean? You shouldn't if you don't want the chance of getting imprisoned. You shouldn't if you have no benefit in doing so. You shouldn't if you don't want to feel guilt (if you would feel guilt). You shouldn't if... See the pattern here? If... The overriding, unconditional imperative is simply nonsense.So what if ethics are made up? Should I go to your house and kill you because there's no ethical justification why I shouldn't? Note that conditional imperatives infinitely regress, yet we are forced to act anyways. This is what troubled Heidegger, but there is no rational justification anyways. We are, at the core, subject to biological whims that improve our chances of survival. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
rjimenez said: Wyzdm said: Other animals being less intelligent than us gives us the right to kill them then. Also plants cannot give us vitamin B12. My mom is a vegetarian and she has a deficiency in that vitamin. A deficiency in B12 can cause a lot of problems and since she's so hellbent on never eating meat she has to take B12 capsules. Than that gives me the right to kill mentally handicapped people by that logic. Just if you are going to eat them later. |
|
| Jeffry Dammer did nothing wrong by that logic (fixed) Since he preyed on kids, which may or may not have been less intelligent. |
| |
marriage said: animals eat other animals, are we going to make them go on vegan diets too? because we totally have enough farmland to feed 7 billion people extra food to replace meat without them being malnourished ^this to be fair, animals dont raise other animals under horrible circumstances to then slaughter and eat them. The principle`s the same though. |
eririri said: You probably wouldn't want to do that since that is likely to get you into trouble. Not necessarily! We need to make up objective ethical rules, in the same way that we pick axioms in math. And maybe not eating animals should be one of these axioms. Zergneedsfood said: eririri said: There's also near zero utility to traveling the distance and indulging the time to seek out your actual identity, find your address, and stab you to death. =pYou probably wouldn't want to do that since that is likely to get you into trouble. To live is to subsist at the cost of countless lives, be it animal, insect, microbes or plants. Suffering as an inherent evil is also bunk. You're kinda contradicting yourself in this post and the post you made right after that. Zergneedsfood said: Olwen said: Not sure, but you ask as if that kind of consideration matters to most people, which I will flat out say I don't think is the case.Does it really? Think about it. For one person to have meat for their lifetime, how many animals have to die? How many tons of meat is required? Maybe I'm the kind of sicko who gets great pleasure out of finding where eririri is. There'd be an insane amount of utility then! Second, your counterargument is that most people wouldn't care about the number of animals killed to satisfy then. So what? Most people are ethically ignorant; that doesn't mean we should listen to them about ethical judgments. We have to objectively quantify the utility of our actions, not ask for people's opinions about their utility. You can or you can choose not to. But should you? What does that even mean? You shouldn't if you don't want the chance of getting imprisoned. You shouldn't if you have no benefit in doing so. You shouldn't if you don't want to feel guilt (if you would feel guilt). You shouldn't if... See the pattern here? If... The overriding, unconditional imperative is simply nonsense. Suppose my benefit would be the utility (the amount of pleasure I would get) from killing eririri. Also suppose that I was so smart that I wouldn't get imprisoned. (There are many murders in real life in which people don't get imprisoned). Suppose I wouldn't feel guilt. There are supergenius serial killers who get pleasure from killing and never get caught. What is stopping me from killing eririri right now? |
Olwen said: eririri said: and you should know this. Not to imply that you should ignore laws because that would pose trouble for yourself. So what if ethics are made up? Should I go to your house and kill you because there's no ethical justification why I shouldn't? No but placing obviously made up ethics on something thats natural to make it wrong is stupid. anyone who thinks eating meat is wrong is saying nature is wrong and unethical which is stupid because ethics don't apply to reality beyond humans. Maybe all humans should just stop eating and starve to death, that way we don't hurt nature even though nature dictates we should eat meat. |
|
rjimenez said: Jeffry Dammer did nothing wrong by that logic (fixed) Since he preyed on kids, which may or may not have been less intelligent. because children and the disabled are equivalent to chickens and plants stop derailing with your useless garbage arguments that no person with half a brain would agree with |
| Animals also rape, so since eating other animals since they also do it is "okay" does that mean rape is also okay? |
| |
Olwen said: Suppose there is no empirical impediment (you are not too lazy, the distance isn't an issue, there's no legal issue or difficulty in carrying it out, etc.)... Nothing.Suppose my benefit would be the utility (the amount of pleasure I would get) from killing eririri. Also suppose that I was so smart that I wouldn't get imprisoned. (There are many murders in real life in which people don't get imprisoned). Suppose I wouldn't feel guilt. What is stopping me from killing eririri right now? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Olwen said: Suppose there is no empirical impediment (you are not too lazy, the distance isn't an issue, there's no legal issue or difficulty in carrying it out, etc.)... Nothing.Suppose my benefit would be the utility (the amount of pleasure I would get) from killing eririri. Also suppose that I was so smart that I wouldn't get imprisoned. (There are many murders in real life in which people don't get imprisoned). Suppose I wouldn't feel guilt. What is stopping me from killing eririri right now? .............are you ok with this conclusion? |
| Roll up roll up roll up! Get your barfbags here! Typical MAL discussion - from OP's veiled ethical question to justifying rape and murder! So get your barfbags everyone! You'll need 'em! |
|
marriage said: No comment on his posts, but analogies aren't equivalents. Otherwise whenever you hear "roses are red as violets are blue", you'd say "because roses are equivalent to violets..."because children and the disabled are equivalent to chickens and plants |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
marriage said: rjimenez said: Jeffry Dammer did nothing wrong by that logic (fixed) Since he preyed on kids, which may or may not have been less intelligent. because children and the disabled are equivalent to chickens and plants stop derailing with your useless garbage arguments that no person with half a brain would agree with I wasn't derailing I was replying to someone that said it was okay to eating animals since they are less intelligent than us. I don't care if someone else decides to eat animals, but the main reason humans eat other animas is cuz they have nourishment and are tasty to some humans. |
| |
rjimenez said: Animals also rape, so since eating other animals since they also do it is "okay" does that mean rape is also okay?  |
|
| It's not about intelligence, consciousness, sentience, or whatever the fuck else. It is about suffering. If you disagree, please give me one example where it would be unethical to do something to a being that is incapable of suffering/well-being. You won't be able to, because it's absurd. Now, we know from neuroscience certain ways of measuring a being's capacity to feel pain. That is, we can scientifically demonstrate (beyond any reasonable doubt) that an amoeba simply is incapable of the same pain as a human. There is a sliding scale of pain-capability, with rocks/plants/amoebas at the bottom, things like cows around the middle, and creatures like humans and other Great Apes at the peak. The invariant of this scale is this: The higher the being on the scale, the more unethical it is to harm them. HOWEVER, one thing that (to my knowledge) has not yet been demonstrated is whether animals (aside from those at the top of the scale) can not merely feel pain, but actually suffer. That is, does their lack of self-awareness preclude them from conceptualizing of painful experience as "negative"? Or is it more accurate to just understand their pain response in a behaviorist light, where they simply respond aversely to negative stimuli? Some have argued that it's just a neutral reaction, similar to how clapping hands in front of someone's eyes will cause them to blink. So, it's not clear that eating animals is truly immoral, yet. However, I would say it is more likely than not that they would suffer, though I don't have a scientific basis for that. If anything, one could make an argument like "it is better to err on the side of not inflicting suffering in the unknown case". |
More topics from this board
» Do you deem gratuitously killing insects immoral?vasipi4946 - Yesterday |
23 |
by NoelleIsSleepy
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
» Is mental illness real?rian2 - May 9 |
37 |
by Zarutaku
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» Favorite places in Japan(to thos who have been to Japan) and where would you like to visit in the future when you go again?KiraraFan - May 7 |
9 |
by SaltyCookie
»»
44 minutes ago |
|
» To those who peaked their anime watch time during the pandemic, what are you guys doing now?rlyvtei - May 8 |
14 |
by Dracowyn
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » individualism like in usa or collectivism like in japandeg - Yesterday |
21 |
by traed
»»
1 hour ago |