/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11881487
morality isn't objective, fuck off

>>11881487
All vertebrates do. Exactly how unique do you think humans are? We're just like everything else except for our ridiculously complex brain.

>>11881491
>>11881493
most animals do not have pain receptors so eating them is okay. if they do then it would be gravely immoral (to anyone with empathy)

>>11881487
> I think it would mean eating them is objectively wrong
Most people kill animals before eating them. They're not in pain when they're dead.

>>11881502
All mammals, birds and reptiles have the same mechanisms for experiencing pain that we do. The difference is in the subjective experience of "suffering", which more aware animals can experience vividly and less aware do not experience at all.
Dead meat doesn't feel any subjective suffering, so eating it is not amoral. The killing of animals for food need not create suffering, although some is created in practice. Humans have deemed the potential existence of some animal suffering as unimportant when it comes to harvesting food.

>>11881529
So if you were not aware of you being killed, that would be okay?

>>11881487
Animals don't know what's death. They CAN'T imagine it. That's what make us different.

They don't have consciousness though.

>>11881631
They have as much consciousness as your brainlet ass.

>>11881607
So you can kill a Low iq person who can't imagine death, or somebody in sleep?

>>11881487
yes, most animals feel pain through the same mechanism that humans use to feel pain(central nervous system)

there are a few animals whose anatomy is unique and may not experience pain the same way as other animals do.(jellyfish/molluscs)

The suffering we cause when we breed animals for death and consumption is one of the greatest historical injustices in the world. Morality is unprovable, but if you value pain/pleasure, regardless of who experiences it, then there is very little reason to be part of such a callous system.

>>11881604
"you" ≠ "animal"

>>11881487
we don't eat them alive retard

>>11881487
They try as best as they can to take them out painlessly.
Its not like the old days where you macked a cow on the head with a sledge hammer.

>>11881604
We are already being killed and most are unaware.

>>11881502
>most animals do not have pain receptors
False, essentially all mammals have the same ones we do

>>11881487
Eating animals is wrong
>>11881491
Yes it is, dumbfuck

>>11881739
Someone hasn't been to Asia.

>>11881491
>t. Bugman

>>11884135
Prove it

>>11884135
Eating plants is wrong.

>>11881487
I would eat your first born child if I had half the chance.

>>11884827
Why is eating plants wrong?
(You can't answer because you just say whatever you can to try and deny the fact that eating animals is cruel, but have nothing to back it up).

>>11881714
>if you value pain/pleasure
i don't, why would i ?

>>11881487
Monkeys.

>>11884976
It's only a matter of time anon...

>>11884876
Plants have a will to survive, evident by their growth and development of defensive mechanisms to avoid annihilation by disease, insects and herbivores. The helplessness of some against slaughter and consumption by humans doesn't mean it's your right to do so to them.

>>11881487
The only good argument for veganism being objectively moral is an environmental argument, but that only addresses parts of the process of animal manufacturing, and it mostly stems from overpopulation. But veganism has its environmental issues as well, since we’d need to tear down more forests to clear land for more crops.

Even if we should care about animal suffering (why should we?), then it’s not totally true that veganism leads to less suffering for the animals. All animals die, so isn’t it better that they be mercifully killed, rather than left to starve, or be eaten alive? And isn’t a good thing that we not waste meat? Isn’t that better for sustainability?

>>11885134
>All animals die, so isn’t it better that they be mercifully killed, rather than left to starve, or be eaten alive?
That was the argument that came to mind. But you could say the same thing for people or abortions. Animals eat animals it's a part of nature so maybe you could say eating animals is a natural act.
I don't mind eating animals but watching vids of chickens in tiny square cages is depressing. Livestock should be treated well and given some semblance of autonomy in thier everday life. For them and for us.

>>11881487
It's illegal to do scientific experimentation on octopus because of their advanced CNS.

>>11885134
>Even if we should care about animal suffering (why should we?)
A combination of empathy and choice. We can understand pain and relate to others in pain (human or animal), and we have a choice about eating meat. There's also ethical farming. You may choose to eat meat, but only from animals that are raised humanely. CAFOs have led to many animals leading horrible lives, and it wouldn't be necessary if we'd simply reduce our meat consumption.

>>11881487
OP, I believe I have the perfect representation of your concern as the image I have attached to this post.

>secret animal illuminati
>earth's orgasm is animals being eaten by humans
>I'm getting paid hush money to increase awareness

>>11885662
Are you sure that Earth's Orgasm isn't us shitting out the digested animal parts and then more plants springing from said shit and similar animals then eating those plants? Is the cycle of life itself the unending orgasm of some mother that gets off when its children are killed and eaten? What point in the process of life is initiation if consumption is the orgasm? I question the validity of your parallel here and am reaffirmed that this life ain't anything but shit.

>>11885683
>jumps into your mouth to be consumed!

>>11885698
>>11885683
>JUMPS INTO YOUR PHOTONIC VECTOR DETECTOR RANGE!

>>11885698
I have no mouth and have long ago forgotten what it was to scream; in forgetting what it was to scream, I have forgotten what it was to feel the need to scream; in forgetting what it was to need to scream I have forgotten what it was to fear.

>>11881700
yes

>>11884993
man, that movie is rasict. the white face ape is the leader, leading the brown and black face apes

>>11885738
無知的外國機械師

>>11885777
Why are you on 4chan if you have so many friends?

>>11885784
4chan is my dojo. Google it.

>You frontin' or mirrin' bruh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OloLS5kTrVs

>>11885835
I don't front because both my moon and sun sign are in Libra. It's not possible for me to front.

I don't admire shit-lords on the internet because I know that admiration is a power exchange and if I know you to be a shitlord then such a power exchange would be folly on my part.

The ideal meat is lab growth meat anyway, which is already achievable.

>>11881491
Morality is a manifestation of reality and therefore objective

>>11881491
Low IQ

>>11885935
Morality would not need to exist conceptually if immoral actions were never given as an option. Because immorality is an option, the creator itself is immoral, since something that WAS moral would never know immorality, or if it did, it would know not to create the potential for immorality within its creation.

>>11885861
Why would it be folly?

>>11885960
You tell me.

>>11885976
You're the definition provider, why do you want me to do the work for you? You mean I've also got to get your wife AND daughter pregnant? Well, okay then.

>>11885944
based retard

>>11884876
bingo

Even if an animal had no pain receptors, it would still be unethical to kill them. Even if you kill it instantly with a shot to the brain, so it feels no pain and doesn't even know anything is happening, it's unethical.

If you hunt down humans and kill them in a way so they feel no pain, for the fun and sport of it, it's still obviously murder and unethical. Sure, making them feel pain or torturing them before killing them would make the total act even more unethical, but that's just one component of it.

If you're a moral agent, it's unethical to kill another sentient being for any reason besides self-defense, and a high percentage of species are sentient. (It's not unethical for an animal to kill another animal, because they're not moral agents. Similarly, it's not unethical for a person with profound mental disabilities, or who's in a state of severe psychosis, to murder another person.)

In 100 years from now, almost all people in the West will agree with this post and find it bizarre and horrifying that people used to think any differently. It's just one of those era-ethics zeitgeist things.

>>11885134
>The only good argument for veganism being objectively moral is an environmental argument
Even if everyone being vegan were worse for the environment in all regards and everyone being omnivores were better for the environment in all regards, killing animals would still be unethical.

>Even if we should care about animal suffering (why should we?)
For the same reason that we should care about human suffering when it's at its extreme. If you learn there's a serial killer in your state, shouldn't you care that people are being killed? If you learn the serial killer is brutally torturing people before killing them, wouldn't you feel bad about the suffering the people are experiencing?

>All animals die, so isn’t it better that they be mercifully killed, rather than left to starve, or be eaten alive? And isn’t a good thing that we not waste meat?
All humans die, so isn't it better that people be euthanized at a set age so their brains and organs can be used for scientific and medical purposes? Why waste perfectly good brains and organs?

As for the starving and being eaten problems: there will eventually be ways to solve this without having to kill them before they can be killed by something else. It's like saying the best way to deal with people in poor, third-world countries full of disease and starvation is just to euthanize all the poor people in the country, to spare them from possible future suffering, and don't you worry about that coincidental perverse incentive to use their organs for your own benefit.

>>11886194
I agree with your predictions re animals, but we will have a widely distributed lab-grown meat industry by then, and a muscle lattice grown in a lab or 3D printed on the fly creates no such ethical dilemma.

It's seriously about time we develop artificial meat. I see this as a pressing problem currently.

>>11885047
Plants cannot feel nor think, they do not have any will to live. They have defense mechanisms purely because of evolution.
Besides anon, what do livestock eat?

>>11881487
No they aren’t part of the moral community and can’t reciprocate morality. Thus giving them any rights would be a one sided affair.

>>11885760
It's because he was mostly chimp, and chimps have white faces when they're young.

>>11886016
Great job anon

>>11881487
>animals with pain receptors similar to humans
Yes, we call them "mammals".
>eating them is objectively wrong
Non-sequitur.

>>11881493
>complex brain
No

>>11886690
>bigger means more complex
Speak for yourself, Anon.

>>11886573
Neither can babies, it's a shame nobody are you while it was deemed amoral.

>>11881487
not sure if retarded or bait

>>11881487

>pain receptors
why the fuck do you care about pain receptors

so a low intelligence being with high pain receptors is not ok to eat but a near human level being with no pain receptors is ok to eat?

>>11881607

i'm pretty sure some animal know what death is like elephants

>>11886568
Brains are also defensive mechanisms. At what point is a sensory feedback mechanism not sentient to you? Plants clearly have a a will, and as macro organisms they deserve consideration.
>what do livestock eat
Other animals have not the rational mind to consider all things, or the means to avoid consumption of their normal food source. I can't judge them. If you're talking about me eating livestock, I don't. Most of my calories come from synthesized sugars and simple fats produced artificially. Some nutrients and variously proteins have to come from algae since there's no other way to produce them commercially as of yet. I consider myself like the previously mentioned nonhumans in this regard. Lack of ability to survive without living foods is a perfectly valid excuse for the consumption of other life.

>>11886874
I think you missed my point.
To lower animal product consumption is to lower the money given to the industry. With less demand, fewer animals will be bred and fed, meaning fewer plants and animals are killed.

>>11885516
>But you could say the same thing for people or abortions.
the difference is we find more value in a human when he is alive, unlike certain animals like chickens, cows, etc.
>>11885646
So if you have no empathy, then it’s not immoral. If I can eat an animal without feeling bad, then it’s not immoral. Makes sense to me, actually. We should all do what makes us happy.
>>11886214
Yes, I care when humans suffer. I am designed to. They are related to me, and their suffering causes me to instinctively feel as if something is wrong. If other humans can suffer then surely I may end up in their place. I don’t want a serial killer to kill me or my family or friends. Humans are a lot more valuable than animals, even if animals experience more suffering. Notice how even harming a human leads to bad consequences, whereas you can kill most animals without fear of consequence. This proves that we intuitively view animal-killing as insignificantly immoral at best. That’s because it doesn’t make sense, evolutionary speaking, for us to not eat meat. By the way, how do you derive morality given an evolutionary framework? Because this abstract principle of merely reducing other-suffering for its own sake makes little sense. It all comes back to the self.

>>11886889
I missed nothing. I don't believe animal consumption is ethical. I think you mistook me for a false flag carnivore or concern troll.

>>11881487
Bro what the fuck the animal should be dead before you bite into it. You should also cook it avoid memey disease bullshit.

>>11886926
You seem based friend, I'm sorry for fighting.
Take this frog.

Future generations are probably gonna look back at our curent day factory farming practicies in a similiar way that we currently look back on shit like slavery and pre-enlightenment despotic goverments.
I still eat meat, my /fit/ ass demands the proteins and I like the taste.

>>11886953
>Future generations are probably gonna look back at our curent day factory farming practicies in a similiar way that we currently look back on shit like slavery and pre-enlightenment despotic goverments.
slavery led to rebellion, death, disorder. Animal farms lead to.... food

>>11886961
Aye it does, it also leads to what can be so wondersously vaguely defined as "unneccessary suffering", we'll be judged after a more efficent manner of getting meat has been deviced (lab grown shit?) and adopted. Being judged by future zoomers judging us for not having the same technological capabilities as them.

Little fucking smug shits, fucking brats all of them. If a future "internet-culture-archeologist" digs up this post I want them to know that they are a dumb zoomzoomer and internet culture archeology is a fucking stupid subject to get a degree in.

>>11881487
>o b j e c t i v e l y
>caring about some chemical reaction in the animals brain
>caring about morality, which is completely arbitrary
>planning to give up eating something you WANT to eat

>>11886993
morality isn’t completely arbitrary. It’s dependent on what leads to a more preferable life, generally. When you cause suffering to others, it’s difficult to avoid negative consequences for yourself. That’s why we instinctively know we shouldn’t go around murdering humans as carelessly as we step on ants. But these vegans and others have made an unjustified leap and made it a principle that all suffering is bad and should be avoided, which is neither intuitive nor rational. They’ve made a hasty generalization (suffering USUALLY is bad, therefore it is ALWAYS bad, in humans or otherwise). But this ignores the faculty that even allows us to feel empathy in the first place, our own self. Our empathy is made FOR us, so that we can thrive. I would say being so concerned with animals is an example of an unhealthy excess of empathy (or retardation), but still, everyone is allowed to be vegan or not, as it makes them happy and doesn’t harm others. But eating meat makes me happy, and so I will, and I should, do it.

>>11881493
The precise control over vocalizations, unusual hearing, extremely dextrous hands and amazing eyes (if they are not ruined by modern lifestile) ere what sets us apart. Our brains seem to mostly just suck ass; the reason why most animals don't speak is the lack of breathing control. Which prevents them from uttering more than short syllables as they breath in or out.

>>11887035
You can see apes are very poor at using tools. There us a reserve where they taught orangutans use tools, but they are too clumsy. They try, but the results are abysmal.

>>11881493
It's our extreme eyesight and unusual hearing, as well as our dexterity in hands and vocal control.
There is a reserve where they taught orangutans using tools like hammers and saws, they seem to fully understand the princible, but lack the manual dexterity to do so. Mammals could possibly be able to speak if they had the ability to control their breathing and vocalizations well enough.
Our brains mostly just suck ass for their size, and seem primitive compared to animals that had big brains much longer.

>>11886971
>>11886971
Pretty based, they will shit on us like BLM protestors tear down statues of Christopher Columbus. But factory farming needs to go. Lab grown meats are indeed the future, I just wish this kind of shit could get more government funding instead of funding Israel’s missiles

>>11886993
Imagine being this much of a 13-year old. Someone should knock your teeth in for no reason, then you tell me about how “subjective” morality is

>>11887139
that doesn’t even contradict subjective morality, btw.

>>11884827
Eating is wrong

>>11887335
>He hasn't figured out how to be an autotroph
Primitive and barbaric.