/sci/ - Science & Math

>eating animals which possess neural conglomerations and some form of response to external stimulus
>implying plantae do not possess nerve fiber and respond to stimuli

>>3316652

>implying I have morals

The only reason I have any ethics at all is because of social restrictions/obligations.

>irrationally expand your morality to non-human life

The truly heinous crime against nature was breeding animals for the sole purpose of making them as meaty and delicious as possible. AT this point, killing and eating those meatpiles is only natural.

Have a heart!
eat a FUCKING STONE!

>>3316670
>implying plantae do not possess nerve fiber and respond to stimuli

They don't, retard. The closest thing found was that certain tomato plants can create electrical potentials similar to those in animal neurons--but not identical at all:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/17/science/plants-found-to-send-nerve-like-messages.html

A Windows 95 computer is more conscious than a tomato plant. A pig or a cow, on the other hand...

>putting an unnatural moral structure above health concerns
>I seriously hope you guys don't do this

/sci/ related?

So fucking what?

Give me a rational reason why I shouldn't eat meat?

Besides, I suspect that putting your species before other animals is at least in part instinctive.

>>3316682
>Published: November 17, 1992
I advise you check this out, and pay careful attention to the sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology)

>>3316687
>implying that vegetarianism isn't healthy

tell that to fucking Bear when he's about to fuck your shit OP

>Implying whole fucking nature isn't a fucking battlefield

>>3316708
Oh well done! You noticed! I hope it didn;t tax your nutrient starved brain too much.

I don't restrict my morality.

>>3316708
>implying only vegetarianism is healthy

>irrationally having morals
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>3316708
On a low-calorie diet, omnivorousness is generally healthier then vegetarianisms

stupid hipsters who think being nice to animals will give them positive karma (even though those animals would fuck their shit without smirk if it's about staying alive)

>>3316704
>talks about sources
>cites Wikipedia
>mon visage when

>>3316742
>On any diet, omnivorousness is generally healthier then vegetarianisms

fix'd

>>3316713
>>3316745

samefag

>>3316742
>>3316756

This is not about health. Even if it were unheathy (which it is not if you supplement with B12), it does not change the ethical implications.

You also cannot cite that "hurr lions eat meat too, and our ancestors hunted." Nature and evolution has no built-in morality. If it increases fitness for an animal to kill everything in sight, then that's the course evolution will take. It is the evolution of intelligence that has allowed conscious creatures like ourselves to make moral decisions.

>mfw I eat animals

>>3316781
>implying animal-human dichotomy

How's the 1800s, bro?

>>3316758
so what?
prove me wrong!
not a single fucking one animal is "nice"to other species. they all fight for food and territory. Eating and killing each other. Cats and dogs doesn't count as long as people take care of them they don't give a shit. Some people eat dogs anyway.

>>3316652
Why is eating non-human animals morally wrong?

>>3316779
>Even if it were unheathy (which it is not if you supplement with B12)

Dietary reductionism is dumb, and you're a bad person for doing it.

>You also cannot cite that "hurr lions eat meat too, and our ancestors hunted."

Actually the food habits of our ancestors are very important to the issue. There is this little thing called evolution, you may have heard of it, and part of it involves what different species adapt to eat.

>It is the evolution of intelligence that has allowed conscious creatures like ourselves to make moral decisions.

In a brain that was built by meat.

>>3316755
>pay careful attention to the sources
>implying they aren't credible on that article

>>3316779
You ake moral decisions as not to kill your neighbor or not to fuck your sister. We are the top of food chain. everything below is either food/workforce/enemy to be bitchslaped

end of discussion

>>3316814
http://www.skepdic.com/plants.html

>>3316815
nazi much?

>dont know shit about whats right or wrong but still force your false morals on other people only because youre forever alone and think everyone is evil but you
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>3316819
>citing skepdic

>>3316795
>not a single fucking one animal is "nice"to other species. they all fight for food and territory. Eating and killing each other.
Ok... you need to stop this shit. I'm not even a vegetarian but you're a moron. Ever heard of symbiotic relationships between species? Or commensal relationships? Resource partitioning?

Go brush up on some ecology before you go spouting brain dribble like this.

>>3316819
>skepdic
>credible
Backster was involved in emotional segments of plant perception, not fucking stimuli, you idiot

>>3316835
^THIS

Your average non-human animal isn't self-aware, doesn't understand that other animals are independent, thinking individuals, and isn't aware that things continue to exist when it looks away.

Why the fuck should I extend my morality to something that stupid?

>>3316819
I lol'd

>>3316779
Our ancestors didn't just "hunt" they literally would chase animals till they would collapse from sheer exhaustion, then kill them.
That's right up there with parasitism, on the list of most horrible ways to kill something.
Be happy we now turn their brains in fine slurry in some milliseconds, that's a humane death if there ever is one.

>>3316846
>implying you have psychic perception of what goes on in an animal's head

>>3316795
For the cognitively impaired, I shall direct you to the post addressing this issue:
>>3316779
>You also cannot cite that "hurr lions eat meat too, and our ancestors hunted." Nature and evolution has no built-in morality. If it increases fitness for an animal to kill everything in sight, then that's the course evolution will take. It is the evolution of intelligence that has allowed conscious creatures like ourselves to make moral decisions.

In other words, you cannot derive your morality from observing other animals. We never copy behaviors of other animals. In fact, in general, we try to avoid mimicking the behaviors of animals. We build civilization instead of wallowing in the mud. We create complex tools to improve our existence. We reach beyond our instincts and invade abstract territories of the mind (e.g., pure mathematics) which would be useless for an animalistic lifestyle. Most of what we do as humans is contrary to what other animals do.

Why do we anomalously cling to copying the behaviors of other animals when it comes to the meat eating issue?

The progress of human history has followed a trend of escaping the chains of our animalistic existence. It seems irrational that while most facets of human life is transcending its ancestral existence, the diet remains carnivorous and dependent on the death of other conscious creatures.

>>3316835
>symbiotic relationships
you are fucking faggot
even fucking trees in the forrest are strangling one another

>>3316859
please answer
>>3316802

>>3316859
Life itself depends on the deaths of other conscious creatures. The "human" behaviors you mention are even more responsible for death than all of the hunting our ancestors did put together.

And then there's that whole evolutionary adaptation thing making the ancestral diet preferable to one that has no history in human evolutionary history.

>>3316859
>Why do we anomalously cling to copying the behaviors of other animals when it comes to the meat eating issue?
Um... what? So we are copying other animals when we eat meat because our physiology and anatomy permits us to? How would we not be "copying" other animals if all we ate was plants? You're a goddamned retard.

>>3316858
>implying the fields of animal cognition and comparative psychology haven't been systematically studying what goes on in an animal's head for the better part of a century

>>3316864
You are an idiot, implicitly using an argument ad absurdum. Fuck off.

>>3316871
Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum EVERYWHERE

Luddites/Hippies/Oil Tychoons =/= Science

>lobotomise all animals
>problem solved

>>3316721
This.
OP:
>irrationally restricting your morality to only life

>>3316652
>implying there is an ethical code for animals

>>3316869
>So we are copying other animals when we eat meat because our physiology and anatomy permits us to? How would we not be "copying" other animals if all we ate was plants?

DERP. I was referencing the claims that a reasonable justification for eating meat is that "many animals do it, many animals don't have any care for other lives, and therefore I shouldn't either."

We would not be actively copying other animals if we ate plants. When you eat a steak and think, "This is okay because a wolf does the same thing," that is what I mean by actively copying; using it as a justification.

lrn2read, faggot

>>3316900
>not being aware of the ethical code for animals

>>3316864
Symbiotic relationship examples:
Mycorrhiza, a fungus, maintains a symbiotic relationship with practically all plants on the Earth. Without these fungus' metabolic aid practically all plants would die out on the Earth.
E. coli colonizes your gut as a baby and helps you digest food.
Green Weaver Ants and treehoppers: the ants guard treehopper larvae, the treehoppers, in exchange, secrete honeydew for the ants.
Shrimp dig burrows which they share with Gobys. The Gobys help the shrimp in predator detection.
Clown fish and Anemones.
Remoras and sharks, as well as other cleaner fish species.
I could go on.
You're a fucking retard. Go kill yourself.

>>3316886
>implying not eating animals is Luddism

Luddites try to go for what is perceived as "natural" for humans. Since a common argument against vegetarianism is that meat is natural for us, I would daresay that meat eaters are further on the Luddism spectrum than vegetarians.

>>3316865
Y U NO ANSWER, OP?

>>3316902
I eat steak because it's tasty
pack of wolves would eat me because they like to eat steak as well

>>3316902
Except you went on a rant about how humans need to differentiate themselves from animals.

>When you eat a steak and think, "This is okay because a wolf does the same thing," that is what I mean by actively copying; using it as a justification.
Except I don't think that when eating a steak. Also, how is justifying an action qualifying as "copying" an animal? I suppose wolves justify to themselves when they eat meat as well?
Do you listen to yourself?

>>3316905
Oh yeah, and I forgot the big Endosymbiosis example: The very Eukaryotic cells that make you up would probably not exist if it were not for prehistoric bacteria colonizing and living symbiotically within other cells (i.e. Mitochondria and Chloroplasts).

>Not basing your belief system and actions on your genetics

Sorry OP, but speciesism is natural and so is eating meat.

Only reason i need to eat meat is that it's tasty.
Deatlwithit.gif

I can and i want to eat meat, hence i eat meat.

>>3316911
Luddites aren't people who use naturalistic fallacies, they are people who impair progress by declaring some technology dangerous or immoral.
If eating meat was a new invention, vegetarians would definitely fit this description.

>Morality

Consider this: Grains are grown on fields. Other things live in these fields, including small animals. What do you think happens when the combines come along and scythe away the grains? Those itty bitty animals die. En masse. You could prevent this if you grew your own food, but you won't, because that would be inconvenient.

In short, you're a lazy bastard and a hypocrite by your own morality..

>>3316911
>Implying dietary beliefs have anything to do with Luddism, a reaction to technology.
wtfamireading.png

>>3316858
>isn't self-aware

They fail the mirror test and other tests we have for self-awareness. They lack the developed neocortex that allows for complex, conscious thought and "projection" into the future.

>doesn't understand that other animals are independent, thinking individuals

There's a test we do where the subject watches a tester hide some desired object in front of two other testers, one who sees the object being hidden and one who cannot due to being blindfolded or looking away. The subject is then allowed to choose which of the two testers to beg for the item from.

Only humans, dogs, and some of the other great apes pass this test. All other animals fail and choose randomly.

>isn't aware that things continue to exist when it looks away

This is easy to test in controlled situations where the subject sees something get covered up, moved out of vision, etc. Again, many animals fail hard.

>>3316915
>Why is eating non-human animals morally wrong?

It depends on the approach to morality you're taking. I could go on forever about this, but I'll keep it brief:

First, understand the moral objections to killing humans. We do not kill humans because of some philosophical reasoning that I will defer right now. Given that killing a human life is wrong, we know now with modern evolutionary biology that there are no honest _fundamental_ differences between other animals and humans besides greater cognition. Consequently, we are faced with the glaring question: Is killing any life morally wrong?

Here is my reasoning summarized (it may not be perfect and the only one out there, but I'm just honestly telling you what I think personally):

Killing humans is wrong--for reasons concerning ending a conscious life.
Humans are animals.
Roughly speaking, our experience of pain, suffering, and consciousness is physiologically similar to those of common livestock animals.
Therefore, for the same reasons we do not kill other humans, it is wrong to kill other livestock animals.

>>3316950
IN AFTER RETARDS COMPARE KILLING AN ANIMAL TO MOWING A LAWN. PLEASE CONCEAL YOUR IGNORANCE BY NOT POSTING ITT.

I go jogging behind my parent's house every day. Coyotes frequent the area.

Let's say for the sake of argument, a pack of coyotes come out during the day, manage to kill me, and eat me.

Were the coyotes being immoral?

>Carnivorefags
>irrationally restricting your morality to only human life
>implying non-cannibalism

>First, understand the moral objections to killing humans. We do not kill humans because of some philosophical reasoning that I will defer right now.
No
We do not kill humans, because of the social order.
The social order exists to make the life of every human better. If killing other humans beings would be allowed, the social order would cease to exists, therefore hurting all humans in the end.
Maintaining the social order is in my interest, therefore i abide by it's rules.
"Morality" is not some magical subject philosophers discovered, it is an evidence based consensus of how to better human life.

>>3316679
>AT this point, killing and eating those meatpiles is only natural.
I think we should eat people, if they can't escape, they smart enough to survive and hindering human evolutionary development. This is merely a modest proposal.

>>3316970

The thing is that the current system for grain farming has the direct consequence of killing thousands/millions of animals. Therefore, endorsing the current agricultural system implicitly endorses their slaughter.

>>3316983
>are you really that dense?

>I think we should eat people
I'd totally eat human flesh, as long as the deceased consented to it, prior to his death.

I have given the cow it's life and it's purpose.
It lives to grow and eventually feed me.
It lives only because i want it to live.
I don't see why it's "wrong" to use the cow for what it's made for.

>>3317000
Kuru.

>>3316986
>We do not kill humans, because of the social order.

Fair enough if you think that. At least you can eat other animals in a logically consistent manner.

But many do have and find fundamental moral reasons not to kill other humans, besides not going to jail.

>>3317008
Nice lack of empathy. You'd make a good politician.

>>3317014

Not that poster, but none of those cows would even be born unless we were consuming them.

wes should start eating humans too, all animals are equal isn't my orwellian friends LOL

>>3317000
>I'd totally eat human flesh, as long as the deceased consented to it, prior to his death.

Well, I have no problem with that either. In fact, I would join you.

I also would eat an animal who died of aging. But I would _not_ eat an animal which was killed.

>pic related, I just got this captcha:ionalJ livestock, what a conicidence

>>3317018
Those cows would be aurochs if they hadn't been driven extinct by agriculture.

>>3316990
>I think we should eat people
by all means

I think its wasteful not to eat people, animals, or anything else the yields nutritional value, if there is no other factor (such as contamination) that should prevent someone from eating it. Morals are based on social norms and conventional agreements that can (and should be) broken if they no longer (or ever did) hold any rational reasoning behind it. This includes the idea of "good and bad".

>>3317025
>conicidence
>implying 4chan isn't proto-skynet

>>3317014
It's a symbiotic relationship.

I raise and feed the cows letting them reproduce and conquer the globe by my side.
In return i get the meat from the cow once it's time is full.

Without this relationship cows would be driven near extinction.

we should breed animals that are virtually braindead, so that it's impossible for them to be distressed at any time during their life cycle. that would shut the hippies the fuck up.

>>3317035
>I think its wasteful not to eat people
Enjoy your prions. Go to West Africa if you don't believe me.

>But many do have and find fundamental moral reasons not to kill other humans, besides not going to jail.
This is essentially a religious argument, relying on some moral authority higher than humans.
There is no such thing as objective morality, nobody to judge your for your acts expect your fellow man.
Right or wrong is not determined by some magical sky daddy, but by the consequences of your acts.
The consequences of killing other humans is breaking the laws of the very system that kept them from killing you.
I don't kill others because i'm afraid i'm going to jail, i don't kill them out of thankfulness for not killing me.

>>3316962
>Given that killing a human life is wrong
Why is killing a human life wrong?

>there are no honest _fundamental_ differences between other animals and humans besides greater cognition....Is killing any life morally wrong?
Is killing a fly wrong? Is killing bacteria wrong?

>our experience of...consciousness is physiologically similar to those of common livestock animals.
lolwut

>>3317053
>This is essentially a religious argument, relying on some moral authority higher than humans.
Stopped reading there.
You might cultivate a better debate if you decided to be less intellectually dishonest.

>>3317043
No, they would have been aurochs, and been capable of surviving perfectly well on their own.

>>3317056
>>our experience of...consciousness is physiologically similar to those of common livestock animals.

Well on /sci/, yeah.

>>3316904
we can impose one on them but animals do not have an ethical code. fuck you

>>3317045

I heard about research scientists were doing in the US where they were breeding mice without heads. I think the idea was that we could grow humans without heads and then harvest their organs when needed.

you people are such fags...
I don't want to eat other humans because I'm human. If we all started eating each other we would go extinct. Preserving my own species is my only moral.

>>3317059

No, they wouldn't be aurochs. They wouldn't exist.

>>3317056
Nice abuse of ellipsis, bro. You'd make a good journalist.

>>3317061
Read and learn, oh ignorant one.

>>3317053
>This is essentially a religious argument

Strawman, much?

>>3317069
Cows are domesticated from the aurochs. You are aware of domestication, yes?

I know, many tribes don't think humans are anymore important than pigs, and eat their neighboring tribes. They are constantly at war, but the bodies are not wasted. I know, about the side effect of cannibalism, but when your people are bound to die at a young age due to starvation, don't you think that you would choose that option over "morality"?

>>3317063
you started with "fundamental moral reasons" implying some generality or general validity of some morality, which IS a religious argument

>>3317071
If you feel that I have taken what was said out of context, please explain why. I cut out what was extraneous or irrelevant to my replies.

>>3317081

And arguing that the cattle alive today - the huge multitude of them- would be aurochs is silly. There would still be aurochs, perhaps, but not nearly as many as there are cattle today.

>2011
>Still not a nihilist

>>3317083
>2011
>he thinks secular morality cannot exist

1) The concept of outwardly declaring things "right" and "wrong" is primitive.

2) You live only once.

3) Do what makes you happy - no need to justify it, but see #4

4) You are part of a planet that thrives on unwritten contracts between large populations of humans/animals/etc. All actions you take in seeking happiness/survival in #3 have the potential to result in backlash from the groups from which you take, or that you offend.

Killing and eating another creature is obviously not in its best interest, but in yours. If you can do this, feel good about it, and avoid all repercussions, I encourage you to do so. However, if you chose to kill and eat your neighbor's cat, and then he burns your house down with you in it, you sort of wrote your own ticket, right?

In other words, the police, other people, the military, packs of wild dogs, and even other angry/hungry individuals (mammal or otherwise) are apt to seek life-ending/altering/ruining revenge (or unprovoked attack) upon you based (or not based) on your involvement with them in the world.

Is eating your neighbor's cat worth the baseball bat to the temple? Can you do it without getting caught? Is it really worth the trouble when McDonald's dollar menu is so cheap?

Simply put: do as you wish that makes you happy, allow others to do so as well, but take no shit.

Very simple, issue solved, and /thread

>>3317106
>2011
>he reads books by Sam Harris

>>3316962
>Killing humans is wrong--for reasons concerning ending a conscious life.

>Humans are animals.

Agreed.

>Roughly speaking, our experience of pain, suffering, and consciousness is physiologically similar to those of common livestock animals.

I'll give you the first two (which I think you'll agree are not particularly important), but not the third.

For many reasons, including ones pointed out by >>3316958, human conscious experience is known to be significantly more advanced than that of even our closest great ape relatives.

I believe those differences are significant when determining which minds it is okay to kill and which it is not.

>>3317059
>No, they would have been aurochs, and been capable of surviving perfectly well on their own.

No, they are competing with humans for the land. The world would be endless farms instead of the farm/pasture world we have now if we didn't eat meat. Many species have been killed by humans because they were in the way.
Same with the cow, it would either be dead or isolated in small pockets.

There are 1.3 billion cattle today in the world, it's one of the most succesfull species on earth, much like chicken, sheep, cat and dog. All because they are usefull to humans.

When it comes to killing animals I think it's more acceptable killing individuals the larger the population is, since it doesn't affect the whole population as much. Killing ants or flies is entirely ok, but you don't just kill a tiger and get away with it. This applies for humans too.

>>3317093
Fair point. But hardly a solid ethical argument for enslavement of life.

>>3317106
No secular objective morality certainly can't.
Certainly no "fundamental" secular morality either.
Now subjective secular morality, based on consequences of actions, and a subjective "goal" to be achieved by that morality, which is exactly what Harris and I was talking about, that can certainly exist.

>>3317115
I'm not advocating veg*nism. They are now cows because they were domesticated, not out of any necessity. People and aurochs both survived just fine when people were eating aurochs.

>>3317119

But human societies are massive. Millions of people live in one city. Humans are therefore okay to kill.

>>3317140
Precisely.

I wonder, do vegetarians ever consider that the health benefits of vegetarianism can be better explained by eating more vegetables in a diet than by eating less meat?

There is a hierarchy. It starts at Humans, goes through animals closest to us in terms of sensitivity to pain, consciousness (no animal is as conscious as a human, to argue such is silly. Dolphins and Chimps are probably the closest, and I would feel strange eating either for that reason) and emotion, then through animals with no capacity for pain, then plants.

By moving down the scale, and understanding that the lower creatures are less important than a single member of an upper creature, it becomes morally allowed to kill creatures lower on the scale to feed ones higher. Plants are as alive as we are, but it is the lack of consciousness which makes it morally right to eat them to continue living.

This moral framework also endeavors to minimize suffering of all creatures which can suffer, along this same hierarchy. I would say that I am morally opposed to some of the horrible conditions found in those few slaughterhouses which are paraded through the news, but I've seen humane versions as well.

And I understand that the health, cost, and mental effects on me from not eating meat would outweigh the negligible chance that one of those horrible meatshops would close down earlier if I became a vegetarian.

Can someone please explain why the level of consciousness in an animal is relevant? Just because a pig isn't as smart doesn't mean it doesn't feel pain, or that it isn't just as alive as you are and just as valuable.

>>3317136
>People and aurochs both survived just fine when people were eating aurochs.
>when

That is your problem. We have a little more people today that we had then. If we didn't eat meat we could have loads more because plants are more efficient that meat (btw only sane argument for vegies). Just because the once was habitats for these animals doesn't mean that they would survive in todays world.

You do realize that aurochs are extinct right? Humans competed them to death and as they stopped being usefull the last one died

I used to be an axolotl

>>3317183

Actually, it very much means it is not as valuable than a human life. A pig cannot live as long, is not as important in any logical understanding of life, cannot effect the rest of the world on anywhere near the same scale, nor appreciate the universe on anywhere near the same level.

I always found people who argued that non-sentient (in the SF sense) animals are equal to humans to be a bit sociopathic.

Also, fun on topic video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM

>>3317183
Exactly. Many animals do feel pain, irrespective of their intelligence.

Here's an article from a veterinary journal:

Pain mechanisms and their implication for the management of pain in farm and companion animals
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023307000676
Over the last two decades there has been a dramatic increase in the literature relating to the mechanisms and management of pain in domestic animals. Understanding the mechanisms of pain is crucial for its effective management. This review highlights the current understanding of the neurophysiology of nociception and the plastic changes involved in chronic pain states. Additionally, we describe a range of novel molecules and pathways that offer opportunities for the development of mechanism-based analgesic therapies. Pain management in animals is limited by pain assessment which remains highly subjective, with clinicians relying on indirect measures of pain, using rating scales and (less frequently) quantifiable physiological and behavioural parameters............

>>3316652
>It's the circle of life
>And it moves us all
>Through despair and hope
>Through faith and love
>Til we found our place
>On our path unwinding
>In the circle
>The circle of life

>How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!?

Listen to more music, Herbivorefag

>>3317187
The plant efficiency argument is terrible if you have any concern at all for animal species. More humans means less animals. Greater food supply for humans as a result of not eating animals will result in fewer animals, so it's a self-defeating defense.

The point being that saying that cows only live because we keep them and therefore we are morally justified in using them any way we want is akin to saying that negroes in slave times only lived because their owners kept them, and therefore slave owners were morally justified in using them any way they wanted.

>>3317215
>I always found people who argued that non-sentient (in the SF sense) animals are equal to humans to be a bit sociopathic.

You appear the same to me, incidentally.

>>3317183

the pain itself isn't actually that important as a physical sensation. you have probably already experienced a lot of things that are far more painful than what will eventually kill you. what makes it that much worse is the stress from realising you're dying or you're about to die. the stupider the animal the less this realisation and the less the stress, therefore the kinder it is.

Anyone who is interested in this topic, here's a 43 minute long interview with Richard Dawkins interviewing Peter Singer (the guy in the OP pic).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

>>3317226

Several first generation slaves who escaped into South American or African areas survived by themselves pretty well in the wild. If their owners all up and died, they'd do fine.

Cows would not. Not at all.

>>3317183
>Just because a pig isn't as smart doesn't mean it doesn't feel pain

I'm turning the table. Who gives a shit about pain?

If you met a human who couldn't feel pain (that's a real condition btw) you'd think it was okay to kill him? What the fuck?

>>3317215
>>I always found people who argued that non-sentient (in the SF sense) animals are equal to humans to be a bit sociopathic.

>thinking people who have enough empathy to care about animals are sociopathic

ishygddt

>>3317254

wat. I wasn't saying that no pain = go right ahead. I was actually focusing on the fact that it is just as alive as any of us.

>>3316883

Reductio ad Absurdum is only a fallacy if it is a Straw Man. In a lot of cases, reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical argument.

>>3317254
>If you met a human who couldn't feel pain (that's a real condition btw) you'd think it was okay to kill him? What the fuck?

That brings up a very good point. Also consider anencephalic children. With pre-birth screening, we know to abort these children, so it's just a thought experiment now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

>pic related; that's a human babby

>>3317258
>implying that humans aren't animals

>>3317242
Time frame is a little different there. But survival probability is not the point. The low survival probability of cows is due to human domestication. Essentially the argument being made is that humans crippled aurochs into cows, therefore humans can use cows however they wish. This is not a compelling moral argument (to anyone who isn't just trying to justify their use of the cows). If whites created a slave race of blacks that could not survive on their own, would that justify the slavery? Of course not.

>>3317168
>On the Celestral Heirachy
Way to go back to an old religious argument.

>>3317258

That's a fun strawman. I'd counter by asking how many pigs would you say a human life is worth? You killing farmers to save cows yet?

I never said that you shouldn't take the pain and suffering of animals into account. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I did however say than 1 pig is not the moral equivalent of 1 human in any logical manner at all.

Humans are the only race who can effect global change. A rat in Australia cannot stop a parrot in Brazil from becoming extinct. We can. I would argue that we should be doing that, yes. I'm sympathetic to that. We should eb trying to operate as environmentally friendly as possible. It only makes sense.

But I will not shed tears over 15,000 lab rats dying in order to develop a treatment that saves 1000 human lives.

Or even one.

>>3317275
>I was actually focusing on the fact that it is just as alive as any of us.

So are the plants that you eat. So are the bacteria you kill daily just by going about your business. Being a living thing doesn't matter. Being able to feel pain doesn't matter. It's all about the intelligence.

>>3317308
>Implying there is more than one Sephiroth

>>3317316

I would argue that none of it matters.

>>3317308

Just because it was used by religion, does not automatically make it wrong anymore than an idiot saying the sky is blue makes the sky green.

Besides, the reason for ranking hierarchically is different, and I'd guess the final rankings would not look the same either.

>>3317312
>I'd counter by asking how many pigs would you say a human life is worth? You killing farmers to save cows yet?

SPEAKING OF STRAWMEN LOL

>>3317308
The sephiroth are not in a hierarchy, as H+ was using the term.

>>3317334

Thatwasthepoint.jpg.

what percentage of the human body is actually human cells again? wasnt it like 10%?

>>3317316

Implying killing intelligent being (regardless of pain or not) and causing pain to any being capable of feeling pain (intelligent or not) are not BOTH morally wrong.

>>3317316
*cough* |
*cough* V
>>3316990

>>3317367

Yes about that. There are more bacteria in your gut then there are human cells in you.

By a factor of 10.

>>3317368

Context sensitive. Is it morally wrong to kill or wound a tiger attacking and trying to kill your child?

I don't have morals. What now?

>>3317389
Apply to be a CEO of a transnational corporation.

>>3317389
Eat as much meat as you want. You can sleep soundly knowing you're being logically consistent.

>>3317394

That's what I do. It annoys me when people debate about when killing something is moral and when it isn't. Killing is killing. The only difference between killing a bacterium and killing a human is that there are humans that will mourn the human and get angry.

The highest forms of life that don't consume another life to survive are plants. All other higher orders of life must consume another living thing to continue their existence. That is the mystery and symbol of the ouroboros: life consumes itself.

One could say OP is irrational for excluding plant life the list of things they irrationally restrict their morality to.

Or just a pompous dick...

Shit! I got trolled...

>>3316652

dont wanna interrupt this stimulating conversation, but can someone name this song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mddB2A8PnBE

>>3317368

Follow the whole post chain. The guy I was originally responding to was implying that feeling pain and being "equally alive" were more important than consciousness and intelligence.

He was, in fact, asking why consciousness is even relevant.

>>3317408
Well, I wouldn't go as far as comparing a bacterium's death to a human's, but I would agree that killing a cow or a pig is fundamentally no different from killing a human. This doesn't diminish or change the value of a human's life, in my view; it only increases the value of that of the pig.

I simply do not think it's immoral to kill something for food.

>>3317420

>The highest forms of life that don't consume another life to survive are plants

>implying carnivorous plants dont exist

gtfo bro, plants would eat you if they could

>>3317424

I would say that telling little Timmy he can't live because in order to treat his illness, we would have to kill a pig, inherently drops the value of human life.

Violence is always context sensitive, and while it should be minimized, it is morally permissible in certain situations.

>>3317466
Fuck little Timmy. Who here actually cares about little Timmy? Any hands? Let's see...oh, there's one--oh okay, you were just stretching. Let's see...Nope, no one gives a fuck.

>>3317439

>implying logic has anything to do with placing value on lives

morality, is inherently irrational, there is no reason we should put value on one thing or another, its just a choice we make, and that choice doesn't have to be logically consistent and transferred to all life forms because it isn't a logical decision in the first place

we all value our families over strangers
we value humans over animals, for various reasons
and we value animals over plants

you can create your own rules for yourself, but saying other people are immoral because they dont subscribe to your rules is ridiculous, if you wanna be strictly philosophical, then morality has no business anywhere in life, it's just a personal construct we build, and if someone doesn't share it, too bad for them

>>3317502
>implying that humans are not animals.

>>3317502

why should I value a pigs life?

Its a choice I make, there is no necessary logical reason that exists in this universe that encourages me to value the life of a pig.

Even if God existed and dictated "thou shalt love all pigs" I would say, Thanks for that idea God, but I'll make up my own mind.

If there is such a rule, show it to me, and tell me why I should follow it.

>>3317484

That's cool. Little Timmy was just what I called this Cow.

Oh burn! Gotcha!

>>3317518

There is no necessary logical reason to value anything. Value is imaginary.

>>3317511

>implying all animals are humans

differentiation exists, thus I can place different values upon different species

Are people honestly arguing that Veganism is a more logical life choice? How?

>>3317525

yes, and ipso facto morality is imaginary

so I don't see the point of this discussion, everyone follows their own imaginary rules for whatever reason...

>>3317533

I understand what it means for something to be incorrect, false, wrong in a factual sense, wrong in a logical sense...wrong in a legal sense

but I never understood what it mean for something to be wrong in a moral sense

what does that mean?

>>3317556

That given the choice between two options, it would be preferable to choose one over the other, because in a world where everybody chose as you do right now, it would be in your best interest if everybody chose the more morally right option.

Ex. If you can choose to push a person into traffic or not, it is morally right to choose not to, because the next time someone makes that choice you might be the one closest to the road.

>>3317569

And yes that is inherently selfish, but what kind of morality did you think would come out of natural selection?

>>3317569
>utilitarian view of morality
There are others, of course.
>>3317578
Symbiotic relationships have been mentioned upthread.

>>3317569
That's a self-interested implementation of the golden rule.

Are you suggesting that lead what makes an action morally "right" is that it leads to self-preservation?

>>3317586
Oops.
>Are you suggesting that what makes an action morally "right" is that it leads to self-preservation?

>>3317590

Basically. Not just self preservation for you, but for all involved. Because you are assuming a world in which everyone follows that version of morality. So it is morally right to take the action that preserves yourself, because if everyone takes that action, it preserves everyone.

And yes, this is from a utilitarian view, of course. In utilitarianism, it is the ends of an action, not the reasoning behind it that determines it's moral worth.

>>3317610
>So it is morally right to take the action that preserves yourself, because if everyone takes that action, it preserves everyone.
wtfamireading.jpg

>irrationally restricting your morality to only human life
>I seriously hope you guys don't do this.
>171 posts and 28 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>mfw i have no face

>>3317610
> So it is morally right to take the action that preserves yourself, because if everyone takes that action, it preserves everyone.

Incorrect. Preservation of all humans above all other forms of life has led to a hightened extinction.

>>3317631
>implying this thread wasn't a very deep discussion

>>3317635

The universe farting once every hundred million years has led to the extinction of 99.9% of every life form who has ever lived. Humans have not come anywhere close to that track record.

And we are the only species with the capability to PREVENT or REVERSE extinction.

Since we have evolved enough intelligence that enables us to modify our diet so that it doesn't involve suffering of other animals, it would be wasteful to ignore this opportunity.

Face it, you only eat meat because the slaughter is done by other people behind closed doors. If you had to kill every animal you ate, you sure as shit wouldn't be eating meat. So why are you still eating meat?

>>3317518
Hey, egotist...

You should value a pig's life because your fellow man - en masse - values a pig's life to some extent.

Same reason you should value the life of a cat or dog, or the natural beauty of a line of trees...

If someone thinks an inanimate object is important, it is disrespectful, rude, and anti-social of you to desecrate, destroy, or consume it when they did not want you to.

This is why it is illegal to kill people's cats and dogs, or even to inhumanely slaughter food animals. People in general hold that pain and suffering are bad, even towards animals, and that's something you should learn to respect and value, and try to figure out why people don't want you to beat their dog to death with a lead pipe.

It's a simple, simple lesson. Killing is unpleasant - but we do it for our health, enjoyment, and survival. Why advance that "killing is okay" when we know it isn't? Simply do what you must, or what you want, and move on, and try not to be excessive. Respect other people's wishes if they are reasonable.

"Hey, dogs and cats are cool companion animals, how about we don't eat them because I have some that I consider family, and that makes me super sad... " - spoken from a completely competent, good individual, who contributes to society, and agreed with by the majority of normal people in that society - this should incite you to examine your own morality.

If you find yourself in conflict with this simple, obvious position, it is likely your ego. Do you find yourself saying "people are stupid" frequently when you discover that they disagree with you on this, and similar issues?

Do you think you are superior because you proclaim the fact that you eat meat, and trumpet it, and drag it around like a child with a new and rare toy?

>>3317701
Not to mention the health benefits of a vegan diet.

>>3317670
>Humans have not come anywhere close to that track record.

Irrelevant. Your point was still shown to be incorrect.

>And we are the only species with the capability to PREVENT or REVERSE extinction.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to all the species we are driving extinct by behaving as you suggest.

>>3317711
Because there are none.

>>3317701

>>3317701
> it would be wasteful to ignore this opportunity.
Non sequitur.

>>3317706
>You should value a pig's life because your fellow man - en masse - values a pig's life to some extent.
My fellow man also values Justin Bieber, Sarah Palin, and creationism.

>If someone thinks an inanimate object is important, it is disrespectful, rude, and anti-social of you to desecrate, destroy, or consume it when they did not want you to.
Bawwww!!!

>>3317701

I've killed several of the animals I have eaten, and sloth is not a moral argument.

>>3317739
Your response drips with immaturity, and is void of rationale. Congratulations on contributing nothing.

Also, Justin Bieber is a human, do you sincerely believe he ought meet the fate of a parasite, or would you just rather not hear his music?

>>3317718

As they aren't capable of predicting or establishing morality the way we are, and would in our position simply do whatever was dictated by their instincts, I fail to see why I should take what would "comfort" them into account.

And when I said "everyone" I was referring to human beings. Animals are not morally equivalent to people. So my analogy is still sound.

>>3317759
Your argument was essentially one big argumentum ad populum.

>Also, Justin Bieber is a human, do you sincerely believe he ought meet the fate of a parasite, or would you just rather not hear his music?
That wasn't my point. My point was that you made a fallacious appeal to the majority. Just because other people value something doesn't mean I should.

>>3317706
>Killing is unpleasant
To some.

>Why advance that "killing is okay" when we know it isn't?
We don't "know" it isn't.

>Simply do what you must, or what you want, and move on, and try not to be excessive.
Why?

>Respect other people's wishes if they are reasonable.
Why?

Everyone going on about "instinct, nature, survival of the fittest, wild animal would kill you"

Would a chicken kill you? Would a pig kill you? Would a cow? Would any of your run-of-the-mill meat animal charge you and eat your guts out? No. Hell most, factory animals have are so full of chemicals and hormones and genetic modifications that they can't even support their weight on their legs. Go kill a bear yourself and eat it and then we'll talk about "survival of the fittest". I'm not even going start on the TREATMENT of factory animals. You people act like a standard human can't bring themselves up above pure wild instinct to become a decent person. By your logic, it would be perfectly justifiable to eat a person with a physical or mental handicap simply because you are (in some way) superior to them.

Proud vegetarian. Always will be.

>>3317850

I find it ironic that you make that argument from a position of smug self-viewed moral superiority.

Oh, and I ought to add. Would you kill and eat a 3 year old? Because a pig is smarter than an average 3 year old.

>>3317872

*An adult pig is higher-functioning than an infant human (No, it is not)

>>3316958
>mirror test
You just went full retard

>>3317870
As opposed to feeling superior to whom?

Yes, I feel superior to these kind of people because I, unlike they, apparently, am capable of compassion for life as opposed to killing whatever I feel is beneath me.

Not that I'm for it, but other animals don't give a hoot about us so why exactly should we not use them for our benefit?

I know it sounds cruel, but it's fact. Humans are, to a very large extent anyway, the only animal to love and morally care about other animals.

>>3317914
hahahano.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

>>3317931

he did say "to a large extent".

>>3317872
I wouldn't because i don't want prions and i value my own species over all others. Maybe if the 3year old was grown in a lab, had no brain, and was garentied not to turn my brain into a sponge then maybe i would but only if human tasted good which from sources i have bin able to gather it is not.

>>3317931

Symbiosis is enlightened self interest, which is a moral action by my morality, but symbiotic creatures do not love or morally care about their partners. They cannot understand morality, and love is a human concept without a firm definition.

To all the fags who think intelligence matters for life worth:

What about total retards? Should we gas them without remorse?

>>3317940
Fair enough. But i'm pretty sure most mammals will deeply love and care for their young.
Who, I might add, are forcibly and traumatically torn from them at birth in factories.

>>3317954

Define 'total retard.'

And no one here is I think arguing for killing things for shits and giggles, but if you are going to eat it afterwards, there is another reason for what you are doing than just bloodlust.

PS: Some animals kill for fun. Cats are one of them.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

- Albert Einstein

>>3317954
It matters how retarded. Most retards i would probably put on menial labor or factory jobs. If they are nothing but a resource drain then why keep them around?

Captcha: The menfork

>>3317965
>Define 'total retard.'

You.

>>3317977
Oh wow. Classy. Real classy.

>>3317972

Argument from authority, logical fallacy.

>>3317977

Oh nicely done. You learned debate from the grade school playground college of argument I take it?

Adults are talking now, you are excused from logical debate.

>>3317977
>inb4 H+ rages

>>3317994

In after trollface.png

>>3317972
>mfw Hitler/unsourced
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Animals#Unsourced

>>3317790
1) It was not a fallacious appeal to the majority... it was argument for the sake of your own safety, and statistically, demonstrates that your mindset is an outlier, rather than the norm. "Argumentum ad majorum" does not give carte blanche for you to be abnormal or to ignore the value of the public view.

2) Other people like Justin Bieber, so what, I'm not saying you have to "like" anything... what will other people do to you if you kill Justin Bieber? See my point now?

I think that's checkmate.

The best arguments are the ones that nobody has a counterargument for. Makes me wish i was stupider so that i could have long drawn out arguments aswell instead of lerking. Damn you /sci/ ;_;

>>3318059
>The best arguments are the ones that nobody has a counterargument for

For which side? For or against vegetarianism?

>>3318059

I could switch sides if you want. I like playing devil's advocate sometimes.

>>3317831
Killing is unpleasant to all who it is intelligent to allow to occupy shared space with you. No? Spend a month in prison with some murderers and come back and talk your position again.

>We don't "know" it isn't.
If I begin killing you, you will most likely agree with me that you don't want me to finish. Onlookers will likely also agree. Thus, we "know" that killing is wrong. This same thing will work for any animal that can resist being slowly murdered. Thus, we can be pretty sure that killing is at the least not "okay"
Why do what you want or must and move on, and not be excessive? That's just simple advice. Trying to justify every action you take results in sitting in discussions like this and sounding like a giant idiot. Humans do stuff other humans don't like. Just don't be excessive about it, and things will be okay... that's just advice.

Why respect other people's wishes if they are reasonable?

Because not doing so renders you a stupid, irreverent dick that nobody will like, and you will have happily earned your ostracism.

I didn't ask you not to question people's wishes... but when you discover them reasonable... drop your stupid tirade and move on. Simple stuff.

>>3318063
No strong feelings ether way.

i'd eat people if it was socially acceptable, healthy, and tasted good.

>>3318095
DID SOMEONE SAY ETHER?

Why is it ok to eat pigs and cows but not cats and dogs?

>>3317775
It serves to point out that your point about having the capability to preserve species is... pointless.

And no, if you're talking about behavior produced by evolution, you are talking about all species.

>>3318114

>>3318168
Because dogs and cats are companion animals, loved by their owners, and who are more highly capable of cross-species socialization and domestication than other animals.

Herd animals - the ones we eat - are generally very stupid (the exception being pigs, which, I do question the value in consuming, considering that they stop your heart faster than most other mammals).

I am a mafist, btw, I eat non-mammals, fruits and vegetables. It's a much easier lifestyle than being a vegan or vegetarian.

>>3318240
Googled your shit. http://www.mafism.com/ Wow you guys are a bunch of faggots. Go kill yourselves.

>>3318240
>Because dogs and cats are companion animals

hurr durr subjective

>>3318253
We would, but, honestly, we're mammals and we don't agree with killing those.

Also, fuck you.

>>3318255
hurr durr learn the definition of subjective. My cats and dog hang out with me all the time, thus being what we would call "companions" or... "domesticated"... getting a cow or chicken to interact with me at similar levels is nigh impossible.

Hurr durr, get a fucking pet, cockmouth, you might get laid sometime after you understand that animals are pretty cool guys.

>>3318267
>you might get laid sometime after you understand that animals are pretty cool guys.
For some reason that made me lol.

>>3318267
Fucking retard. So by that logic, someone who is _your_ friend automatically makes them objectively of higher value?

>>3316652

>eats human
u mad?

>restricting morals to human life only
Fix'd. And,
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

there is no logically necessary moral precept, we just make our own morality

saying X is immoral is irrelevant, give me a good reason not to eat meat

>>3318516
>give me a good reason not to eat meat

Give me a good reason not to eat cats, dogs or humans.

Remember as you say morals are irrelevant

>>3318553
>Give me a good reason not to eat cats, dogs or humans.
They don't want to be eaten.

>>3318560
Pigs and cows don't want to be eaten either.