Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights

Hi, Straggler. Here is a similar idea in a Calvin and Hobbes strip.{AbE: Oops! I linked directly to an image, instead of a web page. I've fixed it, but you have to scroll down a bit: it's the fourth strip on the page}Edited by Bluejay, : Fix link problem.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Taq. Apothecus is saying that aliens may use different criteria to determine what is "sentient" than we do.And I think he's got a good point: after all, what are our criteria for determining sentience? We know that cows and ants can communicate with one another, and that they can respond to this communication in meaningful ways. The only difference between them and us in this regard is a quantitative measurement that falls out on a pretty continuous spread when all species are plotted on the chart.So, our determination of what counts as "sentience" is just an essentially arbitrary threshold value marked on a curve. It's technically possible that hyper-advanced aliens might just set the mark higher on the curve, such that we are below the threshold.That being said, I also think it is a tad less likely for advanced aliens to harvest us for meat, simply because I suspect they would be capable of recognizing something more sophisticated in us than in other organisms. I would think a logical measure of sentience would be the capability of cross-species communication: I suspect we could at least be successful at communicating ideas to the aliens (which cows are not really capable of doing to us), which might count for more in the alien's eyes than the mooing of a cow does in our eyes.Edited by Bluejay, : Alteration of last paragraph.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler. Would you find it inconsistent if the concept was to save all members of any species of which any individuals are sentient?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler. I suppose I agree with you on that.I think the idea I presented fits the observed pattern very well, but it is a post hoc contrivance for the purpose of rationalization, so I doubt it has ever been actually used as the real reason for things.Still, it could be used, going forward, and it could be argued to be morally superior to our current system.I guess I was more trying to propose a solution, rather than identify the problem, because we generally agree on the problem.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler. I'm being perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek here, but I think consumption of sentient beings would be undesirable. Civilized creatures don't get as much exercise as non-sentient beings, and often eat poorly, so a civilized creature would likely be nutritionally deficient relative to a creature that evolved or was bred specifically to eat and process food (like a cow).So, on that basis alone, perhaps we would be safe from another civilized being, unless they have a taste for fat.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Jon.Just to add to that thought, what's the difference between consumng and animal and consuming a plant?Anyway you look at it, we have to kill something in order to eat (unless we only eat fruit and milk)!In light of that, what you choose to kill just seems to be a superfluous question.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Chimp. Straggler's point is that our empathy towards things has nothing to do with their being sentient.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler. I was talking about civilized beings being culinarily undesirable, not sentient beings. Apes aren't fat, lazy creatures that never use their muscles, like we are.I was looking for a culinary loophole we could slip through to avoid being devoured by aliens.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Pseudonym.Welcome to EvC! But, you probably are convinced that we can honestly justify killing/eating plants, right?What's the difference, morally speaking?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Pseudonym. What is pain that it should matter so much?Killing is killing, regardless of how much (or little) discomfort your victim feels about it.Would it be okay if we anaesthetized animals before we killed them, so they didn't go through any pain or suffering?{AbE: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you would still think meat is immoral, even though anaesthesis would entirely satisfy the principle on which you pretend your decision is based.The principle of your argument is not pain and suffering: it's an emotional reaction to "cute and fuzzy" and "blood and gore"; and you've just latched onto the "pain and suffering" line ex post facto to make it sound like it stems from a logical, moral principle.In this, you exactly parallel the scenario that Straggler put forward in his "aliens-eating-humans" argument.}Edited by Bluejay, : Marked Addition.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Pseudonym. Maybe it was a little pointed, but I didn't intend it that way. I have noticed a rather higher measure of irritation in my posts this week (perhaps I should take a break). But, in all honesty, I didn't intend for this to sound so pointed.And I didn't accuse you of lying: I accused you of not being aware of an inconsistency in your reasoning. You say you are opposed to pain and suffering. I ask you now, sincerely: would anaesthesis satisfy you? Or would you still object to meat?Edited by Bluejay, : replace "be" with "being"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Taq. I'd like to explore this idea a bit, starting from this quote: What if the aliens cannot eat plant matter without suffering any nutritional diseases?We meat-eating humans eat meat because we obviously have no moral center.But, obligate-carnivorous aliens would eat meat because they have to in order to survive. So, for them, the morality is directly a question of whether animals are their moral equivalents, and the answer is obviously going to be, "No." Why should we expect that to be any different?I suppose advanced alien carnivores could subsist on in vitro meat or use genetic engineering to make themselves capable of subsisting on a morally-acceptable diet, but is this really a realistic expectation? Would we be willing to undergo such dramatic alterations to ourselves or our way of life in order to avoid consuming something with a central nervous system? I very strongly doubt it.-----Also, there is the possibility that the aliens' world does not contain meaningfully distinguishable "plants" and "animals." How would such aliens define "meat" and "vegetable," and how would they translate the distinction we make there into their moral system?I'm convinced that any alleged moral undertones of this discussion are wholly subjective, probably oversimplified, and not helpful in predicting how aliens will or should behave toward us.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Taq. Why stop there, then?If they really are more advanced or enlightened than us, shouldn’t we expect them to realize that subjective, arbitrary criteria---such as the presence of a central nervous system---are not a morally appropriate system of determining what can be killed and what cannot be? Shouldn’t we expect them to be more objective than that?Why don’t we assume that technologically advanced aliens would modify themselves to get their energy from photosynthesis, in order to prevent the destruction of habitats required by organisms with central nervous systems to survive to grow crops? Why don’t we assume they will also dramatically reduce their population, and enforce a zero-growth strategy, in order to ensure that there is enough space for all organisms with central nervous systems to make a home? Why don’t we assume that they will live in domes or in orbital habitats, so that they don’t accidentally step on an organism with a central nervous system? Better yet, why don’t we assume that they will modify all organisms with central nervous systems so that they can get their energy from photosynthesis, so nothing has to be killed for any reason?If they have the technological ability to do so, don’t they also have the moral imperative to do so? And, shouldn't they also recognize this moral imperative?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Taq. You would only need to ask for permission if the wrongness of killing or harming organisms with central nervous systems is situational and subjective.Otherwise, those with moral awareness, and the technological capability of preventing the suffering and death, are morally obligated to prevent it.----- Basking sharks still eat things with central nervous systems: most plankton are animals.There seems to be a contradiction here. Should moral exemptions be granted to things we deem worthy of moral protection?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Taq. If the act is objectively immoral, it shouldn't matter who or what perpetrated it: it should still be our moral imperative to prevent it, shouldn't it? That's the principle upon which the entire field of medicine is (allegedly) based.If we have the power to stop an immoral act, refraining from preventing it can itself be seen as an immoral act, can't it?At least, I thought that was a principle being promoted here. Maybe I was wrong.----- Wouldn’t we consider it our moral imperative to do something about a major impending disaster like an asteroid? At least to try something?Why doesn’t this imperative translate over?----- Maybe some don't, but arthropod and mollusc larvae certainly do, and they're a significant proportion of the plankton (krill, for example).Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.