Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights

Precisely. Let’s take sentience as our defining attribute (however that is measured?). Now let’s say that we are judged to be closer in terms of sentience to our fellow apes than to our hypothetical aliens. On what rational moral basis can we argue that the aliens in question should treat us with any more moral consideration than we treat chimps?I don’t think we can. Which means either there is something immoral about the way we treat our fellow animals or we need to hope that any such aliens either don’t exist or are more morally enlightened than we are.

Hi Straggler I would like to think that if/when we discover life on another planet (i.e. when we are the aliens) we will adopt a hands-off approach and not disturb the existing environment, however simple or complex the lifeforms may be. We ought to have learnt to do that by now. I hope any aliens discovering our planet would do the same.Why is it immoral for humans to eat a cow, but not for a lion to do the same?Virtually all animals survive by eating other lifeforms. Why does it become immoral for us to eat other animals just because we have achieved a certain level of sentience? Eating other animals is absolutely normal. And it is widely considered by evolutionary biologists that we wouldn't have achieved our level of sentience had we not developed a taste for meat and benefited from its high energy value. Eating meat is being human, it is not inhumane.

I am not sure we have learnt this at all have we? What makes you think we have? Well I didn't say it was immoarl to eat cows. I asked if we accept it as moral to eat cows then on what basis we would argue that advanced aliens should not farm and eat us? Then the aliens have every moral right to farm and eat us if they so wish? Eating meat is entirely natural. True. That doesn't necessarily mean it is moral. Surely that is for us to decide? All I am asking is on what basis we make that decision and then what the logical implications of consistenly applying that reasoning are if the positions of us as eater and eaten are reversed?

Hi Bluejay
I have replied to you but this is a general post to anyone interested in this topic really. Let me try and explain where I am coming from in this thread.I recently argued with Hyro about the humanity of a conceptus in the context of abortion. This got me thinking. A conceptus is nothing more than an unaware mindless clump of cells devoid of a brain , central nervous system, feeling or sentience of any sort. It isn’t human. On this basis I have no moral issue with abortion. Many here seem to agree with this stance and this broad reasoning. I stand by those comments. But I started asking myself on what basis do we really apply morality? Is terminating the life of a newborn human baby morally wrong? I think we would all agree that it is. But why exactly?Well a newborn human infant does have a brain. It does have a central nervous system. It can feel pain etc. etc. It is human by almost all definitions. It is also sentient in a limited sense. But then again so is a chimpanzee. In fact a chimpanzee is arguably more sentient than a newborn human baby. But that doesn’t stop us treating chimps in ways that we would never treat a human baby. Why? If sentience or ability to feel pain is our criteria then how do we morally justify our treatment of chimps or indeed many other animals? Are we really applying morality on the basis of sentience as we insist? Or are we fooling ourselves?Well we can argue that a human baby has the potential for full human sentience. But does that really help? Would I condone conducting experiments on geriatric humans with degenerative brain disorders that severely impeded their sentience? Even if their level of sentience were less than that of a chimp with no hope of improvement or recovery? No I wouldn’t. Again I don’t think many would. So again sentience based morality is in trouble. It seems to me that ultimately what we are doing is loosely justifying humanity/personhood on the basis of sentience in an initial period but then not applying our criteria consistently either to ourselves or other species.So then I asked myself the question about the aliens. If they are as superior to us as we are to chimps in terms of sentience then on what basis could we possibly tell them that they would be morally wrong to farm us, eat us, experiment on us etc. etc. etc. The answer is that I don’t think we could come up with a consistent rational criteria based moral argument. We would in effect have to rely on them being morally superior to us and hope that they did not emulate our rather morally inconsistent treatment of animals.I am not making a particular moral point about eating meat or whatever. I am just pointing out that we as a species seem to be in denial about the fact that we are very inconsistent in any objective moral sense.

Not all of us certainly. But I think most educated people understand how we have buggered up many ecologies. I cannot picture us discovering life on another planet and just charging in and screwing everything up. I think the scientists who would plan such a mission would have enough awareness of the kind of ecological damage we can cause, and I would imagine it's likely that any advanced aliens would have the same. Of course, short-term greed and desperation could overrule all that, but I think a long-term sensible view would be not to interfere directly in another ecological system. But you were suggesting that as it would instinctively seem immoral for a more intelligent alien race to eat us humans, it is equally immoral for us to eat less intelligent animals. There is no such thing in my view as a "moral right". Making some kind of decision in any circumstance is necessary and unavoildable. We have to make all kinds of decisions all the time in order to do anything at all. The aliens will make a decision. What reasoning lies behind their decision is theirs. It's the aliens' decision whether or not to farm and eat us, not ours. It is up to us to decide how we might react to their decision. I don't think a gazelle could say that the lion is morally wrong for trying to eat it. All the gazelle wants to do is try and survive, just like the lion. OK. But we don't need to wait for aliens for us to become the "eaten". Is it immoral for a shark or a lion or a crocodile to eat a human? How does the level of intelligence/sentience of a species affect whether or not it is "right" to eat another species? If it is considered wrong for us to eat other animals, presumably it is also wrong for us to allow other animals to eat other animals? It must be wrong to keep a pet cat and feed it meat. It must be wrong to allow lions to carry on eating gazelles.

We only have the one example, Earth, to go by for this. However, like global symmetries in physics, we can make some reasonable assumptions, some axioms.The numbers involved just within this galaxy along with the known physics and chemistry gives us a high confidence level that there is life out there. Of this we are as certain as we can be without actually holding it in our hands. Sentient alien life we cannot be so sure of but for the sake of this thread we must take that as axiomatic.While evolution would change species to adapt to environmental change the real spur in evolution appears to be the arms race scenario. Even in autotrophs competition for resources can induce variation and complexity. The same must be true for any alien life from the most simple level onward. The axiom being that Evolution, mutation/Natural Selection/arms race, is location-invariant throughout life systems in the galaxy.This does not mean that alien life systems must produce sentient organisms but that any sentient beings that arise are the product of the cauldron of evolution. An evolved sentience on any world, even if the being is autotrophic (I like the thought of an animal that flays out leafy wings in the sun for lunch) cannot become a space-faring species without having acquired great knowledge about itself and the universe around it. This must include knowledge of its own evolution and the study of other species' evolution on its home world. The concepts of herbivore/carnivore cannot be foreign to them.An axiom on sentience. IMO a tell-tale of sentience is complex culture: language, art, complex social organization, science, music, sport, Douglas Adams, etc. As we have seen on this planet not all levels of sentience produce complex culture but any species that produces complex culture must be self-aware, intelligent beyond the level of instinct, creative, feeling as distinguished from sensory perception or thought. And again, my opinion, my incredulity if you will, is that no advanced space-faring sentience can have evolved without creating some attributes of complex culture or without the knowledge of recognizing complex culture. I submit, then, that any alien visitors in the OP must recognize the complex culture of our species and must conclude sentience. Within the constraints of the OP, whether they attach any importance to this is questionable and off-topic. IMHO their recognition of our sentience would be obvious.Again, my opinion only, with all the above I find it difficult to believe that some advanced space-faring society would not recognize and would not appreciate that our evolution, our way, though different from their own, is not without corollary in some of their home-world species. And that our way of farming animals, using them for medical testing and sustenance, hunting them for sport, though it may be disturbing in their world view, is not wrong but just different not requiring any justification. Further, I submit that the greater the level of intellect the greater the recognition and tolerance for different and the relativity of morality.Edited by AZPaul3, : syntax goof

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.

No. I am asking on what objective criteria morality can be consistently applied. If any. Well that is a very philosophical attitude. But I think the bulk of humanity would be morally outraged at the bahaviour of the aliens. Rightly or wrongly. Not really. This is about what criteria we as thinking moral creatures use to apply our morality. Is it sentience? If so how do we justify considering it OK to experiment on chimps whilst not being OK to experiment on humans who are lacking such sentience due to age, accident or illness?Is it morally wrong to eat brain dead humans? If so why?

I accept that a general display of speciestic sentience may well be the deciding factor as far as an alien species is concerned. The alien question is a means to an end rather than the end in itself.My main concern here is with our own inconsistencies. If sentience is indeed our criteria for morality then why do we consider it immoral to experiment on or eat humans who are lacking sentience for reasons of age, injury or illness? Why is it morally OK to eat cows but not brain dead humans? Why can we experiment on chimps but not on humans suffering severe degenerative brain conditions? Which one of the two is more sentient?

Hi StragglerSorry, I didn't see your message 34 before I submitted my message 35. You raise a very good point. Objectively, in one sense at least, I think you are correct in proposing that it is inconsistent to allow testing on chimpanzees but not on human babies, when the chimpanzees may have a higher level of sentience.I wonder how often it is asked by anyone in a position of power to determine such things, why certain testing on animals such as chimpanzees is legal and acceptable, but not on humans. What I mean is, is sentience always the main argument? Do those allowing such experiments, and those carrying them out, always consider or remember what the justification was?I think most people hate to see testing on animals, just as many if not most people even dislike the idea of animals being killed to be eaten. But most of us are willing to turn a blind eye to these uncomfortable ideas. We like the medicines and cosmetics that come from the testing, and we like our steaks.I think it is essentially a subjective, instinctive and selfish decision that our own species is simply more important than other species. But if we didn't have this ability to override our conflicting sensibilities, would we have survived as a species, and could we continue to survive?The same could be said for your aliens. If they have to wander around the universe looking for food, then that's what they have to do to survive, whether they like the idea of eating us or not.If the day ever comes when the human species or an alien species considers that it is not superior to other species, would that not be the first day of its path to extinction?

If we were actually faced with aliens who were tempted to treat us as cattle but who were up for being persuaded otherwise on the basis of moral philosophy then I think we would have to resort to that sort of argument. I just hope we don't find out how convincing they would find that answer........ And I am putting the problem (as I see it) out there to see what others think. It seems we agree on the problem and (as unsatisfying as I find it) your answer seems our best bet of persuading those pesky aliens we are worthy of some moral consideration.

Exactly. And I personally have no issue accepting that. Yet we delude ourselves into thinking that we have a consistent rational basis for our morality. I think we need to realise that we are fooling ourselves in that respect to some extent. Yes sentience plays a part. But it isn't the whole story and we don't apply it consistently. Ah now that is the problem. I think we would consider the aliens immoral for treating us in this despicable way whilst being blind to our own inconsistent thinking on this with regard to our own treatment of other species. That is my point here really. Quite possibly. But where do we draw the line between specieistic self promotion and immorality? Is it OK for us to roughshod over all other species on Earth on the basis that they don't morally count in any way? Purely on the basis that it is natural for us to consider ourselves as intrinsically more important? Can we do whatever we want to other species or are they deserving of any moral consideration at all?

Just read this with the fixed link.

Because the vast majority of individuals are considered sentient one of the defining attributes of our species is sentience. The young may not show the outward signs of individual sentience but we know that for the majority they will grow into the self-awareness we expect of a sentient being. It has become a matter of relative morality in society to not eat them. The same moral treatment is applied to those who have (seemingly) lost sentience due to illness or injury. We find strong moral reasons (empathic) to not eat them either.Over the past few decades there appears to be a growing awareness of the sentience in other species, especially apes, chimps and to some degree dolphins. We are not to the point as a species that we recognize a level of sentience in these requiring the same level of moral protection we apply to human. It may become so as we progress in enlightenment, whatever that is.Because of the imperatives of our evolution as omnivores coupled with the structure of the society we created, the mass farming of chicken, cow, corn and any other species where sentience is not only not recognized but cannot be reasonably (as a carnivore not a Buddhist) considered, holds no moral bar.As we have seen over the past few decades the humane treatment of what will eventually become dinner has begun to be considered, but the needs of those whom we recognize as obviously sentient (us, as a species, brain dead or not) will always take precedence for resources. If the humane treatment of chicken means no juicy fryer on the Sunday dinner table then our moral imperative will be to feed our children and forgo any qualms over the treatment of an obvious lower form of life. This is not a moral flaw. It is an evolutionary imperative.I am a carnivore. I will eat meat. It is my evolution. These days I do not have to go hunt the wild. I can pick it up in the grocery. There are some moral constraints to be sure (sentience being very big, no filet of human or chimp in the meat case) but how it got there is of secondary concern to it actually being there and available to satisfy my Maslowian need. By extension the same applies to using animals for medical and safety testing instead of sentient, soon to be sentient or used to be sentient humans.

Indeed. And I too am a carnivore with similar attitudes to you regarding meat production and other species.But that is a reason. It is not an objective criteria for morality. Telling an advanced alien species that they should not treat us as we treat chimps or cows because we consider it evolutionarily unsatisfying for them to do so will not cut the alien mustard. It is not a consistent application of an objective criteria. Exactly. We advocate sentience as the defining factor and then completely contradict ourselves on an instinctive evolutionary bias towards fellow members of our own species regardless of sentience. Any rationally moral alien would eat us for breakfast on the basis of this argumentLiterally in the scenario I am talking about