User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-23 at 6:29 PM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 6:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Sure and I don't even care if Zanick wants to not talk about plants. That would be fine. But he even said that most scientists don't think ants feel pain, so why does he choose to define them as moral agents but not plants? Probably because he just wants to, because his morals are subjective and relative, and therefore none of us have a moral obligation to not eat meat.
I recognize ants as moral agents because their behavior demonstrates a will to survive on an individual which is more or less explicit, like any animal or human. Plants haven't been known to do this. As for why I don't crush the ants when most scientists agree they don't feel pain; I would prefer not to be wrong because of the stakes. -
2018-03-23 at 6:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick You could say that we all draw our own boundaries. I deserve to live in an environment of my choosing, just like animals. That some of them have taken up residence in my gut isn't my choice, and they'll have to contend with the same difficulties any organism inside of me would, including myself.
I guess I draw my boundary somewhere past eating meat. So I’m not obligated to do shit then. -
2018-03-23 at 6:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws I guess I draw my boundary somewhere past eating meat. So I’m not obligated to do shit then.
Not in your ethics, but I didn't make a thread titled "what degree of carnivore are you?" Do you believe that failing to mediate the populations of your various gut bacteria relieves you of the moral responsibility to reduce suffering in the world? -
2018-03-23 at 6:37 PM UTCSeeing as this thread is over 800 posts now, I’m sure this has been repeated ad nauseam. But I don’t have a moral responsibility to do shit, because as you just said we make our own boundaries, meaning morality is completely relative.
/thred -
2018-03-23 at 6:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick [1]I don't crush the ants when most scientists agree they don't feel pain; [2]I would prefer not to be wrong because of the stakes.
1- no, really ants cant feel becos the keep voluntarily climbing up my boiling pot, over the brim and ended up in my soup.
2- but its ok when it comes to dealing with plants ??? why the double standard ???? -
2018-03-23 at 6:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Seeing as this thread is over 800 posts now, I’m sure this has been repeated ad nauseam. But I don’t have a moral responsibility to do shit, because as you just said we make our own boundaries, meaning morality is completely relative.
/thred
I don't see my think it betrays my position to describe the observable tendency that we all adjust our care toward others to suit our preferences; if anything it's precisely what I'm calling on you to change. But you're right about the first part. -
2018-03-23 at 6:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader 1- no, really ants cant feel becos the keep voluntarily climbing up my boiling pot, over the brim and ended up in my soup.
2- but its ok when it comes to dealing with plants ??? why the double standard ????
I don't have a sophisticated knowledge of ant anatomy, but as a practical measure, I respond to doubt with caution. I don't need to complete a dissertation on their nervous system to prove to myself that it's okay to smash something that apparently doesn't want to be smashed, I'd rather just not do it. Plants, as I've said, offer no indicators that they care about their individual survival. Ants sort of do. -
2018-03-23 at 6:56 PM UTCYou can call on me all you want, I won’t change and I don’t have an obligation to change. That’s your opinion.
The word “obligation” implies we don’t have any choice in the matter. It’s kind of a douchey way to phrase it. -
2018-03-23 at 7:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I don't have a sophisticated knowledge of ant anatomy, but as a practical measure, I respond to doubt with caution. I don't need to complete a dissertation on their nervous system to prove to myself that it's okay to smash something that apparently doesn't want to be smashed, I'd rather just not do it. Plants, as I've said, offer no indicators that they care about their individual survival. Ants sort of do.
Ants don’t “care” about survival. It’s a thoughtless stimulus response. Just as plants respond to negative stimuli.
The reason you consider the behavior of ants more than vegetation is because you have a bias to rely on anthropomorphic protoypes when interpreting whether a certain behavior indicates “caring” or “not caring” about survival, and when attributing moral agency. -
2018-03-23 at 7:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws You can call on me all you want, I won’t change and I don’t have an obligation to change. That’s your opinion.
The word “obligation” implies we don’t have any choice in the matter. It’s kind of a douchey way to phrase it.
Of course it's douchey, do you think people would have clicked if I said, "Come here and change your equally valid opinion if you want to"? There's a reason animal activists employ shock footage. Unless you make a strong claim, you can't expect people to reply with passion. -
2018-03-23 at 7:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Ants don’t “care” about survival. It’s a thoughtless stimulus response. Just as plants respond to negative stimuli.
The reason you consider the behavior of ants more than vegetation is because you have a bias to rely on anthropomorphic protoypes when interpreting whether a certain behavior indicates “caring” or “not caring” about survival, and when attributing moral agency.
And you've hit on an important concept: the faculty of care is essential to my understanding of a being's autonomy. Plants don't demonstrate care, only a blind following of crucial physiological programs. Ants, however, can be found behaving of their own accord. Just because they're hyperefficient in a community doesn't make them a single machine. If you require evidence to the contrary, consider that they have an established social hierarchy. For that matter, what about the appearance of an ant strikes you as anthropomorphic? -
2018-03-23 at 7:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Plants aren't trying to defend themselves from caterpillars, as far as I know. Is there a more precise way of articulating that which would tell me about the plant and the mechanism to which you're referring?
I don't think grass screams for help, because it has no conception of the fact that asking other blades to help it would be futile. Intelligent organisms usually don't develop useless methods of communication.
The only drive plants appear to have is to use natural resources in the production of energy so that they can reproduce. I don't recognize them as moral agents because the facts tell me that they aren't in pain, nor do they care whether I eat them.
Couldn't you say that about ants too? Why are they moral agents?
Originally posted by Zanick As for morality, I thought you accepted Jeremus' argument for ecology? That's a reasonable avenue to animal rights, so long as the activists remain pragmatic. I don't see how my forcing you to empathize with creatures you don't already care for would improve this position.
Well I stated that I think it's the best argument put forth thus far but it hasn't convinced me that eating meat is wrong or that I have any moral obligation to do anything. As I said to Falcon, imo the problem isn't eating meat it's that there are too many humans. -
2018-03-23 at 7:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick And you've hit on an important concept: the faculty of care is essential to my understanding of a being's autonomy. Plants don't demonstrate care, only a blind following of crucial physiological programs. Ants, however, can be found behaving of their own accord. Just because they're hyperefficient in a community doesn't make them a single machine. If you require evidence to the contrary, consider that they have an established social hierarchy. For that matter, what about the appearance of an ant strikes you as anthropomorphic?
I don’t mean physically anthropomorphic, I’m talking about behavior that you as a thinking, conscious human being can relate to. Such as running for your life when something is trying to kill you.
The difference is that ants aren’t capable of feeling fear the way we do. There are literally robots that can be designed and programmed to look and act almost identical to some insects, such as cockroaches.
If I showed you a video of a roach scurrying away from a foot and ultimately getting crushed, you might think to yourself “oh my god, you just trampled on the moral agency of that creature!” But then if I told you it was actually a tiny robot physically indistinguishable from a roach, you might feel pretty silly. (Or you should).
My point is that you aren’t capable of relating to a plant because they don’t exhibit behavior similar enough to yourself to warrant your consideration. -
2018-03-23 at 7:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I don't have a sophisticated knowledge of ant anatomy, but as a practical measure, I respond to doubt with caution. I don't need to complete a dissertation on their nervous system to prove to myself that it's okay to smash something that apparently doesn't want to be smashed, I'd rather just not do it. Plants, as I've said, offer no indicators that they care about their individual survival. Ants sort of do.
no, i just told you that they climb into my boiling pot and dive into my soup on a regular basis.
and no, if plants dont care about thier survival, their roots wouldnt grow towards the water table and and instead grow randomly.
their stalks would grow asstray in any direction it pleases and not up towards the sun.
a suicidal plant would bend over and sprout into the ground. -
2018-03-23 at 7:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Couldn't you say that about ants too? Why are they moral agents?
Erm, I wish I'd waited a minute before hitting "submit" now. As I said in the above post, ants demonstrate self-preservation and they have a social hierarchy, both of which are pretty good indicators that they care about their own lives and their communities. I can't personally verify whether they feel pain, but I don't really need to in order to decide that they probably don't want to be killed, and as I've stated, an animal's interest in its own life is one reasonable way to assign moral agency.Well I stated that I think it's the best argument put forth thus far but it hasn't convinced me that eating meat is wrong or that I have any moral obligation to do anything. As I said to Falcon, imo the problem isn't eating meat it's that there are too many humans.
If you inferred from his argument from ecology the position that we should reduce the human population and preserve animal agriculture as-is, I don't think I can provide anything to convince you of my own. -
2018-03-23 at 8:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick They have things to do, and dying on my counter isn't part of the agenda. I include them in my definition of moral agency. I know a lot of scientists have given reasons why they don't feel pain, but they run away from my feet and I have to believe they see a tragedy coming for them in those moments. I can't help but sympathize.
Interesting. Let's say there is a jellyfish in your pool and the only safe way to remove it is to kill it.
(I promise, there's only one more question after this before I get to the point). -
2018-03-23 at 8:15 PM UTCWhy can’t you remove it without killing it though?
-
2018-03-23 at 8:16 PM UTCtfw captain ignores your post
-
2018-03-23 at 8:28 PM UTC
