User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-30 at 2:34 AM UTCToo many rules. Guess I'll remain a non-believer.
-
2018-03-30 at 2:34 AM UTC
-
2018-03-30 at 2:40 AM UTC
-
2018-03-30 at 2:07 PM UTCSo wait Lanny banned finny for shitposting in this thread? But when people were spamming my plant intelligence thread with shitposts he just let it happen.
Why is that? -
2018-03-30 at 2:10 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-30 at 2:12 PM UTC
-
2018-03-30 at 2:48 PM UTC
-
2018-03-30 at 6:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe So wait Lanny banned finny for shitposting in this thread? But when people were spamming my plant intelligence thread with shitposts he just let it happen.
Why is that?
Because I'm subscribed to zanick's thread and I was asked to step in. You realize I can't and don't read every thread on the site, right? If your thread is being derailed just PM me or use the report button and I'll do something about it. -
2018-03-31 at 12:10 AM UTCDaily reminder that this thread is about moral obligations vis a vis eating meat which is distinct from your opinions on site moderation.
-
2018-03-31 at 12:27 AM UTCYou forgot to remove Obbe’s, Speedy Parker’s, and greenplastic’s posts too. Nothing to do with eating meat. Please remove them like you did all the other posts.
ON TOPIC, Zanick if you saw a beached whale dying would you try to push it back in the ocean?
I’m just trying to establish a common ground here before I make my pointThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-31 at 12:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws ON TOPIC, Zanick if you saw a beached whale dying would you try to push it back in the ocean?
I’m just trying to establish a common ground here before I make my point
I don't think that's advisable for myself or the whale. IIRC, you're supposed to make sure its blowhole is unobstructed and call the proper authorities. But yeah, alive or dead it needs to go back. -
2018-03-31 at 12:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I don't think that's advisable for myself or the whale. IIRC, you're supposed to make sure its blowhole is unobstructed and call the proper authorities. But yeah, alive or dead it needs to go back.
What if it was trying to commit suicide? As a moral agent they should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to live or die right?
Secondly, if it’s dead why does it need to go back again? -
2018-03-31 at 1:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws What if it was trying to commit suicide? As a moral agent they should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to live or die right?
It depends on your view of suicide. Personally, I think it's okay, and I think whales are probably some of the better candidates for moral agency so that you might expect this decision to be possible. But I don't think I have the ability to verify whether or not a whale is trying to die, so I'd call the authorities regardless. It can try to beach itself again another day, maybe on another beach. That's the easy part about suicide: someone can intervene, but eventually, you'll be alone and still ready.Secondly, if it’s dead why does it need to go back again?
For decomposition. At least, I'm reasonably sure that's how it's best done. Or maybe it's not, but if it's dead when I find it then what I do with the carcass is likely immaterial to this debate. -
2018-03-31 at 1:38 AM UTCI thought the authorities take it somewhere. Haven’t you seen those vids of whales exploding on the back of trucks and stuff.
Anyway here’s my point:
You make the assumption that most animals, even insects, have the desire to live and because of that we have an obligation to stop killing animals and eating their meat.
So basically your argument is this:
1. We cannot know for sure WHAT animals want, but can make a reasonably educated guess from their behavior that they want to live.
2. Under this assumption, we should cease all killing of animals and the consumption of their bodies.
BUT in the example mentioned above it is just as reasonable to assume that a whale, which is a highly intelligent creature, may have ended up on the beach on purpose because it wants to die. There is research to support this idea. So my argument is this:
It’s just as reasonable to assume that a beached whale wants to die and is trying to commit suicide, as it is to assume it ended up there by accident and wants to live. So by saving it you are actually running a high risk of not honoring its status as a moral agent. How do you justify that -
2018-03-31 at 2:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws It’s just as reasonable to assume that a beached whale wants to die and is trying to commit suicide, as it is to assume it ended up there by accident and wants to live. So by saving it you are actually running a high risk of not honoring its status as a moral agent. How do you justify that
This doesn't seem like a real challenge to his position though. It simply resolves to "how likely is it that a whale beaching itself is an intentional suicide attempt?" which is a biological or maybe psychological question rather than a philosophical one. I'm not sure on what grounds whale suicide is a "reasonable assumption", he's admitted it seems it's possible but hasn't committed to how likely it is. If you can establish intentional suicide is more likely than not then fine, let the whale die, but we don't seem to be at that point yet. -
2018-03-31 at 2:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws I thought the authorities take it somewhere. Haven’t you seen those vids of whales exploding on the back of trucks and stuff.
Not really, I'm not so enthusiastic about marine life in general. I have heard of dynamite being used, but I don't know if it's the preferred way to deal with dead whales or not. I think it depends on what stage of decomposition, how large a carcass, etc.Anyway here’s my point:
You make the assumption that most animals, even insects, have the desire to live and because of that we have an obligation to stop killing animals and eating their meat.
So basically your argument is this:
1. We cannot know for sure WHAT animals want, but can make a reasonably educated guess from their behavior that they want to live.
2. Under this assumption, we should cease all killing of animals and the consumption of their bodies.
BUT in the example mentioned above it is just as reasonable to assume that a whale, which is a highly intelligent creature, may have ended up on the beach on purpose because it wants to die. There is research to support this idea.
So my argument is this:
It’s just as reasonable to assume that a beached whale wants to die and is trying to commit suicide, as it is to assume it ended up there by accident and wants to live. So by saving it you are actually running a high risk of not honoring its status as a moral agent. How do you justify that
Why would you think it's "just as reasonable" to infer that it attempted suicide? We don't know their specific intention when we find them on the beach, but that doesn't make it ethically permissible to assign one arbitrarily. Do you have a reason to think that it's equally likely that they're committing suicide as opposed to simply misnavigating, or even some cause you can't discern at all?
If you know differently, and you can establish solid inferences and probabilities about this behavior, I think this is where you would want to offer a source.
It doesn't have to be just marine animals that present this dilemma: suppose you found me on the beach, unconscious, with a needle in my arm. You can't tell any better than with the whale whether I was trying to die or if this is a sad misadventure. Even if you do have a strong reason to suspect it was an attempted suicide, I think that a standard utilitarian argument would inform you that the most ethical course of action is to get help in the event that it's not. -
2018-03-31 at 2:21 AM UTCI know I just totally pulled all that out of my ass lol. Had no idea where I was going with that when I first brought up the whale thing.
Christ this thread is long huhThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-31 at 4:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws I know I just totally pulled all that out of my ass lol. Had no idea where I was going with that when I first brought up the whale thing.
Christ this thread is long huh
Lol, you sounded like you had a specific argument in mind, I was legit sitting at my keyboard for fifteen minutes trying to anticipate your direction before I just went along with the questioning. -
2018-03-31 at 4:45 AM UTCWe have a moral obligation to shut the fuck up and stop bumping this thread
-
2018-03-31 at 4:53 AM UTCI agree, but while you're here, do you know your state representatives' positions and voting records on animal rights? I just found out that the guy who gets my tax dollars voted 'Yay' on a minority-introduced bill that would encourage trappers to target bobcats. I come from one of the more densely populated suburbs in my state, and I know that nobody in my district has ever seen or had to worry about a bobcat, so who the Hell was he voting 'Yay' for? I plan to craft a few key counterarguments informed by the cream of my opposition in this thread, and I intend to meet him at my local office and convince him to change his mind.
