User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-04-03 at 4:08 AM UTCZanick same question
-
2018-04-03 at 4:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Here’s a little thought experiment.
Say there are 2 rooms that are about to be blown up. One room contains a single human being and the other contains 1,000 chickens. You can only stop one of them from being blown up, which would you choose.
I think there's a case to be made that at some number of chickens, the chickens are worth saving. It may be a big number, but it's there.
Not that this thought experiment models the issue with the meat industry since supporting it hurts both chickens and humans and the environment and pretty much everyone except a few stockholders. -
2018-04-03 at 4:29 AM UTCIs there a list of the chikin's names to be individually remembered by at their memorial?
-
2018-04-03 at 4:31 AM UTC
-
2018-04-03 at 4:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I think there's a case to be made that at some number of chickens, the chickens are worth saving. It may be a big number, but it's there.
Not that this thought experiment models the issue with the meat industry since supporting it hurts both chickens and humans and the environment and pretty much everyone except a few stockholders.
This:
Originally posted by mmQ You should make it. The case.
Why is 14,392 chikins worth a human? -
2018-04-03 at 4:48 AM UTCThe case is that the number exists, I have no idea how to go about figuring it out. It's like the exact same argument I've already given for not eating meat: lower animals are capable of pleasure/suffering that is the same in kind as humans experience, although likely different in degree. This capacity to feel pleasure/suffer is what makes us morally considerable to each other (e.g. we consider people who are braindead to no longer be morally considerable, we grant children moral considerability but not agency on these grounds) so if it's present in animals our obligations to other extend to animals, although perhaps in a lesser degree.
-
2018-04-03 at 4:57 AM UTCYou couldn't possibly figure out the number. Isn't the case more... that number SHOULD exist? Or could? But THAT NUMBER EXISTS... well, what is it then? And why? But before why? What is it?
I think it's a good "thought experiment." The number can't be defined anymore than what we've defined as.. ages of consent or drinking. Too many varying opinions. With the chickens vs humans it can't be any different rihgt? -
2018-04-03 at 4:59 AM UTCYou can know that a thing exists without knowing its identity.
For example I know the US secretary of state exist, but I don't know who they are.
Same here, I think chickens are commensurate to humans at some ratio but I don't have an exact calculus for what that ratio is. -
2018-04-03 at 5:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny You can know that a thing exists without knowing its identity.
For example I know the US secretary of state exist, but I don't know who they are.
Same here, I think chickens are commensurate to humans at some ratio but I don't have an exact calculus for what that ratio is.
Why don't you have the exact calculus is my question. Does someone have it? -
2018-04-03 at 5:04 AM UTC
-
2018-04-03 at 5:06 AM UTCBut people have access to the knowledge of who the secretary of state is.
So what's the comparison? -
2018-04-03 at 5:07 AM UTCLAY INTO ME WITH YOUR WORDS LANYARD. ITS FINE.
-
2018-04-03 at 5:10 AM UTC
-
2018-04-03 at 5:13 AM UTCseven s to you sir
c'mon. You know what I'm saying. There will always be people that think 1 life is worth negative -10,000 chikins and always some that think 1 chikin is worth more than 10,000 lives. But all those people can never disagree on who the secretary of state is at any given time if they all had internet access. But they'd still disagree on the chikin thing.
So then what? -
2018-04-03 at 5:20 AM UTCWell the secretary of state isn't determined by popular opinion, just because a bunch of people think someone is the secretary of state doesn't make it so. Likewise there is some ratio of human to chicken lives and we may not know what it is, many of us may be wrong, but that number is still out there somewhere.
If the secretary of state thing bothers you then think like "how many grains of sand are there on the east coast right now". No one knows that exactly but you know that number must exist. Maybe you can set upper and lower bounds on it but it's very unlikely anyone will have a justified true belief on the matter. -
2018-04-03 at 5:53 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-04-03 at 5:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Well the secretary of state isn't determined by popular opinion, just because a bunch of people think someone is the secretary of state doesn't make it so. Likewise there is some ratio of human to chicken lives and we may not know what it is, many of us may be wrong, but that number is still out there somewhere.
If the secretary of state thing bothers you then think like "how many grains of sand are there on the east coast right now". No one knows that exactly but you know that number must exist. Maybe you can set upper and lower bounds on it but it's very unlikely anyone will have a justified true belief on the matter.
I disagree with you, as it’s been stated to the umpteenth degree earlier ITT, since morality is subjective that ratio does not exist except in your own mind. Like it’s not a static variable.
We KNOW there is only an exact specific amount of grains of sand in a given area. We do NOT know, and cannot know, how valuable a chicken life is because that number will change depending who you ask -
2018-04-03 at 6:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws I disagree with you, as it’s been stated to the umpteenth degree earlier ITT, since morality is subjective that ratio does not exist except in your own mind. Like it’s not a static variable.
We KNOW there is only an exact specific amount of grains of sand in a given area. We do NOT know, and cannot know, how valuable a chicken life is because that number will change depending who you ask
I don't accept your premise that morality is purely subjective though -
2018-04-03 at 11:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow No country on earth has more problems with its food supply than the USA. It sounds like your whole problem is with modern western capitalism, since that is what you (and Lanny) keep returning to.
So far your resources consist of a 1000 post BBS thread. Are you soliciting donations?
We supply the world's food moron. -
2018-04-03 at 11:21 AM UTC
