|
 zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 433
|
 Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian?  [Re: Epigallo]
#9341135 - 11/30/08 11:22 PM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bradley said:
My use of energy efficiency was to demonstrate the impact we have on the consciousness of other species. If consciousness is what we value, and consciousness is roughly correlated with biological complexity, then from loss of efficiency it follows that eating animals destroys more consciousness than eating plants, thus, the ethical sway.
How did we decide on consciousness as the standard of value, and how is it measurable? A correlation with biological complexity seems like a bias from our perspective - we think ourselves the most complex and the most conscious, and judge the value of other life based on its similarity to us.
Can consciousness be created or destroyed, or are we just destroying a complex mechanism for it, a mechanism that reminds us of ours and maybe looks too close to human murder for comfort?
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
 Epigallo
Stranger
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 8,155
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: zannennagara]
#9341334 - 11/30/08 11:54 PM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How did we decide on consciousness as the standard of value, and how is it measurable?
By looking at what our neural correlates are for our different internal experiences, we can pair consciousness with structure. A reptilian brain is embedded in a mammalian brain, a mammalian in a human brain. I think its safe to pair levels of consciousness with organism complexity. Can you honestly say that an ant might be more conscious that an ape? As for the standard of value, can you say if you had to press a button to kill one or the other, you would choose the ant?
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 433
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Epigallo]
#9341483 - 12/01/08 12:20 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think if apes were ant-sized and infested our homes, we would have no qualms about killing them.
Again I think it is an irrational bias to create a hierarchy of consciousness with human internal experience coincidentally at the top, using such standards to rate values of other life. The judgment is moralistic and emotionally tied to things that behave like us at the expense of those that don't.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
Epigallo
Stranger
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 8,155
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: zannennagara]
#9341529 - 12/01/08 12:32 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
An ape couldn't be ant-sized, there is no way you could pack even the brain into that tiny of a space.
Human internal experience isn't coincidentally at the top, but through matching neurological correlates. Through increasing complexity we see structures and behaviors transcend and include those of less complex organisms. Its not an emotional judgment, its logical.
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 433
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Epigallo]
#9341592 - 12/01/08 12:45 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
A microprocessor that could handle the functions of an ape's brain could eventually be ant-sized - I think people would be just as likely to abhor the (Lilliputian) tiny pests no matter what the data-processing capacity of their brains.
I'm not saying the behaviors and neurological complexities don't have a hierarchy, but assigning more value to life because of the conscious experience based on that hierarchy is an emotional rather than logical judgment. We haven't taken into account a full understanding of the ecosystem, which often requires killing a certain amount of plants and animals to maintain a better balance for all concerned.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
Epigallo
Stranger
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 8,155
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: zannennagara]
#9341723 - 12/01/08 01:13 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Handle exactly what functions of an ape's brain? The symbolic, the emotional, visual? It has to be an exact replica. That is precisely what gives something its complexity: what it is. Not whether it performs this or that function.
Quote:
I'm not saying the behaviors and neurological complexities don't have a hierarchy, but assigning more value to life because of the conscious experience based on that hierarchy is an emotional rather than logical judgment.
Okay, but whatever type of judgment you call it, you don't think it has validity? When deciding to kill an ant over an ape, do you deem the "emotional" judgment insufficient to actually make that decision?
Quote:
We haven't taken into account a full understanding of the ecosystem, which often requires killing a certain amount of plants and animals to maintain a better balance for all concerned.
I see this as a separate issue, as for now, the question can be isolated to: kill one cow, or the plants that would feed that one cow?
Edited by Epigallo (12/01/08 01:14 AM)
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: 
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: zannennagara]
#9341743 - 12/01/08 01:17 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Sometimes I think its pretty crazy that this hierarchy is the way our society is conceived; like some elaborate system for masterbation. We call this "getting along" much of the time, that is; the self acknowledging and respecting his other, but is this really the case? In a hierarchy, everything feeds the singular top of the food chain.
Natural rights is supposed to be this grand conception of enlightenment, with the great philosophical question of self and other finally answered. But it seems to me that we have only expanded our definition of "us". Once it was the white race, and now it is the human race. The way we get along, is by pretending there is no difference. Is this the acknowledgement of the other, or a manipulated conception of the singular self?
Perhaps it is easiest to see when we take steps backward, such as in the holocaust or modern ethnic cleansing. It is not any more complicated than reverting back to the concept of the other; the animal.
A more modern take:
"We" haven't really acknowledged our other, at least not as a society. We just live in the mutual security of the self. The only way we can justify getting along is by pretending we are all the same. Anything else is "discrimination", an ability that wasn't a bad idea until we all had to pretend we are the same. We are the same because we are "conscious", but the chief merits that arise from this consciousness; the discriminating intellect, the recognition of the other (as to know your true self, which is only implied by the other. See Jean-Paul Sartre, "existentialism", or "being and nothingness" for elaboration) - We can only in "good taste" ignore them.
Wouldn't it be interesting if there were two distinctly different species, differences we could not ignore, yet two clearly conscious species? What if apes broke the language barrier? Then the hierarchy would not be justified. The problem is, we think this is far fetched, because it involves aliens or talking apes. This is a true conception of the other though.
Sometimes I think we could learn alot from the caste system, that does not function in terms of the natural right.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: daytripper23]
#9341846 - 12/01/08 01:41 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
the MEAT INDUSTRY is unethical. they put their animals through horrendous pain and feed humans meat which is full of plenty of antibiotics and otehr chemicals which they are not obliged in any way to include on the packaging of their foods.
BUYING MEAT from such industries is supporting an unethical practice, which is in itself considered to be unethical by many people considering the issue.
however EATING MEAT has nothing to do with this... if you eat the meat of an animal which was killed without pain and without suffering, then no one could possibly call you unethical for it.
unfortunately, the ethical meat eating option is way to expensive for most people to include in their lives. especially businesses which have to prepare a lot of meat products.
As for the whole 'supporting an unethical practice'... well pretty much everyone in the world is forced into this because we have formed a world where we get other people to make our clothes, to make our machines, to make our houses, to organise our societies... and once we put the control out of our hands, it is almost a definite consequence that a certain amount of the money we give out will end up going to an unethical practice.
so people should sort of get over it a bit and just do their bit within reason to avoid giving monopoly power to unethical corporations. this just means valuing variety, valuing small scale business, valuing a purchase of goods whereby the money we give gets to the people who produced our product without going first through a corporate power system
--------------------
 
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Noteworthy]
#9341871 - 12/01/08 01:47 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
if you eat the meat of an animal which was killed without pain
A deer buck lung shot with a razor-tipped arrow that runs bleeding for a mile in the snow before collapsing is...
ehtical or unethical to eat?
--------------------
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#9341908 - 12/01/08 02:03 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
'less ethical'
than if you caught it and put it out of its misery
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Noteworthy]
#9341921 - 12/01/08 02:07 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So OK to eat maybe 20-30% and then throw the rest away?
--------------------
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 433
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Epigallo]
#9342029 - 12/01/08 02:36 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bradley said:
Handle exactly what functions of an ape's brain? The symbolic, the emotional, visual? It has to be an exact replica. That is precisely what gives something its complexity: what it is. Not whether it performs this or that function.
OK, if you don't accept a processor handling all the functions, you can imagine a "Honey, I Shrunk the Ape" scenario. Introduced into suburban homes, I am sure they would be met with the same "Get this thing out of my sight" response as any common insect - nobody can hear ants even if we see that they're in pain, and I doubt that anyone justifies reflexive extermination by comparing the non-complexity of insect minds.
Quote:
Okay, but whatever type of judgment you call it, you don't think it has validity? When deciding to kill an ant over an ape, do you deem the "emotional" judgment insufficient to actually make that decision?
There are plenty of practical reasons not to kill an ape as opposed to ant; apes don't inhabit the same areas as humans and don't threaten us, they're larger and harder to kill, they're not part of many diets outside of Pankot Palace. Ants are all over our homes, small and creating disorder on the floor and swarming all over the food, inconvenient to just usher out of the house, so spray and stomp and be done with them.
We'd like to think this is because we value apes' consciousness over the ants', but I think it's more just a matter of convenience. Add to that how similar apes look to us, how much they behave like us, and then killing them seems like killing a human being. I don't really see there being any value judgment to make here.
Quote:
I see this as a separate issue, as for now, the question can be isolated to: kill one cow, or the plants that would feed that one cow?
I just don't see an ethical basis for making this decision. Ethics as rules were created between humans to approximate or codify sensible standards of dealing with one another, and are only valid in that they represent those standards. To take these rules and extend them to different situations with different sensibilities without analysis is to ignore the purpose of ethics.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#9342096 - 12/01/08 02:58 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
So OK to eat maybe 20-30% and then throw the rest away?
store the rest in the fridge so that you do not have to kill another animal tomorrow. that is, if you are seeking the more 'ethical' path
--------------------
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Noteworthy]
#9342129 - 12/01/08 03:06 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Care to elaborate on this idea "more ethical"?
I think I get the basic idea, and yea, this is probably how I live.
But you probably won't catch me using the term.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: daytripper23]
#9342161 - 12/01/08 03:21 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
i say more ethical because no one is trully ethical, and every situation which removes one ethical dillema, most probably opens up another one.
so its pointless to talk in 'ethical' or 'unethical'. as absolutes.
next question might be to ask what are the qualities of being ethical at all?
well it is hard to say, but I generally define it by the Golden rule in some respects
--------------------
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Noteworthy]
#9342546 - 12/01/08 08:00 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
they put their animals through horrendous pain
If you're talking about the killing process, then it's only horrendous to watch really. In a pig manufacturing plant they electricute the pig into shock then slit it's throat so it bleeds out. Compare that to the animal kingdom and they may as well shoot up and float off. It only starts to sicken me a little when I notice the volume of production; one plant (near me) produces 18,000 Hogs a day.
We're debating ethics anyways, so no one is going to win. 
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Bernackums]
#9342563 - 12/01/08 08:09 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Ok here is a question I like to ask people.. I was surprised when I started asking people, that many people find this idea sick and inhumane:
What if you destroyed the brain of an animal and grew it in a 'meat factory' where all the animals are hanging on the walls, without brains, just growing meat
???
--------------------
|
Amber_Glow
Sat Chit Anand
Registered: 09/02/02
Posts: 1,543
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Epigallo]
#9342568 - 12/01/08 08:12 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
To respond to the title:
Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian?
Yes.
The spirit of an animal dwells in its flesh. When we eat their flesh, we absorb their spirit into ours and they merge with our consciousness. We are less an individual, and more a team of the spirits that combine to make the self. As the pinnacle of evolution, the human team is the best team to be on, so animals desire that we eat them so they can merge with us. It's like skipping a bunch of rungs on the reincarnation ladder and automatically becoming human.
I don't actually believe this to be the case but would not be surprised if someone, somewhere throughout history did. It appears the thread title was rhetorical but I thought I'd go for it anyway. 
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Noteworthy]
#9342596 - 12/01/08 08:22 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
That would be pretty sweet, I am aboard the idea. Michael Crichton runs along a similar idea of genetically engineering animals just for meat in the book Next (Two books references this thread; I've got to get my own material  ). Neither strike me as inhumane, but it wouldn't matter if it did.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Irdamage
Autobot
Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 1,491
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Can anyone argue that omnivorous diets are actually more ethical than vegetarian? [Re: Bernackums]
#9342642 - 12/01/08 08:40 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think ethics or morals should be applied to beings (even if they are sentient) if they don't have principles or ideas of "right and wrong". I congratulate their evolutionary process for making them able to feel sensations, but lets remember thats part of the reason most farmers use the most painless means of death.
Lets just remember that no other animal will feel remorse (that we know of) for killing and eating another creature to survive; why?...because its natural, no right or wrong involved, just survival or starvation.
So realistically neither are more ethically sound, they are the same basic process taken in the most convenient or fulfilling form.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
CBD Concentrates 
APE Liquid Culture For Sale 
Kratom Powder for Sale 
Red Vein Kratom 
All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
raytrace
CherryBom
Diploid
dmtrypr
demiu5
fake estate
lysergicide
reflectedlight