Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

celebratedrecluse wrote

Unlike other animals? I doubt it, there are many animals with great intelligence and cognitive-emotional capacity on planet Earth

Also, morality and ethics are subjective, not objective capacities.

Also, I think this is the wrong forum. Why post in tech?

8

noble_pleb OP wrote (edited )

Unlike other animals? I doubt it, there are many animals with great intelligence and cognitive-emotional capacity on planet Earth

There are but none have the ability to think, cognize and feel about things like pain and suffering in other beings. More importantly, none have the capacity to think rationally and the moral capacity required to decide that killing or harming another sentient being is a wrong thing.

They mostly act on instincts, compelled by hunger they kill other beings. But we do it only to satisfy our taste buds and despite having the moral capacity to know and understand that its a wrong thing, that's the utmost pity.

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

I think this is a bit condescending to other animals, and is based primarily on our anthropocentric bias as speakers and writers and readers of language.

I recommend John Zerzan's book Running on Emptiness for some interesting riffs on these ideas, said better than I could. Have a good day

2

existential1 wrote

Lol...I'm vegan but you're just trying to win the ratio'd award.

3

noble_pleb OP wrote

I'm quite new here. What is the "ratio'd" award?

2

existential1 wrote

It's the ratio of upvotes to comments. Meme-like forums tend to have high ratios. Flamed posts, like your previous one and likely this one as well, have ratios that tend towards zero or are negative numbers greater than -1 that similarly tend toward zero.

2

OdiousOutlaw wrote

The human ability to make systems, policies, and decisions based on something without any reference in the world outside of our imaginations isn't something to lauded.

"Right" or "wrong" are such easy concepts to use in an argument for why one should or shouldn't do something that almost every group or person that can be called "evil" has done it to justify their actions. Few people unironically see themselves as "evil".

3

noble_pleb OP wrote (edited )

The human ability to make systems, policies, and decisions based on something without any reference in the world outside of our imaginations isn't something to lauded.

Its incorrect to say that the decisions aren't based on anything outside of our imaginations, our rational thinking and moral capacity has been evolved through millennia of evolutionary experience after all, it doesn't sit in a vacuum? Every decision you take, the thought process you undergo for all kinds of things happens in the realm of a subconscious mind which is no less than a bio-computer awarded to the human gene by evolution.

"Right" or "wrong" are such easy concepts to use in an argument for why one should or shouldn't do something that almost every group or person that can be called "evil" has done it to justify their actions. Few people unironically see themselves as "evil".

I agree that many topics are complex and subjective, right and wrong are value judgments in many cases. There are even moral dilemmas where its not easy to decide whether doing a thing is right or not (for example, was it right/wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2 even though it meant that the war ended prematurely and saving potentially lot more lives than it killed?).

But in cases like these (is it right/wrong to kill another sentient being?), I don't think there should be any moral dilemma in answering this question, every human with even basic moral capacity should be able to answer that question as non-affirmative.

1

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

Its incorrect to say that the decisions aren't based on anything outside of our imaginations, our rational thinking and moral capacity has been evolved through millennia of evolutionary experience after all, it doesn't sit in a vacuum?

Morality is completely relative; you might as well be arguing for one opinion superseding all others. Completely fruitless. Even if you wanted to argue that morality has more to do with a collective consensus on what's "right" and "wrong" (which I'd agree with) decided by a shared culture, that doesn't make it "real", "objective", or any less of an abstraction.

There are even moral dilemmas where its not easy to decide whether doing a thing is right or not (for example, was it right/wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2

I'd say that it was "wrong" for one government to drop a nuclear bomb on an area full of civilians for the sake of getting back at another government. Of course, that has a lot to do with the fact that I hate the US, the idea of the state using its power to kill people, and the "greater good" narrative. Someone with an opposing opinion would state otherwise. Would either of our assertions be "right", or is it a matter of two people with incompatible worldviews?

even though it meant that the war ended prematurely and saving potentially lot more lives than it killed?

Eugh. Based off of what, exactly? Deontology might be haunted, but at least it's consistent. Utilitarianism is just guessing that your actions will have good or bad outcomes based on one's attempts of quantifying something that can't be quantified, or worse, giving up one's agency to discern "right" from "wrong" to some collective structure. You might as well just be amoral and stop pretending that you're able to tell how your actions affect the world at large.

But in cases like these (is it right/wrong to kill another sentient being?), I don't think there should be any moral dilemma in answering this question, every human with even basic moral capacity should be able to answer that question as non-affirmative.

Then you should have picked a different example for "complex" moral dillemas; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were full of sentient beings; by your own standards, you should see it as an atrocity regardless of "complexity".

But it isn't about whether or not it's "morally justified" to kill another sentient being, is it? It's about whether or not it's "morally justified" to kill another sentient being for pleasure and nothing else. I can only say that I find the idea repellent, but when it comes to meat eaters I'd say that what constitutes as being "for pleasure and nothing else" comes with a set of complications that have a lot to do with variables such as location, food options, and where the line is between "survival" and "eating for pleasure"; among other factors.

4

noble_pleb OP wrote (edited )

Would either of our assertions be "right", or is it a matter of two people with incompatible worldviews?

Exactly. That's why we call matters like these a "moral dilemma", a case for either side could be made depending on the subjective views of the maker.

Eugh. Based off of what, exactly? Deontology might be haunted, but at least it's consistent.

Read more about WW2 history or refer to this History Stack-Exchange answer thread. The facts remain that:

  1. Over half a million people were already killed in the "conventional bombing" that happened in the months before the atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
  2. The atomic bombs killed approximately 200,000 people.
  3. Japan was not at all willing to surrender, it wanted to continue the war.
  4. Dropping of the atomic bombs ensured that the war came to end, without which the "conventional warfare" would have continued until the Allies/Axis surrendered on their own and nobody knows when that could have been.

So logically, potential lives were definitely saved, at least that's what that thread seems to suggest but I'm open to different viewpoints on this though.

Edit

Regarding the "Civilian" argument, hindsight is twenty twenty. It has been a very recent and modernist approach to make a difference between "soldiers" and "civilians" and somehow concluding that killing the former is more morally justifiable than latter but this view hasn't stood the test of time yet. Also consider that during war times, the difference between civilian and soldier becomes hazy and WW2 was one of those extreme times.

−1

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Exactly. That's why we call matters like these a "moral dilemma", a case for either side could be made depending on the subjective views of the maker.

But in cases like these (is it right/wrong to kill another sentient being?), I don't think there should be any moral dilemma in answering this question, every human with even basic moral capacity should be able to answer that question as non-affirmative.

What's the difference between a government causing death on a mass scale to humans and other forms of life versus that of the meat industry causing mass death to animal life for the short-term benefits of humans (specifically the West) to you? Is it a matter of necessity or the scale environmental damage? Where's the line? I'm opposed to both if it isn't clear.

it has been a very recent and modernist approach to make a difference between "soldiers" and "civilians" and somehow concluding that killing the former is more morally justifiable than latter

Probably has something to do with the fact civilians aren't really interested in dying in a war, whereas soldiers either see it as an acceptable consequence for the benefits of the job, chose not to dodge the draft, or just want an outlet to hurt people and chose not to become a cop for some reason. A lot to do with what one has accepted and what is "deserved", I think.

Also consider that during war times, the difference between civilian and soldier becomes hazy and WW2 was one of those extreme times.

The state will get no excuses from me, regardless of how it attempts to frame its own violence as "justified"; mass murder is either acceptable for everyone or it isn't, otherwise the concepts of "right" or "wrong" don't truly have any weight and shouldn't be used as an argument.

Not really interested in arguing WW2 any further, since it isn't the main topic at hand.

4

ruin wrote

In totality, I have two major issues with a non-vegan diet: conscience and health.

Thank you ill informed, random tech freelancer with a blog.

2

werwolf wrote

The vegan lifestyle is great. But this is f/tech Off topic

2