Morality from the ground up

[bennyboy]

Non-arbitrary? How about the fact that there are many disorders that can occur from cannibalism of our own species?

Or just the fact that we're the only species capable of discussing this topic and making conscious choices. No other species can really render their opinion.

Obviously, the dietary consideration is not the point. The point is about how we choose to extend the moral umbrella from self, to family and friends, from community to nation, and then to all humanity, and (for some of us) to animals as well (starting with cute l'il baby seals and ending at mosquitoes-- because FUCK mosquitoes!)

Is there a rational reason why the suffering of one living thing matters less than that of others? Is not suffering itself bad, and the knowing causing of it wrong?

[Astonished]

Non-arbitrary? How about the fact that there are many disorders that can occur from cannibalism of our own species?

Or just the fact that we're the only species capable of discussing this topic and making conscious choices. No other species can really render their opinion.

Obviously, the dietary consideration is not the point.  The point is about how we choose to extend the moral umbrella from self, to family and friends, from community to nation, and then to all humanity, and (for some of us) to animals as well (starting with cute l'il baby seals and ending at mosquitoes-- because FUCK mosquitoes!)

Is there a rational reason why the suffering of one living thing matters less than that of others?  Is not suffering itself bad, and the knowing causing of it wrong?

The experience of a contemplative being, us being the pinnacle (as far as we know) then it's fair to say our capacity for suffering and joy are far greater than that of less sapient organisms, so that is at least a consideration. So if a few lab animals have to die from faulty drugs that will eventually lead to the discovery of a medication that will enable a parent of several young children to live rather than die and leave them and their other parent without them and their support, that's easy to justify because the amount of suffering that would otherwise cause to that family is massive, whereas that animal is not likely to have a family capable of mourning it, at least not when it's reached adulthood. Not to mention that handful of animal deaths can lead to hundreds of saved human lives over future generations. So there's a numbers game component as well.

[bennyboy]

It's a highly efficient use of perishable or unavailable calories, of marginal lands, of skills, of infrastructure, and of funds.  I suppose that if you only consider it from the point of view of the end consumer that might not be immediately visible - but those are the things that actually go into the decision to run a cattle operation, not the musings on caloric efficiency or density of a vegetarian.

Yeah, I think you could especially make that case for pigs; I was thinking mainly of grazing cattle vs. grain-fed cattle.

As I've said, I don't think that being vegetarian DOES give one a moral free pass, since the amount of grain required to feed a human very likely makes you indirectly responsible for the deaths of animals in the field.  It seems to me that if a family ate one or two cows per year, and they were exclusively grazing animals, this might actual reduce the net deaths and suffering of the system.

The ideal, though, is a controlled vegetarian source-- big silos of texturable algae with superior nutritive properties, for example.  Or, of course, there's

[The Grand Nudger]

When it comes to food, there is no pass and no need for a pass.  It's not something we can choose.  We have to eat.  Obviously, we want to feed ourselves in an ethical way, but if we had to do the unthinkable in order to get food, we would, and it would be pointless to give anyone the crooked finger for it..since, if there's -anything- that can obliterate our moral agency utterly and completely.....it would probably be starvation.

That may be the ideal for you, but it's a non-issue for me and most of the human race. First world privileges Benny.

In any case, I;m not sure what we're talking about, the suffering of livestock is very much taken into account in ethical production systems. No ones disregarding them. If, for no other reason, than that suffering causes money to be lost.

-rational self interest strikes again.

[bennyboy]

The experience of a contemplative being, us being the pinnacle (as far as we know) then it's fair to say our capacity for suffering and joy are far greater than that of less sapient organisms, so that is at least a consideration.

Is this actually a rational point, or is it an anthropocentric bias? I don't think you need to be deeply contemplative to know when your new baby is getting dragged away by hostile strangers, or to know that being stuck in a space exactly the size of your body and no larger sucks.

But let's say I could arrange for someone with no social connections to be killed. . . say a new immigrant who's met nobody. Let's say I put a drug in his drink that puts him into a painless sleep, and off him-- maybe because I value true red-white-and-blue (read: white) Americans over immigrant lives. Since there's no suffering, is my act now moral?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a rational point.  It would be anthropocentric bias if there was no indication that it were true and assumed so anyway, but we have every indication that it's true.

You've created a society (as a thought experiment in murderous nationalist racism) in which people can be drugged and drug off and then maintain that you've caused no suffering?

Is -that- a rational point?

[bennyboy]

When it comes to food, there is no pass and no need for a pass.  It's not something we can choose.  We have to eat.  Obviously, we want to feed ourselves in an ethical way, but if we had to do the unthinkable in order to get food, we would, and it would be pointless to give anyone the crooked finger for it..since, if there's -anything- that can obliterate our moral agency utterly and completely.....it would probably be starvation.

That may be the ideal for you, but it's a non-issue for me and most of the human race.  First world privileges Benny.  

Yes, first world privileges indeed.  But I am part of that first world, and I DO have that privilege.  I'm not the first one to think that with that privilege comes added responsibility to minimize in other ways the harm which I do.

My own vegetarianism comes from guilt, by the way: a needless accident cause by wreckless driving on the Trans-canada highway: doing like 140k (90miles/hr I guess) on an icy road with bald summer tires.  I crashed into a Caribou, and when i couldn't find the body I reported to the police immediately.  They told me that beautiful animal dragged itself out to the woods to die, probably after at least a couple days of excruciating pain.  I'm vegetarian because of a disgust with my own wastefulness and arrogance, and lack of consideration of the world, not so much because I'm on a campaign to save cows.

So I'm not really a preachy moralist on the issue I think-- although in the context of this thread, I do have to wonder if there's a rational reason for ANY of the lines we draw, or if it's all really just chimps with language, talking about their feelings about things.

---

It's a rational point.  It would be anthropocentric bias if there was no indication that it were true and assumed so anyway, but we have every indication that it's true.

The anthropocentric bias isn't so much in the belief that people can suffer more. It's in the decision to accept that as a moral argument for allowing the suffering of non-humans.

You've created a society in which people can be drugged and drug off and then maintain that you've caused no suffering?

Is -that- a rational point?

If the relative amount of suffering is a prime moral consideration, then it is. So yes, it's rational, but only if you take a previous point as axiomatic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, first world privileges indeed.  But I am part of that first world, and I DO have that privilege.  I'm not the first one to think that with that privilege comes added responsibility to minimize in other ways the harm which I do.

-and it's a privilege which I've already told you I don't take issue with...just not something that can be, on the grounds you've offered, a compulsion.  

My own vegetarianism comes from guilt, by the way: a needless accident cause by wreckless driving on the Trans-canada highway: doing like 140k (90miles/hr I guess) on an icy road with bald summer tires.  I crashed into a Caribou, and when i couldn't find the body I reported to the police immediately.  They told me that beautiful animal dragged itself out to the woods to die, probably after at least a couple days of excruciating pain.  I'm vegetarian because of a disgust with my own wastefulness and arrogance, and lack of consideration of the world, not so much because I'm on a campaign to save cows.

Cow, caribou, squirrel, dog....whatever species it was it wouldn't matter much to me.  You have your own reasons and those reasons are good enough for you..so they;re good enough for me, for you.

So I'm not really a preachy moralist on the issue I think-- although in the context of this thread, I do have to wonder if there's a rational reason for ANY of the lines we draw, or if it's all really just chimps with language, talking about their feelings about things.

I know, and that was the question that I answered.  Yes, there's a rational reason for the lines we draw, and we do draw lines...though, there seems to be -no- line in which we imagine that it's just okay to cause suffering to any creature capable of suffering.  The way you frame these questions is gross oversimplification bordering on straw. The quality of the discussion of of the answers you get is tied to the thoughtfulness involved in the question. No matter where ion the world you go, if you find a person wandering around kicking dogs and whatnot out of sheer malice you're going to find a bunch of people giving them the sideways glance. We all know that something has snapped inside that person. That they are cruel.

---

The anthropocentric bias isn't so much in the belief that people can suffer more.  It's in the decision to accept that as a moral argument for allowing the suffering of non-humans.

We don't allow it, we couldn't stop it if we tried..and we do what we can where we can to reduce it.  

If the relative amount of suffering is a prime moral consideration, then it is.  So yes, it's rational, but only if you take a previous point as axiomatic.

No, it's not rational, it's the runup to a nazi apologists thought droppings.  A society in which that was "moral" - by it's very nature, becomes the cause of immense suffering. The premise necessarily contradicts the conclusion.

[Astonished]

It's a rational point.  It would be anthropocentric bias if there was no indication that it were true and assumed so anyway, but we have every indication that it's true.

You've created a society (as a thought experiment in murderous nationalist racism) in which people can be drugged and drug off and then maintain that you've caused no suffering?

Is -that- a rational point?

Yeah, I don't know where the fuck he pulled out that next point, I was still talking about human vs. animal stuff. Total tangent there, wasn't even remotely ready to shift gears into human-focused stuff. Not nearly comparable as I would have not been justified in using those same arguments for human-only rights. Kind of makes me feel like I wasted my time.

[bennyboy]

No, it's not rational, it's the runup to a nazi apologists thought droppings.  A society in which that was "moral" - by it's very nature, becomes the cause of immense suffering.  The premise necessarily contradicts the conclusion.

Why? If suffering is the most important metric for mores, and if you can kill without causing suffering, then on what basis is the killing immoral? If you say "by its very nature, it becomes the cause of immense suffering," then that is clearly not moral given the axiom that causing suffering is immoral-- so that wouldn't be allowed. If, and only if, you could kill without causing much suffering, then would it be okay, or is there another metric (we know there is-- it's abstract ideas about the value of memories and so on).