Man cooked alive with 12,000 pounds of tuna

Scroll to see replies

Hmm fair enough, we'll agree to disagree on the species diversity v individuals thing though.

By the way, you discuss the capacity of animals to think/feel as we do, you humanise the bunny by saying about it considering its quality of life. With the tuna situation as well, do you value any single animal as the same worth as a human then? Or is there a cut off, I assume for instance a dragonfly is not worth a human, but I assume a horse is equal? Going down that line of thought, would you prefer the killing of an animal (not food, lets say someone sadistic stabs a cat to death) to be considered equal to murder of a human?

I don't mean to anthropomorphise the bunny except to say that it has a quality of life. In other words, it can feel things - the reason to help it is that it's in pain.

I don't think animals demand the same moral consideration as humans. As I've written earlier in this thread, I think there's a gradient of complexity with animals. On the far right of the spectrum, you have us - we can feel levels of joy and suffering that the bunny rabbit probably can't. On the far left of the spectrum, you have basic organisms that probably have no consciousness, and therefore aren't vulnerable to suffering, or needing of happiness. The more vulnerable a creature is to having its well-being affected, the more morally conscientious we should be towards that creature. All creatures will appear somewhere on this gradient.

To be more specific, this comes down to individuals as well, as individuals' own vulnerabilities and needs will also vary. For example, in humans we can observe that some people have a higher pain tolerance than others.

To answer your question, I think it would be worse for a human to be killed than a cat, for various reasons, but principally because the human requires more care than the cat.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 81

joey11223

Original post by miser

To answer your question, I think it would be worse for a human to be killed than a cat, for various reasons, but principally because the human requires more care than the cat.

In that case, although we cannot know for certain how intelligent they are, I assume you might consider the killing of a dolphin to be close to that of a human? I believe the Greens might have proposed at one time, not sure if they still do now, to back that viewpoint by some scientists that Dolphins could class as "non-human" persons due to how they may experience emotions to the extent their concept of suffering could be close to, if not quite at, our level.

Reply 82

Snagprophet

Original post by Quantex

Is this a legitimate story? There's something fishy about it.....

I dunno I just tuned in.

Reply 83

miser

Original post by joey11223

I remember. I agree with the concept of non-human personhood. I think all conscious creatures should be considered non-human persons though. I don't think they should have human rights, but they should have rights particular to their needs. Honestly, I think animals should have the right not to be eaten alive by other animals (or humans). It's "natural", but it's not right.

Reply 84

Hype en Ecosse

Original post by miser

Well, I'm a vegetarian.

I think this raises an interesting point: what if all 7 billion people on Earth were, lets say vegan, to simplify the scenario? That's 7 billion people that the agriculture industry now needs to support: might it be that this would turn out negatively for humanity in the long run? Perhaps from suffering biodiversity, increased demands on soil, something like that, leading to mass famine. If something like this could be reliably predicted, would smallscale meat consumption as a preventative measure be moral? :holmes:

Original post by Reluire

Humans are omnivores, so technically we could live without eating meat. Many say the human body isn't suited to eating meat either, which is why we have to cook it to make it digestable.

Those people are wrong. Meat is digestible raw - the concern is pathogenic organisms. The human digestive tract is incredibly well adapted for meat - but either way this is a bit of an is ought situation. Just because we can eat meat doesn't mean we should!

Reply 85

joey11223

Original post by miser

Honestly, I think animals should have the right not to be eaten alive by other animals (or humans). It's "natural", but it's not right.

Now that seems a bit weird, surely you're just forcing some weird human notion on the world if you're saying it isn't "right" that a Lion has to rip a gazelle's throat out? I can't see now nature can be wrong or right, it just is. I mean we understand pain, so I suppose it's not right if we eat an animal alive, not that humans really do, but a Lion does not appreciate that it hurts a prey item to die...and even if it did, it doesn't exactly have a choice in the matter.

Reply 86

miser

Original post by Hype en Ecosse

I'm not sure it's possible for everyone to be vegan, either in terms of individual dietary needs or the planet supporting that kind of agriculture. But my personal position isn't that the world should become vegan, or vegetarian, or anything - my position is that causing unnecessary harm to animals is wrong. If it turns out that a certain amount of harm is necessary to avoid greater harm elsewhere, then okay, let people eat a certain amount of meat. But we should cross that bridge if and when we get to it - the present scenario is unfortunately that we are causing far more harm than is necessary.

Original post by joey11223

Nature isn't a moral or immoral force, it's simply amoral. It might be 'right' from the perspective of 'this is a consequence of natural laws', but it's not morally right that a gazelle should have its throat ripped out by a lion. By means of analogy, we might say the same of our own evolutionary dispositions to rape, murder, lie, etc. These things are natural instincts for us, but through cultural progress we have identified that even though they're natural impulse, they are not right.

I'm not saying that the lion is morally blameworthy for killing the gazelle, but I am saying that the gazelle does not deserve to have its throat ripped out by the lion, purely by virtue of its being born a gazelle. It's just an unfortunate fact of its existence that it runs that risk.

Reply 87

joey11223

Original post by miser

I think if it ever becomes industrialized and viable, artificially lab grown meat would be the answer. I think it could happen, though it'll be an age before it's more viable than mass farming chickens.

Reply 88

miser

Original post by joey11223

Yep, I'm very much in favour of in-vitro meat. I think we have a responsibility to research it given that we eat so much meat otherwise. It's really the very least we can do.