If eating meat is unethical, why is it ok to kill babies?

[wsionynw]

Humanity is in desperate need of an alien invasion
How great would it be to see all the.. 'oh but we can do as we please with other beings, we're smarter and therefore have more worth' get harvested for body parts by aliens far smarter than them.
It would be the ultimate in living and dying by your own logic.

My point exactly. If it's ok for humans to use animals in any way we see fit because we consider ourselves to be the dominant species, then what if one day we are not the dominant species on Earth? Would we have any right to complain when we were being herded into crates, strung up by our legs and then have our throats cut?

 

[q0101]

Humanity is in desperate need of an alien invasion
How great would it be to see all the.. 'oh but we can do as we please with other beings, we're smarter and therefore have more worth' get harvested for body parts by aliens far smarter than them.
It would be the ultimate in living and dying by your own logic.

Whatever. It’s the survival of the fittest. The strong will always take advantage of the weak. Any privileges that the weak have are the privileges that the strong allow the weak to have.

To be honest with you, at this point in time I wouldn’t care if hostile aliens invaded our planet. I don’t have the irrational fear of death that most people have. I am also not satisfied with the current state of humanity. I believe that everyone deserves exactly what they get in life regardless of whether it is pleasure or pain. We would probably be able to defend ourselves from an alien attack if we weren’t slaves to our emotions. Our technology would be much more advanced if we were more logical. I think human beings are pathetic self-destructive creatures. (That includes myself) But we do have the potential to evolve into better humans.

http://www.transhumanism.org

http://www.betterhumans.com

 

[q0101]

My point exactly. If it's ok for humans to use animals in any way we see fit because we consider ourselves to be the dominant species, then what if one day we are not the dominant species on Earth? Would we have any right to complain when we were being herded into crates, strung up by our legs and then have our throats cut?

It is not about our rights. It is about the survival of the fittest. We would have the option to fight back or die.

 

[wsionynw]

Whatever. It’s the survival of the fittest. The strong will always take advantage of the weak. Any privileges that the weak have are the privileges that the strong allow the weak to have.

To be honest with you, at this point in time I wouldn’t care if hostile aliens invaded our planet. I don’t have the irrational fear of death that most people have. I am also not satisfied with the current state of humanity. I believe that everyone deserves exactly what they get in life regardless of whether it is pleasure or pain. We would probably be able to defend ourselves from an alien attack if we weren’t slaves to our emotions. Our technology would be much more advanced if we were more logical. I think human beings are pathetic self-destructive creatures. (That includes myself) But we do have the potential to evolve into better humans.

Are you a Star Trek fan?
Your fear (or is it hatred) of human emotion is disturbing, you are a sociopath! Honestly, seek help, or get a girlfriend.

 

[wsionynw]

It is not about our rights. It is about the survival of the fittest. We would have the option to fight back or die.

Survival of the fittest can depend on survival of so called weaker species. Humans could not survive without insects, but many people consider them to be lesser beings, despite the fact that they are better equipped for survival than humans are.

 

[q0101]

Are you a Star Trek fan?
Your fear (or is it hatred) of human emotion is disturbing, you are a sociopath! Honestly, seek help, or get a girlfriend.

I don’t have a fear of human emotions. I am afraid of the people that can’t control their emotions when they are angry or sad. Think about all of the senseless violence that is going on in the Middle East because of our primitive desire for revenge.

And yes, I am a Star Trek fan, but I think the show is unrealistic. I would prefer to watch a more probable prediction of the future.

 

[wsionynw]

I don’t have a fear of human emotions. I am afraid of the people that can’t control their emotions when they are angry or sad. Think about all of the senseless violence that is going on in the Middle East because of our primitive desire for revenge.

And yes, I am a Star Trek fan, but I think the show is unrealistic. I would prefer to watch a more probable prediction of the future.

Ok, so you're hoping for a society like that portayed in the movie Equilibrium?

 

[heliocentric]

Whatever. It’s the survival of the fittest. The strong will always take advantage of the weak. Any privileges that the weak have are the privileges that the strong allow the weak to have.

Youre just living according to natures laws though, why be a slave to a system that we're actually in a unique position to challange?
The strongest *do* survive youre right, but theres nothing stopping us from changing/modifying the rules of the game

Im down with being a better human though, and i think the transhumanists have some great ideas, i suppose we've just got diametrically opposed views of what constitutes a 'better human'.

 

[heliocentric]

Whats logical about serving your own interests anyway? Its only logical if you assume that your worth, pain, and ideas are worth important more than the rest of the billions of creatures that live on this planet. Just sounds like a paradigm of arrogance to me

 

[Oniw17]

Whats logical about serving your own interests anyway?

Survival

Its only logical if you assume that your worth, pain, and ideas are worth important more than the rest of the billions of creatures that live on this planet. Just sounds like a paradigm of arrogance to me

Why is this logical? The only thing that's logical is that your survival is more important to you than the survival of the billions of other creatures that live on this planet.

 

[q0101]

Ok, so you're hoping for a society like that portayed in the movie Equilibrium?

I wouldn’t want to live without emotions. I want to have the ability to control all of the chemical reactions in my body. (I am assuming that you read some of the Transhumanist literature) Lets just imagine that I had the ability to turn on an internal switch and experience and objective reality. My futuristic internal computer software would process all of the incoming sensory information along with my genetically enhanced neurons. I would be using evolutionary algorithms to make my decisions, therefore I would be increasing the probability of getting all of the things that I need and desire in life. I want to have the ability to turn my emotions on and off in the appropriate situations. I also believe that nanobots could function like an advanced version of transcranial magnetic stimulation. This would allow me to control all of the electromagnetic activity in my brain.

 

[q0101]

Why is this logical? The only thing that's logical is that your survival is more important to you than the survival of the billions of other creatures that live on this planet.

I agree, however there are some rare occasions in which I would be willing to die to save the lives of others.

 

[heliocentric]

So youd only commit an act of compassion if it benefied you, only....in special circumstances you *would* actually help someone despite no benefit to yourself?
And you want to be a being of pure logic, except you actually still want to keep your emotions?
Sounds like your deeply confused to me, nothing wrong with that though, arnt we all eh.

 

[heliocentric]

Survival

But you can survive quite happily without putting yourself first in every situation, i just dont understand the extreme nature of his conclusions is all i was getting at.

 

[Hapsburg]

But you can survive quite happily without putting yourself first in every situation.

Yeah, but humans are selfish animals. We like to be selfish.

 

[c7ityi_]

This would allow me to control all of the electromagnetic activity in my brain.

I think it's possible to use technology to control emotions, but when that technology stops functioning, or when your body dies, you'll see that you've gotten nowhere.

The only way we can learn to control emotions is if we have enough experience about them. We can't control what we don't know. It's impossible to learn to control emotions by ignoring them. If you want to learn to swim, jump in water, on dry land no one can help you.

The strong will always take advantage of the weak.

I won't. And the so called "weakness" can also be a strength.

It’s the survival of the fittest.

No, it's egoism/satanism.

Animals have every right to behave the way they do. A lion can kill and it has done no wrong, but humans are more advanced, so our responsibility is greater, our laws are greater..

Our technology would be much more advanced if we were more logical.

What's the point in creating more advanced technology?
What's illogical about emotions?
I think logic is an emotion, and emotions are logic.

Would we have any right to complain when we were being herded into crates, strung up by our legs and then have our throats cut?

Yes, and animals also have the right to complain.

 

[baumgarten]

Animals have every right to behave the way they do. A lion can kill and it has done no wrong, but humans are more advanced, so our responsibility is greater, our laws are greater..

Stop it! The hubris is killing me!

The unacceptability of murder stems from two sources: the evolved trait of despising death, and the cultural traditions that further narrow down what kinds of death are and aren't acceptable. In ancient Rome, death was a form of entertainment. In ancient Japan, a samurai could kill at his own discretion. Just a century and a half ago, public executions were both entertainment and justice. We are essentially the same organisms as we were at those times, and those two civilizations, especially the former, are considered among history's greatest. What makes us so superior all of a sudden?

We don't have any "higher responsibility," it's just the way humanity works. If a lioness tried to go on a murder spree within her pride, she would have a fight on her hands because no one else in the group would accept it. Successful social species do not allow for certain levels of violence because if they did, those species would destroy themselves.

 

[c7ityi_]

What makes us so superior all of a sudden?

Today we are more intelligent. All creatures constantly evolve, and humans also evolve mentally, we become more and more selfaware until we are god like.

The mental difference (selfawareness) between an animal and a human is as great as that between a plant and an animal.
The mental difference between an ordinary human and a genius is as great, or greater, as that between an animal and an ordinary human.

A human is a creature that thinks consciously. Thus, aliens on another planet could also be humans. Animal is a creature that has emotions but is not conscious on mental level.

 

[baumgarten]

Today we are more intelligent. All creatures constantly evolve, and humans also evolve mentally, we become more and more selfaware until we are god like.

That's false. While the species is still evolving, humans today are almost exactly the same animal as humans 4,000 years ago were.

The mental difference (selfawareness) between an animal and a human is as great as that between a plant and an animal.
The mental difference between an ordinary human and a genius is as great, or greater, as that between an animal and an ordinary human.

Also false. Take a genius's word for it.

You're just making up your own definitions and classifying things based on your own ideas of what would be nice. What basis do these ideas have in reality?

A human is a creature that thinks consciously. Thus, aliens on another planet could also be humans. Animal is a creature that has emotions but is not conscious on mental level.

So are some great apes and dolphins humans*? Both have experimentally demonstrated very nearly human levels of self-awareness. For that matter, what about people in persistent vegetative states? Are they no longer human?

* Before you go answering that, no. They are not humans. They are great apes and dolphins, respectively.

 

[James R]

q0101:

Of course they are important differences between plants and animals. I think the most important difference for vegetarians is the fact that plants don’t have cute faces.

You have some learning to do.

Ethical vegetarians think the important difference is the difference first pointed out by Jeremy Bentham, who wrote that we should not ask "Can they talk? Can they think?" but "Can they suffer?"

Think about it.

So, what you're saying is the only thing you really care about is yourself.

Read my earlier post in this thread. Yes that is what I am saying.

So, if somebody killed your family, I guess you wouldn't care. No, wait, that's wrong. You'd care, but only because their deaths would affect you.

I think it's fair to say that other people have no value except in relation to you, according to your view. Is that correct? Other people are just means to your ends, and not valuable in and of themselves?

You'd probably love to be a dictator like Saddam Hussein.

Yes I do care about the suffering of humans in Africa. It would not take a long time for the misery of an African person to affect me in a negative way. The cause and effect may not always be noticeable, but the actions of one person in a small African village can cause a chain reaction that can affect me in a positive way or a negative way.

That's drawing a long bow. The chances of the death of everybody in a small village somewhere in Sudan is unlikely to have any effect on you at all. In fact, that's happening right now. You can't tell me you really care about that, can you? And if you do, why do you care, really, given that it isn't because it affects you.

I guess torture is ok, too, if you can get away with it.

Yes it is ok. But there is no realistic scenario that I can imagine in which it would be logical for me to torture someone.

Suppose you suspect somebody stole from you. Would you find it acceptable to torture them to get them to confess, and perhaps reveal what they did with your property?

Perhaps if aliens came to me and gave me some kind of genetically enhanced body that game me the powers of a comic book superhero. I would probably kill and torture some people if I was the only person on the planet with the powers of someone like Superman. It would be no different than killing an annoying insect.

So, if you were in Saddam Hussein's position (before the US attack on Iraq), you would have had no problem with torturing political opponents?

I believe that morals and ethics are just chemical illusions. I don’t believe in the concept of good and evil. I prefer to live by rules that are based on logic and probability. I do have the potential to be a heartless killer, but it is logical for me to be kind and compassionate because it increases my probability of getting the things that I want in life. I think this world would be a much better place if we were all guided by logic instead of our emotions.

So, faced with a situation where there is a 90% chance of you benefiting from an action that some would call immoral, you would take that action, on logical grounds, I suppose.

Imagine you could kill a wealthy businessman you know and steal $1 million from him. The chances of you being caught for the crime you reliably calculate to be less than 1%. Would you kill him? Wouldn't it be "logical" to do that?

You are not the first person to tell me that I sound like a sociopath. I wasn’t always this way. I became the man that I am today after reading a lot of information about neurochemistry, genetics, and computer programming. (Mostly things about artificial intelligence)

I've read a lot about those things, too, but I have a very strong moral sense.

Science is neutral. It cannot tell us what to do or not to do. Science can show us how to build a nuclear weapon, but it cannot tell us whether we ought to use it or not.

I am not a scientist by trade, but I spend most of my time trying to think in an objective scientific way. It is difficult for most people to understand why I think the way that I do. Some of the things that I wrote would make sense to you if you tried to think without emotions and use logic and probability to make your decisions.

Consider this, then. The bottom-line "Golden Rule" in ethics is often quoted as "Treat others as you would have them treat you."

Do you think this is logical?

If so, please justify why you consider it acceptable to kill and eat cows, when you would not want somebody to kill and eat you.