Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:51 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:47 am Do you think you are a morally considerable being? And humans in general?

Yes indeed I consider myself to be. Humans in general? On average I'd say yes.

So, what makes you and the average human being morally considerable, but not the below-average human and non-human sentient beings?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:54 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:51 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:47 am Do you think you are a morally considerable being? And humans in general?

Yes indeed I consider myself to be. Humans in general? On average I'd say yes.

So, what makes you and the average human being morally considerable, but not the below-average human and non-human sentient beings?

Well for myself, I don't steal from others. I don't treat people in any unfair way and tend to assist those in need. As for 'below average-humans' and what makes them immoral - I don't know or even care, karma is a bitch.

As for non-human sentient beings and morality; I think that's a ridiculous consideration. The day you manage to get a chicken to explain to me its 'morality' when it decides to eat a worm and not a grain of wheat you will have my attention.
Are you suggesting herbivores have better moral standards than carnivores?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:14 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:54 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:51 am Yes indeed I consider myself to be. Humans in general? On average I'd say yes.

So, what makes you and the average human being morally considerable, but not the below-average human and non-human sentient beings?

Well for myself, I don't steal from others. I don't treat people in any unfair way and tend to assist those in need. As for 'below average-humans' and what makes them immoral - I don't know or even care, karma is a bitch.

Is it fair to paraphrase that as: a being (/person) deserves moral consideration only to the extent that it (she/he) extends moral consideration to others (i.e., behaves morally)?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:14 am As for non-human sentient beings and morality; I think that's a ridiculous consideration. The day you manage to get a chicken to explain to me its 'morality' when it decides to eat a worm and not a grain of wheat you will have my attention.

And if the above paraphrasing is accurate, would it be fair to paraphrase you here as: therefore, chickens don't deserve moral consideration because they don't extend moral consideration to worms, and thus behave immorally?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:14 am Are you suggesting herbivores have better moral standards than carnivores?

No, I think "out in the wild" creatures generally don't have much choice as to what they need to eat to survive, so they have little opportunity to exercise moral choices in this respect.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:25 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:14 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:54 am

So, what makes you and the average human being morally considerable, but not the below-average human and non-human sentient beings?

Well for myself, I don't steal from others. I don't treat people in any unfair way and tend to assist those in need. As for 'below average-humans' and what makes them immoral - I don't know or even care, karma is a bitch.

Is it fair to paraphrase that as: a being (/person) deserves moral consideration only to the extent that it (she/he) extends moral consideration to others (i.e., behaves morally)?

Pretty much.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:25 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:14 am As for non-human sentient beings and morality; I think that's a ridiculous consideration. The day you manage to get a chicken to explain to me its 'morality' when it decides to eat a worm and not a grain of wheat you will have my attention.

And if the above paraphrasing is accurate, would it be fair to paraphrase you here as: therefore, chickens don't deserve moral consideration because they don't extend moral consideration to worms, and thus behave immorally?

No, I was wanting to get the point across that chickens don't have the intelligence to consider a thing such as morality.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:25 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:14 am Are you suggesting herbivores have better moral standards than carnivores?

No, I think "out in the wild" creatures generally don't have much choice as to what they need to eat to survive, so they have little opportunity to exercise moral choices in this respect.

So is God immoral for creating creatures in such a way?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:31 am No, I was wanting to get the point across that chickens don't have the intelligence to consider a thing such as morality.

So, you think that chickens are undeserving of moral consideration not because they're immoral themselves, but because they're too unintelligent to conceive of morality?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:25 am So is God immoral for creating creatures in such a way?

It certainly makes me wonder whether immoral agents were involved in whatever processes led to this system. God for me is by definition moral so either God didn't have full control of those processes or had some ultimately good reason for designing the system the way it is.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:42 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:31 am No, I was wanting to get the point across that chickens don't have the intelligence to consider a thing such as morality.

So, you think that chickens are undeserving of moral consideration not because they're immoral themselves, but because they're too unintelligent to conceive of morality?

No, I think all sentient beings are deserving of moral consideration.
I'll tell you of a little story where I convinced my nieces to return to eating meat. I simply made the point that in the chicken coup, the chicken is just plucking around, grain, peck, grain, peck, grain, peck etc.. It's not thinking "Ooh, where is Betsy today? Come to think of it, where is Betsy, Sally, Darlene..etc"

The chicken isn't thinking about the pending death, and it's my intention to kill the chicken with minimum fuss...whack\chop - dead.

So Harry, why should I consider this delicious chicken is suffering and I have no moral compass by killing and eating it?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:42 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:25 am So is God immoral for creating creatures in such a way?

It certainly makes me wonder whether immoral agents were involved in whatever processes led to this system. God for me is by definition moral so either God didn't have full control of those processes or had some ultimately good reason for designing the system the way it is.

Nah, God is Alpha to Omega - the lot. When it was torturing me in hell, I took a walk over the park and was looking at the ducks and God or sage said "They're happy" - at the point in time, I was a tad jealous of them

So no, I don't care too much about them enjoying their life if I want to make duck l'orange!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:17 am I think all sentient beings are deserving of moral consideration.

Of what nature though? If you think it's morally permissible to kill non-human beings who are of no utility to humans just because you want to eat them, then what do you think is not morally permissible?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:17 am I'll tell you of a little story where I convinced my nieces to return to eating meat. I simply made the point that in the chicken coup, the chicken is just plucking around, grain, peck, grain, peck, grain, peck etc.. It's not thinking "Ooh, where is Betsy today? Come to think of it, where is Betsy, Sally, Darlene..etc"

The chicken isn't thinking about the pending death, and it's my intention to kill the chicken with minimum fuss...whack\chop - dead.

I think you're implying a chain of reasoning there which I'll try to make explicit. Tell me whether this is accurate:

You assume that chickens pecking in their coup are not thinking about their companions whom you've killed, and you infer from this that they aren't aware of their own impending deaths, from which you infer that they don't care if they die, from which you infer that they don't value their own lives, from which you infer that it's of no moral consequence if you kill them (instantaneously).

Yes?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:28 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:17 am I think all sentient beings are deserving of moral consideration.

Of what nature though? If you think it's morally permissible to kill non-human beings who are of no utility to humans just because you want to eat them, then what do you think is not morally permissible?

Chicken soup IS morally permissible. Pouring kerosene over a chicken and setting it alight to watch it burn alive is not morally permissible (in my humble opinion).

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:28 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:17 am I'll tell you of a little story where I convinced my nieces to return to eating meat. I simply made the point that in the chicken coup, the chicken is just plucking around, grain, peck, grain, peck, grain, peck etc.. It's not thinking "Ooh, where is Betsy today? Come to think of it, where is Betsy, Sally, Darlene..etc"

The chicken isn't thinking about the pending death, and it's my intention to kill the chicken with minimum fuss...whack\chop - dead.

I think you're implying a chain of reasoning there which I'll try to make explicit. Tell me whether this is accurate:

You assume that chickens pecking in their coup are not thinking about their companions whom you've killed,

Correct (I doubt they think about a missing comrade beyond about 60 seconds)

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:28 am..and you infer from this that they aren't aware of their own impending deaths, from which you infer that they don't care if they die,

Pretty much, though I think by the time I have my axe and about to chop their head off, they might have an epiphany .

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:28 am.. from which you infer that they don't value their own lives, from which you infer that it's of no moral consequence if you kill them (instantaneously).

Yes?

Oooh u got me there Harry. Explain to me how you would infer chickens 'value their own lives'.

I have no compunction in killing a chicken...for 1 reason, I know I have suffered more than that little critter.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:48 am Explain to me how you would infer chickens 'value their own lives'.

I infer it in plenty of ways, but the quickest and easiest to share is: that they - like any sentient beings in general - don't go willingly to the slaughter. You implied that you know this already with your "epiphany" comment.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:48 am I have no compunction in killing a chicken...for 1 reason, I know I have suffered more than that little critter.

That is deserving of the "twisted" (logic) emoji.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:12 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:48 am Explain to me how you would infer chickens 'value their own lives'.

I infer it in plenty of ways, but the quickest and easiest to share is: that they - like any sentient beings in general - don't go willingly to the slaughter. You implied that you know this already with your "epiphany" comment.

To what depth? To what fathoms of thought does a chicken give a non flying fuck about their own life?

So maybe there is an epiphany when I am about to close the life of a chicken. Is it the sort of epiphany that contemplates being reincarnated-----as a chicken!!

...perhaps this deep thinking chicken wants to reincarnate as a free roaming chicken..to be free~!!-----a chicken that has no security of a chicken coup (from the fox!! - that will tear it apart) ffs Harry Ys up

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:34 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:12 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:48 am Explain to me how you would infer chickens 'value their own lives'.

I infer it in plenty of ways, but the quickest and easiest to share is: that they - like any sentient beings in general - don't go willingly to the slaughter. You implied that you know this already with your "epiphany" comment.

To what depth? To what fathoms of thought does a chicken give a non flying fuck about their own life?

To approximately the same depth that we do, I expect. They certainly resist death like we do.

If you're asking whether they explicitly think something similar to "I value my life", I expect not, because as far as I know they don't think in words like that. I don't think that that matters at all. They clearly value their lives and they clearly have reason to - the same reason that we do: they are capable of living pleasurable and satisfying ones.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:34 am a chicken that has no security of a chicken coup (from the fox!! - that will tear it apart)

Freedom generally comes with risks. Most of us believe that most of the time the risks are worth it. I expect that chickens do too. And at least they have a chance of avoiding foxes out in the wild. They have no chance of avoiding your axe when they're cooped.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:59 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:34 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:12 am

I infer it in plenty of ways, but the quickest and easiest to share is: that they - like any sentient beings in general - don't go willingly to the slaughter. You implied that you know this already with your "epiphany" comment.

To what depth? To what fathoms of thought does a chicken give a non flying fuck about their own life?

To approximately the same depth that we do, I expect. They certainly resist death like we do.

If you're asking whether they explicitly think something similar to "I value my life", I expect not, because as far as I know they don't think in words like that. I don't think that that matters at all. They clearly value their lives and they clearly have reason to - the same reason that we do: they are capable of living pleasurable and satisfying ones.

Oh. Let's build them a summer retreat because they comprehend the pleasures of life as I do, and want to live and love as I do.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:59 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:34 am a chicken that has no security of a chicken coup (from the fox!! - that will tear it apart)

Freedom generally comes with risks. Most of us believe that most of the time the risks are worth it. I expect that chickens do too. And at least they have a chance of avoiding foxes out in the wild. They have no chance of avoiding your axe when they're cooped.

So. (u anthropomorphising git)

A chicken will prefer to live in the scrub where it may get torn apart from a fox rather than a quick sharp death?

Let me know when you have talked to a chicken and it has explained all about what it wants from life (as a chicken).

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:10 am Oh. Let's build them a summer retreat because they comprehend the pleasures of life as I do, and want to live and love as I do.

Sure, if you have the time and motivation: improving the lives of animals is a good way to spend it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:10 am So. (u anthropomorphising git)

I'm not anthropomorphising: I acknowledged that chickens probably don't think in words like we do. They are conscious, biological creatures like us though, and reasonable inferences can be drawn from that, especially where their behaviour, too, is similar to ours.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:10 am A chicken will prefer to live in the scrub where it may get torn apart from a fox rather than a quick sharp death?

A chicken, no doubt, would prefer not to be killed at all, but given the choice you present, I do expect the chicken to prefer freedom, yes. Judging by the number of hits on a Google search for chickens escaping, I'm right to.

You have a pretty good chance of getting killed in a car accident over the course of your life. Would you have preferred to have been locked up so as to have avoided that risk? (And then killed early in your life anyway).

Freedom has risks. Generally, we living beings think it's worth taking them.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:10 am Oh. Let's build them a summer retreat because they comprehend the pleasures of life as I do, and want to live and love as I do.

Sure, if you have the time and motivation: improving the lives of animals is a good way to spend it.

I do improve the lives of animals, they taste great.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:10 am So. (u anthropomorphising git)

I'm not anthropomorphising: I acknowledged that chickens probably don't think in words like we do. They are conscious, biological creatures like us though, and reasonable inferences can be drawn from that, especially where their behaviour, too, is similar to ours.

They are nothing like me. Is your life premeditated by clucking around looking for a seed to peck?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:10 am A chicken will prefer to live in the scrub where it may get torn apart from a fox rather than a quick sharp death?

A chicken, no doubt, would prefer not to be killed at all, but given the choice you present, I do expect the chicken to prefer freedom, yes. Judging by the number of hits on a Google search for chickens escaping, I'm right to.

You have a pretty good chance of getting killed in a car accident over the course of your life.

No. I have no chance of being killed except by my own volition (such is heaven - the God system so perfect).

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:35 amWould you have preferred to have been locked up so as to have avoided that risk? (And then killed early in your life anyway).

Freedom has risks. Generally, we living beings think it's worth taking them.

What risk? What's so terrible about being dead? As someone that was driven to suicide (by God), and perhaps even resurrected I am going to continue eating animals and enjoying the tasty dishes I can make out of their short non thinking lives.

Summing up: your moral justification for killing animals to eat is based on a denial that they value their lives.

This (self-interested) denial seems so intractable that continuing the discussion is pointless.