Eating "sentient" beings.

[thaiboxerken]

"The capacity for feeling both good and bad things - the scholarly term is "sentience" - is central to the ethics of how we treat animals. If you're sentient, you have some quality of life at stake, and you deserve moral consideration... What are the implications for humankind's relationship to animals when we acknowledge and embrace the richness of their sensory experiences? It is sometimes convenient to exclude animals from our sphere of moral concern - as we do, for example, in the making of foie gras or lobster salad or in the meat industry in general. But is it right? Because animals can enjoy life, our moral obligations to them are greater. We may not have an obligation to provide pleasure to animals, but actively depriving them of the opportunity to fulfill natural pleasures - as we do when we cage or kill them - is another matter."

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4117619

[bob_kark]

Don't eat people. Got it.

[thaiboxerken]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.

[drkitten]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.

He's making it rather badly, then. He gets the definition of "sentience" wrong, for a start.

[Apollyon]

If plants had little emotive faces like in a Disney cartoon, would there be a subset of people who would starve themselves to death?

[thaiboxerken]

Well, it's not the right word. But the message he's trying to convey is that because animals have feelings, we shouldn't eat them.

[twinstead]

Intelligent legumes?


...Oh, I thought it said sentient beans.

My bad

[bob_kark]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.
Oh, will they stop eating each other then?

[thaiboxerken]

Who knows? Maybe the author thinks they shouldn't. However, how would we stop all animals from eating each other? We can't reason with them, really.

[Rob Lister]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.

Well, when those other animals get sentient enough to pass around a petition and march on washington mall, I'll consider not grilling them. Seriously though, I think the sentient issue is mainly a strawman. We don't eat non-humans because they are non-sentient (though that might influence many), we eat non-humans because 1) they are non-human and 2) they are tasty.

For some (most I dare say) both 1 and 2 would fall by they wayside for the very hungry.

[rebecca]

If plants had little emotive faces like in a Disney cartoon, would there be a subset of people who would starve themselves to death?

Uh, personally speaking, I'd probably have a hard time swallowing a plant with a little emotive Disney face.

Creepy.

[Metullus]

Don't eat people. Got it.
Actually only thinking people qualify for the exemption...

[Rob Lister]

Who knows? Maybe the author thinks they shouldn't. However, how would we stop all animals from eating each other? We can't reason with them, really.

Hense the counter argument to their supposed sentient status.

[bob_kark]

Who knows? Maybe the author thinks they shouldn't. However, how would we stop all animals from eating each other? We can't reason with them, really.
So, when we release all the cows, pigs, chickens, etc... across the world wouldn't they be eaten by predators, hit by cars, starve to death, and so on? Why not just treat them well, feed them, keep them safe for most of their life and just eat them? Wouldn't that actually be more humane?

[daredelvis]

If we are not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?

Daredelvis

[drkitten]

Who knows? Maybe the author thinks they shouldn't. However, how would we stop all animals from eating each other? We can't reason with them, really.

So, er, "don't kill and eat anything you can reason with"?

I can live with that. Although I have a few students in my 10 o'clock that need to be worried.

[Rob Lister]

...keep them safe for most of their life and just eat them? ?

Now, I like the steak as rare as the next guy but...that's taking it a bit far. :)

[Rob Lister]

So, er, "don't kill and eat anything you can reason with"?

I can live with that. Although I have a few students in my 10 o'clock that need to be worried.

And I've got three teenage boys. I'm sure there's an official word for that but I dontwanna know it.

[drkitten]

And I've got three teenage boys. I'm sure there's an official word for that but I dontwanna know it.

Er, "parenthood" would be my guess.

[ImaginalDisc]

I got lost in the drawing of a comparison between foire gras and lobster. Lobsters are bugs. Ducks are dumb, but substantially smarter than bugs. If you have no qualms about squishing a roach in your pantry, and roaches are much more closely related to lobsters than ducks are to us, you should no qualms about eating a lobster.

[Ketyk]

I killed a fly today, please forgive me. I know someone that ate a chocolate covered ant.

...and stop referring to Rabbit Stew. I think it's beef, or chicken, maybe some squirrel.

[bob_kark]

Now, I like the steak as rare as the next guy but...that's taking it a bit far. :)
Have it your way.

[ponderingturtle]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.

Well by technical definitions I belive they are sentient, but not sapient. I thought sentient was defined as having sense's. So all mamals are sentient, it is just that most people mean sapient when they say sentient

[ponderingturtle]

I killed a fly today, please forgive me. I know someone that ate a chocolate covered ant.

...and stop referring to Rabbit Stew. I think it's beef, or chicken, maybe some squirrel.

I have eaten fried grasshoppers and know people who have eaten live ants

[Amapola]

]Who knows? Maybe the author thinks they shouldn't. However, how would we stop all animals from eating each other? [B] We can't reason with them, really.

My bold. I think this says a lot. Even though animals are sentient (able to sense things) that does not make them intelligent.

Even amoebas can sense things. Does this make poisons that kill them evil? I don't believe so......

If you work with animals you quickly discover that their minds do not work like ours. I don't think this makes them inferior but they are different.

[mumblethrax]

If you have no qualms about squishing a roach in your pantry, and roaches are much more closely related to lobsters than ducks are to us, you should no qualms about eating a lobster.
Well, killing a lobster, anyway. I'm not about to eat any roaches, either. Incidentally, it's not true that lobsters are more closely related to insects than ducks are to us. Not sure why this matters, though.

I don't have any moral objections to eating lobsters, but I'll never understand why that stuff is considered a luxury item.

[thaiboxerken]

So, when we release all the cows, pigs, chickens, etc... across the world wouldn't they be eaten by predators, hit by cars, starve to death, and so on? Why not just treat them well, feed them, keep them safe for most of their life and just eat them? Wouldn't that actually be more humane?

Great points. I like it.

I'm don't agree with the author, btw.

[ponderingturtle]

Well, killing a lobster, anyway. I'm not about to eat any roaches, either. Incidentally, it's not true that lobsters are more closely related to insects than ducks are to us. Not sure why this matters, though.

I don't have any moral objections to eating lobsters, but I'll never understand why that stuff is considered a luxury item.

Because it is expensive. Before there was transportation to permit is being a luxuary item, lobster was very very cheap. Mass. had laws saying that you could only force your servents to eat lobster 2 times a week, and also had prison riots because the prisoners where fed up with getting lobster all the time.

What is a luxary item is much more about how expensive it is than its innate properties

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, killing a lobster, anyway. I'm not about to eat any roaches, either. Incidentally, it's not true that lobsters are more closely related to insects than ducks are to us. Not sure why this matters, though.

I don't have any moral objections to eating lobsters, but I'll never understand why that stuff is considered a luxury item.
Well, ducks and humans are in the same phylum, and roaches and lobsters are in the same phylum. Technically, by taxonomic terms, the human-duck distance is about the same as roach-lobster, so you're right. Not sure what more detailed genetics has to say.

[bob_kark]

Great points. I like it.

I'm don't agree with the author, btw.
Me too. Let's not forget, animals are delicious! Especially with some plants.

[Rob Lister]

Because it is expensive. Before there was transportation to permit is being a luxuary item, lobster was very very cheap. Mass. had laws saying that you could only force your servents to eat lobster 2 times a week, and also had prison riots because the prisoners where fed up with getting lobster all the time.

What is a luxary item is much more about how expensive it is than its innate properties

I always suspected as much. I can't eat a plated lobster. I can't look at it. Crabs, the same way. They are nothing more than spiders...I'm convinced of it.

I must admit to liking crab meat in small quantities in salads and such but I don't like thinking about it. Freaking spiders!

[mumblethrax]

Because it is expensive. Before there was transportation to permit is being a luxuary item, lobster was very very cheap. Mass. had laws saying that you could only force your servents to eat lobster 2 times a week, and also had prison riots because the prisoners where fed up with getting lobster all the time.
Sure, I've read that before. And when the transportation infrastructure developed to the point that fresh lobster was available inland, demand went up.

But why? I mean, of all the things to ship inland. Of all the things to imbue with prestige status.

(This post is at least 90% facetious.)

[thaiboxerken]

Lobster tastes good, mumble.

[Ketyk]

A lobster was the first thing I killed for food. I still feel guilty.

I don't think I could ever hunt.

Kill, yeah, but kill and eat? I'll leave that to Tyson.

[mumblethrax]

Lobster tastes good, mumble.
Some people seem to think so. Never cared for it, myself.

[UserGoogol]

Hense the counter argument to their supposed sentient status.

Huh? Sentient means having sensations. That they are not rational enough to take into account other creature's interests (or even their own) does not automatically imply that we should not take into account their interests.

So, when we release all the cows, pigs, chickens, etc... across the world wouldn't they be eaten by predators, hit by cars, starve to death, and so on? Why not just treat them well, feed them, keep them safe for most of their life and just eat them? Wouldn't that actually be more humane?

Probably. It's not neccesarily the most humane thing to do, but it's probably better than doing nothing. However, the difficulty is that we do not generally treat livestock that way, and it is debatable whether it is feasable for us to do so and get enough of a profit to make the farm sustainable.

That said, I do eat meat.

If plants had little emotive faces like in a Disney cartoon, would there be a subset of people who would starve themselves to death?

There exists various movements such as fructarians (who only eat fruit, in that it falls from plants on its own rather than having to be actively killed) and freegans (who eat whatever they want, but try not to pay for it; in that once something is killed you might as well eat it, but they just don't want to encourage the killing or the food industry). So it's quite possible to hold that opinion and not starve to death, although yes, strange people.

[slingblade]

Only people who can afford to eat whatever they choose can afford to be this "sensitive." I'll eat just about anything you put in front of me, and I'll thank you profusely for it.

I do stay away from things like veal and pate, but it's purely philosophical.

I can't afford to eat that stuff in the first place, never mind any objections I might have (and I do) to how it's "made."

[bob_kark]

Probably. It's not neccesarily the most humane thing to do, but it's probably better than doing nothing. However, the difficulty is that we do not generally treat livestock that way, and it is debatable whether it is feasable for us to do so and get enough of a profit to make the farm sustainable.

That said, I do eat meat.
Chalk one up for animals are delicious.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Uh, personally speaking, I'd probably have a hard time swallowing a plant with a little emotive Disney face.

Creepy.

You’ve never had to watch an episode of Vegie Tales at the insistence of your kid, then?

I could see, after a couple viewings, becoming open to the idea of eating emotive vegetables :D:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&sa=N&resnum=0&q=veggie%20tales&spell=1&tab=wi

[I'll_buy_that]

... freegans (who eat whatever they want, but try not to pay for it; in that once something is killed you might as well eat it, but they just don't want to encourage the killing or the food industry). So it's quite possible to hold that opinion and not starve to death, although yes, strange people.

I'm a Freegan? :jaw-dropp everytime i go to the supermarket, the chicken is already killed, so I might as well eat it....

Couldn't we all just be Breatharians?

[jimlintott]

Mmmm

Foie Gras stuffed veal served with baby carrots and new potatoes.

[HeavyAaron]

Er, "parenthood" would be my guess.

How cruel of you! He said he didn't want to know!

Aaron

[Beerina]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.

Well, at least retire them painlessly before harvesting.

[bob_kark]

Well, at least retire them painlessly before harvesting.
Hmmm... I wonder what a morphine injected steak would taste like...:drool:

[skoob]

So, when we release all the cows, pigs, chickens, etc... across the world wouldn't they be eaten by predators, hit by cars, starve to death, and so on? Why not just treat them well, feed them, keep them safe for most of their life and just eat them? Wouldn't that actually be more humane?I'm sure that if the whole world population turned vegan over night, I'm sure we would find a suitable way of gradually reducing the livestock population without just killing them all off and without releasing them into the wild. I don't see how that possibly could be a problem?

Obviously, a slightly less improbable scenario, assuming that the vegetarian movement (or whatever) is successful, would be that as the number of meat eaters are reduced, the demand for meat decreases which would lead to a reduction of the livestock population. It's not like pigs and cows in captivity multiply uncontrollably without human help.

[Beerina]

I'm sure that if the whole world population turned vegan over night, I'm sure we would find a suitable way of gradually reducing the livestock population without just killing them all off and without releasing them into the wild. I don't see how that possibly could be a problem?

Obviously, a slightly less improbable scenario, assuming that the vegetarian movement (or whatever) is successful, would be that as the number of meat eaters are reduced, the demand for meat decreases which would lead to a reduction of the livestock population. It's not like pigs and cows in captivity multiply uncontrollably without human help.

Exactly! It's better for cows to live some life, then be eaten, than never to have lived at all.

[pchams]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.
Hypocrite.
Our brains got bigger from eating all that meat. Now you forsake it?

Salad is what dinner eats.

[Cuddles]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.

Oh, will they stop eating each other then?

I think this is the most important point. Humans are animals. There is no point saying humans shouldn't eat meat unless you also argue that no other animals should eat meat, which is clearly a ridiculous argument.

[JamesDillon]

I got lost in the drawing of a comparison between foire gras and lobster. Lobsters are bugs. Ducks are dumb, but substantially smarter than bugs. If you have no qualms about squishing a roach in your pantry, and roaches are much more closely related to lobsters than ducks are to us, you should no qualms about eating a lobster.
I have a friend from back in my fundie days who's a staunch young-Earth creationist; we've managed to remain friends by just avoiding those issues. We were out to dinner a couple of years ago and I ordered lobster; she commented that she couldn't bring herself to eat lobster because it's "related" to cockroaches. That got me thinking, though I didn't raise the issue with her-- how is a creationist ever justified in acknowledging that one species is "related" to another, regardless of any physical or genetic similarities, if God created them all in their present form?

[Deus Ex Machina]

Uh, personally speaking, I'd probably have a hard time swallowing a plant with a little emotive Disney face.

Creepy.


well I would have no problem chowing down on the smiling disney face thing - but if they start dancing and singing..

[ImaginalDisc]

I have a friend from back in my fundie days who's a staunch young-Earth creationist; we've managed to remain friends by just avoiding those issues. We were out to dinner a couple of years ago and I ordered lobster; she commented that she couldn't bring herself to eat lobster because it's "related" to cockroaches. That got me thinking, though I didn't raise the issue with her-- how is a creationist ever justified in acknowledging that one species is "related" to another, regardless of any physical or genetic similarities, if God created them all in their present form?

Goddidit. God deliberately made the world look exactly like it's billions of years old to teach a valuable lesson that lying to people is good, or something.