Girl Burned Alive: The Quest for Morality in America

[BigBallinStalin]

Why not? If you're going to prohibit something then you need to have a sound reason for doing so.

Correct. It's not enough to make a moral case for prohibiting something. Questions on means for attaining various ends, and a comparison of all, shouldn't be neglected.

(Besides, prohibition against "murder" is not a morally universal claim because "murder" varies by society (each group places different activities into different categories of legitimate and illegitimate)).

[Metsfanmax]

This hinges on the determination of legitimate v. illegitimate killing. Again, you're begging the question.

This is simple. The relevant axiom is that it is generally agreed that the killing of an innocent human is wrong. If you really want to debate that premise -- fine, we can do it. But let's take it as granted in the society we live in, because it is. Great. So, why is it wrong to kill a human? If you find reasons that are common to all humans, that reasoning will unavoidably include some non-human animals as well. It is not saying that human sentience is somehow equivalent to animal sentience; it is saying that the reasons why it is morally wrong to kill a human are not dependent on the particular unique qualities of human sentience. (As an example, consider that an adult chimpanzee has a much more developed capacity for reasoning than an infant human, yet killing the latter sends you to prison and killing the former is not even in the same ballpark. What is morally special about the baby that grants it legal protections that the chimpanzee doesn't have?) My argument is merely that logical consistency demands that we grant legal rights to animals if they are also granted to humans.

Hard Mode, 2x Bonus: What is the morally relevant difference between cats and chickens such that animal cruelty laws should apply to one and not the other?

[mrswdk]

The relevant axiom is that it is generally agreed that the killing of an innocent human is wrong.

Well that still isn't definitive, seeing as the definition of 'innocent' also varies from place to place.

So, why is it wrong to kill an innocent human?

Why do you assume that laws relating to when and where killing can be done exist for moral reasons? There are plenty of practical reasons to prohibit killing in a variety of situations, just as there are practical reasons to prohibit theft, vandalism etc.

[Metsfanmax]

The relevant axiom is that it is generally agreed that the killing of an innocent human is wrong.

Well that still isn't definitive, seeing as the definition of 'innocent' also varies from place to place.

Yes, but don't make the mistake of thinking that universality in this context means that killing a human is always wrong. A universalizable moral belief is one where you would have everyone act the same way, given the same situation. The point isn't to debate the fact that these circumstances vary from society to society, the point is that we can all agree that it's wrong to kill a human being that you believe is innocent, for whatever definition of innocent you have.

Why do you assume that laws relating to when and where killing can be done exist for moral reasons?

Have you even read the ten commandments?

There are plenty of practical reasons to prohibit killing in a variety of situations

Sure, but we can call that a moral belief without loss of meaning. "Don't kill someone because that hurts the economy" is still an ethical argument.

[mrswdk]

The point isn't to debate the fact that these circumstances vary from society to society, the point is that we can all agree that it's wrong to kill a human being that you believe is innocent, for whatever definition of innocent you have.

How can a belief which includes a condition that is completely open to individual interpretation (innocence) be turned into a universally applied law?

Why do you assume that laws relating to when and where killing can be done exist for moral reasons?

Have you even read the ten commandments?

The PRC is not a religious theocracy and therefore does not have a legal system based on Middle Eastern fairy tales.

we can call that a moral belief without loss of meaning. "Don't kill someone because that hurts the economy" is still an ethical argument.

No it isn't.

[Metsfanmax]

How can a belief which includes a condition that is completely open to individual interpretation (innocence) be turned into a universally applied law?

I already told you to stop thinking that a universalizable moral belief is different from a law that is applied universally the same way in the same explicit detail. That's not what the term means, and if it continues to be a source of confusion than we can just use a different term for it. Moral systems are predicated on the idea that we can all agree on some basic rules for how to live: don't kill innocent people, don't steal from others, etc. Different people will have different interpretations of innocence (and theft), and so a codified legal system is generally necessary to sort out those conflicts -- someone with recognized authority has to define what innocence is, and we have judges and juries that adjudicate in particular cases to decide on edge situations where it is not clear where the victim was innocent or not. But this authority generally doesn't have the ability to say "killing innocent people is no longer illegal;" they'll get tossed out on the street pretty soon, because we all believe that killing innocent people is wrong, even if we don't all completely agree on who is innocent and who is not. This is a fairly uncontroversial point. Most of us would agree that it's cruel and unnecessary to give the death penalty to an 8 year old who kills another person, but that doesn't mean that somehow we stopped thinking the action was wrong. We just recognize that there are subjective conflicts between people that need to be mediated by a (hopefully unbiased) third party with the legitimacy to do so, and that the circumstances matter in determining guilt, innocence and punishment. The underlying principle in all this remains unchanged.

[quoteI believe all animals are born 'guilty' and all humans are born 'innocent'. Guess it's lamb curry for me tonight then.[/quote]

If you really believe that animals actively deserve to die then of course it makes sense to obey that moral system. I will work as hard as I can to convince you otherwise, as well as the vast majority of other people who basically do act as if animals are born 'guilty' even if they don't really believe it. But if you're just trolling to point out that there are sociopaths, then where are you going with this?

Why do you assume that laws relating to when and where killing can be done exist for moral reasons?

Have you even read the ten commandments?

I'd like to think the legal system of the PRC is not based on Israeli fairy tales written circa 0 AD.

And I'd like to believe that the legal system of the country which invented the computer, the internet, the nuclear bomb, and put a man on the moon is not foundationally based on Israeli fairy tales from 0 AD, but unfortunately I know just a little too much about history. There are still people that want to put the Ten Commandments on state courthouses.

we can call that a moral belief without loss of meaning. "Don't kill someone because that hurts the economy" is still an ethical argument.

No it isn't.

Sure it is. It is a normative claim made because one values the strength of the economy, and that is being weighed against the value of a person's life. If you don't care about the economy (or its downstream effects on the wellbeing of persons) then there's no reason to preclude someone from taking the action. Ultimately all attempts to prevent someone from doing something else are rooted in a moral decision that something is worth valuing, and action needs to be taken to protect that value.

[mrswdk]

we all believe that killing innocent people is wrong, even if we don't all completely agree on who is innocent and who is not... We just recognize that there are subjective conflicts between people that need to be mediated by a (hopefully unbiased) third party with the legitimacy to do so

So basically, you believe that this universal moral exists*, but you also believe that this universal moral is open to interpretation and thus has different meanings to different people? And you want to enforce one interpretation for everyone within your society, regardless of whether or not they agree with it?

*which I would argue anyway

this authority generally doesn't have the ability to say "killing innocent people is no longer illegal"

It doesn't need to permit the killing of 'innocent' people. All it has to do is change its definition of guilty to include those whom it wishes to kill.

Ultimately all attempts to prevent someone from doing something else are rooted in a moral decision that something is worth valuing

You are confusing morals with wants. They are distinctly different things.

[mrswdk]

And going back to the Ten Commandments thing, my original point was that there are reasons other than morals for outlawing killing in various circumstances. Maybe the Christian commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' was a founding principle of American law, but seeing as your government now permits killing in a variety of situations (self-defense, war, the death penalty, white police etc.) your legal system has clearly evolved since the time when it took morals and religion as its bedrock.

[Metsfanmax]

we all believe that killing innocent people is wrong, even if we don't all completely agree on who is innocent and who is not... We just recognize that there are subjective conflicts between people that need to be mediated by a (hopefully unbiased) third party with the legitimacy to do so

So basically, you believe that this universal moral exists*

No, that was not the point I was trying to make. How many times do I have to tell you that universalizability does not mean that the moral is universal? Forget that word. My point is that a belief is truly moral when you believe that something like Kant's categorical imperative applies to it. That is, you hold a moral belief if you would want to live in a world where everyone else holds that same belief (i.e. you want to make it universal). The proscription against killing innocent humans is an example of something that this is true for, for most people. Most people would prefer to live in a world in which everyone is forbidden from taking that action. That is the main stuff of morality. It's not morality if you believe that certain instances are exempt for arbitrary reasons.

but you also believe that this universal moral is open to interpretation

No, it is not the moral that is open to interpretation, it is the circumstances that the moral applies to. We always believe that murder (defined here as the unjustified and intentional killing of a person) is wrong, we just don't always agree on which circumstances should count as murder because we don't always agree on when the circumstances were justified. Some of us think that it is justified to kill an intruder in your house, some don't. The disagreement is not on whether it is OK to kill people for no good reason, the disagreement is on whether an intruder being in your home counts as a good reason.

And you want to enforce one interpretation for everyone within your society, regardless of whether or not they agree with it?

Well, that is exactly what the point of having a law does. I didn't make this system up, but I think it is a pretty good one. We have laws for things like the intruder problem (sometimes they're not always clear though). Those laws don't mean that we don't condone murder, it just changes what counts as murder and what doesn't. Again, this is an uncontroversial point. If you want to toss out the legal system and return to an era of vigilante justice where the mob decides whether you're guilty or not, please don't bring me. I mean, if your argument is that attempting to change the law is an attempt at moral coercion -- then yeah, obviously that's the point. We both agree that killing an innocent person without a very good reason is wrong, we just disagree on what a person is. I don't think you would accuse me of being a great fascist if I fought for a law in which "innocent" does not include intruding in someone's home, so why am I being accused of being a great fascist if I fight for a law in which "person" includes non-humans?

Ultimately all attempts to prevent someone from doing something else are rooted in a moral decision that something is worth valuing

You are confusing morals with wants. They are distinctly different things.

I am not confusing them, I am explicitly saying that morals are based on wants -- we only bother setting up morals to prevent certain actions because there are certain things we want, that those actions threaten to take away from us. For example, we want to live, so we make a law that murder is illegal.

[mrswdk]

The proscription against killing innocent humans is an example of something that this is true for, for most people.

It's also totally useless, given that it doesn't have any practical application beyond picking one arbitrary definition of 'innocence' and then pushing that on everyone.

It's not morality if you believe that certain instances are exempt for arbitrary reasons.

That is exactly what morality is. Morality is totally arbitrary.

Take your 'no killing of innocent people' thing. Why add in that 'innocent' subclause? Why not just say 'no killing'?

we only bother setting up morals laws to prevent certain actions because there are certain things we want

You're nearly there.

Take theft, for example. A society outlaws theft in order to protect private property rights and thus protect the accumulation of wealth and encourage enterprise. This is not because people believe capitalism is 'moral' or that preventing theft is 'moral' - this is because people want to live in relative comfort and prosperity and therefore seek to create a society in which this is possible. 'Morality' or 'right and wrong' have nothing to do with it.

If you can come up with a practical reason for not killing animals then I am all ears. But somehow I think you cannot.

[Metsfanmax]

Take your 'no killing of innocent people' thing. You seem to think that I should feel the same way as you.

I think you do feel the same way as me, simply as an empirical question -- I think that you do think killing innocent people is wrong. The main content of my argument is that the reasons you think that humans are people and worthy of not being killed overlap with the qualities that many non-human animals have, and so if your reason for not killing people is any better than "they have human DNA" then you should respect non-human animal life purely as a matter of logical consistency. In other words, I believe that existing laws against murder already should apply to non-human animals, people just don't realize that yet.

What justification do you have for trying to make me think the same way as you? Morality?

I am not trying to get you to think the same way that I think. I am trying to show you that your internal system is inconsistent if it doesn't care about the lives of non-human animals. I am not making a judgment on whether your internal system is valid or invalid -- just saying that you're not living up to your own ethics, if you take the time to think about why you fundamentally respect human life in the first place. (Again, I assume you do. If not, we're having a much different conversation than I thought.)

Edit: I had originally responded to the rest, but removed it because this is really the only part I wanted this argument to be about.

[mrswdk]

the reasons you think that humans are people and worthy of not being killed overlap with the qualities that many non-human animals have

I do not think there is any reason for a blanket 'no killing of humans' rule, just as I do not believe there is any reason for a blanket 'no killing of animals' rule.

There are reasons for preventing the killing of animals in some circumstances, just as there are reasons for preventing the killing of humans in some circumstances. That said, those reasons and circumstances vary from species to species and thus the legal framework varies from species to species.

[Metsfanmax]

the reasons you think that humans are people and worthy of not being killed overlap with the qualities that many non-human animals have

I do not think there is any reason for a blanket 'no killing of humans' rule, just as I do not believe there is any reason for a blanket 'no killing of animals' rule.

Neither do I, but we can set up an easy comparison by just making the circumstances equivalent. Again, my contention is not that you should or should not support killing in any particular circumstance; it is that in any circumstance in which you do not support killing, species of the thing being killed is not itself a relevant criterion and so your decision should be independent of the name of the victim's species. Here are some scenarios to help frame this:

1) Killing a (human/pig) because you don't like how the (human/pig) looks.

2) Killing a (human/pig) because you are hungry and want to eat the (human/pig). There are fruits and vegetables nearby, you're not in any danger of starving.

3) Torturing a (human/pig) because you enjoy watching (humans/pigs) feel pain.

Please answer whether this is acceptable for humans and pigs for each of the three questions. If you give different answers, please explain what morally relevant difference between humans and pigs you based that different answer on.

[/]

I agree with the basis that desire is the fundamental function that shapes law. However, for argument's sake, if I wrote all the world's laws and social acceptabilities, it would be illegal for others to kill, and completely legal and welcome for myself to kill others. That is because I, like most others, am perfectly confident in my own capacity to enforce my own moral judgment. In place of that, we have agreements and concessions:
Person A is marginally inconvenienced if they can't kill indiscriminately, and greatly inconvenienced if they can be killed, thus they take a minor loss to their own rights in order to achieve a greater gain by outlawing all killing within their group. This in turn creates trust within the group and is more likely to be accepted, as everyone is subject to the same restriction and benefits in the same way. This is even better for person A when there are as many people as possible within their group to not kill them. This applies to any rule, even potentially arbitrary ones, if five people are adamant that no one else should touch their shovel, five believe it's convenient if everyone can just use whatever shovel is nearby, and everyone else in the village DGAF about shovels, it's in the former two group's benefit to make everyone abide by the same law, so as to overpower the other respectively.

On the flip side, person A receives no tangible benefit to not being able to kill an enemy, which is a major reason for the breakdown of "morality". It's valuable to self preservation so far as Tribe A killing Tribe B will prevent Tribe A from getting killed by Tribe B, but it prevents peace when applied improperly. People tend to mentally make these distinctions on a subconscious level, it's unacceptable for us that this girl was murdered, but who knows what the killers were thinking? There are many ways they and other perpetrators can dehumanize others; "we're the strong, they're the weak," "we're the humans, they're lizard-people," etc. After that point, it's easier for them not to care what they have done.

That is why, in answer to the original OP question, I believe the best way to strengthen morality at its core, (barring some sci-fi solution like turning everyone into some kind of bee-person hybrid that won't go again the hive) is to really believe in all the optimistic peace and love propaganda we're all force-fed in every form of media. If we all can truly accept one another, and feel valued, and forgive, then we are united. If we all become one group, strengthened because we love one another, not making an enemy because they are straight, bi, asexual, police, lawyers, black, Canadian, Shinto, Christian, disabled, mentally ill, Democrats, or any other distinction that we consider an out group, then we will be less naturally psychologically inclined to harm one another, and less likely to be harmed in turn.

“When I say it's you I like, I'm talking about that part of you that knows that life is far more than anything you can ever see or hear or touch. That deep part of you that allows you to stand for those things without which humankind cannot survive. Love that conquers hate, peace that rises triumphant over war, and justice that proves more powerful than greed.”

Just to play devil's advocate since I believe in animals welfare (though not to the degree nor for the same reasons as Mets), how is a human in any way harmed by killing animals, and how are they benefited by not killing them? As far as I know, chickens aren't a threat as an enemy, nor a prize as an ally.

[Metsfanmax]

I agree with the basis that desire is the fundamental function that shapes law. However, for argument's sake, if I wrote all the world's laws and social acceptabilities, it would be illegal for others to kill, and completely legal and welcome for myself to kill others. That is because I, like most others, am perfectly confident in my own capacity to enforce my own moral judgment.

Are you really that confident? I think a lot about morals but don't feel perfectly confident to be able to assess the morality of all situations. Not only is there the problem that you'll only have imperfect information about the conflict, but also there's just subjectivity in some cases that cannot be resolved by perfect decision-making. Having society work its morals out through a set process prevents that one person who thinks they understand everything from destroying everyone else. I believe fervently that killing animals for food is almost always wrong, but I am not so confident to say that it is wrong in every single circumstance, or that I would be capable of doing so (just as I could not make the same assessment for killing humans). If I were king of the world, I'd have a committee to at least check my reasoning.

Just to play devil's advocate since I believe in animals welfare (though not to the degree nor for the same reasons as Mets), how is a human in any way harmed by killing animals, and how are they benefited by not killing them? As far as I know, chickens aren't a threat as an enemy, nor a prize as an ally.

Humans are harmed in many ways by their love affair with animal food. It is a huge waste of water, taking over ten thousand gallons of water to make a one-pound hamburger compared to about one hundred gallons for a pound of corn. It is a huge waste of energy -- up to 90% of the energy used to make food provided to an animal is burned in keeping the animal alive (i.e. metabolic processes), food we could have just eaten directly. It results in significant pollution of groundwater. And it is a huge emitter of greenhouse gases, being responsible for at least 15% (and likely significantly more) of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is about the same contribution as all transportation combined. It is no exaggeration to say that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster.

[_sabotage_]

So the cows in India don't fart, don't consume food and water and cause no problems?

Now were getting into the PS realm were you think if it is legislated against, it just goes away.

We have permaculture techniques of a chicken tractor, which will clear 30% or so of vegetation from land and convert it into fertilizers and pigs which will convert the rest and plough down six inches. They make use of waste, save energy from tractors, and produce an additional output.

In Thailand, the chicken scrounge for their food, have complete freedom to roam, except at night and it has been this way since for longer than can be known.

As for animal derived pollution, techniques have been used for thousands of years t deal with this and turn it into a benefit. What we don't have techniques for is petrochemicals. Saying that cows use water is somewhat nonsensical, because water is cyclic, cows can't use water, it can just pass through them or the food they eat.

In conclusion, for thousands of years we have managed with animals and promoted our survival. Most of what you are describing is a western made system geared toward maximum profit for minimum people. The "good" techniques have been legislated against. "Good" techniques create zero waste, minimum transport, little to no packaging, processing, middlemen, unhealthy animals, need for heavy medication, fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, heavy machinery.

The education system should reevaluate how they tell people how often and what to eat. The agricultural sector should reevaluate which type of farming should be subsidized, how products are tested and processed. The veterinarians should advice against conditions which result in poor quality products, focusing on dealing with the cause instead of servicing the problem which ends up on someone's plate. The FDA should practice harakiri. And the US population should stop using so many psychotropic drugs so they can engage in everyday life.

[mrswdk]

the reasons you think that humans are people and worthy of not being killed overlap with the qualities that many non-human animals have

I do not think there is any reason for a blanket 'no killing of humans' rule, just as I do not believe there is any reason for a blanket 'no killing of animals' rule.

Neither do I, but we can set up an easy comparison by just making the circumstances equivalent. Again, my contention is not that you should or should not support killing in any particular circumstance; it is that in any circumstance in which you do not support killing, species of the thing being killed is not itself a relevant criterion and so your decision should be independent of the name of the victim's species. Here are some scenarios to help frame this:

1) Killing a (human/pig) because you don't like how the (human/pig) looks.

2) Killing a (human/pig) because you are hungry and want to eat the (human/pig). There are fruits and vegetables nearby, you're not in any danger of starving.

3) Torturing a (human/pig) because you enjoy watching (humans/pigs) feel pain.

Please answer whether this is acceptable for humans and pigs for each of the three questions. If you give different answers, please explain what morally relevant difference between humans and pigs you based that different answer on.

It's not a question of morals, it's a question of the consequences of killing each. The impact of killing different humans is different, and the impact of killing almost any human is different to the impact of killing a pig.

Assuming that humans and animals are always the same is rather base. If I step on an ant and kill it is that the same as stepping on someone's baby and killing it?

[BigBallinStalin]

This hinges on the determination of legitimate v. illegitimate killing. Again, you're begging the question.

This is simple. The relevant axiom is that it is generally agreed that the killing of an innocent human is wrong. If you really want to debate that premise -- fine, we can do it. But let's take it as granted in the society we live in, because it is. Great. So, why is it wrong to kill a human? If you find reasons that are common to all humans, that reasoning will unavoidably include some non-human animals as well. It is not saying that human sentience is somehow equivalent to animal sentience; it is saying that the reasons why it is morally wrong to kill a human are not dependent on the particular unique qualities of human sentience. (As an example, consider that an adult chimpanzee has a much more developed capacity for reasoning than an infant human, yet killing the latter sends you to prison and killing the former is not even in the same ballpark. What is morally special about the baby that grants it legal protections that the chimpanzee doesn't have?) My argument is merely that logical consistency demands that we grant legal rights to animals if they are also granted to humans.

Hard Mode, 2x Bonus: What is the morally relevant difference between cats and chickens such that animal cruelty laws should apply to one and not the other?

RE: the first part, what mrswdk said (still begging the question). Furthermore, we're still gonna hit the axiom based on preference. You want to equate all "sentient enough" animals to humans, while I don't. Basically, this is what will happen: we can argue about the definition of a person in order to support our contrary axioms. You'd expand it, while I'd constrict it--while both of us would be basing our claims on essentially arbitrary reasons (i.e. by preference)). It's an unresolvable moral debate.

RE: Cats v. Chickens, it depends on the reasons of consumption. Chicken usually is consumed over a short period of time for its nutritional value and deliciousness, while cats are consumed over a longer time for their cuteness, comfort, and so on. Cats are consumer durables; chickens are not. However, sometimes cats can be consumed as food, and sometimes chickens are kept as pets (or rather only for producing eggs). The morally relevant difference depends on the goal of consuming the particular animal. There's no one-size-fits-all goal for each animal here.

RE: laws,
Animal cruelty laws are arbitrary. As a matter of pure logic, I wouldn't appeal to any laws in this debate, but as a matter of emotion and preference, I'd favor certain laws that protect certain animals from certain activities in particular places (e.g. no dog fighting). But, I can cover up that emotional stance with logic--e.g. dogs capable of fighting would still live around the neighborhood. They've been bred into aggressiveness and could hurt someone or someone's pets, so to stop this negative externality, prohibit the practice of dog fighting. etc.).

[Metsfanmax]

the reasons you think that humans are people and worthy of not being killed overlap with the qualities that many non-human animals have

I do not think there is any reason for a blanket 'no killing of humans' rule, just as I do not believe there is any reason for a blanket 'no killing of animals' rule.

Neither do I, but we can set up an easy comparison by just making the circumstances equivalent. Again, my contention is not that you should or should not support killing in any particular circumstance; it is that in any circumstance in which you do not support killing, species of the thing being killed is not itself a relevant criterion and so your decision should be independent of the name of the victim's species. Here are some scenarios to help frame this:

1) Killing a (human/pig) because you don't like how the (human/pig) looks.

2) Killing a (human/pig) because you are hungry and want to eat the (human/pig). There are fruits and vegetables nearby, you're not in any danger of starving.

3) Torturing a (human/pig) because you enjoy watching (humans/pigs) feel pain.

Please answer whether this is acceptable for humans and pigs for each of the three questions. If you give different answers, please explain what morally relevant difference between humans and pigs you based that different answer on.

It's not a question of morals, it's a question of the consequences of killing each.

That is just another way of talking about morals. We decide whether something is moral or not based on the consequences it has on society.

The impact of killing different humans is different, and the impact of killing almost any human is different to the impact of killing a pig.

I understand that. That would count as one of the morally relevant differences I asked you to include. You're welcome to the answer the questions given this belief.

Assuming that humans and animals are always the same is rather base. If I step on an ant and kill it is that the same as stepping on someone's baby and killing it?

I didn't ask you to assume they're always the same. I asked you to answer whether intentionally stepping on someone's baby pig and killing it should be considered morally different from intentionally stepping on someone's baby and killing it, and if so, what differences in the situation led you to that conclusion.

Your sidestepping of the question is kind of pointless because you could just use the same logic to say that we can never have a concrete discussion on morals for humans -- killing every human leads to different consequences. Does that mean there is not a single situation in which you would be prepared to argue that the act is wrong?

RE: the first part, what mrswdk said (still begging the question). Furthermore, we're still gonna hit the axiom based on preference. You want to equate all "sentient enough" animals to humans, while I don't. Basically, this is what will happen: we can argue about the definition of a person in order to support our contrary axioms. You'd expand it, while I'd constrict it--while both of us would be basing our claims on essentially arbitrary reasons (i.e. by preference)). It's an unresolvable moral debate.

As I have said, this is not a question of me wanting to expand your definition. My point is that you already have a definition that is expanded enough that it logically ought to include many non-human animals*, you just aren't following what your own definition directs you to do. It is the internal inconsistency in your system that I am mainly pointing out, not my own beliefs. My challenge to you is to state clearly why you believe that killing a human is wrong, and then state clearly why those reasons don't also apply to animals that are not humans. What is it in your definition of murder that calls for a demarcation on a category boundary as arbitrary as species? And how would you argue with someone who makes an equally arbitrary demarcation based on race or sex?

*Part of the reason why there may be confusion here is that you comparing the sentience of humans and non-humans, but I don't think there is any good evidence that humans are more sentient than non-humans such as pigs and cows. What humans are is more intelligent and they have a larger reasoning capacity, but these are not considered morally relevant characteristics in determining the wrongness of murder, for example -- killing a profoundly mentally retarded child is still murder, even though there are adult chimpanzees that are more intelligent than the child. As far as I am aware, there is no reason to conclude that humans are more sentient than non-humans, that is, that humans are more capable of feeling pain.

RE: Cats v. Chickens, it depends on the reasons of consumption. Chicken usually is consumed over a short period of time for its nutritional value and deliciousness, while cats are consumed over a longer time for their cuteness, comfort, and so on. Cats are consumer durables; chickens are not. However, sometimes cats can be consumed as food, and sometimes chickens are kept as pets (or rather only for producing eggs). The morally relevant difference depends on the goal of consuming the particular animal. There's no one-size-fits-all goal for each animal here.

Yes, and I am asking you to make an apples-to-apples comparison by comparing eating a cat to eating a chicken.

Animal cruelty laws are arbitrary. As a matter of pure logic, I wouldn't appeal to any laws in this debate, but as a matter of emotion and preference, I'd favor certain laws that protect certain animals from certain activities in particular places (e.g. no dog fighting). But, I can cover up that emotional stance with logic--e.g. dogs capable of fighting would still live around the neighborhood. They've been bred into aggressiveness and could hurt someone or someone's pets, so to stop this negative externality, prohibit the practice of dog fighting. etc.).

You could cover up that emotional stance with logic. If you think that is an intellectually proper thing to do, that is you think the only real reason to have a law against dogfighting is that a human might get hurt, so be it. But note that I wasn't appealing to the laws to prove that my stance is right, I was doing it to prove that our system of morals is indeed arbitrary, as you recognize. The laws are just a reflection of the fact that people are legitimately outraged by torturing or neglecting cats and dogs, but pay no heed to worse things happening in the preparation of their dinner.

[thegreekdog]

I didn't ask you to assume they're always the same. I asked you to answer whether intentionally stepping on someone's baby pig and killing it should be considered morally different from intentionally stepping on someone's baby and killing it, and if so, what differences in the situation led you to that conclusion.

What if the person stepping on the baby consumed the baby for sustenance?

[BigBallinStalin]

Right? If the goal is sustenance, then stomping on baby pigs is less costly than stomping on human babies. I imagine that the production cost of human babies for nutritional consumption is relatively higher since pigs pump out more baby pigs and require less resources to do so. Pig meat is more nutritional than human meat since cannibalism (IIRC) usually results in mental diseases over prolonged periods of time. The moral difference depends on the relative costs of any action.

For nearly all moral claims, the soundness (i.e. universality) is context-dependent. For example, if TGD, I, and a baby were stranded on a raft in an ocean, and we were starving to death, I think both of us would agree that stomping on the baby for sustenance would be the morally right decision (or rather, we'd let it die).

This also reverts to the legitimate v. illegitimate killings claim. For a real-world example, when food becomes more scarce, the Inuit (IIRC) have their elderly die off. Usually, the elderly volunteer to go on a "last hunting trip" and never return. This social practice would be murder--in a developed country which is hardly constrained by food production, but it's legitimate killing (or letting someone die) in societies that face harsher constraints on food production.

What I find interesting about Mets' global morality is that he'd ruin societies which face higher scarcity of food (since animals have been totally removed from the legitimate diet of humans). It's a good way to kill billions of poor people.

[Metsfanmax]

Right? If the goal is sustenance, then stomping on baby pigs is less costly than stomping on human babies. I imagine that the production cost of human babies for nutritional consumption is relatively higher since pigs pump out more baby pigs and require less resources to do so. Pig meat is more nutritional than human meat since cannibalism (IIRC) usually results in mental diseases over prolonged periods of time. The moral difference depends on the relative costs of any action.

If this is your stance, then why not only eat plants, the least costly of all of these options? Are you prepared to argue that the relative benefit that it has for the taste in your mouth justifies the order of magnitude(s) more resources it took to create?

For nearly all moral claims, the soundness (i.e. universality) is context-dependent. For example, if TGD, I, and a baby were stranded on a raft in an ocean, and we were starving to death, I think both of us would agree that stomping on the baby for sustenance would be the morally right decision (or rather, we'd let it die).

Yes, but since proportionally very few people in the West are in danger of starving to death tomorrow, this is an irrelevant circumstance. I am talking mainly to people who could easily switch to plant-based foods if they wanted to without any nutritional hardship, and are avoiding doing so mainly as a matter of taste and not out of necessity. Of course the circumstances would be different if I was talking to an ultra poor person in sub-Saharan Africa, but I'm not, so I don't see why that's relevant here.

This also reverts to the legitimate v. illegitimate killings claim. For a real-world example, when food becomes more scarce, the Inuit (IIRC) have their elderly die off. Usually, the elderly volunteer to go on a "last hunting trip" and never return. This social practice would be murder--in a developed country which is hardly constrained by food production, but it's legitimate killing (or letting someone die) in societies that face harsher constraints on food production.

What I find interesting about Mets' global morality is that he'd ruin societies which face higher scarcity of food (since animals have been totally removed from the legitimate diet of humans). It's a good way to kill billions of poor people.

I didn't argue for global morality, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting that I am. But also, your point is completely unrelated to reality because the only societies that eat large quantities of meat are rich nations like the West. Raising large amounts of animals for food requires lots of wasted resources (see the earlier posts) so the only ones who can afford to engage in waste like that are the ones who have excess resources to spare. Indeed, nations that get richer tend to eat more meat with time. So even if I did argue for a global morality, it wouldn't really have the effect you're talking about, because the people who already have higher scarcity of food can't really afford to waste it by feeding the food to animals instead of themselves.

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: the first part, what mrswdk said (still begging the question). Furthermore, we're still gonna hit the axiom based on preference. You want to equate all "sentient enough" animals to humans, while I don't. Basically, this is what will happen: we can argue about the definition of a person in order to support our contrary axioms. You'd expand it, while I'd constrict it--while both of us would be basing our claims on essentially arbitrary reasons (i.e. by preference)). It's an unresolvable moral debate.

As I have said, this is not a question of me wanting to expand your definition. My point is that you already have a definition that is expanded enough that it logically ought to include many non-human animals*, you just aren't following what your own definition directs you to do. It is the internal inconsistency in your system that I am mainly pointing out, not my own beliefs. My challenge to you is to state clearly why you believe that killing a human is wrong, and then state clearly why those reasons don't also apply to animals that are not humans. What is it in your definition of murder that calls for a demarcation on a category boundary as arbitrary as species? And how would you argue with someone who makes an equally arbitrary demarcation based on race or sex?

This is interesting because I haven't offered a definition. Why? I already explained the problems of the "changing semantics" game.
That segment of our discussion is about the meta problem with this debate. We can use logic in order to justify emotionally preconceived positions. We can keep playing the "changing definition" game to confirm our contrary stances. E.g. I'd drop "marginal sentience" (whatever that exactly means) and find some other term For example, you're now claiming that sentience no longer matters, but intelligence does. This frames me into making arguments about killing human veggies--if I accept the change in your definition. I can still insist that sentience matters; or potential sentience matters, blah blah blah. It's a tactic that won't resolve the issue in a least-cost manner, so I'm going to avoid it. You're welcome to join me.


When is killing a human wrong? It depends on the context (the legitimate institutions, the costs, the benefits, constraints etc.). (For two examples of changes in scarcity/constraints and how that affects the legitimacy of killing humans, see this).

When is killing a non-human wrong? Again, it depends on the context (the legitimate institutions, the costs, the benefits, constraints etc.). For example see this, first paragraph.

I'll explain below.

RE: Cats v. Chickens, it depends on the reasons of consumption. Chicken usually is consumed over a short period of time for its nutritional value and deliciousness, while cats are consumed over a longer time for their cuteness, comfort, and so on. Cats are consumer durables; chickens are not. However, sometimes cats can be consumed as food, and sometimes chickens are kept as pets (or rather only for producing eggs). The morally relevant difference depends on the goal of consuming the particular animal. There's no one-size-fits-all goal for each animal here.

Yes, and I am asking you to make an apples-to-apples comparison by comparing eating a cat to eating a chicken.[/quote]

How many times do I have to say this? It'll keep depending on context. Is the chicken a pet? Or is it food? What are the reasons for eating a pet? Is the situation dire? Or is it not? What are the alternative means of consumption and production and how do they compare to the current means of consumption and production?

The moral difference depends on the means, the goals, the good itself, and the relative costs.

Animal cruelty laws are arbitrary. As a matter of pure logic, I wouldn't appeal to any laws in this debate, but as a matter of emotion and preference, I'd favor certain laws that protect certain animals from certain activities in particular places (e.g. no dog fighting). But, I can cover up that emotional stance with logic--e.g. dogs capable of fighting would still live around the neighborhood. They've been bred into aggressiveness and could hurt someone or someone's pets, so to stop this negative externality, prohibit the practice of dog fighting. etc.).

You could cover up that emotional stance with logic. If you think that is an intellectually proper thing to do, that is you think the only real reason to have a law against dogfighting is that a human might get hurt, so be it. But note that I wasn't appealing to the laws to prove that my stance is right, I was doing it to prove that our system of morals is indeed arbitrary, as you recognize. The laws are just a reflection of the fact that people are legitimately outraged by torturing or neglecting cats and dogs, but pay no heed to worse things happening in the preparation of their dinner.[/quote]

Right, because...

(1) Consent matters. Property rights matter. To avoid racially/gender-based justifications, people have property rights over themselves. In order to use a person as your property, you need their consent. Seems pretty straight-forward, so out goes the racial/gender problem. Non-humans are essentially objects which people own. Not all non-humans are owned (it depends on the relative costs of applying various kinds of property rights regime for a given set of non-humans--e.g. a commons, or fish in the bottom of the Mariana trench, etc.).

What about people with zero intelligence? e.g. human veggies? There's some informal or formal agreement about "cutting the plug," so regardless of the intelligence/sentience criteria, killing humans can be legitimate. The Inuit starvation example is another context-dependent determination of legitimately killing humans.

These cases that involve humans depend on consent. Are non-humans capable of giving consent? If so, then how do humans control for their own anthropomorphic personification of animals?

[BigBallinStalin]

Right? If the goal is sustenance, then stomping on baby pigs is less costly than stomping on human babies. I imagine that the production cost of human babies for nutritional consumption is relatively higher since pigs pump out more baby pigs and require less resources to do so. Pig meat is more nutritional than human meat since cannibalism (IIRC) usually results in mental diseases over prolonged periods of time. The moral difference depends on the relative costs of any action.

If this is your stance, then why not only eat plants, the least costly of all of these options? Are you prepared to argue that the relative benefit that it has for the taste in your mouth justifies the order of magnitude(s) more resources it took to create?

Cost is a function of monetary and psychological net benefits.

Sure, I'm prepared to defend that. Let's apply your question to your own stance: It would be least (monetarily) costly to produce the most boring plant food imaginable. How can you justify using more resources to create more delicious combinations of plant matter? Why not insist on using the least resources possible, which would yield the most boring food possible (e.g. nothing but rice and beans, with whatever you use to get a sufficient amount of protein. Condiments like soy sauce are "unnecessary" expenditures).

Furthermore, in order to reduce the loss of insect life from pesticides and from other agricultural techniques, then the plant matter which yields the greatest nutritional value per pound should only be produced. No more salads, Mets. It's an "unnecessary" use of resources.

["necessary" is a loaded term. It also begs the question.]

For nearly all moral claims, the soundness (i.e. universality) is context-dependent. For example, if TGD, I, and a baby were stranded on a raft in an ocean, and we were starving to death, I think both of us would agree that stomping on the baby for sustenance would be the morally right decision (or rather, we'd let it die).

Yes, but since proportionally very few people in the West are in danger of starving to death tomorrow, this is an irrelevant circumstance. I am talking mainly to people who could easily switch to plant-based foods if they wanted to without any nutritional hardship, and are avoiding doing so mainly as a matter of taste and not out of necessity. Of course the circumstances would be different if I was talking to an ultra poor person in sub-Saharan Africa, but I'm not, so I don't see why that's relevant here.

The main point here is about context. That's why context matters. If you want soundness of your moral claims, then its limits must be revealed through examples which you (in hindsight) deem as irrelevant. Now that the scope of your argument has been reduced, let's delve into the limits within "Western countries."

Does your 100% veganism apply to relatively poor people within Western countries? Does it apply to newly arriving immigrants from extremely poor places? (In other words, at what budget constraint--e.g. income--does veganism become the only legitimate lifestyle?)

[thegreekdog]

Right? If the goal is sustenance, then stomping on baby pigs is less costly than stomping on human babies. I imagine that the production cost of human babies for nutritional consumption is relatively higher since pigs pump out more baby pigs and require less resources to do so. Pig meat is more nutritional than human meat since cannibalism (IIRC) usually results in mental diseases over prolonged periods of time. The moral difference depends on the relative costs of any action.

If this is your stance, then why not only eat plants, the least costly of all of these options? Are you prepared to argue that the relative benefit that it has for the taste in your mouth justifies the order of magnitude(s) more resources it took to create?

For nearly all moral claims, the soundness (i.e. universality) is context-dependent. For example, if TGD, I, and a baby were stranded on a raft in an ocean, and we were starving to death, I think both of us would agree that stomping on the baby for sustenance would be the morally right decision (or rather, we'd let it die).

Yes, but since proportionally very few people in the West are in danger of starving to death tomorrow, this is an irrelevant circumstance. I am talking mainly to people who could easily switch to plant-based foods if they wanted to without any nutritional hardship, and are avoiding doing so mainly as a matter of taste and not out of necessity. Of course the circumstances would be different if I was talking to an ultra poor person in sub-Saharan Africa, but I'm not, so I don't see why that's relevant here.

This also reverts to the legitimate v. illegitimate killings claim. For a real-world example, when food becomes more scarce, the Inuit (IIRC) have their elderly die off. Usually, the elderly volunteer to go on a "last hunting trip" and never return. This social practice would be murder--in a developed country which is hardly constrained by food production, but it's legitimate killing (or letting someone die) in societies that face harsher constraints on food production.

What I find interesting about Mets' global morality is that he'd ruin societies which face higher scarcity of food (since animals have been totally removed from the legitimate diet of humans). It's a good way to kill billions of poor people.

I didn't argue for global morality, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting that I am. But also, your point is completely unrelated to reality because the only societies that eat large quantities of meat are rich nations like the West. Raising large amounts of animals for food requires lots of wasted resources (see the earlier posts) so the only ones who can afford to engage in waste like that are the ones who have excess resources to spare. Indeed, nations that get richer tend to eat more meat with time. So even if I did argue for a global morality, it wouldn't really have the effect you're talking about, because the people who already have higher scarcity of food can't really afford to waste it by feeding the food to animals instead of themselves.