No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
It's not about "all life" but about "all sentient life". Only beings that are able have pleasant and unpleasant experience should be considered. If something (living or not) cannot experience suffering then you can't harm it, by definition.
Sentience is studied scientifically. It cannot be stated with absolute certainty but scientists have good sets of criteria and experiences that helps identify it. With the current knowledge it's almost certain that all mammals are sentient, like us. Fishes and birds are also very likely to be sentient. Some species of insects are probably sentient while others may not be. And plants are likely not sentient.
But even if all living things are sentient, it doesn't change very much. Speciesism means treating beings differently only because they belong to some specific species. There are good reasons to treat different beings differently but they should be based on the beings' interests, not their species (and studying sentience helps identifying these interests). It's very likely that we do less harm by growing plants than by breeding animals. And even if it was the same amount of suffering we would still do less harm by avoiding eating animals because breeding them to eat them actually requires more plants than just eating plants. We should seek to minimise suffering and avoiding eating animal is a good way to do that.
I don't agree on your analysis of sentience. The term sentience has no concrete meaning, so how can you base your moral judgements on this? Plenty of plant life has senses and are able to "feel" things.
This follows no definition of harm that I am aware of, and I do not agree with it. If you are not aware that you have been harmed, you are still harmed. So you should also be able to be harmed even when you could not be aware of it. Therefore, I do not accept this sentiocentric (just learned this word) argument.
And this is one of those reasons. A human's (or any other animal's) continued existence is mutually exclusive with the food's continued existence. If we do not follow speciest dogma, we might as well eat other humans.
I've heard this tired argument that plants and sentient mammals have the same capacity for suffering so many times. I think it is a disingenuous way of excusing the suffering your choices support.
A plant does not grieve when it's offspring is removed from it. It does not have fear, or joy. Plants don't play with each other and bond.
Yes. They communicate, and react to stimuli. So does a computer, but neither are sentient
I don't think it is disingenuous at all. You may draw the line at sentience, but you have provided no argument for why this is correct. Why must we consider the harm exactly up to sentience? Why must we only consider conscious pain resulting from harm, and not nociception? It is easy to dismiss people as disingenuous, especially if you don't really have any arguments for your case.
I don't see how there can exist any good arguments for where to draw the line, which is why it bothers me when people claim the moral high ground, but cannot offer any arguments on why their behaviour is most morally correct. You can say "reduce suffering of sentient beings", and most people probably agree, but I think it is completely natural to prioritise yourself, your family and friends and your species above other animals. So how much suffering of yourself is as important as the suffering of a chicken. Probably substantially less. I don't think you will ever convince anyone of your beliefs by simply denying that their weightings of human-to-animal suffering is wrong and yours is right.
That's a lot of rationalization with no facts to back it up.
I'm getting a "well ackchually" vibe from your comment. If I put a mouse on the ground next to a flower and told you to stomp one of them to death, You would be comfortable with either option equally?
Yes plants respond to negative stimuli, that doesn't imply suffering on the level of a conscious being.
You're making a lot of assumptions about my beliefs in your comment. I do not believe any animal has more right to life than any other animal. With that said if you are in the woods trying to survive like our ancestors then your biological needs take priority, you can't survive on plants in winter. The thing is that is not our reality. We are wolfing down red meat giving ourselves colon cancer needlessly. Trading suffering for joy, not suffering for survival
I, honestly, have no idea what you are talking about. Which facts would you find relevant in a philosophical discussion on morality?
I am sorry you feel that way, that was not my intention.
Honestly I find this example a little comical because I think most people would definitely choose to rid themselves of the pest and keep their pretty flower. However, I do understand your sentiment. I don't think my personal views really matter, but I have some rough hierarchy of living organism ordering how highly I value their interests. For example, I think a human is more important than a mouse to me, so I would rather kill a mouse than a human, if I had to choose. Similarly, I think a hare is more important than a flower, so I would rather kill a flower than a hare.
I am sorry, I have incorrectly conflated your comment with that of the original.
These to statements are completely contradictory. You are more important than other animals, thus you sacrifice them for you own survival. If you have no more "right" to survival than a hare, how is it ethical to kill it to ensure your own survival?
Alright, we are talking right past each other. Have a good one
It does have a concrete meaning. Scientific papers usually define what they are studying. For example the Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans has a definition. It also has criteria to evaluate it.
Having reactions to external stimulus is different from having feelings. Feelings require consciousness, or sentience.
Even having nociceptors doesn't mean you can experience pain (see the above review in the "Defining sentience" section).
Yes you can be harmed without knowing it, but it still must have a negative effect on you. If something can't have negative (or positive) experience then how can you say it's being harmed?
If I throw a rock to the ground, it doesn't make sense to say I harmed the rock, because a rock can't experience being harmed. Being sentient is having this ability to experience being harmed. That's why I meant it's by definition that non sentient beings can't be harmed. The word exists to distinguish what can and cannot experience harm (among other feelings).
But having food doesn't necessarily mean harming something. And even if it does, different foods have different level of harm. We can choose the foods that minimize harm.
Indeed meat eaters don't really have good reasons to exclude human meat.
When I say concrete meaning I mean that sentience is an abstract concept of which we can observe evidence of, but we cannot define clearly what it is. In the report you mentioned, you will see that they give 8 criteria for scientific evidence of sentience, i.e. these do not define what sentience is, but they are criteria that we presume sentient beings should satisfy. They even require several pages to explain the complications of how to define sentience and how to observe it.
I do admit that the extent of study on sentience of animals is greater than I initially thought, and I can see that one might have reasonably sufficient knowledge to judge, with some certainty, which life organism might be sentient (under definitions such as the one used in the report). But it seems to me nearly all animals fall under this umbrella of "some level of sentience", I found this paper highlighting that many insects seem to have cognitive abilities, and might be capable of feeling harm. So to what extent must this go, can you not swat a mosquito in fear of its suffering?
But a rock is not alive, there is no evolutionary force driving its interest, as with all other living organisms. A sea cucumber has no proper nervous system (as I understand from a quick search), and thus could not "feel" pain. Yet, if you cut one in half, I would say that you have harmed it. But this is really just discussing the semantics of the word "harm", the real point is that you are doing something to the organism that goes against its natural interests.
Yes they do, speciesism. A quite natural reason.
Swatting a mosquito generally doesn't induce suffering, if it's done quickly. And since they are not social animals other mosquito probably won't suffer from the loss.
But yes, if an animal is probably sentient you should avoid inflicting pain to it, for the same reason you should avoid inflicting pain to humans: because they can suffer.
Indeed, but going against natural interests or not is not the point. The point is about suffering. And more specifically the fact that the amount of suffering we inflict to animals to eat their meat would be inacceptable if it was done to humans.
That's like saying people have a good reason to beat people who don't look like them: racism.
This is like saying it is okay to kill a lonely person with no friends and family, as long as it is an instant death.
I don't agree with you that suffering is the single center concept to base your moral judgement on these issues. Not all living things that i care about are able to suffer, and I do not care about all living things that do suffer. I do not care that i cause a mosquito suffering by killing it (wounding it), if it is sucking my blood, or even just being annoying when flying around me, because I value my comfort above its existence (and suffering). I expect you do the same? This is speciesism.
Except we both agree that racism is wrong. We do not both agree that speciesism is wrong.
No, it is more like saying it doesn't cause suffering, which is true. Whether it's ok or not is another matter, but some could argue can be.
I didn't say suffering is the single center concept to base moral judgment on, although some moral philosophers argue it is (negative utilitarians). But suffering is the main problem with speciesism: we accept much more suffering on non-human animals than we do on on humans, for no good reason.
If you care about things that cannot suffer, then you do not care for their well being, since they can't experience well being. It may be a semantic problem here, because I thought caring was about the other's well being.
Anyway what you do care about is not really relevant unless you consider we should just follow our instinctive morality. What I was discussing is what we should care about.
No, I would avoid causing suffering to the mosquito (for example by moving it our of the room or protecting myself). And if killing it is the only practical way to make it stop being an unacceptable annoyance I would still try to minimize its suffering. It's not speciesism because I would apply the same logic if it was a human or any other species.
And yet speciesism is very similar to racism. It's the same mechanism. Racism is a discrimination on irrelevant characteristics like skin color, and speciesism is a discrimination on irrelevant characteristics like cognitive ability, cuteness, ability to talk, etc.
In both cases these characteristics are irrelevant when we try to decide whether we can cause suffering to these beings. The only relevant characteristic is whether they can suffer.
why should sentience matter at all?
Because if something is not sentient it cannot have negative experiences, so it can't be harmed.
so?
The question was "why is eating meat bad?", my answer is something like "because to have meat you must harm animals", and someone answered that "we always harm something when we eat" and my answer is "no, there are foods that you can't harm because they are not sentient".
first, you can't prove plants aren't sentient. second even if you could, why should sentience matter? what ethical system even accounts for sentience as a factor of right behavior?
And you can't prove something is sentient. But scientists have criteria that help determine whether a species is sentient. See this review for example.
I already answered. If something can't be harmed there no need to prevent harming it.
About all animal welfare:
i don't really like your use of harm here to exclude everything but sentient beings, but as a term of art, for the purposes of this discussion, i will indulge you.
why does it matter if something CAN be harmed? what creates a duty to NOT HARM something?
About all ethics is about reducing harm. If you don't know that harming is bad I don't think we can have a discussion.
deontological ethics are explicitly not about that. divine command theory is unconcerned with that. can you name an ethical system that does concern itself with that?
I guess it depends on the philosopher, but at least one includes "doing no harm" in the obligations[1]:
Probably all consequentialism and at least utilitarianism (harm decreases the global well being). Negative consequentialism is more specifically focused on reducing suffering/harm.
I'm not a consequentialist at all, and Ross is not using harm in the same sense as we are. even if he were, his is not a very common strain of ethics.
your ethical theory seems to be on dubious footing to me.
So in your ethical theory, harm doesn't matter at all?
You seem to follow some kind of deontology. There's no obligation in your system to not cause unnecessary harm? I guess you have some obligation not to hurt your dog even if you like doing that. Isn't that obligation related to the fact the dog would be harmed if you did?
Maybe it's just a difference between consequentialism and deontologism, but I was convinced deontologists generally had some rules that prevent unnecessary harm. They don't?
There's at least Tom Regan who was a deontologist (at least in his book The Case for Animal Rights) and talks about harm:
I take a view pretty close to kant: cruelty is wrong to practice on other creatures or on people, but for different reasons. it's inherently wrong to be cruel to people, but being cruel to animals is only wrong In that it conditions you to practice cruelty, and you might subsiquently be cruel to people
Even if plants were sentient, and I’m not saying they are, but if. Would you rather “kill” orders of magnitude more plants to feed them to animals, then kill the animals and eat them, or would you kill the plants and eat them directly? One of them causes a lot less harm (if any at all), and it’s not eating the animals.
well, first, animals are mostly fed plants or parts of plants that people can't or won't eat, so the scale of the difference you described is orders of magnitude less than you are suggesting.
but, more importantly, why should sentience matter?
finally, whether i buy food from a shelf or not, the creature (flora or fauna) it came from is already harmed, and my purchase causes no more harm to it, so eating it has exactly no impact.
Those plants still have to be cultivated. If there are no animals to feed those plants to (for instance, low quality corn or low quality soy), the lane can be used for cultivating food for humans or in the case of low quality soy, the rain forest doesn’t have to be mowed down for it. Sentience matters because ideally, one should strive to reduce harm as much as possible. Especially unnecessary harm. There is a reason why I don’t torture cats and dogs for fun, and it’s the same reason I don’t eat killed and tortured cows, pigs, chickens, etc. just because I like the flavour of them. And of course your purchasing behaviour has impact on the amount of harm caused. Maybe not instantaneously, because it is indeed on the shelves already, but just like with voting in elections, if you don’t buy products that cause harm, demand drops ever so slightly. Then when more people inevitably follow, demand drops further in a big enough quantity to matter. That’s why you see a lot more vegetarian or vegan options in your supermarket today: because people buy them.
the soy fed to livestock is almost entirely the industrial waste from making soybean oil.
Fair enough, it seems like it is waste from soybean oil most of the time. However, it does make me wonder why such an enormous amount of soy is cultivated. >75% is used for animal feed (and oil, indeed). (source). I wonder if it's a similar situation as with corn in the US and the resulting use of HFCS.
why should reducing harm be a goal? suggesting that eating meat is equivalent to torturing animals for fun is totally specious: almost everyone eats meat, almost no one tortures animals.
Meat doesn't grow on trees, let's be honest here. There's plenty of articles, videos, and other evidence online and offline that livestock aren't exactly treated well. Maybe they're nice at some farms, but they still get herded into cramped trucks, then disgracefully manhandled in slaughterhouses. Personally, I don't like to cause people and other living things harm, simply because I feel like being nice is the better option. I believe that doesn't have to stop at humans and pets.
there are more vegetarian options and even more meat is produced now than ever before. the production hasn't dropped.
That's rather unfortunate...
how do you know what is necessary for other people?
I don't. But I do know that the human body can survive, even thrive, perfectly fine without the consumption of animal products. That's nutrients, not taste preferences, of course. I also like to think that the vast majority of people don't like harming animals, at least not consciously. I hope I'm not wrong in thinking that.
people need more than nutrients, and of course people don't like harming animals, but eating meat doesn't do that: the animal is already dead.
Sure, people need good tasting food, too. That’s no issue. As for the already dead animals not having been harmed: Wut? They don’t exactly ask a cow nicely if it could just die for a steak. It needs to be killed. Often in a not too humane manner. Before that, it’s likely that the cow has suffered during transport or when it was forced to birth calves year in, year out, so it could keep producing milk. All those things harm the animal in one way or another, so yes, eating meat does cause harm.
eating a steak does not cause the cow to have been killed (or any of the other things you mentioned), since an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past.
Agreed. But let's be honest here. If there was no demand for meat, animals would not be killed for meat. So your choice of whether to buy (and eat) meat or not does very much have impact
how can you prove that?
Supply and demand.
That's not a magic phrase that makes what you said true. it's a theory about price discovery.
it's not strictly about taste. people need community and esteem and self-actualization, too.
What do those things have to do with choosing what to eat?
what if, to self actualize, i need to master french cuisine? or what if to stay in community, i need to go to a barbecue or thanksgiving dinner? what if, for esteem, i need the convenience of grabbing a mindless quick meal between my duties?
you don't know what anyone needs. many people may need to eat meat, and nutrition has little or nothing to do with it
It's all a personal choice. There's no one holding a gun to your head forcing you to use/consume meat. It's fine that it's a personal choice, but it is something one should be aware of.
it's awfully patronizing for you to decide for other people what they need.