I understand your point and frankly, if anyone is okay with farming Hunan meat, regardless, then admitting to it, especially in a public forum would be social suicide.
There’s a nontrivial population on earth that don’t see any issue with killing and eating what most residents of first world countries would consider to be pets. But it’s all aside from the point that you’re making.
I understand you’re trying to provoke deep consideration on the matter, something most people won’t even consider doing, and I’ll tell you that I’ve come to terms with the decisions I’ve made, and justified them with deep dives into the logic of the scenario. There are social constructs of what is acceptable that I reject but don’t violate because of the social backlash that would ensue. There’s also the matter of preference, just as some people may like beets and others don’t, not all meat products are made equal either. Venison doesn’t have the same taste and consistency as beef, chicken or fish.
There’s also the matter of preferring what you know you like apart from trying something you’ve never had, eg, I haven’t really ever eaten shrimp and I have no desire to start. There’s many reasons for this that I’m just not going to get into as they’re not relevant to the point. Fact is, I can go buy shrimp at any time and have some and I choose not to. I’ve never had it and have no reason to avoid it, but I still won’t all the same.
The morality of handling the dead, specifically dead humans, by humans, is taboo pretty much regardless of who you are or what you do in life, and the dead are usually treated with a certain reverence and respect. So even if you’re not morally opposed to eating human meat, it’s likely you’re opposed to how it’s “farmed”. This is echoed in the film Soylent green. Fact is, we wouldn’t be okay with feeding or loved ones to the masses for nourishment, and most people can’t imagine anyone else would be okay with it, which is the critical point of the film. IMO, that a social construct and I further feel that it’s disengenous to the point. There’s very few creatures that engage in direct cannibalism. Even animals, with few exceptions, don’t do it.
So let’s put to bed the idea that humans, as a whole, would every be morally or socially okay with the idea of eating human meat. Same as so many other animals on the planet.
So we, as humans, omnivores, can choose to either participate in eating flesh of animals or not, that’s a personal decision, not one that should be mandated by any law. Human meat is off the table, and simply mentioning it speaks more about you than it does about the listener, that you would go to the length of comparing eating beef or chicken, to cannibalism. It’s a weak argument at best but has the virtue of having a lot of shock value.
For me, aside from cannibalism, I’m pretty okay with anything dying for my continued survival. Same as any meat eating predator on the planet. I hold no animosity to the animals I eat, I don’t want to eradicate them nor cause them suffering; simply, my desire to live is more potent than my empathy for their continued life. Fact is, as humans, we are not the majority of animal biomass on the planet, so carving out a small number of other animals so I can live is, in my opinion, fine. Their numbers will hardly vary and I get to live with all the benefits that the meat of their dead, provide. That enables me to continue to have stupid conversations like this, and help my fellow man.
I recognise animals as having intelligence, but as a human, I’ll always consider humanity as governed by a different set of rules. There’s no jail for a rabid animal that slaughters it’s own kind, only that their fellow animals fight it and kill it. Humans are held to different standards for crimes against humanity, since we at least consider ourselves to be more civilized. No single person acts as judge, jury and executioner. Even when there is a fatal shooting performed by law enforcement (or anyone else, for that matter), there’s still a trial to determine if the action was just, as we have agreed must be done as a society. Turning that idea on it’s head, we posthumously hold the dead person accountable for their final acts and whether killing them was a reasonable response to their actions and any immediate danger to life that they may have posed. We hold ourselves responsible for our actions in the court of law regardless if you died or not. This is exclusive to actions by humans against humans. We hold ourselves to a different standard. We always have and as far as I can see, we always will.
Tribes of wild cats can shift their loyalty on which Alpha Male can fight the best, they have their own laws that govern who lives and who dies, and what actions must be taken towards any winners or losers in their own system of law, same as us. The punishment can vary from disenfranchisement to death. Bears also have this same sort of law structure, etc. Most animals have some way of dealing with their own kind, and regard their own laws separate from other species. It’s not like a goat is going to rule over a pride of Lions or anything. In the same way, the laws of goats have no bearing on how lions rule their respective kingdoms. Once you step away from any specific animal and their kingdom, the rules that govern that animal don’t have any bearing on the social and law structure of another animal. We are the same way. Everything behaves this way on the planet. Humans are no exception.
When it comes to food, every other carnivorous animal on the planet cares not about the social structure or ongoing survival of the animals that they kill, and for centuries, humans were the same. Now that we have an understanding of nutrition and sufficient agriculture to sustain it, humans can now make a decision if they want to continue to eat the animals that historically were our prey. Some have chosen not to, and that’s fine.
Trying to guilt me into making that choice by falsely leading me to think that eating animals is akin to cannibalism is insane and to me, invalidates you as a trusted speaker. You’re free to say what you wish, you have the freedom of speech, but bluntly, your opinion of me for my choices is not valid because of what you’ve said, and tried to imply or draw comparisons to regarding my choices.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
This is gish-galloping, to properly address your points, every paragraph would require 3ish paragraphs, so I’d have to spend the better part of 2 hours responding, which is totally unreasonable to expect in a forum like this with a stranger you have no personal attachment to.
From what I gather, your main issues are social ostracization and false equivalencies. Using social norms to drive your moral decisions is obviously problematic, you can think of a ton of atrocities committed by humans when those atrocities were socially normalized. People aren’t born evil, with an intent to cause harm. They’re taught to be ambivalent, and can perpetuate atrocities through apathy.
As for the idea that there’s some false equivalence, you’re misunderstanding the thought experiment. Yes, eating humans is more dangerous than eating chickens or dogs, but that’s a happenstance of nature. It’s possible we could figure out a way to eliminate prion diseases and other harmful effects of cannibalism, and then farming disabled humans who process information at the same level of a cow would be morally permissible to a logically consistent non-vegan.
Of course, essentially no carnists are logically consistent. They use emotion and preference towards certain species to guide their decision instead of rationally considering when it’s okay to harm something (taste pleasure isn’t a high enough bar to inflict pain and death, obviously).
I understand your point and frankly, if anyone is okay with farming Hunan meat, regardless, then admitting to it, especially in a public forum would be social suicide.
There’s a nontrivial population on earth that don’t see any issue with killing and eating what most residents of first world countries would consider to be pets. But it’s all aside from the point that you’re making.
I understand you’re trying to provoke deep consideration on the matter, something most people won’t even consider doing, and I’ll tell you that I’ve come to terms with the decisions I’ve made, and justified them with deep dives into the logic of the scenario. There are social constructs of what is acceptable that I reject but don’t violate because of the social backlash that would ensue. There’s also the matter of preference, just as some people may like beets and others don’t, not all meat products are made equal either. Venison doesn’t have the same taste and consistency as beef, chicken or fish.
There’s also the matter of preferring what you know you like apart from trying something you’ve never had, eg, I haven’t really ever eaten shrimp and I have no desire to start. There’s many reasons for this that I’m just not going to get into as they’re not relevant to the point. Fact is, I can go buy shrimp at any time and have some and I choose not to. I’ve never had it and have no reason to avoid it, but I still won’t all the same.
The morality of handling the dead, specifically dead humans, by humans, is taboo pretty much regardless of who you are or what you do in life, and the dead are usually treated with a certain reverence and respect. So even if you’re not morally opposed to eating human meat, it’s likely you’re opposed to how it’s “farmed”. This is echoed in the film Soylent green. Fact is, we wouldn’t be okay with feeding or loved ones to the masses for nourishment, and most people can’t imagine anyone else would be okay with it, which is the critical point of the film. IMO, that a social construct and I further feel that it’s disengenous to the point. There’s very few creatures that engage in direct cannibalism. Even animals, with few exceptions, don’t do it.
So let’s put to bed the idea that humans, as a whole, would every be morally or socially okay with the idea of eating human meat. Same as so many other animals on the planet.
So we, as humans, omnivores, can choose to either participate in eating flesh of animals or not, that’s a personal decision, not one that should be mandated by any law. Human meat is off the table, and simply mentioning it speaks more about you than it does about the listener, that you would go to the length of comparing eating beef or chicken, to cannibalism. It’s a weak argument at best but has the virtue of having a lot of shock value.
For me, aside from cannibalism, I’m pretty okay with anything dying for my continued survival. Same as any meat eating predator on the planet. I hold no animosity to the animals I eat, I don’t want to eradicate them nor cause them suffering; simply, my desire to live is more potent than my empathy for their continued life. Fact is, as humans, we are not the majority of animal biomass on the planet, so carving out a small number of other animals so I can live is, in my opinion, fine. Their numbers will hardly vary and I get to live with all the benefits that the meat of their dead, provide. That enables me to continue to have stupid conversations like this, and help my fellow man.
I recognise animals as having intelligence, but as a human, I’ll always consider humanity as governed by a different set of rules. There’s no jail for a rabid animal that slaughters it’s own kind, only that their fellow animals fight it and kill it. Humans are held to different standards for crimes against humanity, since we at least consider ourselves to be more civilized. No single person acts as judge, jury and executioner. Even when there is a fatal shooting performed by law enforcement (or anyone else, for that matter), there’s still a trial to determine if the action was just, as we have agreed must be done as a society. Turning that idea on it’s head, we posthumously hold the dead person accountable for their final acts and whether killing them was a reasonable response to their actions and any immediate danger to life that they may have posed. We hold ourselves responsible for our actions in the court of law regardless if you died or not. This is exclusive to actions by humans against humans. We hold ourselves to a different standard. We always have and as far as I can see, we always will.
Tribes of wild cats can shift their loyalty on which Alpha Male can fight the best, they have their own laws that govern who lives and who dies, and what actions must be taken towards any winners or losers in their own system of law, same as us. The punishment can vary from disenfranchisement to death. Bears also have this same sort of law structure, etc. Most animals have some way of dealing with their own kind, and regard their own laws separate from other species. It’s not like a goat is going to rule over a pride of Lions or anything. In the same way, the laws of goats have no bearing on how lions rule their respective kingdoms. Once you step away from any specific animal and their kingdom, the rules that govern that animal don’t have any bearing on the social and law structure of another animal. We are the same way. Everything behaves this way on the planet. Humans are no exception.
When it comes to food, every other carnivorous animal on the planet cares not about the social structure or ongoing survival of the animals that they kill, and for centuries, humans were the same. Now that we have an understanding of nutrition and sufficient agriculture to sustain it, humans can now make a decision if they want to continue to eat the animals that historically were our prey. Some have chosen not to, and that’s fine.
Trying to guilt me into making that choice by falsely leading me to think that eating animals is akin to cannibalism is insane and to me, invalidates you as a trusted speaker. You’re free to say what you wish, you have the freedom of speech, but bluntly, your opinion of me for my choices is not valid because of what you’ve said, and tried to imply or draw comparisons to regarding my choices.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Good day to you.
This is gish-galloping, to properly address your points, every paragraph would require 3ish paragraphs, so I’d have to spend the better part of 2 hours responding, which is totally unreasonable to expect in a forum like this with a stranger you have no personal attachment to.
From what I gather, your main issues are social ostracization and false equivalencies. Using social norms to drive your moral decisions is obviously problematic, you can think of a ton of atrocities committed by humans when those atrocities were socially normalized. People aren’t born evil, with an intent to cause harm. They’re taught to be ambivalent, and can perpetuate atrocities through apathy.
As for the idea that there’s some false equivalence, you’re misunderstanding the thought experiment. Yes, eating humans is more dangerous than eating chickens or dogs, but that’s a happenstance of nature. It’s possible we could figure out a way to eliminate prion diseases and other harmful effects of cannibalism, and then farming disabled humans who process information at the same level of a cow would be morally permissible to a logically consistent non-vegan.
Of course, essentially no carnists are logically consistent. They use emotion and preference towards certain species to guide their decision instead of rationally considering when it’s okay to harm something (taste pleasure isn’t a high enough bar to inflict pain and death, obviously).