What is more ethical to kill: A blue whale or 800000 shrimps?

[Jannes]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Would you rather fight 1 horse-sized duck or 100 duck-sized horses?

1 horse sized duck and hope that it can’t hold its own bodyweight and collapse. 
 

What’s your point though? 

 

[Jannes]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

I think the question of ethicacy relative to killing animal is somewhat relative and depends a lot on the human bias towards relatibility. We are mammals and we relate to and find other mammals cute. Insects and gastropods less so. If wolves looked like cockroaches, there would be a lot less people protesting wolf hunting.

You are going to feel stronger about killing a whale than 800000 shrimps on an emotional level.

But you could take a purely ecological approach instead, where you measure the importance of the animal to the food chain. Shrimp are lower down the food chain and are an important source of food for a wide range of animals. Depriving the ocean of 800000 shrimp would mean 800000 shrimp less in the bellies of starving sea animals. You could say the same about the whale since there are many animals that live of whale meat but shrimp are more fundamental in the food chain.

I think taking sentience as the primary factor is pretty unbiased. If you find an octopus ugly, doenst matter it’s very sentient and therefore of ethical importance. 

[Devin]

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

I think taking sentience as the primary factor is pretty unbiased. If you find an octopus ugly, doenst matter it’s very sentient and therefore of ethical importance. 

That's pretty biased being that you're a human the most sentient creature.

[Jannes]

5 minutes ago, Devin said:

That's pretty biased being that you're a human the most sentient creature.

I am not sure if humans are the most sentient creatures on earth. I think an octopus could be more sentient but I am not sure. 

I think you can translate sentience into 'how conscious are you?' You can't get more meta then that.

[Basman]

@Jannes sure, sentience, while still inherently biased to a degree, is less biased than relatibility or ecology. It is limited though in the sense that every living creature is technically sentient and when you posit questions where have to choice between a whale or 800000 shrimp for example, then measuring sentience can fail to lead you to any meaningful solutions. Though it still matters and informs our thinking.

You can try and measure to which degree an animal is sentient and from there prioritize the most sentient animals. For example, mammals are considered more sentient than bugs, who are considered more sentient than plants. You'll pull a weed without second thought, but a bug you'll maybe feel atleast a little sorry for stepping on. 

Considering sentience is not a stance of direct action perce but of observation IMO.

[Schizophonia]

@JannesAre you part of a religion or spiritual dogma that condemns the consumption of animals and threatens you with reprisals (karma, hell...).

[Jannes]

@Basman agreed!

[Jannes]

55 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

@JannesAre you part of a religion or spiritual dogma that condemns the consumption of animals and threatens you with reprisals (karma, hell...).

Wtf, No! ?

Its just intellectual interest. 

[Schizophonia]

22 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Wtf, No! ?

Its just intellectual interest. 

So what is the point of such considerations?
Why not kill (at least indirectly through purchase) any animal you choose to eat?

Edited March 27, 2023 by Schizophonia

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

So what is the point of such considerations?
Why not kill (at least indirectly through purchase) any animal you choose to eat?

I am vegetarian for ethical reasons. 
I meant ethics as an intellectual pursuit but I asked the question not for the purpose of using it for something.

 

[Schizophonia]

18 minutes ago, Jannes said:

I am vegetarian for ethical reasons. 
I meant ethics as an intellectual pursuit but I asked the question not for the purpose of using it for something.

 

What is your "ethics" based on if it has no bearing on your life?

If you are not religious then who decides on ethics? where is it written? in the clouds?

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

What is your "ethics" based on if it has no bearing on your life?

General reduction of suffering and maximization of general wellbeing. 

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

If you are not religious then who decides on ethics? where is it written? in the clouds?

In the realization that animals are in many important ways similar to us. So if don't want to be harmed it would be a double standard to do it to animals. 

[Schizophonia]

33 minutes ago, Jannes said:

General reduction of suffering and maximization of general wellbeing. 

Why ? What will this change in your life?

33 minutes ago, Jannes said:

In the realization that animals are in many important ways similar to us. So if don't want to be harmed it would be a double standard to do it to animals. 

You don't want to be hit because it's "immoral", you don't want to be hit because it bores you.
But you're not that animal, you're you, so what's the problem with killing an animal to eat it since you don't feel its pain and you're not afraid of being punished by a superior entity?
There is no double measurement.

Besides, do you pay so much attention to animals, including humans, in other sectors other than the consumption of animal flesh?
Do you pay attention to where you buy your exotic fruits (annanas, bananas, dates, certain nuts...) which often exploit precarious Third World workers or even children?
Are you panicking at the idea that thousands of small animals still end up literally squashed in cereal monocultures?
Are you careful not to take a phone so the CPU was not manufactured in foxconn, qualcomm or other factories known for the number of employees who died by suicide?

[Jannes]

54 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Why ? What will this change in your life?

It will make me happier. Being egoistic doesn't make you happy. 

54 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You don't want to be hit because it's "immoral", you don't want to be hit because it bores you.

No I don't want to be hit because it hurts to be hit.

54 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

But you're not that animal, you're you, so what's the problem with killing an animal to eat it since you don't feel its pain and you're not afraid of being punished by a superior entity?
There is no double measurement.

Empathy. Hurting them hurts me as well. 

54 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Besides, do you pay so much attention to animals, including humans, in other sectors other than the consumption of animal flesh?
Do you pay attention to where you buy your exotic fruits (annanas, bananas, dates, certain nuts...) which often exploit precarious Third World workers or even children?
Are you panicking at the idea that thousands of small animals still end up literally squashed in cereal monocultures?
Are you careful not to take a phone so the CPU was not manufactured in foxconn, qualcomm or other factories known for the number of employees who died by suicide?

I know that I cause a lot of suffering just to meet my survival needs. But you can go about it in complete ignorance or you can do some changes about your lifestyle. Being vegetarian and minimalistic for example are changes that cause relatively low effort for me but have a big impact. 

[Schizophonia]

14 hours ago, Jannes said:

It will make me happier. Being egoistic doesn't make you happy. 

So it's also "selfish", the purpose is not "animal welfare" but to feel good.
The difference being that if an average person will take more pleasure in eating animals, while you, because of your guilt, will rather take more pleasure in depriving yourself of this consumption and feeling proudly virtuous.

No ?

14 hours ago, Jannes said:

No I don't want to be hit because it hurts to be hit.

That's what I meant, I may have expressed myself badly, I'm not an English speaker.

14 hours ago, Jannes said:

Empathy. Hurting them hurts me as well. 

It's true that you can be too sensitive to kill an animal and eat it for environmental and genetic reasons.
But suddenly it's not "ethics", it's just that you can't, it's a limitation that comes down to hardware (your mirror neurons, balance of neurotransmitters...) in the same way as a quadriplegic is not "ethical" if he cannot do the same thing.
Do you think, if you actually act out of empathy, you are more "ethical" than someone who simply has less empathy?

14 hours ago, Jannes said:

I know that I cause a lot of suffering just to meet my survival needs. But you can go about it in complete ignorance or you can do some changes about your lifestyle. Being vegetarian and minimalistic for example are changes that cause relatively low effort for me but have a big impact. 

You haven't really answered, why do you absolutely want to minimize your impact on animals if it ultimately has no repercussions on your life?

[Jannes]

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

So it's also "selfish", the purpose is not "animal welfare" but to feel good.
The difference being that if an average person will take more pleasure in eating animals, while you, because of your guilt, will rather take more pleasure in depriving yourself of this consumption and feeling proudly virtuous.

No ?

Of course. People are selfless for selfish reasons. Nothing wrong about it. You don't break that paradox by recognizing it. 

Quote

That's what I meant, I may have expressed myself badly, I'm not an English speaker.

It's true that you can be too sensitive to kill an animal and eat it for environmental and genetic reasons.
But suddenly it's not "ethics", it's just that you can't, it's a limitation that comes down to hardware (your mirror neurons, balance of neurotransmitters...) in the same way as a quadriplegic is not "ethical" if he cannot do the same thing.
Do you think, if you actually act out of empathy, you are more "ethical" than someone who simply has less empathy?

I think everybody acts exactly perfectly according to who he is. So an empathetic person will act more empathetic than a person who isn't. 

Idk what you are trying to say. Do you think a person who acts ethical is a person who would allow himself everything, who has no sympathy for anything so is not emotionally bounded to anything but now decides to act in certain ethical ways? It's ethical because it isn't forced by anything. But if it isn't forced by anything why would he do it? If he has no moral obligation or sympathy how would he come to the idea to act ethical? 

Quote

You haven't really answered, why do you absolutely want to minimize your impact on animals if it ultimately has no repercussions on your life?

I told you because it makes me happy.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Jannes