We advocate sentience as the defining factor and then completely contradict ourselves on an instinctive evolutionary bias towards fellow members of our own species regardless of sentience. Any rationally moral alien would eat us for breakfast on the basis of this argument
Here is where we may disagree. Some super intelligent alien space-faring species will recognize, as most of us already do (outside the religious memes), that all morality is relative. They will have experienced, will know and will accept this. Further that our inconsistent application of moral values dealing with our own is due to youth and inexperience not out of any innate lack of future ability.
Just as we recognize that children will eventually learn sharing and caring through empathy so too, imho, they will recognize we will/may eventually learn moral consistency through enlightened empathy on a species rather than individual basis.
They will recognize a young sentient species bumbling and stumbling just beginning to find their way in the Universe. Though it is not beyond the realm of possibility I do think it very improbable that highly intellectual and knowledgeable alien species, having evolved in their own cauldron, knowing what sentience is and what it means, would be looking to add Filet of Human to their menu.
Given the increasing percentage of us with sedentary lifestyles we would be too fatty for their alien diets anyway. Which leaves out Twinkies and Haagen- Dazs Chocolate ice cream too so we're safe there as well.
You seem to be making the assumption that technologically and intellectually superior aliens will also be morally superior and make allowances for our morally primitive ways. Why do you think this assumption is justifiable?
Given the increasing percentage of us with sedentary lifestyles we would be to fatty for their alien diets anyway. Which leaves out Twinkies and Haagen- Dazs Chocolate ice cream too so we're safe there as well.
If ever I needed an excuse you have now given me one. Bring on the "Cookies and Cream"........
You seem to be making the assumption that technologically and intellectually superior aliens will also be morally superior and make allowances for our morally primitive ways. Why do you think this assumption is justifiable?
Again, we have only the one example of a sentient species to go by but I think we may be able to extrapolate some probabilities from this.
First we start with the axiom that evolution is responsible for sentient species no matter where in our galaxy this may occur.
On this planet we have seen that the life-eat-life arms race of evolution produced sentience. Not that sentience is a necessary result of evolution but that sentience arose here and the evolutionary arms race scenario is the most likely venue we have identified. Without the struggle in evolution we are hard pressed to see any alternate scenario where an accident of chemistry such as sentience could arise and develop to the extent it has here. I think we can reasonably extrapolate this probable venue to any and all sentient life in the galaxy, if any.
Second we have seen the progression of sentient life from most primitive stone toolmaking to the Internet. Each step along the way involved larger and larger populations organized into societies from nomadic tribes, villages, city-states, nations to global (almost we're not quite there yet) with the attendant struggle for resources at each step.
We cannot even imagine what an alien equivalent of a city-state might look like but one thing is for certain. A global population of cooperative sentient beings able to put up the resources needed to develop and create interstellar travel did not just poof up on any world overnight. Some kind of social evolution from smaller groups to larger populations had to occur.
In going through this social evolution some moral enlightenment must also occur. The level of meme-sharing, tolerance for differences, cooperation and empathy for others within the society must increase in order for such a society to maintain itself at the larger and larger sizes. We have seen this in our own species' global development though not even close to the level necessary for putting up the resources necessary to colonize our own nearby moon let alone attempt something more ambitious.
Third, interstellar spaceships are no small investment. First the level of scientific and technical knowledge necessary is enormous. A society must be conducive to the exploration and development of this knowledge. It must possess the resources, cooperative intellect and the moral attributes that allow discovery to this level. Second, actual construction, outfitting and manning (aliening?) of such a machine is, if our experience is any guide, even more daunting in the level of a societies resources required.
The level of cooperation and tolerance, the moral attributes, necessary within a global society to accomplish such an effort must be at a very high level. A level we have not yet experienced and, imo, are very far from.
Since I ended the above on a preposition I might as well end the message.
Any rationally moral alien would eat us for breakfast on the basis of this argument.
I'm being perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek here, but I think consumption of sentient beings would be undesirable. Civilized creatures don't get as much exercise as non-sentient beings, and often eat poorly, so a civilized creature would likely be nutritionally deficient relative to a creature that evolved or was bred specifically to eat and process food (like a cow).
So, on that basis alone, perhaps we would be safe from another civilized being, unless they have a taste for fat.
Similar to any creature, Homo sapiens is self-centered and predisposed to himself. There is no reason nor means for justifying what is done by us to other creatures within the limits of what is necessary for our satisfactory existence and survival.
Killing to kill is wrong, but killing to eat is business as usual at Earth, Inc. Can I justify why I hold these two particular beliefs? No, not especially, except to say that I love me, which is ultimately the sole justification for any system of morality.
Wishes, Jon
Edited by Jon, : particulate matters
"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
First, just an observation that there are a lot of parallels between the moral issues of this topic and the Neanderthal and Abortion topics!
Ah now that is the problem. I think we would consider the aliens immoral for treating us in this despicable way whilst being blind to our own inconsistent thinking on this with regard to our own treatment of other species. That is my point here really.
I don't see it like that. We don't consider it immoral for a lion or shark to eat a human. We understand it is their nature, their instincts. If we were visited by aliens who wanted to eat us, then that would be part of their nature. I don't think we'd view them as immoral. We'd just view them as a new natural predator that had instincts to eat us.
I accept that we may be confused by the fact that they are intelligent enough to navigate the universe and yet appear to be lacking the same kind of empathy that we have towards other sentient species. In fact, I find it hard to imagine how such a technologically sophisticated species could evolve without having developed the kind of empathy that we have. That's why I believe this is probably only a hypothetical case.
I understand your point about the inconsistency of our moral outlook at being outraged by these hypothetical aliens, while not being outraged by our own behaviour towards other species. I think the reason is a kind of overlap of instinctive emotions. Our empathy towards other intelligent animals exists as a by-product of having evolved a useful empathy towards individuals of our own species. The instinctive empathy we have towards each other is so strong it kind of overshoots itself to affect the way we regard other species. It has to do this to be a very real and strong instinct. Yet, this is in conflict with our desire to eat or even experiment on other animals for our own benefit. Both instincts (the empathy instinct and the eat/experiment-to-survive instinct) overlap into an area of conflict with each other. This is why we have this range of views where some humans have no qualms about how they treat animals, some are radical animal rights activists, and most of us are probably caught somewhere in the middle, which is why you have this dilemma.
This is a thread exploring morality. I am not a vegetarian, not even a particular advocate of animal rights. I have no ideological axe to grind on this issue. But I do think that the way we treat animals is rationally unjustifiable.
How can we rationally justify treating conscious, pain feeling creatures in the way that we do? We treat them in ways that we would not dream of treating human beings no matter how lacking in conscious awareness or the ability to feel pain those humans might
Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm not vegan or vegetarian, but I've had the same pang of conscience before too. I think most people when they order a burger, they aren't thinking about what it took to make it all happen.
In fact my 6-year old son just recently discovered that steak and hamburgers come from cow meat and that the meat is the muscle of the cow. He looked slightly shaken by the concept, but like most people just kept on eating because it's so delicious.
I think omnivores such as us justify it in the sense that the animal is "too dumb to know it's going to die." Is that right? That's a weak justification, yet I keep right on eating.
I had resolved some years ago to eat kosher, not for religious reasons but for humane reasons and reasons of cleanliness. There are some companies that slit cows throats and let them bleed out in an excruciating death. Somehow it is better my conscience knowing that a bolt gun be used, because at least I know it was quick and painless.
Again, is that justification? Probably not.
Some people rely on a common misnomer to exempt them from eating a vegetarian diet. There is growing evidence, however, that many cultures of early man may not have been nearly the meat eater he's historically been portrayed by anthropologists. This paradigm shift comes primarily from physical evidence by examining the stomach contents of well-preserved specimens (like bog people). They mostly find grain and fruit, but some have found traces of reindeer meat. Some assert that meat was probably mostly eaten out of necessity but that they were more of gatherers than hunters, though some cultures diet seems to be almost entirely meat (Inuit and Eskimo being the most obvious because there is little else to consume out in the tundra).
In any case, it is something I have wrestled with for a long time but keep procrastinating about.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
Chimp, I agree with most of what you say. I eat meat and most animal rights activists are as loopy and counterproductive as these moonbats
Wow.....
Be that as it may, I think Straggler brings up an interesting point that morally and sociologically needs to be examined. I would suggest that we not try and view it from a cold, clinical, and sterile point of view, because if we were to do that we could justify anything.
Case in point, it's a fact that many people develop cancer. Would we coldly say, "well, scientifically everyone gets cancer. It's just a question of whether or not you die from other things first, so we should therefore not help people with cancer because it's natural?" I would hope not.
Lastly, one moral question: If someone gutted a dog right in front of you, which was yelping in excruciating pain, would you be so glib about it? And if not, why not? Why doesn't that sympathy extend beyond other mammals?
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
Be that as it may, I think Straggler brings up an interesting point that morally and sociologically needs to be examined. I would suggest that we not try and view it from a cold, clinical, and sterile point of view, because if we were to do that we could justify anything.
Straggler was looking for an answer to what he said appeared objectively to be an inconsistency. I have given what I hope, whether right or wrong, is a very objective explanation. I realise that might make people uncomfortable, but I'm just attempting to look at this in a very honest and frank way.
Lastly, one moral question: If someone gutted a dog right in front of you, which was yelping in excruciating pain, would you be so glib about it? And if not, why not? Why doesn't that sympathy extend beyond other mammals?
The fact that I can see a "cold, clinical, sterile" objective explanation to Straggler's question doesn't change the fact that I would find your suggested scenario horrific and would react with the same kind of emotion most people would in such a situation. I have a natural empathy to the suffering of many other animals. I think that's the interesting point - where do you draw the line?
I think we have a natural tendency to empathise with other species that appear to be most similar to us. Some of us will only extend that to a select few intelligent species; others will extend it to all mammals; others again may even extend it to reptiles and fish. I, for one, don't think I'd be nearly as horrified at seeing a large snake or aligator slit open in front of me as I would if it were a dog. Yet, there's no reason to suppose the reptile wouldn't feel as much distress and pain. And I certainly have few qualms at all about cutting a live insect in half, although I've no idea how much pain and distress that may cause it.
I don't think there is an absolute objective moral answer to this question. Except maybe the tree hugging moonbats have the most objective and consistent moral view!
I accept that we may be confused by the fact that they are intelligent enough to navigate the universe and yet appear to be lacking the same kind of empathy that we have towards other sentient species.
Straggler's point is that our empathy towards things has nothing to do with their being sentient.
And what I'm saying is their metric may very well be different from ours.
If you are going to change the hypothetical metric until we do fail then yes, we will fail. However, there is a metric that both us and the aliens would pass and animals we eat would not.
Ever read Sagan's Contact? Or see the movie? This is the sort of situation with which I'm trying to draw a parallel.
It's been a while since I read the book, but if memory serves there was not the threat of being eaten if they didn't build they machine.
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes: I accept that we may be confused by the fact that they are intelligent enough to navigate the universe and yet appear to be lacking the same kind of empathy that we have towards other sentient species.
Bluejay responds: Straggler's point is that our empathy towards things has nothing to do with their being sentient.
I think I see what you mean and accept I missed a part of Straggler's point. But Straggler did use the example of chimpanzees and suggest that if we expected to be well-treated by an alien species with a level of sentience higher than our own and equivalent to the difference between us and chimpanzees, then logically we should in turn treat chimpanzees the same way.
I'd now ask what exactly do we mean by a "sentient" species? Is there a sentient cut-off point? To to be consistent and objective do we have to apply the same level of empathy and care towards all other living species along the gradual scale of sentience? Is there a big gap somewhere on that scale where you can say "species x is clearly sentient enough to deserve equality with humans, but species y clearly falls below that line and therefore is fair game"?
The fact that I can see a "cold, clinical, sterile" objective explanation to Straggler's question doesn't change the fact that I would find your suggested scenario horrific and would react with the same kind of emotion most people would in such a situation. I have a natural empathy to the suffering of many other animals. I think that's the interesting point - where do you draw the line?
The answer is that I honestly don't know. I could not reasonably offer a demarcation for what is or is not acceptable.
For me I think I view it as you do and Straggler. I agree with you when attempting to rationalize it, and yet something seems so out of place. The natural empathy we feel for its suffering and the natural desire to eat meat is intriguing to me because it seems paradoxical.
I think we have a natural tendency to empathise with other species that appear to be most similar to us.
Yes, I agree. Except that I think dogs, due to years of domestication, would take one leg up on the scale of primates in Western culture. Suffice it to say that most westerners would be horrified either though.
I haphazardly stumbled on to a grotesque website that hosted all sorts of accidents, suicides, war footage and other macabre images. There were these sons-of-bitches who tied up a monkey (can't remember the exact subspecies) and they beat it with a hammer. You could see the look of terror and hear the screams. The once it was dead they open the skull and ate its brains. Disturbing isn't the word. It was more horrifically cruel than that. It was awful, just awful.
Consequently that same website had a murder of a man somewhere in Russia. Some psychopathic Russians had kidnapped another man in the forest and beat him to death with hammers. They were laughing as this man was presumably (I don't speak Russian) pleading for his life. My visceral reaction was virtually identical, and yet I could almost empathize more for the monkey because of its perceived innocence.
This is why animal activists, I believe, seem to care more about animals than they do people. There is this perception that humans can rationalize their own impending deaths or that they are guilty of something. But they view the animals as being pure and, of course, not having a malicious bone in its body.
Some of us will only extend that to a select few intelligent species; others will extend it to all mammals; others again may even extend it to reptiles and fish. I, for one, don't think I'd be nearly as horrified at seeing a large snake or aligator slit open in front of me as I would if it were a dog. Yet, there's no reason to suppose the reptile wouldn't feel as much distress and pain.
I agree completely and have pondered the same things. I think this goes back to what Straggler was saying about sentience and how it is somehow worse if the animal can maybe somehow understand its pain. Reptiles and fish have very primitive brains. Perhaps we just assume that they just don't know any better, and so we rationalise it that way.
I don't think there is an absolute objective moral answer to this question. Except maybe the tree hugging moonbats have the most objective and consistent moral view!
I like where one lady stated that a rock she was looking at has such life in it, even though rocks are inorganic which, by definition, means there is no life in it!
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This is why animal activists, I believe, seem to care more about animals than they do people. There is this perception that humans can rationalize their own impending deaths or that they are guilty of something. But they view the animals as being pure and, of course, not having a malicious bone in its body.
I think we see them as innocent and pure because we consider other species act purely on instinct, without really knowing or thinking about what they do. Many if not most of us consider that a shark is a cold killing machine, yet we don't consider it immoral or evil. It's just doing the only thing it knows to do. Whereas humans have the mental capacity to analyse their behaviour. This capacity we have for cognitive, reasoned thought in addition to our instincts could be another explanation for our dilemma.
But why some of us are then inclined to kill other humans or animals for the "fun" of it, as in your examples, I have no idea on that. Are there any "lesser" animals that do similar things?
about a factory in China that contains 1500 tigers (apparently half the number that now live in the wild). Apparently they are farmed so that their bones can be ground down to make Tiger Wine!?! I hope that Tiger Beer doesn't come from the same source!
If some visiting aliens consider us humans to be a fine vintage, I guess we deserve all we get.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
