Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights

Hey Taq. Really? I dunno...Humans: "Mabel the cow over there, according to science, has absolutely no capacity for something even as mundane as subjective reasoning. Let's eat her."Phuffozertians from planet X: "Taq the human over there, according to science, has absolutely no capacity for something even as mundane as psychokinetic levitation. Let's eat him."Depends on your frame of reference, I'd say.Have a good one.

Thanks Taq. No offense, but you're missing the point, here. You're assuming that said aliens are using the same yardstick as we humans in determining what we perceive as 'sentience'. Who's to say psychokinetic levitational ability or anything else beyond any human's ability (save David Blaine ) would not be the determinant for whether or not the human race would be led to slaughter? Do you think we'd be able to figure out what their criteria were in this respect before they'd make cutlets out of us? Just thinking out loud, here...FYI, I love a good ribeye. Edited by Apothecus, : syntax

Hey Taq. You're correct, of course. I should have said, "You're assuming the assumption of the OP." I'm suggesting something different.Let me put it another way, hypothetically speaking: advanced aliens visit earth. In observing the behaviors of humans, Alien A says to Alien B, "Well, now for the true test: can they comprehend xdrouepjenfer? Because, it is, of course, how our civilization determines sentience." At first contact, they attempt to ask us this very thing.Even assuming we can communicate with them, our most intelligent scholars have absolutely no clue what the hell "xdrouepjenfer" represents. Is it an object? A concept? As we're running in circles trying to figure it out, Alien A says, "Well, this shouldn't take this long. Failing the basic, simple "xdrouepjenfer" test means they're just meat." Or if they're pure energy eaters, then we're just merely amusing.In the same way, we can sit in front of a cow and talk and talk about something as mundane as subjectivity. Mabel the cow will stand there, shit, chew her cud, and roll her big eyes at us. She's not gonna get it.And what I'm saying is their metric may very well be different from ours.Ever read Sagan's Contact? Or see the movie? This is the sort of situation with which I'm trying to draw a parallel. The civilization sending the message used an extremely complicated puzzle inside an extremely complicated message to determine whether a race was "advanced enough" to deserve contact. IIRC, humans almost didn't cut it. Is it too much of a stretch to imagine a scenario in which humans didn't cut it?

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hey greyseal. Yes, but isn't this subjective? A cow's relative well-being depends wholly upon the conditions in which it is kept. It could be argued that a cow shitting on itself and its neighbors because of the close, fetid, disgusting proximity to other shitting cows is the definition of inhumane treatment. It could be argued that the only acceptible way in which any moral human could possibly eat meat would be from grass-fed beef which have lived a relatively happier life (again, subjective). Personally, I see no moral dilemma. But as a whacko PETA activist and I would have a 180 degree difference in our views, there are an infinite number of subjective views of humanity between the two extremes where the treatment of eatable livestock is concerned.When considering the mass feedlots, I think where the disconnect lies is that we consign artificial emotions or desires to what we think cattle should prefer as to their "lot" in life. Anthropomorphism, if you like. Cattle would be "happier" relaxing in idyllic pastures, whiling the days away until getting the inevitable bolt in the head, yes? Can a cow comprehend the depravity of its conditions without a frame of reference, assuming a cow was able to comprehend anything except eat/sleep/shit/sex? Humans are not a cows, and vice versa...Now although I would argue that, from a personal health standpoint, eating grass-fed vs. mass feedlot beef can't help but be a better choice, I've eaten both and can see no difference in my health (or lack thereof ). But as another distinction, I've eaten both and enjoyed them both, but for some reason feedlot beef just taste better than their natural, grassfed counterparts. But I don't know why this is. Genetics? Tasty growth hormones?

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hey greyseal. I spoke to the farmer from whom we purchase the grass-fed beef that my family eats, and he confirms what you've stated concerning "stress responses" in cattle. His is a very small enterprise, and it's amazing the amount of compassion he and his family feel for what they calls their "pets", especially considering at some point they will eat a portion of them... But he emphasizes what stress can do to animals such as this, and the difference which results from allowing cattle to lounge and relax in grassy pastures as he says they should. He says "a happy animal equates to tasty meat", although of course that is an entirely subjective statement. Tastiness is in the uhh ... tastebud of the beholder.But it is tasty, and I agree that I do feel somewhat better about eating these cows vs. mass-feedlot-wading-in-shit cows. My wife says the expense is justified, not just from a health standpoint, but from a moral standpoint as well. I'm inclined to agree...Have a good one.