Overwhelming Evil

[Philosophy Now]

Christopher Devlin Brown argues that our wholesale destruction of animals makes veganism humanity’s primary moral imperative.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Overwhelming_Evil

[Dubious]

Christopher Devlin Brown argues that our wholesale destruction of animals makes veganism humanity’s primary moral imperative.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Overwhelming_Evil

...an excellent article on the solipsistic way we measure morality and how much of it can actually be termed moral if referring to only one species, namely the one that does the defining!

[LuckyR]

Christopher Devlin Brown argues that our wholesale destruction of animals makes veganism humanity’s primary moral imperative.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Overwhelming_Evil

Sure he argues, though not very well. Killing domesticated animals (who were specifically raised to be killed) in no way is equivalent to killing citizens in a genocide.

[Dubious]

Christopher Devlin Brown argues that our wholesale destruction of animals makes veganism humanity’s primary moral imperative.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Overwhelming_Evil

Sure he argues, though not very well. Killing domesticated animals (who were specifically raised to be killed) in no way is equivalent to killing citizens in a genocide.

Perhaps not in the way you put it, but it remains nevertheless a major moral deficit in how they are treated as if they were nothing more than just another commodity which feels nothing instead of the living, sentient creatures they are. I wouldn't object at all to mass murder those fuckers who treat them that way...not in the least!

[Iwannaplato]

Christopher Devlin Brown argues that our wholesale destruction of animals makes veganism humanity’s primary moral imperative.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Overwhelming_Evil

...an excellent article on the solipsistic way we measure morality and how much of it can actually be termed moral if referring to only one species, namely the one that does the defining!

Even vegans kill animals, indirectly, for example through the agriculture they support as customers. They kill less animals than carnivores, since the carnivores eat animals that also require agriculture, which kills many animals, but vegans are still causing the death of animals.

So a vegan who thinks 'my life is = on one animal life' - iow does not prioritize their single life and more important than a single animal life - has a real problem. They really should not continue to exist, since their life will lead to the deaths of many animals.

The whole situation does suck.

A vegan can say they are minimizing animal deaths. But they can't argue they are not prioritizing their life over the lives of animals. They are.

[Skepdick]

Christopher Devlin Brown argues that our wholesale destruction of animals makes veganism humanity’s primary moral imperative.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Overwhelming_Evil

Sounds like Christopher Delvin Brown hasn't spent even a day of his life dealing with the complexities and necessities of farming.

Such as the mass-extermination of various vermin towards the protection and preservation of mass-produced crops.

Why is it evil to kill animals in order to use them as food; but not evil to kill animals in order to protect food?

[Skepdick]

Sure he argues, though not very well. Killing domesticated animals (who were specifically raised to be killed) in no way is equivalent to killing citizens in a genocide.

Lets erase some of the wall separating the compartments in your head, shall we?

Animals raised to be killed is not genocide. Cool.
Genetic engineering lets us clone the animals we prefer. Tastier. Healthier. Faster growing etc. etc.
There's no moral dilemma cloning domesticated animals who are specifically raised to be killed.

We can also clone humans. If not for eating, certainly for labour.

You are a citizen and killing you is wrong - granted.

But does your genetically engineered clone raised specifically to be a slave enjoy the same rights as you do? And if not - why can't we breed human clones for food?

[seeds]

...does your genetically engineered clone raised specifically to be a slave enjoy the same rights as you do?

Even a human clone...

(which is simply an alternate way of producing a human twin from the same source of DNA)

...would have its own unique soul just like the original human from which the DNA was obtained. So, yes, it would have the same rights as any normally birthed human.

And if not - why can't we breed human clones for food?

Well, if not for the moral reason mentioned above, then for practical reasons. For unlike lower animals such as pigs and cows who can reach the ideal weight for slaughter in anywhere from 5 to 24 months,...

...humans, on the other hand,...

(unless you prefer the paltry [but tender] flesh of infants or toddlers - as in the theme of killing cow calves for veal)

...could perhaps take (and I'm spitballing here) anywhere between 10 to 18 years before they become plump enough to dine on.

Again, just not practical from a factory farming perspective...

...(unless, of course, your niche market is the super wealthy who are willing to pay enough to make it worth your while).

And I suppose there is always this alternative,...



...which, according to the movie posters, was predicted to commence in the year 2022...



(And just in case there are any conspiracy nuts reading the above, the soul bit is true, but the rest is just tongue-in-cheek, folks, just tongue-in-cheek.)
_______

[Skepdick]

Even a human clone...

(which is simply an alternate way of producing a human twin from the same source of DNA)

...would have its own unique soul just like the original human from which the DNA was obtained. So, yes, it would have the same rights as any normally birthed human.

Original human? Who's that? Where in the tree of life did life forms develop souls?

Homo sapiens
Homo antecessor
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo floresiensis
Homo habilis
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo longi
Homo luzonensis
Homo naledi
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo rudolfensis

The tribe Hominini?
The subfamily Homininae?
The family Hominidae?
The infraorder Simiiformes?
The suborder Haplorhini?
The order Primates?
The class Mammalia?
The phylum Chordata?
The kingdom Animalia?
The doman Eukaryota?

Maybe prokaryotes?

[seeds]

Even a human clone...

(which is simply an alternate way of producing a human twin from the same source of DNA)

...would have its own unique soul just like the original human from which the DNA was obtained. So, yes, it would have the same rights as any normally birthed human.

Original human? Who's that?

The one from which the cloneable DNA was obtained (which could have been you).

Are you implying that you, Skepdick, are nothing more than a soul-less sack of animated meat?

Where in the tree of life did life forms develop souls?

That's a whole nother issue that has nothing to do with whether or not your clone (i.e., twin) has the same rights as you (the original human from which your clone was derived).
_______

[Skepdick]

Even a human clone...

(which is simply an alternate way of producing a human twin from the same source of DNA)

...would have its own unique soul just like the original human from which the DNA was obtained. So, yes, it would have the same rights as any normally birthed human.

Original human? Who's that?

The one from which the cloneable DNA was obtained (which could have been you).

Of course, it could have been me - a Homo sapiens. Or it could have been another animal in the Homo genus.

Are you implying that you, Skepdick, are nothing more than a soul-less sack of animated meat?

Nothing of that sort. I am implying that I am a Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens are considered human.

I am asking you if other members of the Homo genus are also considered human; or if they can be cloned and eaten.

[seeds]

Original human? Who's that?

The one from which the cloneable DNA was obtained (which could have been you).

Of course, it could have been me - a Homo sapiens. Or it could have been another animal in the Homo genus.

Are you implying that you, Skepdick, are nothing more than a soul-less sack of animated meat?

Nothing of that sort. I am implying that I am a Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens are considered human.

I am asking you if other members of the Homo genus are also considered human; or if they can be cloned and eaten.

If you are asking me if I think (from a moral perspective) that it would be okay for us to clone and eat these folks...



...then I would say absolutely not, for they are far too close to modern humans to risk making such an egregious miscalculation as to the status of their inner-being.

And just on an ick-factor scale, even when it comes to the lower apes that bear a remote resemblance to us, I'm with Kate Capshaw in this scene from the Raiders of the Lost Ark series...


_______

[Dubious]

The whole situation does suck.

A vegan can say they are minimizing animal deaths. But they can't argue they are not prioritizing their life over the lives of animals. They are.

You make good points. We can't be held completely responsible for the way nature made us. What you say about vegans is true but equally true is that the meat industry is responsible for many millions of animals being slaughtered each year, highly intelligent animals who feel the pain and the deprivation treated as nothing more than unfeeling brainless commodities while the human asshole, who may be without feeling or empathy for those lower in rank - though nature never made that distinction - gets credit simply for being human.

[Skepdick]

You make good points. We can't be held completely responsible for the way nature made us. What you say about vegans is true but equally true is that the meat industry is responsible for many millions of animals being slaughtered each year, highly intelligent animals who feel the pain and the deprivation treated as nothing more than unfeeling brainless commodities while the human asshole, who may be without feeling or empathy for those lower in rank - though nature never made that distinction - gets credit simply for being human.

I don't think it's wise to love animals more than humans while nature hates us both equally.

While some humans take it upon themselves to climb upon the nature-loving moral high horse, they appear to forget that the fusion reactor which generates the energy all lifeforms on Earth are competing for has some pretty horrid plans for us all when it goes super nova.

So no, I don't feel bad for destroying planet Earth - nature's going to do it anyway. I feel bad for destroying our home.

[LuckyR]

Christopher Devlin Brown argues that our wholesale destruction of animals makes veganism humanity’s primary moral imperative.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Overwhelming_Evil

Sure he argues, though not very well. Killing domesticated animals (who were specifically raised to be killed) in no way is equivalent to killing citizens in a genocide.

Perhaps not in the way you put it, but it remains nevertheless a major moral deficit in how they are treated as if they were nothing more than just another commodity which feels nothing instead of the living, sentient creatures they are. I wouldn't object at all to mass murder those fuckers who treat them that way...not in the least!

Ah, now you're changing the subject. I agree wholeheartedly that treating domesticated animals who were created to be culled in factory farm conditions is immoral by my code. But not for their deaths, rather for their living conditions.

As to the appropriate penalties for those who act legally and ethically, but not morally... be careful what you ask for.