Comment

Comment on Why is the consumption of Meat considered bad

So we can all agree that it’s morally ok to eat a carrot, but not to eat a human. The difference is sentience. The hard part is where exactly to draw the line. Which side of the line is a cow on? A fish? A bug?

source

Sort:hotnew top

beeple@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
This guy thought about that question, if you wanted to see that perspective.

reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-…

source
- AA5B@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Yeah, I see he’s thought it through and generated numbers, but it’s counter-intuitive to say we should give up fish for beef, or that milk causes more suffering than beef
  
  source
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

The difference is sentience

no. it’s not. the difference is that one of them is human.

source
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
why should sentience matter?

source
- AA5B@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  We could certainly discuss that, but it appears to, regardless of whether there is a good reason.
  
  source
  - commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I disagree that it matters in any obvious sense.
    
    source
oo1@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I'm not a meat eater personally.
But I don't understand why people who like to eat meat don't eat human.
I think there are, or have been, some who do. It's seems cultural, and a bit of a luxury to be wasteful.

I don't think there's any socially agreed line between "good" and "bad".

I reckon people mostly do what their culture prefers or tolerates.
Different cultures have different ranges of acceptable behavior from different people fulfilling different roles within them . Most people are members of many sub-cultures going right down to small family groups , professional associations, work-teams, sports teams and so on. There'll be some sort of consequence for transgression, maybe verbal shaming, spitting in someone's beer, withheld services, exclusion from jobs, or expulsion from the group.

Sometimes people (in power) agree to put in laws and expend resources on enforcement instead of cultural norms; probably because the clashes within or between (sub)cultures and the inconsistent treatment of transgressions becomes too costly or disruptive.
That's when you get a "line" that says "wrong", once its been put into an enforced law. Even then the law, and enforcement, is always still a bit blurry. partial, and biassed so it's really just a formalisation of the process for administering the consequences of transgression.

i think it is possible to find things that look similar in other social animals too like, other apes, wild dogs, things with pecking orders , rats and so on. I wonder if there are even roles similar to " police" in some non-human cultures?

source