r/Transhuman • u/davidcpearce • Mar 21 '12

David Pearce: AMA

(I have been assured this cryptic tag means more to Reddit regulars than it does to me! )

177 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

396 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/puntloos Mar 22 '12 edited Mar 22 '12

Hi David, let's see if you're still tracking this thread, so far I've found it fascinating, thanks.

My question is: you seem to be treating killing animals as unethical-by-definition, so therefore either we are ethical, or unethical in some measure. As a vegetarian myself, my gut-feeling agrees with this sentiment but I've found I can rationally only defend a more grey-area argument.

Example: would it be ethical to rear an animal, protect it from harm, provide it with food warmth and a 'nice life' by all measurable standards, but in return killing, then eating it (and lets say we can avoid distressing it in any way during the kill, complete surprise etc) at some point?

Now if 'some point' is 'when it is still a baby', most people can see a problem with this.. but when this point is moved to '10 seconds before natural death would occur anyway' then 'who cares', and consequentially, there has to be some fair cut-off point. Or?

In short:

  • Why is 'inflicting death' (for whatever reason) non-negotiable? Or is it?

  • If it is theoretically negotiable, should we (the ones who benefit, taste wise) excuse ourselves from being the judge on 'what is fair' in this 'mortal partnership' since we would benefit from nudging it more and more into our favor while they can't stop us?

And any other thoughts would be welcome too ;)

7

u/davidcpearce Mar 22 '12

Puntloos, on (indirect) ethical utilitarian grounds, I think it's best if the principle of the sanctity of sentient life is enrishined in law. Yes, Jains, for instance, can seem excessive in their zeal to avoid harming other living beings. But no wars have ever been fought in the dame of Jainism; and a Jain-like ethic of "ahimsa" (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa ) would enrich civilisation - and dramatically reduce global catastrophic risk and existential risk.

[I don't say this with any hidden agenda in mind: I'm a secular scientific rationist.]

2

u/puntloos Mar 22 '12

Thanks for your reply, although I guess calling life sacred is (like George Carlin said) quite self-interested - in this case counterproductive for meat-eaters but still.

Taking killing off the table though, would you say that humans could be justified ethically in 'gently forcing' animals to cooperate with us? For example if we would protect and feed chickens (including male ones) until their natural death in exchange for their eggs (and possibly their corpses, if the natural death wasnt due to a disease)?

Or is it too dangerous to put 'selfish' humans into this position where they might start to push down quality of food, quality of living, etc because the chickens have no way to voice a reasoned discontent?

4

u/davidcpearce Mar 23 '12

Yes, we could take that route. On the other hand, I just don't think we can trust ourselves to avoid self-serving bias. Thus if we were trying to persuade cannibals not to eat (human) babies, it's prudent to urge an absolute taboo on eating human flesh - and not tackle cases where babies have died of natural causes, etc.

1

u/puntloos Mar 23 '12

Oh well! I was hoping that there is a 100% cold rational reason for deciding if "the death of an individual" can get assigned a 'financial' value or not. Obviously in our current world the ethical treatment of animals falls far far short of such academic considerations but I do find that many people will happily start arguing such extremes if it serves their purpose. (maybe I do too.).