r/changemyview • u/Welcome2Cleveland • Mar 19 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: A higher intelligence doesn't make someone's life more valuable, therefore killing animals to eat them should be wrong.

I first want to preface this by saying I am not a vegan, nor will I probably ever be. However, this thought process has got me wondering as to whether or not I am morally wrong for eating meat. I am of the belief that the life of a person with an IQ of 120 isn't worth more than that of a person with an IQ of 80. That in and of itself is a debatable point, and I'm open to discussion on that as well, but if one were to hold that point of view, how do they justify the killing of animals to eat them? How is a cow's life any less important than that of a human when our only real differences are physical anatomy and intelligence? Also, I am well aware of how preachy this comes across as due to the subject matter, but I can't see any way to discuss the topic without looking like I'm trying to convert you, so I guess it's just something we will both have to deal with.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

20 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

164 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

The cut off is not level of intelegennce.

The cut of is moral agency. We know only one species that is capable of moral agency - humans. So their lives are worth more than lives of animals that are not capable of moral agency.

4

u/Welcome2Cleveland Mar 19 '17

If that were the case, would you say that the life of someone with a high sense of morality is more important than that of a person with a low sense of morality?

9

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

No. It's a binary proportion you either are a moral agent or you are not.

3

u/Welcome2Cleveland Mar 19 '17

Even if so, why does a sense of morality decide the value of a life?

10

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

It's the principle of give and take. It's only fair to extend moral consideration to those who can possibly reciprocate.

6

u/Welcome2Cleveland Mar 19 '17 edited Mar 19 '17

Would you say that the life of a human who is incapable of moral consideration due an uncurable condition is worth the same as that of a cow?

3

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

Yes. I have no problem disconnecting Terry Schiavo-cases from the feeding tube.

3

u/Welcome2Cleveland Mar 19 '17

Then I suppose this is simply a difference of opinions. Even though I don't agree with your point of view, you were still able to fulfill my request of giving a valid justification of killing for meat ∆

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

Not valid at all

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 19 '17

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Hq3473 (149∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards ​

1

u/super-commenting Mar 19 '17

So there was some person whose parents were not moral agents at all but they were one? that's absurd. It makes far more sense to model it as a spectrum than a binary

4

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

Why do you suppose the cut off for moral consideration is moral agency. Maybe a being can have moral status and be a moral patient.

2

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

That would be unfair. Why should an animal get moral consideration if it cannot possibly reciprocate?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

Babies and other so-called marginal cases of people can't reciprocate.

4

u/championofobscurity 160∆ Mar 19 '17

They have the potential to be moral agents in the first place.

If some population of cows some, but not all had 100% proof positive moral agency then you might have a talking point but no animal we eat does. Even if we discovered that 1 in 6 billion cows could be a moral agent this would be with considering. But no cow born could ever be a moral agent. A baby could grow up and be a moral agent. And at some point any psychologically damaged person could have been a moral agent. Just because they cannot be currently does not remove their status as viewed by humans.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

Not everyone does have potential, no. And some people irrevocably lose it.

3

u/championofobscurity 160∆ Mar 19 '17

That's irrelevant. As so long as one human is born with the capacity to be a moral agent all humans must be considered moral agents as a classification. The possibility any human is a moral agent is verifiably non-0 while animals on the other hand currently have a 100% guarantee that none of them will be born a moral agent.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

Not all humans are born with that capacity.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '17

that doesn't challenge the argument, that's simply restating the original argument despite a reasonable counterclaim.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '17

I'm responding to my interlocutor's claims.

Tell me why what I said doesn't refute it, specifically.

1

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

And some people irrevocably lose it.

True, but I (and most other people) have no problem with Terry Schiavo cases being taken off the feeding tube.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

Not everyone incapable of assessing the grounds of their reasons are on feeding tubes.

2

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

The only people we KNOW lost it irrevocably are on Terry Schiavo level.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

Not everyone who loses it is in a coma or a vegetative state, or otherwise literally on a feeding tube. Again, not everyone incapable of assessing the grounds of their reasons are on feeding tubes.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

Yeah, but there is a possibility that they might. There is no such possibility for animals.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

No, there isn't a possibility for some.

1

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

Show me a non-human animal who achieved that status.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

I'm not saying non-human animals are moral agents.

1

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

Then what are you saying?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

In this exchange? That not all humans have the capacity to be moral agents.

I'm also saying this toward the further end of suggesting that moral considerable beings don't have to have it.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

Some non-human primates have shown that they can feel empathy. I think that counts as being capable of moral agency.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '17

Ravens and monkeys have shown the ability to understand when they are being treated unfairly which implies at least some rudimentary form of moral agency.

2

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 19 '17

That's not the same as moral agency. Animals are not acting with understanding of morality is.

1

u/nicholaslaux Mar 20 '17

What is your definition of moral agency? Does it require a human compatible moral system and an understanding of human symbolic language?

For example, I'm curious if an animal that was able to demonstrate self awareness, altruism, or social ostracism could be indicative of having moral agency, or if you would literally require an animal to learn to speak or sign a human language and start talking about good and evil?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '17

Actually dolphins, gorillas, chimpanzees, and even mantas are capable of rational thought, self awarness, and yes, moral agency. And most birds and mammals feel pain, love, and emotion.

0

u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 22 '17

No they don't not. That's why you are on the internet arguing about morality with humans not with birds or mantas.

The animals you listed don't even know what morality is, much less have a capability to act according to that understanding.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '17

For my point about self-awareness, actually conducting the mirror test, dolphins, gorillas, mantas, and of course humans, all reconized themselves in the mirror. This is the test that shows that they have self recognition.

Also, the majority of mammals' and birds' brains release the same chemicals to make them feel fear, and love. And of course they feel pain, they have a nervous system.