Let's play a game: Justify why the slaughtering of a pig is ok but child abuse is not

Bacon tastes good
Literally bred to die
it's non sapient
Nature gives no fucks and pigs havn't gained the ability to tell it to screw off like we have
As long as it's humanely killed I see no issue with it

>a human baby is no more intelligent than a young pig
Yeah but they will-
>What if you knew the baby has a genetic disease that will kill him a few months after being born, so that you know the baby will not develop into an adult? Is it ok to slaughter the baby like we do to pigs?
Ok in a vacuum, in the real world things like empathy for members of the same species, religion, and social cohesion means you can't do that. Things that pigs don't benefit from.
>what if the baby was born mentally challenged?
See above
>Is slaughtering a baby only wrong because of what that baby will become in the future, and not just because that baby is a sentient being who feels pain and suffering?
No, see above.
>If another intelligent species on earth or another planet came and started killing humans giving this justification, you wouldn't think it's a moral thing to do.
From a human POV it would be immoral because of our moral system. From an objective system it would also be immoral because we have sapience and a high enough degree of self awareness to form complex societies.

Because the child will grow up to be far superior to any animal

Next question

When I say that something it's "bad", or "wrong" I'm just showing that it's "bad" to have suffering unnecessarily inflicted on me (or my interests in living disregarded) just like it's "bad" to have it done so somebody else.
It's irrational for me so claim that somehow it's good to suffer for others but not for me.
Unless you think being tortured to death is actually a good thing for you, you can't claim that what is "moral" is completely arbitrary.

You oppose to your suffering, why shouldn't you make the same judgment for others?

because we can. lions eat zebras and u dont get mad about that?

>humans who look like them.
LOL
That too, is a recent ideal.

You could consider the entire human race as being one big tribe, so in that sense we have a innate desire to protect our own species above all else, even if we sometimes hate each other and want each other dead, if there were 2 humans one male and one female left on the planet and 1 pig, 1 of the humans has a gun with a single bullet and must choose to kill either the remaining human or remaining pig, the overwhelming innate response is going to be preservation of the species therefore mr piggo is turned into bacon.

See answer in the first post
>What if you knew the baby has a genetic disease that will kill him a few months after being born, so that you know the baby will not develop into an adult? Is it ok to slaughter the baby like we do to pigs? what if the baby was born mentally challenged? Is slaughtering a baby only wrong because of what that baby will become in the future, and not just because that baby is a sentient being who feels pain and suffering?

Why is it okay to slaughter billions of pepper plants a year and process them? Just kill yourself if you're really at this level of analysis. You probably have a some what decent IQ but you're SOOOO autistic you'll literally never get anywhere in life if you think this level of logic is reasonable.

if you acknowledge pigs are sentient and suffer, it's pretty much impossible to justify without appealing to feels like desire or feels orientated preference. there's a lot of cognitive dissonance which happens. hopefully lab grown meat will replace the animal agriculture industry soon.

or you can just become a sociopath and not have any empathy whatsoever, then you wouldn't have to tackle any ethical contradiction.

Attached: 1529287034536.png (729x730, 117K)

>lab grown meat
Why is it okay to kill those cells? They're still alive

Im opposed to my own death too, but it doesnt mean im opposed to the death of others. I dont believe all animals suffer before death, i believe the overwhleming majority do not, therefore i am not opposed to them dying for food.

If we could do something to intervene in nature so that suffering is decreased in a way that doesn't cause environmental disasters, populations to spiral out of control and other undesired outcomes, I would support it, if it's possible or not too costly (if it's too costly might not be worth it, might as well use the resources in a better way, like trying to stop HUMANS from killing each other, or other animals).

What if you found out that a tribe of humans far away from where you live was the "natural" prey of bears, and you had the chance to stop it? Would you? Or you would just say "it's natural", who are you to intervene?

cells aren't sentient, it's a false equivalency to say when we speak about pigs suffering and cells we are talking about the same thing, you missed the point

>human baby is no more intelligent than a young pig
I seriously doubt this

I know they aren't sentient, but they're still alive. It isn't the sentience that bothers me, but the fact that they're living. If I could just eat (hopefully tasty) chemically created protein mush without having to kill anything, I would. But I can't, and no other life form seems to give a fuck about killing to survive, so I just deal with it, even if it makes me unhappy.

You could consider the entire human race as being one big tribe, so in that sense we have a innate desire to protect our own species above all else, even if we sometimes hate each other and want each other dead,
But we don't have that "instinct" to care about all humans like one tribe. The feeling you describe is the product of modern civilisation. Before that we didn't see "the human species" as "one big tribe".

>if there were 2 humans one male and one female left on the planet and 1 pig, 1 of the humans has a gun with a single bullet and must choose to kill either the remaining human or remaining pig, the overwhelming innate response is going to be preservation of the species therefore mr piggo is turned into bacon.
If I were a member of my family and a stranger left of the planet, and I had to kill someone, I would kill the stranger, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start killing strangers when I don't have to (when I'm not forced to choose like in the situation you describe), or that the life of the stranger is inherently more important than the life of a family member.

Why is it justified for a lion to maul a gazelle and eat it?
Why is it justified for a snake to crush a rat and eat it?
Why is it justified for a spider to catch a fly and eat it?

Why is it not justified for a human to kill a pig and eat it?

Vegankeks will never be able to reconcile these without running into preaching or paradoxes

Life feeds on life feeds on life feed on life...feeds on the sun.

If you aren't on a solar only diet you are just as guilty.

Attached: 1544744849899.jpg (979x733, 66K)

Plants are not sentient. Animals are.
At least the animals I would oppose eating. I don't have a problem eating oysters.

I'm not necessarily saying that you should oppose for others anything you oppose for yourself. I'm saying that if you consider "bad" for you to be killed or tortured for example, it's irrational not to consider it "bad" for somebody else who can have the same experience.
From that realisation comes an ethical foundation that identified the "good" and the "bad". Then you choose how you want to go about it, utilitarianism, deontology, act consequentialism, rule consequentialism, etc.

But at least you have a foundation, so that moral statements are not arbitrary.

>If another intelligent species on earth or another planet came and started killing humans

That's how it used to be, you realize.
There was a time when humans cowered in caves, atop trees, hiding from the claws and teeth of physically superior animals.
Even after the inventions of weapons, armor, animals were still incredible threats to us. Wolves, bears, snakes, all predated on us.
And now that we have clawed our way out from the jungle, you expect us to feel sympathy for these beasts as though they were human?

Not when it comes to biological survival.
Our species comes first, above all others.

Attached: xeno.jpg (1024x1405, 134K)

>Try to justify why the life of a young child matters but the life of a relatively complex and intelligent animal like a pig doesn't.
They are the same species as us. That's why they matter more to us. /thread

There is evidence that suggests plants are "sentient", that's not a valid argument.

See here:
The animals you list do not have the capacity to understand what they are doing. they are not capable to give any justification. what they do to other animals is "bad" just like if a rock crushed the gazelle (although getting eaten is probably more painful).
If I could avoid suffering in nature, I would, but I can't, so what's the point of asking me about suffering in nature if I can't do much about it? Regardless of whether the victim is another animal or a human.

i would save them because they are fellow humans. cows dont care about human suffering, which i doubt they are capable of. so we kill them and eat them. it is our natural right, as the top to the intellectual pyramid to eat and kill as we please

no one is talking about whether killing something alive is unethical or not, otherwise vegans wouldn't even be able to breath without killing a floating piece of bacteria so they'd have to kill themselves. the issue is pain and sentience which is key, which is why they pretty much are incomparable. no reasonable person will say killing anything living is unethical, unless you consider killing a small single cell organism unethical.

But the question is "is this sentiment a valid one or is it arbitrary".

The Nazis cared more about white people than anybody else and they were ready to kill others, the question is "was it moral for them to do so?".

You basically are saying that killing children is wrong (and killing animals is ok) just because some humans feel that way.

>The animals you list do not have the capacity to understand what they are doing. they are not capable to give any justification
Welcome to paradox #1
You can't use intelligence as an argument for equality ("pigs are just as smart as babbys XD") and then use intelligence as an argument for superiority ("we're smarter, so it's our duty to do things differently"). Either humans stand above nature, or they don't.

No there isn't. There is evidence that suggests plants react to external stimuli, but not that they are sentient.
And even if they were sentient to a certain extent, clearly they wouldn't be as sentient as other more complex animals, so that the wouldn't have a priority over them.
You think that cutting grass is morally equivalent to throwing dogs in a grinder (or human beings for that matter)?

One gets fuckable to other humans, a pig won't.
>inb4 that beastiality webm

Also we kill babys all the time just because they are an inconvenience for mommy and her career.
Do you think we'll give any fucks about a pig?

>unless you consider killing a small single cell organism unethical
I don't consider it unethical, necessarily, since like you said, it's impossible to avoid. But I don't think it's ever a good thing to end a life.

if I have a child in the future I wants it's life to be protected by law but I also want the right to turn a pig into tasty bacon

>You can't use intelligence as an argument for equality ("pigs are just as smart as babbys XD") and then use intelligence as an argument for superiority ("we're smarter, so it's our duty to do things differently"). Either humans stand above nature, or they don't.
I never said anything about "superiority". I never said you are superior because you can understand that you "have a duty to do things differently". And even if I thought being who can "understand that it's their duty to do things differently", that doesn't mean that I think creatures who don't deserve to be slaughtered.

Certain mentally challenged humans can't "understand it's their duty to do things differently" , are you ok slaughtering them?

Also you should note that the animals who kill other animals are a minority in nature, the majority and herbivorous.

ITT fucktards do not realise that morals evolve just like biology
Killing babies for fun sacrifices was okay some time ago (still is in some polynesian shitholes), however, just like natural selection slowly optimizes species for survival and breeding, humans morals optimize mankind for survival and breeding. It simply is like this - a tribe that protects it's babies has a greater chance at making it in the race than a tribe that burns babies on a ritual pyre. There isn't anything else to morality. Whatever lends itself best to survival at a particular moment is the morality. We eat pigs because they make for great source of sustenance, if dietary vegans are right, and meat is in fact bad for humans, it means in the future humans will stop doing it, or be forced to stop doing it by the forces of nature. So far, fuck vegans and their whiny bs.

because God said we could

>You can't use intelligence as an argument for equality ("pigs are just as smart as babbys XD")
Nobody said anything about the equality of pigs and babies because intelligence. The statement about the intelligence of babies and pigs is just a counter-argument to the justification that it's ok to kill animals but not humans because "humans are more intelligent"

>The animals you list do not have the capacity to understand what they are doing.
How is this not an argument for superiority, dimwit? If we have such capacity, and animals don't, we're plain superior, period.

Definitively based and, dare I say it, redpilled

Great, so you acknowledge "sentience" has a varying level of importance. pig < human. Now please fuck off.

So nothing is really moral, it's just about survival?
If it turned out that society has a slightly better chance at survival when it throws Jow Forums users (or gamers, or youtubers) into extermination camps, would that be a good thing to do?

Unironically yes. You need to look at the big picture.

1. Even if that was indeed an argument for "superiority", the fact that one is superior, doesn't mean it's ok to unnecessarily slaughter the "inferior" one.
2. Most animals we eat actually DO have the capacity to understand respect and to not kill others. Pigs, chicken, cows are not naturally violent when treated with respect, similar to humans (if you have a human grow up in a mass factory farm, it will turn out to be a psychopath).
3. Your point is irrelevant in any case, because a baby doesn't have the capacity you talk about. Same with a mentally challenged person. See first post in this thread.

You didn't get it. Humans don't get to "decide" morality, objective reality of survival does that. Humans can only use their brains to justify it with moral statement post-factum. Like modern, non-babykilling people justify their practice with having better morality than savages of the past, when in fact we simply justify being better suited for survival and breeding at the moment.

1. That doesn't work for all humans tho, as certain humans are less sentient than pigs. See mentally challenged or humans born without a brain (anencephalic).
2. Just because one is more sentient than the other, it doesn't mean it's ok to slaughter the one with a lesser degree of sentient (as long as it's still sentient, and sentient enough)

>1. Even if that was indeed an argument for "superiority", the fact that one is superior, doesn't mean it's ok to unnecessarily slaughter the "inferior" one.
It very much is. As superior organisms, we get to decide who lives and dies. Think of in another way. Let's pretend that lions suddenly evolved to have an ability to blow things up with their brains, and instead of hunting gazelles they decided to hunt humans. They're still dumb lions in every regard, but now they have a capacity to blow humans up just by looking at them. According to you, lions are justified in doing so, because "they do not have the capacity to understand what they are doing". Starting to see why it's retarded to place different judgement values on the same actions?

>See mentally challenged or humans born without a brain (anencephalic).
And the majority of those people are aborted, the ones who do make it through die soon and are often only kept around out of sentiment. Often even the most retarded humans are still more sentient than the smarted pigs or any other species of animal.
So your statement is
>it doesn't mean it's ok to slaughter the one with a lesser degree of sentient
Yes it is, we do it all the time. For no other reason than because we can.

Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say 'hard cheese'!

Attached: FT7QLWK.jpg (1920x1080, 93K)

>According to you, lions are justified in doing so, because "they do not have the capacity to understand what they are doing". Starting to see why it's retarded to place different judgement values on the same actions?
No I never said it was "justified" for a lion to kill anyone. They cannot understand what they are doing, and that what they are doing is "bad". But what they are doing is just as bad regardless of whether they realise it or not. And if somebody can understand that it is bad and can do something about it, it is "good" to do it. That's it. The question "it is justified for a lion to kill" makes as much sense as asking the question "is it justified for a rock to fall on somebody's head?". Both cause suffering, and it is good to avoid it.

Same if we are talking about a mentally challenged human, the question "is it justified for them to kill" makes no sense because they are not in a position to understand what they are doing. But that doesn't mean they are ok to kill for people who can understand that their suffering is bad.
Also I repeat, most animals we eat, do not eat other animals if treated with respect.

I voted for Trump and I'll concede that eating animals is basically murder.

But fortunately, no one cares.

Attached: 1540771497574.png (1000x1000, 216K)

Most animals don't kill other animals, and most animals don't kill members of their own species under normal circumstances.

It seems like if an animal kills another animal, they are ok to slaughter, but if a human kills other animals without even thinking about it, somehow that doesn't diminish their value as a human being at all. Sounds like a huge double standard to me.

>If another intelligent species on earth or another planet came and started killing humans giving this justification, you wouldn't think it's a moral thing to do.

I would though. Learn to argue better.

>Sounds like a huge double standard to me.
Your point being?

Alright, so why is it okay to campaign for veganism for humans, and not veganism for lions? Humankind is fully capable of restraining all lions on Earth from ever mauling another gazelle, why aren't we doing it right now? Why are we letting rampant lions just murder things?

Kill the other so called intelligent species before they kill you... and then eat them.

Attached: Jupiter_1280.png (640x480, 227K)

That it's not logically consistent. And I don't like feeling that I'm logically inconsistent.

Having different standards for different species is not logically inconsistent

if animals don't want to be killed they could sign a "don't kill me" petition
I might consider not killing them then

>Alright, so why is it okay to campaign for veganism for humans, and not veganism for lions?
Because the former has a chance at being successful (humans can understand what vegans are talking about), while the latter is not going to do jack shit (the lion is not in a position to listen and understand what a vegan talking about).

>Humankind is fully capable of restraining all lions on Earth from ever mauling another gazelle, why aren't we doing it right now?
No we are not. Also the lion needs to eat meat, if they don't, they starve, which defeats the whole purpose of stopping suffering.

As I already said, if there are ways we can intervene in nature to reduce suffering without unintended consequences, it's good to do it.
If in the future we will be able to intervene in nature so that carnivorous animals don't have to kill other animals, it's good to do it. In the present moment, this is impossible, impractical, not sustainable, and not cost-effective (there are plenty of more efficient ways to use your resources to reduce suffering).

Some interventions in nature to reduce suffering already exist, such as immunocontraception, and others. But nothing at the scale we are talking about, not yet at least.

>If babies with congenital diseases who will die within a few months/years of them being born want to stop being raped and tortured for fun, they can sign a "don't rape and torture me" petition. I might consider not raping and torturing them.

>Is slaughtering a baby only wrong because of what that baby will become in the future, and not just because that baby is a sentient being who feels pain and suffering?
If we string that logic along then bringing a life into this world is wrong because it will inevitably feel pain and suffering.

We can intervene right now by killing all lions. What right do these murderous beasts have to exist and continue their relentless genocide of poor gazelle? Are we not, as god-appointed interveners and suffering-preventers, morally obligated to stop the holocaust of gazelles? We went to war and murdered millions of nazis to prevent them from killing the jews, and most people didn't have a moral quarrel with that, so why are you drawing a line in the sand and letting lions to continue existing?

Because we can eat pigs but we can't eat people because we get a human version of mad cow disease. We kill pigs and because we get hungry and need them to eat. If we don't eat we die and we need meat to get all the amino acids and for proper brain development.

humans have already signed a "don't rape and torture me" petition, google it

I slaughter the pig because I can get food out of it.

>Its okay because we already do it

Attached: 1544142716946.jpg (998x894, 53K)

Not the humans I was talking about, they are babies and can't sign petitions.
If you are talking about other humans signing the petition for them, the same can be said about humans signing petitions for other animals, and your argument falls apart.

>why the life of a young child matters but the life of a relatively complex and intelligent animal like a pig doesn't
Because we are humans and pigs are not and we don't eat our own kind. If the pigs wanted to eat us we would defend ourselves and cuck them, just like we do with wolves and other predators.
>what if you knew the baby has a genetic disease
Doesn't matter, you need to learn the difference between principle and instance. There's an agreement among humans that we do not eat each other by principle because no one wants to live in a society where your own kind might eat you, and we don't evaluate every single instance of human eating separately, it's always wrong and specific circumstances won't change that.
>If another intelligent species on earth or another planet came and started killing humans giving this justification
Then we would kill them like we did with every other species that has ever threatened us. Or we would perish if they were stronger. Do you think every predator that has ever tried to kill humans had a "justification"? Do you think the pre historic humans started to bitch and moan about how it was "unfair" for those predators to eat humans? No, they fucked them up with spears and arrows.
If the pigs could fuck us up they would, but they can't because we're better than them. That's natural selection.

Attached: mfw goose chokes me.png (710x739, 530K)

You claim to be so moral and so against suffering, yet if this was true you would clearly have ended your life. If your definition of immorality is to cause suffering then all life is immoral.
Just by existing and surviving you have caused others to suffer. One can only gain from another's loss, so trying to take the moral high ground over anyone is literally retarded. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

It's an animal. I do not give one whit about how an animal does or does not feel, I care about how they taste in my food.

Attached: 1519469737368.png (175x178, 13K)

1. This whole reasoning has almost nothing to do with veganism, as the animals we eat do not kill other animals if treated with respect. So your reasoning doesn't apply to them.
2. Actively extermination species would probably lead to more suffering, which defeats the whole purpose. Also the point of veganism is not to cause or reduce animal death and suffering, so a solution that involved actively killing animals doesn't make sense. I already said I support any action that involved the least amount of death and suffering that can prevent death and suffering, like immunocontraception and the likes. but for now, there isn't anything we can do at a large scale.
If in the future we can intervene to genetically modify species, to regulate their population, in and other interventions that don't have large scale increases of suffering as a consequence, I already said it would be good to do it. Granted we have the resources to do it, it's cost-effective to do it and so on.

pigs are LITERALLY raised to be slaughtered, retard.

Sure but we can minimise the suffering we create while surviving and having a decent life at the same time.

Go ask a Carnivorous animal the same thing and debate to them ,they would eat you then and there . But they won't eat / harm thier own children unless under a very rare circumstance.
The life of the young child matters what because its of the same species and us and not oinky doink from mcFarm. No the life of the child doesn't "matter" more than the pig ,but it does to us (humans) . Say would another animal should be asked if thier offspring matters more to them or a human child ,they would throw the human child in the dirt.
And if you're trying to go against the fact that humans kill and consume meat ,thats who we are ,we are omnivores & thats how it always was . We were evolved to eat meat if not then we wouldn't be able to digest it . Trying to bring morals into something that naturally occurs in the ecosystem (even if its in a way larger scale due to the human population) is just retarded.

I will stop eating meat when evolution gives me photosynthesis, it isn't my fault that we are heterotrophic

So fucking boring you vegan retards use the same tactics every time
>le NAME THE TRAIT, le aliens le conscience
You picked an arbitrary moral axiom and I picked an arbitrary moral axiom so who is fit to pick the morally superior moral axiom, oh that's right no one because morality is a meme. And guess what as long as people side with my moral axiom you can shout and pout all you want but we're gonna eat animals and there's nothing you can do about it, retard.

I think that obviously the way they're treated in those massive farms is disgusting but if people hunted, killed and butchered their own food, there's no problem

Attached: IMG_20181214_170126_348.jpg (612x861, 36K)

>the same can be said about humans signing petitions for other animals

no, the animals or one of their species' reps have to sign it themselves
tough tiddies

I can't find my signature. Are you sure all of us signed it?

No it's not possible, you clearly don't understand the point. In order to achieve a "decent life" others need to suffer. In order for you to eat, another must go hungry. In order for you to have a house, another must go homeless. In order for you to get a job another must be unemployed.
The only way to minimise suffering is to end your life

A human child shows signs of self awareness at around 12 to 18 months old. Before that it's just an animal.

I couldn't give a shit about their intelligence. It's the same 'species' as me, therefore I will protect it higher than anything else. The further it is genetically from me the less shit I give about it. Anglos dying anywhere in the world makes me feel more than africans dying down the street.

I could suppress my feelings surrounding this, but what's the point? To your second point, I think that all "humans" born through IVF should be made infertile to not spread their shit genes.

So might as well maximise suffering then?

It's natural. That's it.

I dont know the stats for other places but 2% of the US population are farmers. The only way for us to eat the way we do is to factory farm. And frankly i really don't give a shit. They're animals who fucking cares. The meat honestly tastes better knowing how much torture the animal went through before it ended up on my plate.

Not what I'm saying buddy. I'm saying that if you want to minimise suffering, end your life. But you won't, because you don't actually want to, you just want to virtue signal on fucking Jow Forums of all places.

No we don't what the fuck are you talking about.

why is it like this?

Arigato Mr. Roboto

I would say that I want to survive and have a decent life and that's a non-negotiable, but at the same time I can reduce the suffering I cause as much as possible, and that's better than not doing anything to reduce it.

Literally no idea user, if there is a god he's a sick fuck

Suicide isn't the only way to minimise suffering. Its the most effective way. But not the only way.

Because our resources are finite obviously