• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $550. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Today A Chicken Saved My Life

steve_bank

Contributor
You may wonder how a chicken saved my life. The answer is simple, I ate it.

Is there morality involved in eating animals? Is a lion immoral for eating a water buffalo instead of eating grass? If you watch video of a lion bringing down a large prey it aint pretty, by our sensibilities. Tearing at the flesh of the fleeing prey with claws.

Is our sympathy misplaced for the prey?
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
You may wonder how a chicken saved my life. The answer is simple, I ate it.

Is there morality involved in eating animals? Is a lion immoral for eating a water buffalo instead of eating grass? If you watch video of a lion bringing down a large prey it aint pretty, by our sensibilities. Tearing at the flesh of the fleeing prey with claws.

Is our sympathy misplaced for the prey?

Apparently you've never watched The Matrix. If you had, you would know that there is no chicken.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Scientists temporarily attached a pig’s kidney to a human body and watched it begin to work, a small step in the decades-long quest to one day use animal organs for life-saving transplants.

Pigs have been the most recent research focus to address the organ shortage, but among the hurdles: A sugar in pig cells, foreign to the human body, causes immediate organ rejection. The kidney for this experiment came from a gene-edited animal, engineered to eliminate that sugar and avoid an immune system attack.

Surgeons attached the pig kidney to a pair of large blood vessels outside the body of a deceased recipient so they could observe it for two days. The kidney did what it was supposed to do — filter waste and produce urine — and didn’t trigger rejection.

“It had absolutely normal function,” said Dr. Robert Montgomery, who led the surgical team last month at NYU Langone Health. “It didn’t have this immediate rejection that we have worried about.”​

https://apnews.com/article/animal-human-organ-transplants-d85675ea17379e93201fc16b18577c35
 

steve_bank

Contributor
You may wonder how a chicken saved my life. The answer is simple, I ate it.

And you took its.

Which of you had a choice?

My choice is eat or die, like any creature. Is my eating chicken any less moral that a lion taking down a prey?

If I wandered naked in parts of Africa without weapons odds are sooner or later I'd be on the menu of a predator.

If you believe evolution made creatures through mutation and natural selection then we are what we are, omnivores.
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
My choice is eat or die, like any creature. Is my eating chicken any less moral that a lion taking down a prey?
No, your choice is what to eat. You didn't even kill the chicken personally, you ordered it killed for you. You'd eat chicken a lot less often if the labor involved in killing and processing it were up to you. Your choices were driven by aesthetic preference and convenience, not necessity. In fact, if you gave up chicken, you'd save money on your groceries and ultimately benefit in most respects, as would the environment that is exploited to sustain your lifestyle.

If I wandered naked in parts of Africa without weapons odds are sooner or later I'd be on the menu of a predator.
Only if you were really stupid. And why would you want to do that anyway?

If you believe evolution made creatures through mutation and natural selection then we are what we are, omnivores.
I don't believe that personifying and reifying natural processes is a suitable guide to moral reasoning. You're picking and choosing what you want to see in the natural record anyway. Which ancestors are you elevating as the type example of the ideal human diet? Did they buy processed farm chickens at the local supermaket in exchange for a portion of their wage income in the form of monetary exchange?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
.... snip ....

Which ancestors are you elevating as the type example of the ideal human diet? Did they buy processed farm chickens at the local supermaket in exchange for a portion of their wage income in the form of monetary exchange?
They likely were ancestors that either trapped or stalked wild chickens. "Colonel Sanders" with a loin cloth and spear. :D
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
No, your choice is what to eat. You didn't even kill the chicken personally, you ordered it killed for you. You'd eat chicken a lot less often if the labor involved in killing and processing it were up to you. Your choices were driven by aesthetic preference and convenience, not necessity. In fact, if you gave up chicken, you'd save money on your groceries and ultimately benefit in most respects, as would the environment that is exploited to sustain your lifestyle.
It sounds like you're in favor of him doing that. What do you have in mind for how the part of the environment Steve's no longer exploiting to sustain his lifestyle would be deployed? Increased human population? More wilderness? More lawns?
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
No, your choice is what to eat. You didn't even kill the chicken personally, you ordered it killed for you. You'd eat chicken a lot less often if the labor involved in killing and processing it were up to you. Your choices were driven by aesthetic preference and convenience, not necessity. In fact, if you gave up chicken, you'd save money on your groceries and ultimately benefit in most respects, as would the environment that is exploited to sustain your lifestyle.
It sounds like you're in favor of him doing that. What do you have in mind for how the part of the environment Steve's no longer exploiting to sustain his lifestyle would be deployed? Increased human population? More wilderness? More lawns?

How would that be any of my business to decide? Steve is asking a question of ethics, not land tenure, unless I am quite mistaken.

And I'm not actually making an argument for what Steve should decide to do, just questioning the assumptions attached to the stated parameters of his decision. As one would expect in the philosophy subforum. Philosophy is more so about studying how we engage in reasoning, make moral decisions, and so forth, as opposed to engaging in blind advocacy for some point or other.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
... if you gave up chicken, you'd save money on your groceries and ultimately benefit in most respects, as would the environment that is exploited to sustain your lifestyle.
It sounds like you're in favor of him doing that. What do you have in mind for how the part of the environment Steve's no longer exploiting to sustain his lifestyle would be deployed? Increased human population? More wilderness? More lawns?

How would that be any of my business to decide? Steve is asking a question of ethics, not land tenure, unless I am quite mistaken.
I wasn't asking a question of land tenure either. Describing my question as asking about "land tenure" amounts to giving an ethics answer: the answer that that part of the environment should be deployed as its owner sees fit.

And I'm not actually making an argument for what Steve should decide to do, just questioning the assumptions attached to the stated parameters of his decision. ... Philosophy is more so about studying how we engage in reasoning, make moral decisions, and so forth, as opposed to engaging in blind advocacy...
Fair enough. Your use of the loaded terms "benefit" and "exploited" suggested advocacy, so I asked.
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
I wasn't asking a question of land tenure either. Describing my question as asking about "land tenure" amounts to giving an ethics answer: the answer that that part of the environment should be deployed as its owner sees fit.
The difference I see is that by creating a market for chicken, Steve and other chicken consumers are specifically encouraging land to be used in a certain way by adding monetary incentive for doing so. We as a species consume roughly 55 million chickens a day, so any change to consumer behavior regarding chicken would have a fairly significant impact, even if it were only a partial reduction.

What ought to instead be done with the same land seems like a much more abstract and general question than had originally been posed, given that both chickens and their food are raised in a bewildering array of different environments around the world. If Foster Farms were to off-sell all of its existing properties, for instance, I would not expect or recommend that all of those former properties be put to the exact same use.

our use of the loaded terms "benefit" and "exploited" suggested advocacy, so I asked.
I see your point, though I meant both terms literally.

If your generalized goal is to avoid loaded language in forum discussions, you might have some advice to give the OP, who referred to a chicken dinner rather dramatically as "saving his life".
 

J842P

Veteran Member
You may wonder how a chicken saved my life. The answer is simple, I ate it.

And you took its.

Which of you had a choice?

My choice is eat or die, like any creature. Is my eating chicken any less moral that a lion taking down a prey?

If I wandered naked in parts of Africa without weapons odds are sooner or later I'd be on the menu of a predator.

If you believe evolution made creatures through mutation and natural selection then we are what we are, omnivores.

You aren't a lion, Steve. Lions also kill the children of lionesses to induce them to mate again. Would you consider using the example of a lion as an excuse if you killed the child of some woman?

All of this is a basic reasoning fallacy. It should be obvious. I think you actually are probably grappling with feelings of guilt.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Your use of the loaded terms "benefit" and "exploited" suggested advocacy, so I asked.
I see your point, though I meant both terms literally.

If your generalized goal is to avoid loaded language in forum discussions, you might have some advice to give the OP, who referred to a chicken dinner rather dramatically as "saving his life".
Not my goal at all. Loaded language provides a marvelous opportunity to question the assumptions attached to the language loading parameters and study how we engage in reasoning, make moral decisions, and so forth. ;)
 
Today a package of tofu saved my life.
You may wonder how a chicken saved my life. The answer is simple, I ate it.

Is there morality involved in eating animals? Is a lion immoral for eating a water buffalo instead of eating grass? If you watch video of a lion bringing down a large prey it aint pretty, by our sensibilities. Tearing at the flesh of the fleeing prey with claws.

Is our sympathy misplaced for the prey?
I don't think our sympathy is misplaced. I just think things in life lie on a spectrum. So, killing and eating a chicken in certain circumstances may be not wrong or just a little bit wrong. If your claim was really genuine and you actually HAD to eat a chicken or die, then I'd say it was not wrong. If you had other choices involving less suffering of less intelligent animals or plants, then I'd say, it was a little bit wrong.

Here are some other things in a spectrum. Let's suppose you created two alternative threads:
Today a package of tofu saved my life
Today a chimpanzee saved my life

How would you feel morally about those?
 
You may wonder how a chicken saved my life. The answer is simple, I ate it.

Is there morality involved in eating animals? Is a lion immoral for eating a water buffalo instead of eating grass? If you watch video of a lion bringing down a large prey it aint pretty, by our sensibilities. Tearing at the flesh of the fleeing prey with claws.

Is our sympathy misplaced for the prey?
The answer is based on personal belief.

There is no way for science to come up with an objective verifiable test for moral principles.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Morality is a social consensus. The old Samurai morality that required suicide on demand from your master.

Stoics believed suicide was a an acceptable response to an untenable situation. We don't criticize Socrates for taking his own life when he could have just left.

Personal belief is not an absolute morality. Nazis had personal beliefs. Christians have personal beliefs repugnant to me.

As to the OP, I borrowed a line from a movie that went 'IAfish saved my life, I ate it'.

Is a lion immoral for tearing at the flesh of a prey in pursuit with the prey in terror?

Arguments for justifying moralities is as old as philosophy.

Morality is restraint put on the powerful by the masses.
Morality is a control placed by the powerful on the masses.

Christianity especially the RCC has always been an instrument of state power under the guise of a god's moral code.


To me vegetarian is a feel good easy position to take. There is no political or social cost to it. No one cares if you are vegeterian.

Ever watch video of Orcas going after seals? To a human it may seem brutal.

Would you starve rather than eat chicken?
 

steve_bank

Contributor
You may wonder how a chicken saved my life. The answer is simple, I ate it.

And you took its.

Which of you had a choice?

My choice is eat or die, like any creature. Is my eating chicken any less moral that a lion taking down a prey?

If I wandered naked in parts of Africa without weapons odds are sooner or later I'd be on the menu of a predator.

If you believe evolution made creatures through mutation and natural selection then we are what we are, omnivores.

You aren't a lion, Steve. Lions also kill the children of lionesses to induce them to mate again. Would you consider using the example of a lion as an excuse if you killed the child of some woman?

All of this is a basic reasoning fallacy. It should be obvious. I think you actually are probably grappling with feelings of guilt.
We are not lioms, but we are waht evolution made us, just like lions.

Morality including region is a thin veneer intended to suppress our basic genetic instincts. Human morality easily breaks down resulting in riots collective violence. Ethiopia right now. Tribal violent territorialism over compromise.

The idea we are superior and above all else is a human myth, partly based in Genesis.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
You may wonder how a chicken saved my life. The answer is simple, I ate it.

And you took its.

Which of you had a choice?

My choice is eat or die, like any creature. Is my eating chicken any less moral that a lion taking down a prey?

If I wandered naked in parts of Africa without weapons odds are sooner or later I'd be on the menu of a predator.

If you believe evolution made creatures through mutation and natural selection then we are what we are, omnivores.

You aren't a lion, Steve. Lions also kill the children of lionesses to induce them to mate again. Would you consider using the example of a lion as an excuse if you killed the child of some woman?

All of this is a basic reasoning fallacy. It should be obvious. I think you actually are probably grappling with feelings of guilt.
We are not lioms, but we are waht evolution made us, just like lions.

Morality including region is a thin veneer intended to suppress our basic genetic instincts. Human morality easily breaks down resulting in riots collective violence. Ethiopia right now. Tribal violent territorialism over compromise.

The idea we are superior and above all else is a human myth, partly based in Genesis.
Morality *is an instinct steve*. I have no idea what you are rambling about being superior. Or what any of this has to do with anything. Are you saying you think there is nothing wrong with, say, rape or killing another person? Is that what you are arguing? At least then you would be consistent, I suppose.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
I know what you meant when you wrote your OP. It just made it easy for people to play with your title instead of having a discussion about whether or not, being an omnivore in the year 2021 is a moral position.

Btw, I eat meat, although I'd probably be a happy vegan if someone prepared really good vegan food for me. Being a vegan and having a healthy diet is a lot more complicated than eating a small portion of meat and two fresh, healthy veggie sides.

I've met a couple of vegans who had diets that lacked adequate protein and essential vitamins. Some of us don't absorb iron well from non heme sources of food. Plus, a vegan must take vitamin B12 supplements to stay healthy. But yes. We evolved to include animals in our diet. But, we originally did our own hunting and later we raised and slaughtered our own animals. It's a lot different now.

While animals can be raised and slaughtered humanely, it can be difficult to always find that type of meat. We still have a lot of factory farms that raise and slaughter animals in very cruel ways. Plus we now have a better understanding of the environmental impact of raising animals for human consumption. It's complicated. I think the best solution might be to eat far less meat and include more healthy sources of protein from grains and nuts in our diets. I don't condemn those who eat a lot of meat. I'm just considering what might be best for people going forward.

Is this what. you wanted to discuss when you wrote the OP, Steve? If not, give me a clue.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Morality an instinct? What would that be. Over human history there have been and still are conflicting moralities. The abortion debate today.

Pets cats and dogs that go feral revert to other genetic predispositions. Feral cats act like their big cat cisins.

Us humans are omnivores. Is there something wrong with that?
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Morality an instinct? What would that be. Over human history there have been and still are conflicting moralities. The abortion debate today.

Pets cats and dogs that go feral revert to other genetic predispositions. Feral cats act like their big cat cisins.

Us humans are omnivores. Is there something wrong with that?
I don't think there is anything wrong with being an omnivore. My personal objections are to the way that the animals I eat are often raised and slaughtered. Sure, that's my personal morality, but there are many people who are either ignorant of how these animals are treated or choose to ignore these facts. There is also the negative impact that raising animals for meat can have on the environment. In an ideal world, humans would hunt and eat the animals that they kill or raise and slaughter their own animals for food. I've actually met a woman who did that. I've known hunters who ate mostly deer, that they had killed themselves, but those things aren't practical in modern society. The very least we can demand, is that our sources of meat lived in humane conditions prior to being slaughtered. And, there are ways of humanely slaughtering animals. I'm not sure how often those methods are used these days.
 
Top Bottom