Destruction of Life for Sustenance

[thumontico]

Is it ethical to destroy life for sustenance?

[mynameiskc]

i don't think using a machine the way it was made to be unethical. driving a car to work is not unethical, though deliberately using it to run over people and animals is.

[TrippinBTM]

The question has no relevance. It's ridiculous to phrase "eating" as a moral problem. Life lives on life and there's nothing wrong about that. Killing to kill might be immoral, but killing to eat? Or in self defense even? That's not immoral, that's nature. Is a lion immoral for eating the water buffalo? Is the cow immoral for eating the grass? Is the water buffalo immoral for goring the lion to death as it struggles to live? Learn from your plant and animal brothers.

Anyways, If nothing ate anything else, animal, fungal, and a great deal of single-celled life would cease, and plant life would cease as we know it because most depend on the other living kingdoms. It's a dance, a rippling pattern of existence. Your question smacks of attachment to forms, where we want forms to remain forever; yet this is not possible. Whether I ate the chicken or not, it would have died eventually, and something would have eaten it's carcass. The water flows through but the river remains; forms come and go but the universe persists. We must recognize that the world is a changing dance of forms coming and going, and appreciate the dance. This doesn't mean to not eat, it means to eat with appreciation of the death involved. Amazing, life from death, and death from life. I think that is the cosmic joke, life depending on death, good depending on evil, and beauty depending on ugliness...everything depending on it's opposite to exist.

So, I and my prey are one, I and my enemy are one. I believe in freedom and life, but I would not exist to have freedom or life if I did not eat.

[BlackBillBlake]

If humans stopped destroying other life forms, either animals or plants for food, we would all starve to death, as there is little in the way of inorganic food.


Would a collective act of suicide then be more ethically acceptable?

Hardly. So I don't think we got much choice -

[BlackBillBlake]

i don't think using a machine the way it was made to be unethical. driving a car to work is not unethical, though deliberately using it to run over people and animals is.
How many people in the car? Just one? Could say thats un-ethical on environmental grounds.

[thumontico]

I should refraise the the question:

Is it ethical to destroy sentient life for sustenance unncessarily?

I do not propose that no animals eat another animal. That is logistically improbable and physiologically impossible. This pertains only to humans, as we are the only omnivorous animals on Earth that have the capability to live soley on plants.

The argument in defense: Is it ethical for the Lion to eat the Gazelle or the Fox the Rabbit. It IS ethical because they do not have the intelligence, engineering, mental faculties, or physiological dispositions needed to survive without killing its sentient prey.

In my egotism: it is not my main concern that when I die the universe will continue to exist. My concern is that I will no longer exist. My 'energy' will remain, however, as that is not my consciousness, and my consciousness is what I value, I do not care.

TrippinBTM, I commend you for your lack of Ego. However, I do not think you have thought your statements through. You say it should be of little concern that you eat the chicken. It would die anyway. Indeed you are correct. However, I do not LIVE to DIE. I live to live. As I am sure the chicken would have prefered, and I am sure you would also prefer to LIVE as long as possible.
I ask you TrippinBTM: Would you give your life to feed a 49 year old man named Jose, that lives in Croatia, if Jose had a crop of corn in his back yard?
Would the chicken, being a conscious being, prefer to give its life to feed another species? Even more, would the chicken want to give its life to feed another species when that species could just as easily grow food, a process in which no sentient life must die?

I think you believe in Life and Freedom so long as that being cannot verbalize and articulate its pain and desire for Life and Freedom.

[TrippinBTM]

First, I never claimed not to have an ego.

Second, are you sure your consciousness isn't your energy, or that it won't survive?

Third, no I wouldn't give my life to be eaten by a guy with corn growing in his land. The chicken does not give it's life, nor does the antelope. I'd fight like the antelope fights to live. Because whether death comes now or later, it's always too soon. And know this: you live to live, but so does the chicken, and so does the corn.

Fourth, who is to say plants aren't sentient? What is sentience? Where is the line drawn, in your mind, and why in that place?

The way I see it, all life is sacred, not just animals. There is no way around the fact that I have to eat, and be it plant, fungi, or animal, I need to eat something. I still don't know why this is a moral problem.

[thumontico]

Second, are you sure your consciousness isn't your energy, or that it won't survive? Other than your assertion, I have no reason to. What is the soul[presumably this energy]? Your personality? Who YOU are? Well have a surgeon cut out your frontal lobes and then tell me if you feel like YOU anymore.. your soul will still be there, but nothing of what was YOU will be. (You won't be able to remember me telling you this)

And know this: you live to live, but so does the chicken, and so does the corn. Yes this is my point. And you seek to inhibit this unncessarily. I eat plants because they do not show sentience. If the plants did show sentience and there was no other source for food I would eat that sentient plant. Or if the plant was 'more' aware than an animal or 'more' intelligent I would kill the animal and eat it. We can only consider this in the first place because we have comfortable lives. It is unethical to unnesessarily take the life of a sentient being, however, it is not immoral if it is necessary. Survival of the fittest.

Who is to say plants aren't sentient? What is sentience? Where is the line drawn, in your mind, and why in that place? The parts of the brain that are responsible for awareness in animals are not present in plants. It is probable that plants are not sentient. Surely your arguement about eating animals is not: Plants might be sentient, therefore I see it as okay to eat animals because I KNOW they are sentient.

The way I see it, all life is sacred, not just animals. There is no way around the fact that I have to eat, and be it plant, fungi, or animal, I need to eat something. I still don't know why this is a moral problem. So these lives are sacred? I don't know about sacred. I'd say they are valuable. You need to eat something, INDEED. You could just eat plants and preserve these sacred lives, no? How can you consider this ethical when you claim this sacred status for your meals?

[mynameiskc]

[QUOTE=BlackBillBlake]How many people in the car? Just one

*snort* now you're just splitting hairs on an already balding head.

[TrippinBTM]

The parts of the brain that are responsible for awareness in animals are not present in plants. It is probable that plants are not sentient. Surely your arguement about eating animals is not: Plants might be sentient, therefore I see it as okay to eat animals because I KNOW they are sentient.

So these lives are sacred? I don't know about sacred. I'd say they are valuable. You need to eat something, INDEED. You could just eat plants and preserve these sacred lives, no? How can you consider this ethical when you claim this sacred status for your meals?How do I preserve the plants' sacred lives if I eat them? I said all life is sacred, from bacteria to sequoias to humans.

I consider it ethical because it is the natural way of things. Eating is not immoral, even though we live by killing. Plants are as alive as animals, killing them is like killing a chicken. Because in case you didn't know, plants have perception (to light, touch, gravity, they react when attacked, for example by releasing toxins, even reacting in groups, indicating communication). You do realize that aside from humans, only [some] chimps and [some] dolphins, are self aware, right? Just because a thing has a brain does not make it sentient, therefore animals are mostly not sentient.

From Dictionary.com:

sen·tient

Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).
Experiencing sensation or feeling.
sentience

n 1: state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness" [syn: awareness (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=awareness)] 2: the faculty through which the external world is apprehended; "in the dark he had to depend on touch and on his senses of smell and hearing" [syn: sense (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sense), sensation (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sensation), sentiency (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sentiency), sensory faculty (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sensory%20faculty)] 3: the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "gave sentience to slugs and newts"- Richard Eberhart [ant: insentience (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insentience)]

Main Entry: con·scious·ness
Pronunciation: 'kän-ch&-sn&s
Function: noun
1 : the totality in psychology of sensations, perceptions, ideas, attitudes, and feelings of which an individual or a group is aware at any given time or within a given time span <altered states of consciousness, such as sleep, dreaming and hypnosis —Bob Gaines>
2 : waking life (as that to which one returns after sleep, trance, or fever) in which one's normal mental powers are present <the ether wore off and the patient regained consciousness>
3 : the upper part of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

consciousness
n 1: an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness" [ant: unconsciousness (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unconsciousness)] 2: having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive" [syn: awareness (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=awareness), cognizance (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cognizance), cognisance (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cognisance), knowingness (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=knowingness)]

So, if you use the first definition of sentience, neither plants nor animals are sentient besides humans, chimps and dolphins because besides these 3, no other creature is self aware/conscious (because in the first definition of consciousness, none apply to animals and plants besides "being awake", and the second one indicates self awareness). If you use the second definition of sentience, both plants and animals (as well as basically every other life form) are sentient.

Are your definitions different?

All I see is you saying that you choose the lesser of two evils by eating plants (as you said, if animals were less intelligent than plants you'd eat animals). Choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil, is it not? Thus, the whole question loses relevance because we have no other choice, so it can't be evil or wrong. I just try to keep in mind that I'm eating life, and that I depend on these things on my plate that died so I may live.

[thumontico]

It comes down to preservation of life. Animals have a nervous system that we can observe. Plants may also possess a similar nervous system, however, by our current scientific methods, there is no indication of such. So, once again, you have two sets of beings, one set that we know are sentient [or atleast have a developed nervous system] and a set that we [know] are not sentient [or atleast show no indicative evidence for a nervous system].

It is true, we cannot say NECESSARILY that cattle and poultry are self aware as we have determined higher-evolution primates are, however, should we not give them the benefit of the doubt? Reguardless you are taking more highly developed life UNNECESSARILY, when you could be taking less developed life.

INDEED it is the lesser of two 'evils'. If you killed Sally, would it make the fact that you later killed Billy any less 'evil'? I say it would not. The flaw in your thinking is this all or nothing mentality.


On a side note, I got my hair cut for the first time in two years today!

[TrippinBTM]

It comes down to preservation of life. Animals have a nervous system that we can observe. Plants may also possess a similar nervous system, however, by our current scientific methods, there is no indication of such. So, once again, you have two sets of beings, one set that we know are sentient [or atleast have a developed nervous system] and a set that we [know] are not sentient [or atleast show no indicative evidence for a nervous system].

It is true, we cannot say NECESSARILY that cattle and poultry are self aware as we have determined higher-evolution primates are, however, should we not give them the benefit of the doubt? Reguardless you are taking more highly developed life UNNECESSARILY, when you could be taking less developed life.

INDEED it is the lesser of two 'evils'. If you killed Sally, would it make the fact that you later killed Billy any less 'evil'? I say it would not. The flaw in your thinking is this all or nothing mentality.
It isn't evil to kill to keep from being killed. If Sally or Billy were trying to kill me, because I value my own life as well as others, I'd fight to live, and kill to live if I have to. Killing just to kill, out of rage hate or revenge is wrong. It is not necessary to live. Eating is. If the choice is between plants and animals, and I feel both are sacred, living beings worthy of life, I'm screwed because I have to kill to live. This is why the question becomes irrelevant. If there is no other choice but to eat a living being, then it can't be evil.

And you cannot NECESSARILY say plants aren't conscious. It might be a different form of consciousness than the human/mammalian/animalian kind, but since when is being different being nothing?

[thumontico]

I am not certainly logistically, but what if ultimately eating only plants meant less death over all?

If you eat an animal you are also eating the plants that the animal ate.

[astralgoldfish]

If you eat the plant it means more death. Think about it, you eat the plants the animal ate but also prevent it from ever eating another plant. The plants however are(mostly) self sufficient, and kill nothing their lives are blameless. Is intelligence more importance than innocence. If Sally kills people regularly, and you have to choose one, then surely killing her is less immoral. Even if she is better qualified.
I think that all killing is wrong, the fact that we have to to live leaves a stain on our karmic history, that we cannot escape from until we break free of physical existence.
I think plants are self-aware and can sense their surroundings using the same senses that humans have but can't attribute to a bodily sense organ. Eyes aren't the only way to see.

[TrippinBTM]

If you eat the plant it means more death. Think about it, you eat the plants the animal ate but also prevent it from ever eating another plant. The plants however are(mostly) self sufficient, and kill nothing their lives are blameless.
Plants struggle to live as any other living being; they aren't siimply passive background for animals to live in. There are plant parasites, plant predators (venus fly trap, for example), plants stuggle for light and shade out other plants, killing them, vines climb trees and smother them, some have poison to kill off whatever tries to eat them, or to leech into the soil so only they can grow there, some rob nutrients from other plants through their invasive roots, etc etc. They aren't blameless, whatever that's supposed to mean.

If you kill an animal, you stop that animal from eating more plants...but if you stay a meat eater, you need to continualy replace the animals you eat, ending up in a stasis, with animals still eating plants and me eating them.

If you eat only plants, not only you, but the animal too, will be eating plants. Again a stasis will form.

Face it, there is a circle of life and we are part of it, there is no escaping the fact that we kill to eat, and probably kill in equal proportion no matter what. My body needs a specific amount of nutrients. If I get it from plants, a quota of plants must die (while the animals I'm not eating continue to eat as well), if I get it from animals, an equivalant amount of life has been killed, as I eat the animal that ate plants.

[thumontico]

I think plants are self-aware and can sense their surroundings using the same senses that humans have but can't attribute to a bodily sense organ. Eyes aren't the only way to see.
Why do you think plants are self-aware? Everything that is attributed to such a thing is rooted in the complex nervous system of animals [excluding various creatures down the evolutionary ladder].

Do you think that if I severed your optic nerve [effectively cutting the line between sensing something visually and sending it to the brain] that you could still see?

You say eyes are not the only way to see. That is up for debate, but I see no reason, beyond unfounded mystical assertion, to logically reason that you can SEE the way a HUMAN sees without your eyes. We are speaking of the way WE sense visually, which I realize is subjective, but there is a basic concept implicitly agreed upon.

Do you think you would be able to See [visually or Supernaturally] if your the area of the brain responsible for perceptions was surgically removed? Of course that is what you are implying. A dualistic relationship, the mind is seperate and nonlocal to the body?

My question is: Why is it that you believe plants "can sense their surroundings using the same senses that humans have but can't attribute to a bodily sense organ"?

This implies some sort of universal standard for sensing. A 'soul' for the plants aswell. It only seems logical that everything would have a 'soul' if humans have 'souls', however, the concept 'soul' itself is illogical.

----

Plants struggle to live as any other living being; they aren't siimply passive background for animals to live in. There are plant parasites, plant predators (venus fly trap, for example), plants stuggle for light and shade out other plants, killing them, vines climb trees and smother them, some have poison to kill off whatever tries to eat them, or to leech into the soil so only they can grow there, some rob nutrients from other plants through their invasive roots, etc etc. They aren't blameless, whatever that's supposed to mean.Indeed, but most important thing to point out is that this does not imply sentience. It is not a planned action to "rob nutrients from other plants", it is genetic dominance. It is not a conscious decision for the Venus Fly Trap to capture the fly, it is a reaction from the little hairs being touched. It is not a conscious descision to 'feel' this stimuli and 'know' to shut the trap. For there to be a conscioussness of the sort you wish to attribute to plants (human-like consciousness) a nervous system would be required, which plants lack.

Perhaps you are correct logistically, perhaps not. However, it cannot be disputed that growing plants as a renewable source of food is far better for the environment than mass producing sentient beings for food. I am sure you know what I am talking about.
Because in case you didn't know, plants have perception (to light, touch, gravity, they react when attacked, for example by releasing toxins, even reacting in groups, indicating communication).It is not the same, however. Thought is the main difference here. A plant reacts to stimuli because that is how it is 'programmed' to. You cannot compare simple 'stimuli and reaction' phenomena in plants and naturally attribute similar reactions in animals and conclude that that plants are just as sentient or alive as animals. There is no cognition involved in plants, as there IS with animals with a nervous system.

sen·tient
Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).
Experiencing sensation or feeling.
So, if you use the first definition of sentience, neither plants nor animals are sentient besides humans, chimps and dolphins because besides these 3, no other creature is self aware/conscious (because in the first definition of consciousness, none apply to animals and plants besides "being awake", and the second one indicates self awareness). If you use the second definition of sentience, both plants and animals (as well as basically every other life form) are sentient..
The first definition of sentience certainly applies to applies to all animals [excluding aquatic life: recent research indicates that fish can at least percieve pain, however].

Sentience transcends consciousness insofar as MY hierarchial value goes.

[humandraydel]

[QUOTE=thumontico]Is it ethical to destroy life for sustenance?
[QUOTE]

I believe there is a simple test that allows you to determine if the destruction of life is ethical. Some times it is ethical, and sometimes it is not.

In order to survive all animals must eat. Eating is essentially "destroying life," and this has to be ethical. So it appears destroying life CAN be ethical.

Next, picture a plantation that cuts down all the trees on their land in order to farm huge monoculture tracts. Here, life is destroyed, and life will even be created, but it is not necessarily ethical. Large scale agriculture and harvesting of timber destroys biodiversity that is vital to the health of ecosystems. Huge livestock farms have potential to pollute groundwater and watersheds, destroying species and even causing problems for humans. Not to mention how much consumer waste is generated every year and the amount of life destroyed to produce that waste.

Are these things unethical? I think so, but it's really hard to get at why. It almost requires a loss of ego, acknowledging that we are just one part of a huge intertwining system. Try picturing about 7-8 generations down the line. Do you want them to be able to live a healthy, enjoyable life? Ethically, I would think most people would agree that we should try to ensure life can continue on for a long time. Unfortunately, many of the practices we are now engaging in cannot last for 7-8 generations. Natural resources will be depleted, water supply will be low and conditions are likely to be poor.

So it appears there are times that destroying life is necessary and ethical, but there are also times it is unethical. I've already hinted at what the distinguishing factor is: sustainability. If the destruction of life for sustenance is infinitely sustainable, it is completely ethical. Once sustainability is reached, we would become completely integrated into the natural cycles of the earth. Nutrient cycles, oxygen cycles, energy balance, etc are all necessary for a sustainable planet.

So what does this involve? It involves reducing waste from consumerism, a knowledge of natural systems that mankind has long since lost, a love and respect for nature, a simple life that has long since disappeared. I firmly believe it is possible to become so integrated with the environment that it's an ecological benefit to the earth.

Think about it: How long has mankind been on this earth? and all of a sudden, in the past 150 years we are seeing an exponential rise in energy consumption, consumer waste production, destruction of the environment, etc. that cannot continue for long. I think industrialization was a grand experiment, but it didn't work. It's time to get back to basics.


take care,

humandraydel

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

--Hey Thumontico.... -If you dont start postin naked pics of your wife RITE NOW im gonna start eatin chichens IMMEDIATLY! -Pay very close attention if you truley value the life of your eddible companions. -Start postin the naked pics NOW and post another one in a diferant pose every hour, -if you dont, I'l EAT A CHICKEN!! -For every hour that you dont post some NAKID PICS OF YOUR OL LADY I'l eat ANOTHER chicken!! -One hour/One chicken. -YOU SAVY?!?!??

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

--Just as I thought Thumontico... -4 chickens are DEAD and EATEN and NO NAKED PICS?! ---So THATS how far your willin to go? -Prety FUKT UP dude! -I never clamed to have morals.... YOU did.. -Where are they now? -Now that YOU can stop the chicken eating, -where are you ? :( -Thats rite, -Im the big bad CHICKEN EATER!! -And Im eatin chickens, -one every hour till you start posten them naked pics of yer ol lady! --I thought this MENT something to you.. ---IF YOU REALLY CARED, YOUD POST NAKED PICS OF YER OL LADY TO STOP THE KILLIN!!! -So, your moral enoughf to start this thread but not moral enoughf to save ONE SINGLE CHICKEN from me?! -Is that it? :( -If I dont see any naked pics of yer wife soon Im gonna start postin pictures of BARBAQUES and PICNICS! -and Not some watered down pics either, -I mean WITH SAUCE and EVERYTHING!

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

PROVE to me that your more moral than me Thumontico... -Show us all some naked pics of your wife! -Thats ALL ya have to do.... -To save the lives of CHICKENS! -SHOW US YOUR NAKED WIFE and I'l stop eating. ..So whats it gonna be Thumontico.. -Whats it REALLY worth to you... ? -Is saving the lives of your fellow foodstuffs as important as your wifes modesty?? ---Show us the pics... -and I'l stop eatin your buddies! -ONE PICTURE EVERY HOUR, IN A NEW AND PROGRESSIVLY MORE EROTIC POSE, OR I EAT CHICKENS! -ON THE HOUR, EVERY HOUR.

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

--How DARE you call yourself an ethical man when you wont even post nude pictures of your wife in lewd and lacivious poses on the internet, -perhaps even having sex with several men at once, --even farm animals, -to keep someone from eating the food that they prefeer! -Your a SICK MAN! -Obviously void of any moral fiber.. :)

[thumontico]

1. I don't have a wife, I'm 17.
2. Values are relative.
3. I may not be more ethical, but I can guess that I am less of a hypocrite than you if you claim to value life*, then kill animals unnecessarily. However, it is completely possible that you don't (see number 2), and although I see your values as invalid, I will not judge you 'ethically' without agreement on ethics by contract. But if you are a hypocrite I reserve the right to make a value judgement on the inauthenticity of your character.

*I have yet to see a suitable arguement on why, from a nihilistic standpoint, human life is inherently more valuable than other species of animals.

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

1. I don't have a wife, I'm 17. ><>**^^~~ --Do you have any pics of your sister? -Is your mom hot? -ANY pics of naked chicks will work! -C'MON MAN!! -I've been eatin STEADY for 4 DAYS NOW!!!! --bBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAPPpp.. :)

[mynameiskc]

that's the wierdest request for nudie pics i've ever read.

[TrippinBTM]

*I have yet to see a suitable arguement on why, from a nihilistic standpoint, human life is inherently more valuable than other species of animals.
That isn't even a sensible proposition to take; from a nihilistic standpoint, nothing is valuable.

[thumontico]

Indeed, by your interpretation atleast...

To rephrase: from a pure, objective persective why is human life inherently more valuable than other species of animals?

[mynameiskc]

i dont' think other animals find me more valuable than others of their own species. so i'm not gonna lose any sleep over takingthe more natural standpoint and not value their above mine.

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

--From a pure, objective standpoint what makes "species of animals" more valuable than plants?

[thumontico]

Consciousness

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

-OBJECTIVITY is not based on conciousnes.

[mynameiskc]

nothing makes plants less valuable than than conscious animals. it's why we all destroy each other for sustenance.

[thumontico]

-OBJECTIVITY is not based on conciousnes.

I don't understand your use of objectivity here, objectivity is not based on anything but the 'object'.

I think you misinterpret my meaning: From an objective perspective I mean without distortion from one's Ego and/or any other subjective pretenses.

Values are relative, and I realize this. I value consciousness a priori. I cannot at this time suitably articulate why consciousness is more valuable than non-consciousness [but I maintain that it is].

nothing makes plants less valuable than than conscious animals. it's why we all destroy each other for sustenance.

I disagree, we destroy animals for sustenance because we necessarily require nutrients to survive. Whether they are conscious or not is not considered, nor should it be from a Darwinian standpoint. However, humans have mastered their environment, it is no longer a question of surival of the fittest, it is a question of ethics, or more fittingly--morality.

nothing makes plants less valuable than the conscious animals. it's why we all destroy each other for sustenance.

If this is the case, then would you claim a tree's life is as valuable as a human beings? Given the option, would you nourish yourself on the flesh of Johnny [the human being] or Jim [the plant]? Is the plant on an equal value plane as the human? I assume, unless for the sake of being stubborn, you would choose to eat the plant.

The question is then, what variable distinguishes the value put upon a life form?

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

I don't understand your use of objectivity here, objectivity is not based on anything but the 'object'.

I think you misinterpret my meaning: From an objective perspective I mean without distortion from one's Ego and/or any other subjective pretenses. ><>**^^~~ You stated that you would objectivly base the value of a life form on wether or not it has conciousness. -Would you mind rubbin your own nose in your shit?

[mynameiskc]

I don't understand your use of objectivity here, objectivity is not based on anything but the 'object'.

I think you misinterpret my meaning: From an objective perspective I mean without distortion from one's Ego and/or any other subjective pretenses.

Values are relative, and I realize this. I value consciousness a priori. I cannot at this time suitably articulate why consciousness is more valuable than non-consciousness [but I maintain that it is].



I disagree, we destroy animals for sustenance because we necessarily require nutrients to survive. Whether they are conscious or not is not considered, nor should it be from a Darwinian standpoint. However, humans have mastered their environment, it is no longer a question of surival of the fittest, it is a question of ethics, or more fittingly--morality.



If this is the case, then would you claim a tree's life is as valuable as a human beings? Given the option, would you nourish yourself on the flesh of Johnny [the human being] or Jim [the plant]? Is the plant on an equal value plane as the human? I assume, unless for the sake of being stubborn, you would choose to eat the plant.

The question is then, what variable distinguishes the value put upon a life form?
if i had to eat a human being, i would. i wouldn't consider it too sacred to ingest. all life has it's value, and all life has it's place on the food chain. i won't eat a tree, not a good meal. i won't hunt and kill a person, because that's just not what we do, we have other things to eat. however, i wouldn't consider something else killing and eating a human being to be evil.. we're not more valuable than those things that consume us (while alive AND while dead). we're just different.

[steffan]

[QUOTE=MidnightMoonlig to move in and start your own community, like what the white man did to the american indians,

to make judgments on an entire genetic line then attempting to justifiy that judgment with incomplete and biased knowledge is most asuriedly unethical and conterproductive to valuble philosiphy

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

--Hey KC :) ! -Could ya make the Jesus in the picture hold a big BUD and could the caption say -"The Bud Maker". -?

[MrRee]

Lettuce understand that there is natural order in the universe.
Lettuce understand that consciousness has many variations from ours.
Lettuce understand that all life is either conscious or unconscious of itself.
Lettuce understand that unconscious life sustains conscious life.
Lettuce undertstand that some life is made unconscious so it too can sustain life.
Lettuce understand that life sustains life ~ it gives itself to itself for itself.
Lettuce thank life for life.
Lettuce enjoy life.
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/images/lettuce.jpg
Lettuce

[mati]

Looking at the problem of feeding people from their perspective, we might question the value of the current meat industry. The water and grain required to produce a kilo of meat is high compared to that required to produce similarly nutrients in vegetables. The dollar amount used to feed the american cow is more than alot of people in the world earn. As population increases and resources are limited, the question will become more acute in the future. Farmland and soil is also being lost

[Magnus76]

Is it ethical to destroy life for sustenance?

First you must define your ethics. If you believe in freedom and have value for life, I fail to see how it could be considered ethical.
In nature, plants and animals feed of each others.
They gain nourishment from the dissolved organic matter in the soil, from the plants that grow in it or the animals that feeds on the plants. Destruction of life brings creation of life. That's the ethics of Nature.

But what is ethical for a human being? (And now I'm speaking in general):
Many of us have ideals. We don't want to be primitive beings, we want to raise ourselves above the ways of nature. We strive to be more noble and goodhearted than the logics of nature (which often is truly cruel in it's fundamental balance).

I think we have the right to make this ethical choice as long as we acknowledge and respect how nature works.

It's wrong to blame a cheetah for killing an antelope since it won't understand what's wrong with the picture. That is, unless you could convince it to see it your way. I, for one, don't have this talent. I think it would take a divine intervention for predators to feed on ideals.

I would keep myself from destroying a life for sustenance if there was other options available. Still, I guess I'm pretty much a scavenger since I get my sustenance from the local grocery stores.

[Magnus76]

Lettuce understand that there is natural order in the universe.
Lettuce understand that consciousness has many variations from ours.
Lettuce understand that all life is either conscious or unconscious of itself.
Lettuce understand that unconscious life sustains conscious life.
Lettuce undertstand that some life is made unconscious so it too can sustain life.
Lettuce understand that life sustains life ~ it gives itself to itself for itself.
Lettuce thank life for life.
Lettuce enjoy life.
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/images/lettuce.jpg
Lettuce
That was awesome!!! :D

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

Please dont deny Broccoli a brain! -It already has the beginings of a rudimentry nervous system! -Please dont deny it and other vegetables and fruit the right to develope like their meatier counterfoods by singiling them out and eating them with a pregidious! -Be fair. -Eat a Bear! -Walk with the Broccoli :) !

[freefall]

:)

[Spiritforces]

Instead about thinking to what you eat to survive or what you shouldn't eat to survive
You should think think about cutting a tree to print an underwear booklet or not cutting a tree to print an underwear booklet, just my two cents....

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

If your nice to the trees you wont have to cut them to get them to make underware magazines for you, theyl do it out of love. :)

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

but then, -One time I just took my knife out and SHOWED it to them and I made them take alla theyr clothes off and I made NAKED magazines outta them! ;)

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

Dont incorige me. :)

[TrippinBTM]

Here's an interesting thought:

When we eat something (plant of animal), we take in its body and make it part of ours. It is dead as a seperate entity but continues in the game of life as part of me: my energy, or my cell structures.

Also, we all have to die at some point. Dying to promote life seems like a good reason to die. That carrot I eat doesn't die for nothing, it dies to let my life continue. Someday I will die and will help other beings' lives continue. Nature is a circle, don't think that that carrot's journey ends in your stomach. The circle is never broken, not even in death.

[drumminmama]

Ok
here are some (random) thoughts

For the question is it more or less ethical to eat a sentient being (in western perspective: seafood, finnned fish, poultry and certain mammals) rather than the plants, I say we all have to figure out what our ethical system leades to:
if, for example , your ethical concern is overpoplulation, then is some form (not mine) omnivoreism, and the resulting imbalance of food could be considered ethical.
If your ethics say all shall be fed by whatever means, then all potential survival sources can be considered within that frame.

Brandon feels all life is a gift or the Oversoul and there for none is less or more than the other. His extrapolation of this is "all is food."
I also believe that all plants and animals are a gift of the oversoul but I chose to eat lower on the food chain.

In a different society, or in the case of living off the land, I would use what was available (with a natural preference for plants, but I doubt I'd starve rather than catch ONE trout)
Since I have a choice, I sprout seeds and eat a lacto-veg dietary and I have balanced the leather or petrol-based alternatives with a delicate balance of making the imperfect substitute last as long as possible. (one pair of shoes, I own four including snow boots, has lasted since 1999 and is on its second resole. I expect it is middle aged for wearing at work and the like, but I see using them as gardening/ painting/ other grotty stuff wear for at least another decade) I do not use direct animal parts for vanity or convenience reasons (the animal fats used in industry will keep the planet from being vegan in operation). I am never the first purchaser of an animal product for say, wool socks. My wool is from thrift store sweaters. I don't buy leather for personal asthetic reasons. (scent and squeak)

when it comes down to western sustenance, dependent on farmed food, plants and animals, I'll take the plants.
For Brandon, the Animals are Ok, too. I respect that. I understand the origin of that thought. I personally can't agree, but if all people thought all life was sacred, a lot of the prroblems in how we raise food and distribute it would go away.

any wanton destruction is a violation of ethics.

[TrippinBTM]

I think the funniest thing is that the premise of this argument is that eating is destroying life; when in fact it is both destruction AND nurturing of life. I destroy the plant or animal's life, but nurture my own. Also, my feces and urine go back into the soil (or would without modern plumbing, I have no idea where it goes now) and nurtures more life. The idea that it's the destruction of life is only taking one side of the issue, when it has two inseperable sides, like a coin. You don't have heads without having tails. If I slay a deer, or even a corn plant, and leave it to rot, that is just simply destruction (though I would nourish life indirectly by feeding the decomposers...but that's beside the point). But when I kill and eat, I nourish myself.

But I've reread this thread again and understand the threadstarter's point. He doesn't see plant life as being as valuable as animal life, because it isn't conscious in a discernable way that we can understand. Thus he feels it is better to eat plants if he can...and since we in this age do have that choice, it makes sense for him to do that. I see it the opposite, plant life is equally important as animal life (if not, perhaps, more important), as plants are the foundation of the food chain. But then, it's a circle and a web, not linear, so I suppose they are simply equal in value. Still, I see consciousness in all things, animal, plant, and mineral, since I believe all existance is the manifestation of what drumminmama called in her post the Oversoul. In the end, there is only one Life, and eating is a neutral kind of thing. Like the conservation of energy, but more like the conservation of life.

As a note, I am for the most part a vegetarian, though I eat fish and poultry on occasion. The veg is mainly for health reasons, though.

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

Absolutly BTM! Thats what fukkin kills me. It seems like mosta these guys got this condesendin attitude twards life in the ways that they take the stance that theyr somekinda sentient being and the plants aint an we autta eat them with prejeduce. -I kinda see it as the oppisit, we autta eat meat based foods if we really wanna even things out so we can let the plant based foods catch up intelectually, Brocolli's got the bases for a rudementry nervous system and that must meen that other vegetables might have the same prospects. If we eat these vegetables with a prejeduce we might deter them from gainin intelect. The meat based foods already have the upper hand in this matter so why dont we even thing up a bit and eat more meat and mabey even some less vegetables in order to let the vegetables alone to develope into smarter foods? :) Peace :)

[drumminmama]

Brandon, you might be almost there, but I'm not teaching you the secret handshake (wink)

[Random Andy]

Absolutly BTM! Thats what fukkin kills me. It seems like mosta these guys got this condesendin attitude twards life in the ways that they take the stance that theyr somekinda sentient being and the plants aint an we autta eat them with prejeduce. -I kinda see it as the oppisit, we autta eat meat based foods if we really wanna even things out so we can let the plant based foods catch up intelectually, Brocolli's got the bases for a rudementry nervous system and that must meen that other vegetables might have the same prospects. If we eat these vegetables with a prejeduce we might deter them from gainin intelect. The meat based foods already have the upper hand in this matter so why dont we even thing up a bit and eat more meat and mabey even some less vegetables in order to let the vegetables alone to develope into smarter foods? :) Peace :)rotfpml!
I know you're probably telling the truth and everything but that just made me laugh:D
Brocolli's got the bases for a rudementry nervous system and that must meen that other vegetables might have the same prospects.:)*shakes head* So true

[Zion]

Is it ethical to destroy life for sustenance?

First you must define your ethics. If you believe in freedom and have value for life, I fail to see how it could be considered ethical.Agreed
Its like an oxi-morron

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

So then we're above it all then are we? The food chain and all I meen.

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

Oh wait.... but Not if you eat meat! If you eat meat your not above it and superior.

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

Basicly your tellin me you think I'm practisin unethical behavior. I just aint buyin it. I think yous are all hipokrits and foneys. Please rethink your foney ethics if your a veggy and ya swat flies or support the fight against aids. From your code of ethics even a virus got a right to live dont it? -------aAAAHhhh ya fukkin hippokritts!

[Lying in a field]

I tried reading all the posts and gave up after a few pages. Hope I'm not repeating an already expressed idea...the central nervous system argument, anyone find it incredibly weak? Could we not counter-argue that an animals will to survive is simply an evolutionary adaptation, just as the needles on a cactus serve a similar purpose?

[lynsey]

Personally, my beliefs are much different than the beliefs of others. We have the right to be participants in the food chain. I eat fish because fish eat smaller fish, thus I find no moral confliction in eating them myself. I cannot eat beef because cows do not eat other animals and therefor are no in the predatory food chain and in my never to be humble oipinion it is wrong to eat animals that do not eat other animals. Does this make sense?

[steffan]

is it ethical to cause pain to a fellow creature ? of course not, is it ethical to drive a car? well no actualy it isnt. will i still drive to the store and get a chunk of carcass ? yes. but i do so with out any illusion that there are excuses to ethics, but I cant always fallow them, I just hope to find a balance somewhere

[steffan]

is it ethical to cause pain to a fellow creature ? of course not, is it ethical to drive a car? well no actualy it isnt. will i still drive to the store and get a chunk of carcass ? yes. but i do so with out any illusion that there are excuses to ethics, but I cant always fallow them, I just hope to find a balance somewhere

[woodsman]

Is it ethical to destroy life for sustenance?

Yes, or you die from lack of sustenance.

[Desos]

or you could find alternate methods for sustenance.

it can be difficult because the already formed system of natural selection has already worked for millions of years, but as humans we have the intellect to be able to find alternate methods of sustenance.

i think it's wrong to sacrifice one for the good of the whole. that includes killing other humans in self defense, eating animals for food, and even plants.

but we currently lack the methods and the ideologies for this, so for now ill keep on surviving like life always has and keep on dreaming and waiting for an alternate method to come along.

[snake_grass]

The question has no relevance. It's ridiculous to phrase "eating" as a moral problem. Life lives on life and there's nothing wrong about that. Killing to kill might be immoral, but killing to eat? Or in self defense even? That's not immoral, that's nature. Is a lion immoral for eating the water buffalo? Is the cow immoral for eating the grass? Is the water buffalo immoral for goring the lion to death as it struggles to live? Learn from your plant and animal brothers.

Anyways, If nothing ate anything else, animal, fungal, and a great deal of single-celled life would cease, and plant life would cease as we know it because most depend on the other living kingdoms. It's a dance, a rippling pattern of existence. Your question smacks of attachment to forms, where we want forms to remain forever; yet this is not possible. Whether I ate the chicken or not, it would have died eventually, and something would have eaten it's carcass. The water flows through but the river remains; forms come and go but the universe persists. We must recognize that the world is a changing dance of forms coming and going, and appreciate the dance. This doesn't mean to not eat, it means to eat with appreciation of the death involved. Amazing, life from death, and death from life. I think that is the cosmic joke, life depending on death, good depending on evil, and beauty depending on ugliness...everything depending on it's opposite to exist.

So, I and my prey are one, I and my enemy are one. I believe in freedom and life, but I would not exist to have freedom or life if I did not eat.

adaption

[famewalk]

Is it ethical to say Good-bye to a bad deal? Let alone to acquire a little extra bragging confidence that you looked like you didn't know what you meant.

__________________________________________________ ____


Don't change the answers; just re-question why you want more... or less.

[woodsman]

or you could find alternate methods for sustenance...but we currently lack the methods and the ideologies for this...
Your'e right we lack the methods for it. Only organic materials provide the means for sustenance its always been that way and I don't see that changing anytime soon. So why fight nature just because of some hair brained concept of self righteous?

[djulian]

Let's try this arguement. I will use a chicken to build a better visualization. Also, the ass icon's covetment of porn while eating chicken will not go away in my head.

The sentience of a chicken can be speculated to desire nourishment, shelter, companionship, sex and safety. While a chicken could get most of these things in the wild, I would guess that safety would be more difficult to come by. A chicken farm could provide these things. The chicken would be in a sanctuary until a time where they are no longer able to participate in chicken culture and then it could be mercifully slaughtered.

Now, there are a couple of parallels to look at here. One is that the chicken farm is a lot like human culture. Food, shelter, companionship, sex and safety are easily acquired in our culture. Another parallel is how we treat our elderly. As they get older we discard the elderly in seclusion and finally the ground.

There are some inconsistencies here. First, I do not know if such farms exist. Second, chickens are slaughtered at around 14 weeks so to wait 5 to 10 years could cause a problem with meat taste and availablility.