/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>11075669
the cow was going to be killed anyway
i wasn't going to pay for your movie anyway

Neither have any moral repercussions whatsoever, since morals only extend to those who themselves act upon ethical guidelines.

t. /lit/

>>11075676
you didn't answer the question, femanon.

>>your movie
what movie?

>>11075681
The question wasn't limited to morals, anon.
Even if you rank "death" as zero on the care-o-meter, there are other concerns too.

>>11075681
Who said anything about morals? He just asked "which is worse"

>>11075691
>>11075692
Worse from what perspective, then?

You'd think more information about the situation would be provided if the question depended on any parameter other than the killing of animals for food.

>>11075704
>Worse from what perspective, then?
That's up for the reader to decide. You might consider which animals contribute more to the ecosystem if they were allowed to live. Or you might consider that the 10 mice ought to die lest they multiply and become far more mice, each of which could spread disease or contaminate foodstuffs, etc.

>>11075704
>You'd think more information about the situation would be provided...
Why? Is your brain broken? Can't you use it to come up with other potential concerns?

>>11075681
Thread.

Thanks /lit/

>>11075710
This is sophistry.

I'm probably killing a billion rectal bacteria each time I shit. I forgot what my point is, but whatever.

>>11075669

Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law

What difference does it make, blood is spilled in both situations. You can't say which creatures life is worth more.

>>11075717
How so? I wasn't presenting a specific argument, I was giving examples as to how individual persons might hypothetically decide A vs B.

>>11075723

These bitches only care about fluffy life forms, they freely consume our green allies in their perpetual emerald holocaust.

>>11075732

You just wanted to cherry pick responses, for your funny cringe compilations

>>11075710
>The question is up to the reader to decide

Good thread

>>11075726
>You can't say which creatures life is worth more.
Some people think they can though. That's why they tell people to stop eating meat.

This is very interesting though. Nearly 10 replies and not a single person has answered.

B is the worst choice. More deaths, and less nutrition to be had in exchange. Not to mention the "waste" from the cow is far more useful than the chaff left over from the wheat.

>>11075747

In his mind he said, "the question is up to me to decide "

>>11075726
>You can't say which creatures life is worth more.
Is this nigger for real? Do you make no distinction between the value of the life of a dog and a worm? A child and a bacterium?

>>11075788
in those cases, sure
but you picked examples where one of the pair is something that people look down upon, like worms and bacteria.

OPs question was rather different. It's all animals being mentioned, there is no worm or bacterial equivalent.

>>11075747
>>11075757
you guys aren't doing much deciding

>>11075795
Do you think people do not look down on mice and other rodents? Enjoy your plague, Anon

>>11075669
>Killing 10 mice, one gopher/woodchuck/similar, and two birds for ~500 lbs of wheat?
>of wheat
wat.jpg

>>11075799
I decided in my first post, and I was told that my decision was wrong.

>>11075808
I think some people do, but not everyone. Remember that there are people who have mice as pets, and even breed and show fancy variations of them.

>>11075808
>Enjoy your plague, Anon
I'm marking you down for B. That seems to be two votes for B so far, none for A.

>>11075741
>You just wanted to cherry pick responses, for your funny cringe compilations

Not at all. I think reaction images, etc, are fucking stupid. I don't "collect" images of any sort, that's just a dumb waste of time. The internet is full of pics, there's no point in saving any. On the rare chance you need a pic, just google it.

My main motivation for posting this is to make people aware that animals die for all human food, not just meat.

Would you eat a special vegetarian tonkatsu OP?

>>11075818
>get upset about animals dying for your meat, become vegan
>start eating vegan monoculture food and cause a small game holocaust
>decide to stop eating entirely and commit sudoku
>you can't commit sudoku because even that involves killing an animal
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

>>11075822
Sure, why not?
Where's your answer, BTW? You're suppose to pick A or B.

>>11075822
once for sure, but I doubt it would be good enough to order it again.

A is much worse unless the birds in question are special like Hawks or something. A cow is a more important animal than mice, gophers, and random birds.

>>11075669
false equivalence

>>11076113
OP here. They aren't intended to be equal or equivalent. You're supposed to choose one.

>>11075669
How many animals were killed for all of the corn and soy that the cow ate in it's life?

>>11076121
Zero for the purposes of this question. Assume the cow was raised on scrubland that cannot support crops for human consumption.
Likewise we are ignoring any other concerns with farming the wheat (like, say, fertilizer runoff causing fish kills).

>>11076135
Then it's a stupid question and not worth considering the ethical or moral issues.

>>11076135
>majoring in philosophy
>doing your assignments on north-korean cooking forums

>>11075669
Which is worse:
a ) Making a troll thread, wasting everyone's time
b ) Asking rhetorical questions on a chinese imageboard, but noone understands

>>11076152
I already explained the motivation for the thread here:
>>11075818

>>11076148
>not worth considering the ethical or moral issues.
I agree that's an excellent way to approach our food.

You can still make a decision based on practical matters though. I.e. kill the mice to prevent vermin from spreading disease, as a hypothetical example. Or maybe you want to off the cow because of muh methane?

>>11076167
Good job cherry-picking my statement to suit your agenda.

>>11076135
>raised on scrubland that cannot support crops for human consumption
So you're saying the cow was displacing animals endemic to that ecosystem? That makes killing the cow a net positive. Unless you are talking about a continous process of raising and killing cows.

Your question was vaguely formulated and your parameters were ill defined. You didn't ask a question, you just posted some retarded bullshit with a question mark at the end.

>>11075737
There are extreme vegans who will only eat the trimmings of still living plants.

>>11075818
>not having a cringe compilation
Yikes!

>>11075810
You mean >>11075681?
Your decision was that there was only one metric to use to judge the situation, which is wrong.

>>11075809
http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

>>11076113
If they're not equivalent then it should be really fucking easy for you to choose one faggot.

>remove ALL subsidized monoculture cash crops that destroy ecosystems on a massive scale
>no more soybeans
>no more ethanol corn
>no more HFCS corn
>no more wheat
>convert all arable farmland into cattle pasture
>plant pasture crops (cows like variety)
>heal the entire ecosystem
>feed the entire world using less than the total amount of farmland -in the US alone- currently used for cancerous grain products
>even with cow fart methane the pasture economy is carbon negative
>no more cancer
>no more pharmaceuticals
>people are well nourished
>people are healthy
>people are happy

We've been living in a twisted human CAFO being force fed indigestible plants and sugar for millennia. Humans are carnivorous. Everything you know about food is a lie.

http://justmeat.co/

>>11076379
Carbohydrates are mind control. Docile, subservient sheep, the lot of you. Start eating like a wolf and you'll think like one.

>>11076181
I answered your question OP. I expect a reply.

>>11076181
>So you're saying the cow was displacing animals endemic to that ecosystem?
No, I said it was raised on scrubland. I did not make any statements about whether or not doing so displaced any native species. You could assume either option as long as you explained yourself.

>>That makes killing the cow a net positive
Yes, you could make that assumption. Just as how you could theoretically assume that offing 10 mice is a "positive" because it could theoretically reduce the spread of disease.

>Your question was vaguely formulated and your parameters were ill defined
It was carefully worded, but nothing can stop 4chan spergs from over-analyzing things. Stop thinking so hard about someone trying to trick you and just answer the question.

>>11076420
>I answered your question OP.
What was your answer? You rambled about in >>11076181 but you made no clear reply.

Am I to take: >>That makes killing the cow a net positive.
...to mean that option B is your answer as the worse option?

>>11076764
No. 10 mice, one gopher, and two birds are completely insignificant, as is a raised dairy cow. The pesticides and fertilisers used in growing that wheat are way more relevant, as is the ecological damage of a cow grazing on scrubland displacing endemic species. I really don't know how I could make this any more clear to you, but let me try:

KILL COW = DOUBLEPLUSGOOD
KILL BIRD DOESN'T MATTER
PESTICIDES BAD
FERTILISER BAD

>>11076797
>>11076797
>really don't know how I could make this any more clear to you, but let me try:
All you have to is say "A" or "B". I worded OP so you could aswer with a single letter, yet apparently you can't figure that out.

>>11076832
Neither is bad. A is good, but B isn't bad. You posited a false dichotomy.

>>11076911
As I said above, the choices are not meant to be equal. It's a thought experiment, stop overcomplicating things and pick whichever you consider the worse choice of the two.

>>11076185
TORTURE?

>>11076983
>thought experiment
>stop overcomplicating things

You are going to fail that class at this rate, anon. The function of a thought experiment is to provoke thought. You're getting nowhere if you keep thinking within the box. I reject your false dichotomy and I have explained in detail why. There is no bad choice. There is an insignificant option and an option that may be good depending on the circumstances. Though if you expand the experiment and consider the fertiliser and pesticides used, and if letting the 10 mice etc. live prevents the entire process surrounding the growing of wheat, then we MUST let these animals live in order to stop the growing of wheat. But in >>11076135 you shot down any such concerns, so we're back at square one. You ask me to choose where there is no dilemma and the outcome of my choice is obfuscated. You have not told me wether the cow will be replaced by a new one in a circle of raising and killing, or if killing this one cow ends the raising of cows in that scrubland ad infinitum. In case the killing has no lasting effects, killing the cow is a choice with no positive or negative value. If this cow will be the last one to ever graze in that scrubland, it's death becomes an imperative and choice A, killing the cow, becomes imperative, though not because B is in any way bad. Your premise is flawed.

>>11077274
>You are going to fail that class at this rate, anon.
There's no class involved anon. I've clearly stated the purpose of my post if you'd bother to read the thread.

>>I reject your false dichotomy and I have explained in detail why
There is no dichotomy you dense blockhead.

>>There is no bad choice.
I never claimed there was, and it doesn't matter if you think both choices are great or if you think both are horrible. The point is to rank them, nothing more.

>>You ask me to choose where there is no dilemma and the outcome of my choice is obfuscated
That's right. I'm asking you to compare the value of the lives stated, nothing more.

>>You have not told me wether the cow will be replaced by a new one...
That information is not pertinent to the question.

The 'tism is high with this one.

>>11075669

>>11075681
That is retarded, morals are wholly upon the action of the ethical agent; it is dependent on the actor, who has a moral code, rather than the fucking recipient.
For an reductio ad absurdum, an infant child has no moral/ethical guidelines, and it is in fact still immoral to kill a child.
I am ashamed if you are actually from /lit/ because you are a detriment to the board

>>11075669
Not a vegan or a vegetarian, but there's going to be other animal deaths involved in killing the cow. Chances are it'll be fed at least partially on grain, which kills mice and things, and chances are the pasture it's grazed upon destroyed the habitat of other animals.

If you want to cause minimal animal death, hunting and gathering and/or eating food which would otherwise be thrown away is actually the way to go. If vegans truly cared about 'minimizing suffering' then they'd be freegan, but since there's nothing glamorous about rifling through garbage they'd much rather buy organic quinoa and avocados while bragging about how morally pure they are.

>>11075669
Maximize your deaths per meal

>>11075669
The cow since it will be quality, consistent meat and only one sentient thing had to die. But really I don't worry myself with such thinking, I've already benefited from the deaths of many thousands of animals for my food. I don't see any reason to stop.

>>11077709
You didn't read the thread. Apply yourself.

>>11078140
Another vote for B. B seems to be winning handily. This is very interesting.

>>11078178
No-one cares about your vegan-baiting unofficial poll you sperg

>>11078197
You obviously do, you took the time to reply.

>>11075669
This is a good question. I'm not a biologist but I don't think cows are any smarter than rodents, so I'd say the suffering of a cow is about equal to the suffering of one mouse.

That being said, a lot of cows live their entire lives in absolute misery, whereas the rodents in question live pretty natural and free lives (which may have its difficulties but isn't really comparable to wading through pools of shit constantly) and then die suddenly.

So I guess if we're talking about a "free range" cow that lives a decent life and then one day is suddenly shot in the back of the head, versus a rodent that lives a natural life and then one day gets chopped apart by a thresher, I'd say it's about equal.

>>11078217
Assume rapid deaths. The cow gets shot in the head, the small animals die being quickly crushed in farm machinery. We're not talking caged veal or high density feedlots here, or mice dying slowly from poison.

>>11075669
Why do carnists seem to forget that animals eat food before they get butchered? A is worse because B is also happening just to feed the cow.

>>11078239
Why do vegans seem to forget that their entire philosophy is based on NOT killing things. If your food supply causes death, then your philosophy is a failure. Fuck off and neck yourself, it's the only moral choice left for you.

>>11078295
That's a very nice example of a strawman argument, anon! My philosophy is actually based on killing fewer things and causing less death overall while still allowing for my survival as I am obvious the most important thing in the world to myself, which B accomplishes nicely in the real world. Realistically, something is always going to have to die that I may live, but I hardly see how it's unreasonable to want to minimize that number.

>>11078239
A) Cows are fed CORN, not grain.
B) Even if they were freed to just go about being cows, they'd STILL kill other animals in the process,so whether we do it or they do it is moot.
C) you don't have to keep cattle on a feedlot or in pasture. The smart thing to do is to keep them in either timber or fruit/nut orchards so you get double use of the land and free fertilizer and weed control.

Life feeds on life kid. Always has, always will. The best we can do is to make their lives less painful and the end swift and relatively painless.

Do you think cows just feed on grass? Do you think even grass fed cows just feed on grass?

>>11078317
you have an eating disorder. Anorexics make excuses for their behavior too.

Killing the cow is worse. Cows are okay. Vermin are vermin.

>>11078474
So did fags who love slurping on meat

>>11078317
>Realistically, something is always going to have to die
fuck yeah dude. So you might as well have some BACON

>>11078440
A is irrelevant since while the numbers will change, the overall question and point remains the same. B is also supporting the fact that killing cows is worse since there's no way to minimize death with theam in the equation. C is a valid point, and I would at least seriously consider supporting meat that was raised ethically, but that constitutes only a very small percentage of meat produced and enough people care about price over quality that it doesn't matter what I support either way.

Also, see >>11078317 Yes, I know that things will need to die so I can live, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want to limit the number of death. For example, if I was about to eat and someone was throwing out meat in front of me, I would find it more ethical to eat the meat since it means I will not have to eat later and would result in less death overall. In the same vein, I actually do support hunting and fishing since the land saved and money raised for those uses makes up for the animals killed in the long run until people see the value of conservation for its own sake. [pretendspoiler]The dentist did nothing wrong.[/spoiler] I admit my views certainly don't represent all vegans/vegetarians.

>>11078239

>>11077638
A child has the potential to become a moral agent. If you kill a child you also kill the adult the child will become. Therefore, killing a child is immoral. Animals don't have this potential and killing them therefore has no moral consequences other than those linked to their instrumentality.

>>11077579
>That information is not pertinent to the question.

It IS pertinent to the question, as it decides the morality of killing the cow. If a new cow will replace the one you just killed, the net value remains zero. The morality of killing of the mice et al. has already been established at zero. How am I supposed to rank two outcomes with zero value?

The only method of ranking would be subjective. 500 kg of whole wheat has 1,700,000 calories and 500 kg of beef has 1,660,000. If you look at calories alone, the wheat would come out on top. If you look at protein, the wheat has only 66 kg, while the beef has 70 kg. You can compare the two ad infinitum without coming to a conclusion which one is better to harvest.

In conclusion, I reject your premise. I rank them equally because any value given to my decision is arbitrary.

The enviromental impact might be worth considering. Not just the actual slaughtering.

>>11079587
Is jerking off inmoral according to your retarded "potential" based moral system then?

>>11079664
OP refuses to establish wether we're talking about a single cow that is never replaced, or a continuous practice of raising cows. He also refuses to accept any environmental impact of growing wheat into his premise.

>>11079679
No, because sex would be imooral as well then, because only one of all those sperms will fuse with the egg. Hell, not jerking off would be just as bad, as sperm production is a continuous process and sperm that doesn't get ejaculated is reabsorbed by the body and new sperm is produced. The moral value of jerking off is therefore zero.

>>11075669
Theres two many other variables, a major one of which is your own sense of morality

>>11079642
>How am I supposed to rank two outcomes with zero value?
By getting your head out of your ass and making a simple judgement instead of over-thinking things.

>>The only method of ranking would be subjective
Correct, it's supposed to be. I would'nt be asking for opinions if it was a cut-and-dried utility problem.

>> I rank them equally because any value given to my decision is arbitrary.
Why does the latter imply the former?

>>11079681
Read the thread foolio. I stated clearly you're simply supposed to weigh the lives of the animals stated, nothing more. Don't read more into the question than is stated.
I also made it clear that the cow in question was free-ranged on scrubland that is useless for raising crops.

>>He also refuses to accept any environmental impact of growing wheat into his premise.
That's a question for later. We haven't gotten that far yet. Patience, spergie.

>>11080023
Your own sense of morality is the only variable I am asking you about.

>>11080500
You wanted a thought experiment yet you accuse me of overthinking. I choose A = B. They are exactly equal because their value is 0. A = 0. B = 0. 0 = 0. A = B.

>>11080581
>I choose A = B
That's not allowed. You must choose one.

The thought experiment lies in your mind: what do you use to choose when you are forced to make decision.

>>their value is zero
Is this some edgy nihilist shit?

https://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-post/Vegan-Mythbusting-1-Are-wild-animals-killed-when-grain-is-harvested-for-vegans

>>11080606
What does your silly post have to do with the question at hand? It's a contrived question, it's not meant to be accurate.

Your post did a great job explaining how a specific paper had questionable methodology. that's nice. The problem is that it didn't do or say anything else.

What do vegans think about pic related, for example? I mean, you can't really come up with a more obvious example of animals being killed for farming crops. I mean, this is a straight-up murder machine. I wonder why veganboy didn't discuss this, hmm?

>>11080622
Did you actually read the article and what the questioning of the paper had to do with? Or did you just expect no one else would it read it and take your retarded attempt at a zinger seriously?

>>11075669
Vegans never think about how many animals die from harvesting, plowing, and storing the shit they eat.

I'm not a big fan of beef so I'd rather b happen more often. Though I would shoot a pig in the face just for it's ham and bacon.

>>11080819
I did read it. It talked about one study that came up with an inaccurate estimate of how many animals died during farming. It explained the inaccurate assumptions made by that article. The whole article focused on how that one specific article was wrong.

It did not, however, address the issue as a whole. There were many obvious things it left out. For example, it did not discuss the impacts of:
-farmers gassing gophers (pic from >>11080622
related).
-fertilizer runoffs causing fish kills.
-animals having their habitats displaced when land is cleared for a field.
-vermin being poisoned and trapped in order to maintain the safety of crop storage facilities
...and so on.

The article seemed intent on refuting one specific point from a flawed paper yet utterly disregarded a variety of other issues. It's the glaring omissions that are the problem.

>>11075669
I don't care about that. I only make sure to do my best to not support countries and regions that are overpopulated. Something will have to get done this century about that.

I choose both to make beef sandwiches

>>11080949
Lead by example, neck yourself.

>>11080606
>an article on a vegan propaganda site dismantling a peer reviewed and published literature study

>>11080594
I already explained to you how the moral value of the killing of animals in a way that does not impact the environment is 0. I cannot choose as there are no objective differences to base my choice on. It's like asking me if I want a glass of water served in a glass with horizontal or vertical stripes. It's nonsensical.

>>11080869
Its not utterly disregarding anything. It’s discussing a general topic of harvesting. It’s not disregarding the innate byproduct of death when it comes to making food.

>>11081402
>it dismantles the argument therefore its not valid

>>11079587
Do retarded people have such potential?

>>11081416
>I cannot choose as there are no objective differences to

Try making a decision based on non-objective differences then, spergie.

>>11081465
Someone needs to bag my groceries, and not very many dogs can do that.

>>11081445
>It’s discussing a general topic of harvesting.
No, it's not.
It's wholly focused on refuting one specific aspect of one specfic flawed study. It ignores everything else.

>>11081416
>It's like asking me if I want a glass of water served in a glass with horizontal or vertical stripes. It's nonsensical.

Why does it being "nonsensical" stop you from answering? Is your brain broken?

I vote for vertical stripes, I like those better. What about you?

>>11081766
because he's some kind of spizzerg, anon. he's just as broken in the head as vegans

>>11081721
>>11081766
The question was: "Which is worse: a) Killing a cow (...) Or b) Killing 10 mice (...)"

How can I choose? Flip a fucking coin? I may have made an arbitrary choice then, but I have not answered OP's question. Neither is worse than the other.

>>11075681
>he thinks being from /lit/ gives him credibility

>>11081949
>How can I choose?
You tell us.
Maybe you like Mickey Mouse so you'd rather the cow die. Maybe those Chick-Fil-A commercials with the cows make you laugh so you'd rather kill the mice. Make a subjective decision.

>>11075669
probably the cow. The cow has to eat grain too, which means that you still end up killing the mice/birds to get the food to feed the cow. Also, it will be far more than 500 lbs of wheat to get to a 500lb cow- more like 5000 as the cow will poop most of that weight out. So times the dead forest critters by 10.

tl;dr- cow eats grain, we have to kill forest critters for grain. Cow eats far more grain than cow makes meat, so the total death is far greater than 500 lbs of grain,.

>>11082001
So are you saying we should kill the cow? Or that raising cows for beef is worse than farming wheat, because that wasn't the question.

>>11081983
I don't care. I can't think of any reason I'd prefer one over the other other than inane bullshit I'd have to make up just to make a choice that doesn't address the fundamental question. Answering A or B conveys no useful information. My choice remains "neither, both, I don't care."

>>11075681
Pseudo intellectuals are the worst kind of people

>>11082082
>I don't care
Sure you do. You keep replying.

>>I can't think of any reason I'd prefer one over the other other than inane bullshit
Then answer due to inane bullshit.

>>Answering A or B conveys no useful information
Nonsense. Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean nothing useful is being conveyed. You just can't or won't realize this due to your 'tism and digging your heels in harder and harder.

Killing 100 mice to harvest plants to feed a cow to kill for 500lbs of corpse.

>2018
>there are still morons who think that they kill less animals when they choose to eat animals

meat is good and good for you.

>>11082386
No it isn’t

>>11082393
it is.

>>11082403
Is not

>>11082407
it is.

>>11082419
no it ain’t

>>11082422
it is.

>>11082384
>but it kills more animals
If beans kill less animals than cous cous, aren't you morally obligated to never eat cous cous again? Why not subsist on a diet of medieval barley and rye with 0 pest control measures? Then you'd kill even less.

If being vegan makes you morally superior because you "don't kill animals", logically this extends to everything else, from the animals that die after being displaced from their habitat by mining and industry to power your home and manufacture your goods to the various rodents splattered by trucks headed to your local whole foods market, yet I only see vegans scolding people for eating meat. That is obviously not your motivation.

>>11082567
>but if not murdering is moral and helping people is moral, why don't you give all your possessions and toil 24/7 to support orphans?
>not-murderers are such hypocrites

>>11082362
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I don't care about the animals in question. If you ask me which is wrong in what is obviously a morally loaded question and I can't discern between the options on moral grounds, what value would giving A or B as an answer have? OP explicitly excluded any context I might use to form a decision from the dilemma and provided no compelling argument as to why I should answer A or B.

It's not that I don't understand what you want from me. But why should I amuse you? The more you insult me and the more you badger me, the less less I am inclined to do so. Either convince me or shove your dumb-ass question up your ass.

>>11079587
>If you kill a child you also kill the adult the child will become
Do you have brain damage? You have no idea what adult the child will become. You aren't basing your decision whether or not to kill it based on an uncertain future. The child could grow up to be a serial killer. The child could cure cancer. The child could get lobotomized before even becoming a moral agent.
It is the same for animals. For another ad absurdum, say an animal you kill would've undergone scientific testing to become fully sapient. Congratulations, you are a murderer by your definition despite having no possible way of distinguishing this animal from any other nonmuderable animal.
I cannot believe you are /lit/ in any way, because I really expect better from them

>>11075669

If you want to make that argument, the cow is far from the only animal killed in order to raise and slaughter it.

>>11081971
>>11075681
That what happen when your only social life is electronically lol. They forget the real world is not a meme.

>>11075681

You're just cross-boarding so you can post about morals without getting Stirner'd on, and I'm not about to let you get away with it, my property.

>>11082724
I'm not the /lit/ guy. Yes, it could be the next Fred Rogers or the next Ted Bundy. Even a serial killer is a moral agent. One that must be punished accordingly. None of this changes the fact that a child has the potential to become a moral agent and the fact we can't predict what kind of adult they will become is precisely why killing a child is not permissable. You should stop seeing time as a point and try to view it as a continuous line. What you do to a person at one point in time you also do to that same person further down the line. The fact that our senses can only perceive time as a dimensionless point does not mean our brains can't conceptualise time as a dimension. What else are the future and past? Time being one-dimensional means that what has happened and what will happen are already real at this point in time, we simply cannot perceive it yet.

An animal does not have any potential. It will always be a dumb animal. Your "say an animal you kill would've undergone scientific testing to become fully sapient" is pure fantasy. Even if it was possible to elevate an animal mentally to the level of a human and making them into a moral agent, this does not affect the ground state of all animals. The only way an animal could then become a moral agent is through human action. This is not a potential an animal has, but a deliberate action undertaken by a human. An animal destined for slaughter would not get selected for this procedure and therefore in no point in time will be a moral agent. Killing it is thus permissable.

>>11082724
I'm not the /lit/ guy. Yes, it could be the next Fred Rogers or the next Ted Bundy. Even a serial killer is a moral agent. One that must be punished accordingly. None of this changes the fact that a child has the potential to become a moral agent and the fact we can't predict what kind of adult they will become is precisely why killing a child is a morally loaded action. You should stop seeing time as a point and try to view it as a continuous line. What you do to a person at one point in time you also do to that same person further down the line. The fact that our senses can only perceive time as a dimensionless point does not mean our brains can't conceptualise time as a dimension. What else are the future and past? Time being one-dimensional means that what has happened and what will happen are already real at this point in time, we simply cannot perceive them yet.

An animal does not have any potential to become a moral agent. It will always be a dumb animal. Your scenario of "Say an animal you kill would've undergone scientific testing to become fully sapient" is pure fantasy. And even if it was possible to elevate an animal mentally to the level of a human and make them into a moral agent, this does not affect the ground state of all animals. The only way an animal could then become a moral agent is through human action. This is not a potential an animal has, but a deliberate action undertaken by a human. An animal destined for slaughter would not get selected for this procedure. Therefore, in no point in time will such an animal be a moral agent. Killing it is thus not a morally loaded action.

>>11079587
So is it also immoral to kill or torture a retarded child who will never become a moral agent, or an elderly person with dementia, or a person with permanent drug-induced psychosis, both of whom will never again be moral agents? By your metric, yes, which is what makes your standard retarded. By your standard, an infant with a terminal illness is the same, because they too will never become moral agents either.

>>11082871
Humanity was never a solitary species. Forming groups was vital to our society. Morality is simply a system that allows societies to function without devolving into chaos and destroying itself.

Amoralism paradoxically does not preclude morality. A society in which unions of egoists only cooperate when it suits their self-interest will eventually develop morality. Memes like chastity and degeneracy, murder and justice do not originate in a vacuum. They were developed and refined through a process of memetic evolution.

What Stirner did get right, is that morality should never become an idee-fixe. When society evolves, morality should evolve with it.

The very thought that killing animals is bad is a spook. If it serves my hedonistic interest to consume meat, who can tell me I am acting against my own self-interest? My country is one of the biggest exporters of vegetables and dairy in the world, I fear no starvation when the climate changes. The countries that will be most affected by the environmental impact of my meat consumption are 3rd world countries that lack the military might to force me to take their interest into consideration. Are these brown masses then not my property, as are the animals I consume?

>>11084318
Performing acts of torture not only harms the victim, but also the perpetrator. Unless the perpetrator is a sociopath, in which case they aren't a moral agent themself.

You are also ignoring the moral agents (parents, children, loved ones) that will be indirectly affected by these actions. With their consent it would be permissable to euthanise the mentally retarded, the demented, psychotic, and the terminally ill child. The person being euthanised in this case have no intrinsic morality, only the extrinsic morality afforded to them by those affected by their fate.

>>11084318
Performing acts of torture not only harms the victim, but also the perpetrator. Unless the perpetrator is a sociopath, in which case they aren't a moral agent themself.

You are also ignoring the moral agents (parents, children, loved ones) that will be indirectly affected by these actions. With their consent it would be permissable to euthanise the mentally retarded, the demented, the psychotic, and the terminally ill child. The persons being euthanised in this case have no intrinsic morality, only the extrinsic morality afforded to them by those affected by their fate.

>>11084352
The anon replying to me said that animals had no potential to become moral agents, and because of that killing them has no moral consequences outside their instrumentality. That post's argument can be broken down to be:
>it is okay to kill things that can never be moral agents
>animals can never be moral agents
>therefor, it is okay to kill animals
That falls apart when other examples of things that are not animals, but are otherwise still unable to ever become moral agents, are brought up. If you think it's stupid then we're in agreement and I've done my job in showing the faulty reasoning.

>>11084384
That's not the argument. The argument is killing animals is an action with no moral value, because animals are not and never will be moral agents. A child has the potential to become a moral agent. The other examples may not have that potential, but they have moral agents that are affected by their death. These moral agents are the only ones capable of making that decision. It's the same reason killing someone's pet is an action with moral value.

>>11082710
>what value would giving A or B as an answer have?
It satisfies my curiosity.
Not everything in life has to have an objectively measured "value", spergie.

>>But why should I amuse you?
You seem to be on a public discussion forum. What's the point of being on such a forum if you don't want to talk with others?

>>The more you insult me and the more you badger me
Where do you think I insulted you? That was not my intention.

Badger? Yes. Because you seem to be making this far more complicated than it really is. Just pick one.

>>Either convince me or shove your dumb-ass question up your ass.
If you think the premise of the thread is silly then why are you replying to instead of hiding the thread and going on with your life?

>>11085431
>Where do you think I insulted you? That was not my intention.
>spergie

>If you think the premise of the thread is silly then why are you replying to instead of hiding the thread and going on with your life?
Because I'm enjoying myself. Still not going to answer your question. :)

I assume this is a test. My winning move is to state that I don't really care about the suffering of animals, so long as it doesn't affect the negatively impact of my food.

>>11081742
I have a cat who might be suitable

>>11084245
>You should stop seeing time as a point and try to view it as a continuous line
Not to get too far into it, but time itself is a series of vaguely intertwined moments; a single Now that is invalidated by the next Now (see: Parmenides, Hegel). The future state has no weight on the action itself, especially in this case of potentials; you have no idea whether this thing in front of you will be a "moral agent" in the future, it is a complete unknown and therefore this unknown shouldn't dictate what you do in the present or else your entire moral philosophy has a foundation of sand wherein it is possible to retroactively commit an immoral act against your own knowledge due to some achieved future state. It's lunacy; illogical.
>And even if it was possible to elevate an animal mentally to the level of a human and make them into a moral agent, this does not affect the ground state of all animals
Yes it does. If your only argument against killing an infant is some unrealized, moral potentiality, then in this scenario all animals suddenly have the potentiality to become a moral agent.
>is pure fantasy.
yeah that's what a redutico ad absurdum is; it reduces the argument to a point to demonstrate its inanity.
>The only way an animal could then become a moral agent is through human action.
The only way for a human to become a moral agent is through human action as well. This invalidates nothing.
>An animal destined for slaughter would not get selected for this procedure
No, the potential is still there.
>Killing it is thus not a morally loaded action.
It is a morally loaded action because it is the responsibility of the actor to uphold a moral code, not the recipient. If you are against killing for whatever reason, the suffering of sentient life, ect. then killing an animal is certainly morally wrong because an animal can feel suffering and can be killed. Beating a puppy to death is a moral wrong because our current overarching moral code punishes cruelty.
Read Kant