How sentient must an organism be for it to be wrong to kill for food

My fault for being vague it was meant more as a question of morals and less of sociology, but I wasn't very specific.

Not at all. First off, animals aren't humans. That's why we're talking about human rights and human exceptionalism ever since the fucking Bible until the mid 20th century when animalcucks suddenly emerged. So you literally cannot murder an animal, you can only murder a human.

you literally can murder an animal though
i'm not that guy, just pointing out your illogical argument
animals aren't humans, but humans are animals

Again I never said killing an animal was murder. In fact I don't think killing any animal besides humans is murder.

This doesn't change the fact that your argument in your original post failed to differentiate people from animals. As far as a food supply people are on the same level as slightly posionous animals in your argument.

Why asume that killing for food is wrong or right depending on that other than muh feelings? Are plants less important to the planet?

You don't actually care. Killing and death do not bother you. Stepping on a flower doesn't keep you up at night, it's not a big deal. But some of those animals yawn. They stretch. They can be playful. Like you. And they're going to die like the flower. Like you.

Better eat the flower.

Well in all fairness to him is that often colloquial definitions of animals dont include people.

Obviously people are organisms that belong to the the Animal Kingdom, but it is also true that humans have unique characteristics that no other knowm organism shows.

>differentiate humans from animals
Well we cannot mate with them (although I'm sure your ancestors tried), therefore they aren't us. That's the distinction.

I mean that is kinda the point of my question. It is to think why certain organisms can be grouped as OK to kill and others as not OK.
This is kinda missing the point of the question. Yes I understand the point you are making but it is obvious and trivial.

>takes human exceptionalism seriously

Either you don't understand what I said or you choose not because you find it funny, but I will try explaining my point one more time.
This argument
>Fucking nothing. If your body can process it, it isn't toxic and it doesn't turn your nerve system into mush (like cannibalism), then it's okay to eat it.

Basically lumps humans as the same thing as animals by saying theit value as a food source depends entirely on their effects on your health.

Humans really are unique among all organisms. I mean we are still animals but we are an extremely interesting specimen. Kinda like sea bears.

I guess if we could digest human meat without any side effects it would be fine to consume it, but we can't, therefore it isn't.

Now this leads to an intersting dilemma. Does that train of thought make it ok to kill someone for something that you can use to make use self healthy. I mean to say is it ok to kill someone because you want one of their kidneys.

My answer then would be that isn't objective to say that the life of animals has a greater value than that vegetables when it comes to food.

You almost baited me of advocating the NAP, good job.

>Is killing wrong because sentience is important?

>Killing isn't important, it's not about sentience. You're missing the point.

I would agree that animals have more of right to life, but the question is why. Is it because a lot of them can feel pain. Or is it because some animals begin to mirror our own cognitive abilities and we parts of oversell especially in them. Or is it because animals have an instant to survive(but plants have that ass well.

Personally the best argument I have for plants being better too eat is two parts. One many plants can eaten without murdering the organism. Two some plants "want" to be eaten as it is part of their life cycle.

How do you even make a connection between the two you stupid fuck? If a spider was sentient it would be wrong to kill spiders? Does that actually make any sense in your head? Might as well argue it's morally wrong to kill animals with red striped limbs, it's just as random of a thought.

it varies,

I'd draw the line at humans for the most part.

In a case of apocalypse and clear death from starvation however, I'd cross that line.

You said nothing of sentience you said you it's wrong because they remind of ourselves. Many human traits have nothing to so with sentience

No, I wasn't. I more trying to say that effect it has on your health is not enough to make a proper moral judgement.

I don't advocate killing people for their kidneys.

I mean sentience is a spectrum. If a spider had equal awareness and intelligence to a human I would believe it is just as immoral to kill.

But you are right that in the end all morals are arbitrary.

In the end it depends on the culture and the feelings of each person, For some it is not taboo to eat dogs, while for most it is reprehensible, Anglos are horrified at the idea of eating horses, while it is normal for others. In the end the idea of considering the characteristics of animals as an impediment to eating them, but to maintain that it is good for plants isn't that different. And agriculture kills many animals to sustain its existence anyway.

If it is immoral to cause pain, we can still minimize pain in the slaughtering process. If it is immoral to kill, one must provide a reason to why animal life is superior to plant life in that regard. Personally, I think we should just wait until animals are old or sick and then euthanize and process them into meat. It would mean a drop in quality and supply, but it would be free of cruelty. But really, morality is much less important than the need for food, I can stomach guilt, but not hunger.

>Human traits.
>Not sentient.

Keep going. I want to see how far you can take this level of retardation.

All very true and I think that those are all practical considerations. I have this a couple times I am not advocating vegetarianism. I guess I am more looking to see what it's main morall logic is.

Are you arguing that every human characteristic relates to our sentience.

To adress the first part of your response. I have one question is the pain of fish the same pain you feel or a cow feels or a alligator. Does this matter. Is it just the processes of pain receptors that matters, but what if there isn't a brain complex enough to process the pain. What if the pain is related purely to reflex.

Are you arguing that every non-sentient characteristic is human?

Its an issue of sensation and awareness. All pain feels the same, but not all brains can contextualize it the way we can. I would say the sensation doesn't matter since an isolated nerve bundle has no moral weight. So in order to suffer, the being in question must have the capacity to be aware of its suffering. A roach can react, but it doesn't know anything. A dog knows things.

No

Ahhh I agree completely and this where the haze enters at what point does that moral really come into effect that is the question. I mean,obviously there are many points you could choose.

>Aware
>Know
>Suffer
>React
KEK. Holy shit nigger who broke you? Do you need a hug?

What are you even getting at.

If you need to kill something to stay alive, you need to kill something to stay alive.

There's no moral highground there.

I mean you kinda just made one. Killing for survival is good. Also I am not trying to pass judgement I just want to know whathat people's arguments are.

Well I guess you can eat me, 'cause I'm not aware of what you mean by this post.

Sure, but being interesting doesn't grant you any universal value, you're just a gimmick

Well I mean universe value isn't real. Their only the value that assigned byou organism. Considering that we currently have a monopoly on complex thought it stands to reason that any value system should favor the ones who create it. ( very debatable though)

I used to think killing chimps and dolphins and such was horrible, but chimps are cunts so I don't really care about that any more, killing dolphins still strike me as a dick move because of all the stories of dolphins actually helping people who would otherwise have drowned, then again that could have been a popularized myth and dolphins could all be cave rapists like the memes say, I haven't actually done any research on the subject.

Think most people just find it distateful to kill something that seems intelligent enough that you could relate to it, eating it even more so. Don't think there's inherently anything wrong about it.

Well then I ask,why not kill and eat people

Why is killing an issue? The only things that don't kill to survive are organisms that synthesize energy. Those tend to be micro-organisms and plants, food for organisms that kill. Why are you asking such a broad, borderline insane, question?

Killing and eating just works. Evolution is that simple.

Prions disease, humans are the apex predator, not worth the energy, the most dangerous game, intelligence. Hunting a human is suicide.

Prions are a bitch.

Also, as social animals, we're poorly served with having to worry about getting eaten by each other, violent competition for resources and mates is bad enough.

Sapience (self-awareness) is the best place to draw the line. Which basically equates to this .

Great apes, most whales and dolphins, and elephants are all more intelligent than infants and toddlers that are afforded human rights, so it's pretty cruel to hunt them. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if we see attempts to "uplift" some of these animals sometime this century.

Note that sapience is different than sentience, even though the terms are often used interchangeably. Sentience is the ability to sense, sapience is being intelligent enough to conceive of yourself as an individual that is distinct from its environment. A person, if you will.

>Or is it something else

It's merely a matter of taste, user.

This, eating creatures that know they are an individual strikes me as wrong

Juste because it works doesn't mean it's morally ok, nor does it mean that it's the most practical/ecological way to go

>humans have souls and eternal life
>animals don't have souls

>humans are aware of their own existence
>animals are not self-aware

>humans are made in God's image
>animals are not made in God's image

>humans are made to dominate the earth
>animals are made for mankind

Vegans are retarded.

This & This

lol

U need to stop basing your life and beliefs on a bunch of stupid scriptures written by beta LARPers thousands of years ago

>Beta larpers thousands of years ago

Nice argument, truly timeless. Better start building a pyramid and scribing your post into stone, your ageless wisdom will fascinate men into the ages.

Humans are the same thing as animals. Deal with it, bitch.

>muh goooooooooddd

or just carve a shitpost into a wall near a volcano and hope it goes off like Vesuvius 79AD

it's not hard to be "timeless" you just have to be lucky (or unlucky as were the people of pompeii and herculaneum and the future people of napoli)

quick user, better catch a flight to italy! or just pray to god more

Well what this user was saying (dunno if it's you) really had nothing to do with wisdom, more like dogmatic/unfounded beliefs (i mean who the fuck can say if animals are not self-aware). I maintain the OT and NT and basically any religions text of this kind were written by people who had no Idea wtf was happening around them and made up stories because they could not explain life using logic. I'm not saying i can or that i'm wise, i'm just saying maybe people should try putting things into perspective before saying "muh gerd in da berks"

>random graffiti
>scripture read and studied by hundreds of millions for thousands of years.

I wonder which of these most accurately describes you.

>explain life using logic.
Inanimate, lifeless matter uses predetermined physical laws and randomly animates itself into living matter that becomes sentient and theorizes a destiny for a random existence obeying physical laws to become non existent.

we have been thought that its wrong to kill so we dont slaughter each other at every wrong doing
fucking idiot

There is nothing inherently wrong in killing anything. Consequences of the kill are the thing to take in consideration.

The fact that it is old and that a lot of people have studied it doesn't make it more legit (you could as well follow other scriptures from other cultures that follow other beliefs, so which one is the right one ? In which of all these books should we seek truth without making an arbitrary choice ?) Then again I never said we can explain life using logic, just that MAYBE following random beliefs because it appeals to you or because your parents had those beliefs might not ne the smartest thing to do.

Fair question is somewhat poorly worded So morally nothing would be wrong with doing it once since chancesnofninf3ction are small

You make a good point and I would be inclined to agree , but I would like to see the reasoning why self awareness is your limits

did he died?

Eating plants is less morally wrong because we can't emphasize with them.

Octopus

Problem solving skills.

ANY DEGREE OF SENTIENCE IS A QUALIFIER FOR INEDIBILITY.

>just because it works doesn't mean it works
Are you fucking brainslurped? Does the wolf question morality as it slaughters the deer? To call life impractical, an utter disgrace. You're wasting time with the philosophy when the science tells the full story.

...

gr 15

>humans are animals
>killing humans is literally murder
>killing animals can be categorized as murder
Check and mate faggot

What I'm saying is that the fact that you can eat meat doesn't mean you should eat it. You can drink your own piss, I doubt you really should. You cannot compare wolves to humans. Wolves eat meat because that's pretty much all their organism can digest, and they also act as regulators for biodiversity. Humans don't need to eat meat, they don't need to regulate biodiversity (except when they fuck it up in the first place by killing all wolves for no reason) and the exploitation of animals for the production of meat (which has nothing to do with regulating biodiversity) is a catastrophy for the environnement. That's what science also tells aside from "yes eating meat is possible for humans (though you mat have a chance of having cancer)"

>My fault for being vague
You weren't vague, i instantly knew what you meant. Everyone is just being obtuse because they like to argue about nonsense as winning petty arguments gives them a sense of accomplishment. So you immediately have a guy talking about how everything is arbitrary when the question was actually pretty straight forward.

Now for me personally i think that onxe an animal has a language that can be translated 1:1 and is used to dialogue, conversate and describe abstract concepts it should be off the menu.

Altgough I would also say that killing animals is murder, this is really stupid.

>this is really stupid.
And yet 100% technically right.
The best kind of right.

It's generally accepted that farming or hunting other human beings for food is barbaric.

While not human, these other animals display the core aspect of human intelligence (self-awareness).

We give children and the mentally handicapped the same rights as other people, so it makes sense to do the same for animals that are self aware and have similar intelligence.

Now, there is certainly an argument that eating other relatively intelligent but not self-aware animals (dogs, pigs) is cruel too, but it's difficult to draw a line at how intelligent they have to be to deserve that status.

For example, in the western world dogs are off limits but pigs are fine, even though they're both much smarter than cattle and poultry.

Capacity for suffering, in the sense that they can experience it (unlike most plants and for example mussels)

Technically 100% stupid. All humans are animals, but not all animals are humans, and a rule that applies to humans doesn't necessary apply to all animals. It would be like saying that because humans are animals, and humans know how to write, animals can write.

>Prions disease,
That just is a problem when eating human brains. Eat everything but the brain then.

1st world problem

>animals can write.
But that's also technically true.

>wrong to kill

It's probably wrong to eat any animals, future generations will see our custom of devouring flesh as grotesque and barbaric.

If what you are meaning by that is that as humans are animals the fact of killing an animal can be considered as murder un the case of the animal being a human, ok it is true, but still as stupid. You are not proving anything.

God this meme has to stop, just use your brain already and don't use Stirner as an excuse for your lazyness and lack of braincells.

I don't agree with everything Stirner says and I used his picture mainly for humor. I do agree with him on ethics though.

>men are human
>men fucking men is literally gay
>fucking humans can be categorized as gay

We're all faggots here according to your backwards logic, faggot.

Why would sentience change anything ? If you need to eat then you hunt whatever animal you can find, there's nothing wrong with that it's just the way life works.

not that user but could be more of a miserable cuntrag ?
buy a personality kid jeez