this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
583 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
58142 readers
4336 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As much as I love animals (more than most people I meet), as a species we must value human life over animal life to some extent. Suffering for corporate exploitation? No, that's cruel and evil. Minimal suffering in an organism to save a human life? I wish there was a way to keep it from being sentient (so no suffering is felt), but I believe it's a fair trade for a human life. But yes, we must always strive to minimize the suffering we cause.
Are you vegan?
Edit: ahh the sweet sweet cognitive dissonance lol
I'm not vegan, though I do recognize the issues. I have reduced my meat intake, but I'm not at zero. I'm perfectly aware I'm a hypocrite, but it doesn't make the claim above (which I agree with but did not author) any less accurate.
So what is true of the pig that if it was also true of the human would make it morally okay to kill the human for their organs?
this is the"name the trait" line of argument and it suffers from the line-drawing fallacy.
So you can't answer the question, got it.
there are many stops on the spectrum from pig to human, and an inability to draw a specific distinguishing line doesn't change the fact that there is a big difference between humans and pigs.
And whats that?
there's a whole spectrum full of differences. I don't think I can explain the to someone who is ideologically opposed to learning.
It's mostly about how cruely we treat food animals normally that I have an issue with. Hunting, for example, I view as a morally acceptable method to get meat. It's natural and the animal is living a life as a natural animal should. If the pig isn't raised cruely, I think raising them to help a person live a life is a moral good. That person took a lot of resources to get where they are, and they have the potential to do a lot of good. The pig did not take nearly as many resources to raise and does not have much, if any, capacity to do good besides by dying. Whether they should exist at all is the real question, and I'd say probably yes, again if it isn't cruel.
Is your answer to my previous question "Potential to do good"?
If a human person was sufficiently mentally disabled to have as much or less potential to do good as the pig, would it then be morally ok to kill that person and harvest their organs?
don't compare the mentally disabled to animals
humans are animals
comparisons don't have to go along the value axis. Saying "mentally disabled people own more clothes than non-human animals" would be an example.
Go virtue signal somewhere else pls.
IRONY
you're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole
Yeah, probably, or at least similarly equally moral. For example if they're born without a brain, which does happen, they don't meet the definition most people use for personhood. I don't see what the difference would be other than they have human DNA and look similar to us, but why should that matter?
The hypothetical wasn't about someone without a brain, just someone with as much or less potential to do good as a pig. They could still lead a happy life, having fun, enjoy being alive, etc. Is it morally ok to kill them and harvest their organs?
Potentially, sure. Somewhere along the line of literally no brain and a fully developed average person there's a point where you will decide it's too far. That point is going to be different for everyone.
Do you think a fully developed capable person capable of doing good and helping people is as valuable as every human along that line? Is there no point for you where you think sacrificing one person who can't do as much to save a doctor who will go on to save thousands?
I definitely don't value humans enough to use an animal as an incubator for a heart. It's cruel and extremely unethical. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise that animals don't also deserve life just the same as humans.
All animals under all circumstances?
If I'm driving down the road, and a squirrel runs out of nowhere, and I can either hit it or jerk the wheel and fly off the road, I risk that my car will save me, because it will for sure kill the squirrel?
What if you have a child born with a heart issue that will kill it, and there is an option to euthanize a pig that will likely save your child child life, you would let your child die in lieu of the pig?
Yea, I'ma call bullshit on that one. It's good that you value the lives of all creatures, and you think that you value them equally to humans, but you're lying to yourself.
Honestly that's kinda the problem I have with a lot of animal activities you have some that try their best like sheltering stray cats and dogs then you have pita activists that seem to think we must kill humans to make way for our animal overlords
You can say whatever you want. I never said it was a popular opinion. Every single time it comes up people say the same things, make the same arguments.
I know it's hard to believe, but not everyone shares your belief system.
So you're saying you'd sacrifice your vehicle and life for a squirrel in the road?
I've slammed on my brakes before to avoid hitting an animal. What's so controversial about that?
In this hypothetical situation, you don't have enough time to stop. 65 mph down the hwy, 30 yards in front of you. One of you has to go. Who's it gonna be?
Or we can go back to the other example... You would let your child suffer and die from a heart condition instead of giving them a chance to survive, and all that's needed is the life of a single pig. Keep in mind, pigs live about 15-20 and people live generally 65+ years. So point blank, would you trade your kid's life for that of a pig's?
Can't wait to see their answer!
I'm not gonna engage in dumb hypothetical with strangers on the internet.
Lol. You're so fucking delusional. You've been engaging up until I asked for a point blank answer. You'd either have to lie and continue to look like the idiot you are, or you'd have to admit you were mistaken in your beliefs.
Or, alternatively, I know it's hard to believe, but this is devolved into people calling me a moron, and I have better things to do with my time.
There you go engaging again.
"How dare you make a valid argument, I'm just going to end the conversation instead of giving any sort of reasonable ground at all. I'm either right or just engaging in a stupid conversation!"
That's good for your beliefs, but a useless argument for anyone who eats meat. Raising and slaughtering a pig to provide a human a heart is even more useful than raising one for its meat, and chances are that the one raised for its heart was taken much better care of before being killed.
This only really tracks if you're vegan, which you may be. But if we slaughter a million pigs for meat is that really any different? We already incubate them for bacon, are you really so against this that you'd let a family member die than slaughter a pig for its heart?
Even as a vegan, it’s pretty up in the air imo. It’s well established that if your life saving medication contains animal products, you take the medication. This is more complicated for sure, but an argument can probably be made. I’m not sure what I feel about it.
He's not that against it. He's just posturing online. Very few people, maybe 0.1%, would choose a pig's life over their grandmother's. (No I don't care if your grandma was a dick. Pick another beloved family member or friend.)