Would it be morally acceptable to eat an alien?

[souljacker]

I can't imagine a beast that had the intelligence to make it all the way across the stars would allow itself to be eaten by us. If, however, we stumbled on a planet packed full of bacon flavoured scotch egg laying beasties then we should mine that resource until extinction.

 

[Orang Utan]

In the book I read, aliens are eating humans but doing it clandestinely, so no-one knows about them. They hunt them using a kind of lure and farm them til they are acceptably meaty, before shipping them out to sell them expensively to upper class aliens. We are like foie gras to them.

 

[xes]

In the book I read, aliens are eating humans but doing it clandestinely, so no-one knows about them. They hunt them using a kind of lure and farm them til they are acceptably meaty, before shipping them out to sell them expensively to upper class aliens. We are like foie gras to them.

fact based novels are fun (Dulce Base CTs ect ect)

 

[8ball]

Would you eat a human who through some genetic defect had exactly the same mental and emotional capacity as a cow?

It would depend on how big the genetic defect was. Though for various cultural and squeamishness reasons I think I'd want to err on the side of the entire genome being identical to that of a cow.

(It's a good question, that one)

 

[Clair De Lune]

Oh gosh no. But I might turn a blind eye to the slaughter of it's less useful offspring in order to drink it's delicious titty juice.

 

[8ball]

even with a broadly and amazingly co-incidental similarity in life form the thing would be so alien you wouldn't have the gut fauna to process its corpse. So You'd if you were lucky shit and puke it out undigested or you would die.

i) No such thing as gut fauna.

ii) The stuff about toxicity is totally speculative (though very likely correct in many cases, no reason why that should always be the case).

 

[xes]

even if we could get the upperhand and be top of the food chain, the alien would have to be genetically ok for us to eat.

 

[wiskey]

Excellent thread

 

[8ball]

even if we could get the upperhand and be top of the food chain, the alien would have to be genetically ok for us to eat.

We're talking about 'morally acceptable' in instances of it not simultaneously being suicide.

 

[8ball]

Excellent thread

Yeah, it's a good 'un.

Got me thinking. I've also just made several lights come on at GCHQ and the NSA by googling 'is eating people wrong?'.

 

[xes]

We're talking about 'morally acceptable' in instances of it not simultaneously being suicide.

the very fact the question was asked, shows the morals don't even come into it, humans will just gorge on their lust for the flesh of the dead.

 

[8ball]

the very fact the question was asked, shows the morals don't even come into it, humans will just gorge on their lust for the flesh of the dead.

The fact that the question was asked shows very obviously that morals *do* come into it.

 

[andysays]

I said on another thread recently that, for me, the thing which distinguishes humans from other animals is that we have the capacity to make moral choices and they don't.

So if the alien species was also capable of moral choice*, I guess I'd have to say that eating it, or exploiting it it any other way, was not morally OK.

There are lots of other reasons - nutritional, aethetic, not having a suitable recipe, etc - why I probably wouldn't eat an alien unless I was really desperate.

*it might be difficult to decide that, of course. If they'd managed to travel across space to find us, I might just give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[8ball]

I said on another thread recently that, for me, the thing which distinguishes humans from other animals is that we have the capacity to make moral choices and they don't.

So if the alien species was also capable of moral choice*, I guess I'd have to say that eating it, or exploiting it it any other way, was not morally OK.

I take the Peter Singer line on this - it is not whether they can reason or whether they can communicate, but whether they can suffer that makes the critical difference.

 

[andysays]

I take the Peter Singer line on this - it is not whether they can reason or whether they can communicate, but whether they can suffer that makes the critical difference.

OK, that's your position - it's different to mine, but I'm sure it's valid for you.

I have no intention of repeating the arguments of the previous thread on this one

 

[8ball]

OK, that's your position - it's different to mine, but I'm sure it's valid for you.

I have no intention of repeating the arguments of the previous thread on this one

Was it you who had the 'instrumentalism' line?

 

[andysays]

Was it you who had the 'instrumentalism' line?

I don't think that's a word I would use to describe myself, so no.

 

[8ball]

I don't think that's a word I would use to describe myself, so no.

Fair enough, I'm probably just mis-remembering...

 

[andysays]

Fair enough, I'm probably just mis-remembering...

TBH, I don't particularly remember that word being used by or about anyone.

 

[8ball]

TBH, I don't particularly remember that word being used by or about anyone.

Might even be a different thread. On the one I'm thinking of a poster was saying Singer's analysis was a bit incompete because it purely focused on welfare rather than things such as autonomy and intrinsic value. In any case, I wasn't convinced by the argument though I thought it worth mulling over.

 

[andysays]

Might even be a different thread. On the one I'm thinking of a poster was saying Singer's analysis was a bit incompete because it purely focused on welfare rather than things such as autonomy and intrinsic value. In any case, I wasn't convinced by the argument though I thought it worth mulling over.

I think we're talking about different threads.

The one I'm referring to started off about the human health implications of eating too much red meat and eggs, but very quickly got side tracked to the ethics of eating animal products.

 

[8ball]

I think we're talking about different threads.

The one I'm referring to started off about the human health implications of eating too much red meat and eggs, but very quickly got side tracked to the ethics of eating animal products.

Same thread, probably a different page.

 

[andysays]

Same thread, probably a different page.

I hope you'll forgive me if I don't go back and re-read all 30 pages to find the bit you're referring to (but if you want to...)

 

[8ball]

I hope you'll forgive me if I don't go back and re-read all 30 pages to find the bit you're referring to (but if you want to...)

Nah, think we can let that one sit for now.

 

[Santino]

I think we're talking about different threads.

The one I'm referring to started off about the human health implications of eating too much red meat and eggs, but very quickly got side tracked to the ethics of eating animal products.

Not eating - 'scoffing'.

 

[andysays]

Not eating - 'scoffing'.

As you say

Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists

Anyone who wishes can now read it in all its glory

 

[Casually Red]

Id only consider it if I was stuck on the moon with no food or something. Id also probably have a chuckle a few hours later, about the irony of its fate and their penchant for anal probes.

Have a good look there on yer way out... Mork.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

A really tasty alien.
Would you use the same criteria for eatability as you would for animals on this planet, or would it require a whole new set of ethics?

Now this is a thread I can really get my teeth into.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

"I want a drumstick!"

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Eating has other meanings.
eating pussy
To have oral sex with a woman. Also known as cunnilingus. The eater can be either male or female, but the eatee must be a female, or some other cunted creature.