Would it be morally acceptable to eat an alien?

[Jeff Robinson]

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.

Leaving aside the point that not all human beings have the capacity to make moral choices and that some non-human animals do have such capacities, I've always found the assertion that it is moral agency that provides the basis for the possession of moral rights to be rather strange. Moral agency provides the basis for the imposition of moral duties but it does not ground moral rights. Infants, the insane and the comatosed lack moral agency but they are still the subjects of moral rights. If an adult of sound mind murders a baby and then claims he was entitled to on the basis that he possesses moral agency and the baby doesn't then, well, it's just self-evidently wrong isn't it? Alternatively, if an insane person or a small child commits what would otherwise have been a crime against another, they are not held to be guilty for that crime because of their lack of capacity. In relation to non-human animals, it seems to me that to the extent that humans do possess moral reasoning capacities that non-human animals lack, then this points to the fact that we might owe those animals moral duties that they do not owe towards humans or to each other.

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.

The Singer position is at least a coherent position to adopt, but there are two things worth bearing mind. The first is that on Singer's own account it should lead you close to veganism under present conditions. For Singer, who's been working on animal related ethics for decades now, the suffering imposed on animals for human consumption is so vastly greater than the pleasure that humans derive from it that we should give up most animal food sources. Secondly, Singer's position on animals is consistent with his utilitarian ethics that he applies equally to human beings. To avoid the charge of speciesism that you raised, you'd also have to adopt a consistent utilitarian ethics to both human and non-human animals. That may well be your position, but it's a controversial one that's subject to a number of powerful critiques.

 

[andysays]

Leaving aside the point that not all human beings have the capacity to make moral choices and that some non-human animals do have such capacities, I've always found the assertion that it is moral agency that provides the basis for the possession of moral rights to be rather strange. Moral agency provides the basis for the imposition of moral duties but it does not ground moral rights. Infants, the insane and the comatosed lack moral agency but they are still the subjects of moral rights. If an adult of sound mind murders a baby and then claims he was entitled to on the basis that he possesses moral agency and the baby doesn't then, well, it's just self-evidently wrong isn't it? Alternatively, if an insane person or a small child commits what would otherwise have been a crime against another, they are not held to be guilty for that crime because of their lack of capacity. In relation to non-human animals, it seems to me that to the extent that humans do possess moral reasoning capacities that non-human animals lack, then this points to the fact that we might owe those animals moral duties that they do not owe towards humans or to each other...

That's fine by me - I'm not seeking to impose my moral system on you or anyone else.

I've already dealt with the issue of individual human beings who are not capable of moral choice (to my satisfaction at least) on that previous thread. You're welcome to go back and re-read for a reminder of my position.

I would take some convincing that any currently known non-human animal species has the capacity to make moral choices, but I'd be happy to listen to you attempt to make that case.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

That's fine by me - I'm not seeking to impose my moral system on you or anyone else.

I've already dealt with the issue of individual human beings who are not capable of moral choice (to my satisfaction at least) on that previous thread. You're welcome to go back and re-read for a reminder of my position.

I would take some convincing that any currently known non-human animal species has the capacity to make moral choices, but I'd be happy to listen to you attempt to make that case.

If you're not trying to convince people of your moral position, why bother to mention it in the first place? I'm not a moral relativist, so I don't have much time for those sort of arguments, particularly when the debate is concerned with harming others. If I said 'i like punching cats for fun, but hey that's just my choice, I'm not asking anybody else to share it', I'd rightly be derided for it.

There's been quite a lot of evidence of non-human animal morality in recent years, here's a summary of some research findings:

http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

The fact that you are not apparently aware of this stuff - even though its in the public domain - and yet are prepared to make blanket statements about animals lacking moral capacity to justify killing and exploiting them is rather indicative of the sorts of self-serving rationalisations that people trot out to justify current treatment of animals.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Another question with eating aliens: how many essential nutrients do they contain?

Is their blood the equivalent of Martian pesticide?

 

[andysays]

If you're not trying to convince people of your moral position, why bother to mention it in the first place? I'm not a moral relativist, so I don't have much time for those sort of arguments, particularly when the debate is concerned with harming others. If I said 'i like punching cats for fun, but hey that's just my choice, I'm not asking anybody else to share it', I'd rightly be derided for it.

There's been quite a lot of evidence of non-human animal morality in recent years, here's a summary of some research findings:

http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

The fact that you are not apparently aware of this stuff - even though its in the public domain - and yet are prepared to make blanket statements about animals lacking moral capacity to justify killing and exploiting them is rather indicative of the sorts of self-serving rationalisations that people trot out to justify current treatment of animals.

I mentioned morals on the other thread after it was brought up by others in a way which I find utterly unconvincing. To paraphrase: "I think eating animals is bad, therefore I'm going to declare it unethical/immoral/whatever without any coherent attempt to justify that". If you want more info, go back and re-read the thread in question.

And I brought it up on this thread in reponse to a direct question in the OP.

I don't consider myself a moral relativist, at all. I consider that my moral system is based on human beings, rather than the sort of anthropomorphic nonsense (IMO) which lumps all animals into together as if there was no reason to distinguish between them. And I'm not attempting to justify any and all treatment of animals - if you'd read my previous posts in the other thread, you would see that I'd covered this already as well - I believe we do have a moral responsible to treat animals well, within certain parameters, but it is different from the moral responsibilitie we owe directly to other humans and, for the purposes of this thread, to notional aliens which might also have moral capacity.

I'll read the book you've linked to, and see if I'm convinced. You're welcome, of course, to give a synopsis of what it's saying if you wish...

 

[cesare]

Jeff Robinson Are you a vegan that doesn't utilise any animal products?

 

[Yetman]

Depends - if they have cute sad little puppy dog eyes or weird insectoid eyes then no, nobody want's to eat that.

Normal soulless animal eyes though, yeah fine, get the barbie on

 

[articul8]

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?

Why would you apply different criteria?

 

[andysays]

Jeff Robinson

So I've read your link, and I'm not convinced.

It seems that there is some research suggesting that some animals may be capable of moral behaviour, but that opinion is divided, to say the least. From reading the link, I think that the issue could very well be one I ready mentioned of anthropomorphism, ie explaining animal behaviours by assuming human attributes, though there's not really enough detail there to say one way or the other.

I'm also interested that my position that we have direct moral obligations to others on the basis of their capacity for morality is referred to:

And because they have morality, we have moral obligations to them, said author Mark Rowlands, a University of Miami philosopher. "Animals are owed a certain kind of respect that they wouldn't be owed if they couldn't act morally," Rowlands told LiveScience.

even though I'm sure we could find other philosophers who argued from a different point of view.

But you may be relieved to hear that I already don't eat rats, dogs, chimpanzees or any of the other animals mentioned in that article.

 

[joustmaster]

Depends - if they have cute sad little puppy dog eyes or weird insectoid eyes then no, nobody want's to eat that.

Normal soulless animal eyes though, yeah fine, get the barbie on

Just imagine how the burger thread would look..

 

[xes]

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

not really, we're already thinking of eating it, just wondering how we can justify it to ourselves. That tells me that the thought of eating it is primary, and any kind of excuse could be used to justify eating them. Their percieved intelligenceisn't even coming into it. Do they taste good? Is basically it. And I can but hope, that this kind of thinking is the downfall of the human race. we do not deserve to be on this planet if we can't live in harmony with it.

 

[Corax]

Not sure about eating it, but we should definitely hunt them for sport.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If an alien came here and we ate it, I wouldn't blame them for doing to us what happened in Red Dwarf.

 

[Orang Utan]

Why would you apply different criteria?

Cos aliens

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't think it's right to eat anything that can drive a car.

 

[articul8]

Cos aliens

so what?

 

[articul8]

I don't think it's right to eat anything that can drive a car.

so children are ok then?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

so children are ok then?

Erroneous logic.

 

[alan_]

They will probably just taste like chicken

 

[Orang Utan]

so what?

They will be very different. We would be debating on whether it would be ethical to eat an alien's tharg or just stick to the minkis

 

[Orang Utan]

so children are ok then?

Alien or human?
Human definitely not of course

 

[Orang Utan]

I don't think it's right to eat anything that can drive a car.

Is it OK to eat me then?,

 

[articul8]

They will be very different. We would be debating on whether it would be ethical to eat an alien's tharg or just stick to the minkis

yeah but the criteria involved but would be our own human - culturally (which is to say intersubjectively) mediated notion of what is or isn't ethically appropriate to consider edible.

Encountering an alien is no different in principle to encountering some really weird but actually-existing mammal or sea creature.

Unless aliens have some form that are radically different from every other sort of existing thing in our experience, utterly incomparable in absolutely every way to everything we've ever known or experienced on earth. But if so we couldn't really even begin to think meaningfully about it at all - it would be strictly senseless.

 

[Corax]

Is it OK to eat me then?,

Yes.

 

[Orang Utan]

yeah but the criteria involved but would be our own human - culturally (which is to say intersubjectively) mediated notion of what is or isn't ethically appropriate to consider edible.

Encountering an alien is no different in principle to encountering some really weird but actually-existing mammal or sea creature.

Unless aliens have some form that are radically different from every other sort of existing thing in our experience, utterly incomparable in absolutely every way to everything we've ever known or experienced on earth. But if so we couldn't really even begin to think meaningfully about it at all - it would be strictly senseless.

It's not just about ethics. We would bring a lot more into a decision to eat an alien than mere ethics. We can get over ethics in a heartbeat

 

[articul8]

it's primarily an ethical question. Presumably, ethics - rather than aesthetics - is what puts you off sticking a knife and fork in someone Welsh to see what they taste like?

 

[Orang Utan]

it's primarily an ethical question. Presumably, ethics - rather than aesthetics - is what puts you off sticking a knife and fork in someone Welsh to see what they taste like?

But a welsh is a human.

 

[Pickman's model]

it's primarily an ethical question. Presumably, ethics - rather than aesthetics - is what puts you off sticking a knife and fork in someone Welsh to see what they taste like?

no. it's not that that puts people off. it's the fact that even the welsh generally fight back when you stick something in them to taste them. tell you what - try sticking a knife or fork in someone and see what they do.

 

[Pickman's model]

But a welsh is a human.

ask a welsh what they'd do to anne robinson for what she said about them and then tell me they're human.

 

[articul8]

no. it's not that that puts people off. it's the fact that even the welsh generally fight back when you stick something in them to taste them. tell you what - try sticking a knife or fork in someone and see what they do.

No it's not. So you are saying if you knew in advance that someone wouldn't fight you off (say someone with "locked-in" syndrome) you wouldn't have any qualms about sticking a knife and fork in them to see what they tasted like?