Would it be morally acceptable to eat an alien?

[Orang Utan]

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

I'm sure whatever they have planned for her is only too human

 

[Pickman's model]

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?

where i work i know some of the books are not sensitised - people would be able to take them out without the alarm going off. but i don't know which books they are and the readers don't know which books they are so they don't nick them. similarly you may know some people wouldn't fight back but you don't know who they are without trying to cut them up. because you can't tell you don't try to eat them, lest you unleash their wrath. i still wouldn't chop someone up to taste them because i don't eat meat.

 

[articul8]

But a welsh is a human.

So it's argued Anyway, the point is that we apply criteria to determine what we will and won't try eating as we become encultured into a system of ethics, amongst other things. (we need to learn not to eat faeces btw - although Mark Oaten was a bit slow on the uptake, apparently). I don't see why we wouldn't apply the same criteria to an alien that we would apply to anything else

 

[Orang Utan]

So it's argued Anyway, the point is that we apply criteria to determine what we will and won't try eating as we become encultured into a system of ethics, amongst other things. (we need to learn not to eat faeces btw - although Mark Oaten was a bit slow on the uptake, apparently). I don't see why we wouldn't apply the same criteria to an alien that we would apply to anything else

BECAUSE THEY ARE ALIENS.
I think there would be a spot of squeamishness

 

[articul8]

where i work i know some of the books are not sensitised - people would be able to take them out without the alarm going off. but i don't know which books they are and the readers don't know which books they are so they don't nick them. similarly you may know some people wouldn't fight back but you don't know who they are without trying to cut them up. because you can't tell you don't try to eat them, lest you unleash their wrath.

But some people you do know in advance wouldn't react (like the "locked-in" sufferer), but you still wouldn't want to eat them - it's not about fear of reprisal it's a prior ethical restraint

 

[articul8]

BECAUSE THEY ARE ALIENS.
I think there would be a spot of squeamishness

they probably taste a bit like chicken
(I don't see what this big hang up about aliens is - you'd judge them much as you'd judge any other unfamiliar creature you encountered, and with much the same criteria)

 

[Orang Utan]

they probably taste a bit like chicken
(I don't see what this big hang up about aliens is - you'd judge them much as you'd judge any other unfamiliar creature you encountered, and with much the same criteria)

But you wouldn't. Their extraplanetary unknown alien status makes them totally different.

And there would be other factors. If we went all the way to Xlckivorn just to get meat, there would be controversy. It would also be very expensive

 

[Pickman's model]

But some people you do know in advance wouldn't react (like the "locked-in" sufferer), but you still wouldn't want to eat them - it's not about fear of reprisal it's a prior ethical restraint

what i know should have no bearing on any fear of reprisal you might face.

 

[articul8]

if they were totally alien, utterly unlike or incomparable to anything we've ever encountered we literally wouldn't know where to begin thinking about them. Assuming this isn't the case, we would apply our existing criteria analogically in relation to other creatures of which we have experience.

 

[Pickman's model]

if they were totally alien, utterly unlike or incomparable to anything we've ever encountered we literally wouldn't know where to begin thinking about them. Assuming this isn't the case, we would apply our existing criteria analogically in relation to other creatures of which we have experience.

how would we know they were alien and not, for example, a malformed abalone if we did not see them emerging from a spacecraft?

 

[Orang Utan]

how would we know they were alien and not, for example, a malformed abalone if we did not see them emerging from a spacecraft?

And that's not even proof. It could have got a lift.

 

[articul8]

Exactly my point though - we wouldn't know but would apply the same criteria irrespective

 

[8ball]

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.

That's a reflection of your opinion of the mechanisms behind the moral choices of other, not a reflection of whether morality is involved.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

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:



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.

There's lots of empirical evidence that suggests that animals have moral capacities, that article was just the first thing I found on google. The 'anthropomorphism' argument is a red herring, designed to reinforce a superficial divide between humans and non-human animals. Humans are animals, we share the oxytocin that forms the basis for empathy with other mammals for example. To quote from a couple of scientists who have researched animal behaviour:

“Mammals have what I call an ‘altruistic impulse’ in that they respond to signs of distress in others and feel an urge to improve their situation,” writes de Waal. “To recognize the need of others, and react appropriately, is really not the same as a preprogrammed tendency to sacrifice oneself for the genetic good.”

...in our attempts to study our animal brethren and avoid anthropomorphizing them we sometimes miss their very real similarities to us. According to the scientists Morell interviews, birds are capable of complex communication, elephants have long memories and strong social networks, and dolphins will act altruistically. These scientists are convinced that many higher order cognitive abilities are not limited to humans, and that we only need look a bit further to discover them in animals.

Since evolutionary pressures push brain development, Morell argues, it makes sense that maybe humans are not alone in developing social and cooperative brains. “If animals—even those whose lineages parted ways long ago—face similar cognitive demands, they are apt to evolve similar cognitive abilities,” writes Morell. “There aren’t ‘lower’ or ‘higher’ species.”

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/morality_animals

Just to clarify, I don't think that advanced moral capacities are a necessary pre-condition for moral status, I merely draw attention to these recent scientific discoveries because they suggest that the arguments advanced by those that defend the killing and exploitation of non-human animals on the basis they lack moral capacity are highly suspect, to put it mildly.

 

[Casually Red]

right..ive had a good think and reckon I couldnt eat one of the slimy ones, plus the Alien ones have acid for blood so would taste shit. Ditto Predator types, green blood. No thanks.

But at a push Id say these ones could end up on the plate if necessity arose.

 

[Casually Red]

 

[DotCommunist]

Morality aside, you can't eat an alien. Everything you ever eat will have to be either grown from clones/grafts/analouges of things you find on this planet. There is no way to know for starters wether or not the creature is intelligent, cognizant etc. Debate rages today over what constitutes sentience and true intelligence, true reasoning. Among humans ffs.

Point is you can't eat an alien. You could fry a tentacle up, slather it with lea n perrins and swallow chunks but you wouldn't be able to digest it. Even if by some immense miracle you could semi digest an alien cow that lives off of alin seaweed the makeup of the cells (if they even have cells!) would be just a no-go.

Ethical don't come into it. Not when you just can't do it without risk of death. More risk than that japanese fish delicacy either.

no. You'd be fucked. Gutache so severe you'd die.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Is it OK to eat me then?,

I'm sure for somebody it is.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We would bring a lot more into a decision to eat an alien than mere ethics.

With most people I know, there'd be no decision to be made. The issue just would never come up.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

we need to learn not to eat faeces btw

No we don't? That's one bit of knowledge that just comes naturally.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

right..ive had a good think and reckon I couldnt eat one of the slimy ones, plus the Alien ones have acid for blood so would taste shit. Ditto Predator types, green blood. No thanks.

But at a push Id say these ones could end up on the plate if necessity arose.

Would you eat Jabba the Hutt.

Or Jar Jar. Gross.

 

[DotCommunist]

of course any species of intergalactic alien that has turned up and hovered outside the oort cloud listening in to our every discussion (which if you have the skillz to cross space at that distance, you will be able to do) they'd hear us discussing how best to barbecue them and decide that we are at the wasteman stage of development.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

"Kids! We're having your favorite for dinner: Klingon!"

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

New thread idea: Which Star Trek Alien Would You Most Like To Eat?

 

[Orang Utan]

Morality aside, you can't eat an alien. Everything you ever eat will have to be either grown from clones/grafts/analouges of things you find on this planet. There is no way to know for starters wether or not the creature is intelligent, cognizant etc. Debate rages today over what constitutes sentience and true intelligence, true reasoning. Among humans ffs.

Point is you can't eat an alien. You could fry a tentacle up, slather it with lea n perrins and swallow chunks but you wouldn't be able to digest it. Even if by some immense miracle you could semi digest an alien cow that lives off of alin seaweed the makeup of the cells (if they even have cells!) would be just a no-go.

Ethical don't come into it. Not when you just can't do it without risk of death. More risk than that japanese fish delicacy either.

no. You'd be fucked. Gutache so severe you'd die.

Could you eat an edible alien then?

 

[Greebo]

Would you eat Jabba the Hutt.

Or Jar Jar. Gross.

There's a reason that most of the animals which humans prefer to eat are herbivores or at a stretch omnivores - carnivore flesh often tastes foul. For that reason, Jabba the Hutt is probably ruled out in spite of being self-basting, ditto Jar Jar Binks (those head tentacles might be given the calimari treatment).

 

[Greebo]

Could you eat an edible alien then?

Even assuming that it were physically possible, undecided. Does it want to be eaten?

 

[Orang Utan]

Even assuming that it were physically possible, undecided. Does it want to be eaten?

Of course not

 

[Greebo]

Of course not

Probably not then.

 

[articul8]

Of course not

how can people possibly describe with such certainty the properties or attitudes of alien beings?