Would it be morally acceptable to eat an alien?

[Orang Utan]

He didn't say it was the baseline. The baseline is somewhere 'below' human.

I'd say it stops at human. Don't want any other creature in our club.

 

[Santino]

I'd say it stops at human. Don't want any other creature in our club.

What about sexy aliens?

 

[Orang Utan]

A better question would be: would it be morally acceptable for the alien to eat you? Imagine that it is super-duper intelligent, such that we are like pigs or lambs by comparison. How could we possibly object?

Because we don't want to be eaten.
We don't expect livestock not to object to be being eaten. We're not in Douglas Adams territory just yet.

 

[Orang Utan]

What about sexy aliens?

I wouldn't want to eat a sexy alien

 

[andysays]

I wouldn't want to eat a sexy alien

What about being eaten?

 

[Orang Utan]

What about being eaten?

No, I'd rather live than die whilst having a sexy experience

 

[dylanredefined]

A better question would be: would it be morally acceptable for the alien to eat you? Imagine that it is super-duper intelligent, such that we are like pigs or lambs by comparison. How could we possibly object?

As violently as possibly eat some of our astronauts after peaceful contact and explaining we find the practise objectionable if the aliens still see eating people as just something they do. We exterminate them. Or at least confine them to one planet.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

What other yardstick could we possibly use?

I'm not proposing there should be a yardstick based upon intelligence when deciding what it's morally acceptable to kill and eat. It's even less clear to me why human intelligence should be the yardstick. For a super-duper intelligent alien that is as clever in comparison to us and we are to pigs, setting human intelligence as the yardstick is just as arbitrary as setting it at pig intelligence. I see that andysays agrees with me on this. However, I'd want to say that it would still be wrong for the alien to eat me - even if I was a convenient and tasty source of protein - because I really value my life, even if it looks relatively meaningless from the vantage point of a superior being.

 

[andysays]

I'm not proposing there should be a yardstick based upon intelligence when deciding what it's morally acceptable to kill and eat. It's even less clear to me why human intelligence should be the yardstick. For a super-duper intelligent alien that is as clever in comparison to us and we are to pigs, setting human intelligence as the yardstick is just as arbitrary as setting it at pig intelligence. I see that andysays agrees with me on this. However, I'd want to say that it would still be wrong for the alien to eat me - even if I was a convenient and tasty source of protein - because I really value my life, even if it looks relatively meaningless from the vantage point of a superior being.

Am I being cited as some sort of authority or arbiter now

 

[Santino]

Am I being cited as some sort of authority or arbiter now

A yardstick.

 

[andysays]

A yardstick.

I prefer paragon

 

[kabbes]

I'm not proposing there should be a yardstick based upon intelligence when deciding what it's morally acceptable to kill and eat. It's even less clear to me why human intelligence should be the yardstick. For a super-duper intelligent alien that is as clever in comparison to us and we are to pigs, setting human intelligence as the yardstick is just as arbitrary as setting it at pig intelligence. I see that andysays agrees with me on this. However, I'd want to say that it would still be wrong for the alien to eat me - even if I was a convenient and tasty source of protein - because I really value my life, even if it looks relatively meaningless from the vantage point of a superior being.

I can use whichever arbitrary yardstick I see fit. I wasn't suggesting anybody else use it.

I wouldn't eat cats either, because I like them. Work out that yardstick.

 

[Pickman's model]

Am I being cited as some sort of authority or arbiter now

jeff's clutching at straws again.

 

[kabbes]

Also, what relevance can it have to anything what I might think of a super-intelligent alien's decision-making. If I can come up with the right argument, will that stop it eating me?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I can use whichever arbitrary yardstick I see fit. I wasn't suggesting anybody else use it.

I wouldn't eat cats either, because I like them. Work out that yardstick.

Moral relativism strikes again.

 

[kabbes]

Moral relativism strikes again.

Is that a good or bad thing?

Prove it.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Is that a good or bad thing?

Prove it.

I can't. Makes threads along the nature of 'would it morally acceptable to...' rather pointless though (maybe that's just stating the obvious?).

 

[kabbes]

I can't. Makes threads along the nature of 'would it morally acceptable to...' rather pointless though (maybe that's just stating the obvious?).

It's just shorthand for "under your morality, would it be acceptable and can you explain and discuss why?"

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It's just shorthand for "under your morality, would it be acceptable and can you explain and discuss why?"

Even it that were the case you'd hope that 'explaining and discussing why' would involve more than accepting that your own position is arbitrary and then saying 'but hey that's just my position'. It's a cop out.

 

[kabbes]

Even it that were the case you'd hope that 'explaining and discussing why' would involve more than accepting that your own position is arbitrary and then saying 'but hey that's just my position'. It's a cop out.

Yeah, but this isn't a good example of such a thread.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Yeah, but this isn't a good example of such a thread.

It's in the 'theory, philosophy & history' section. You'd hope for something at least a little robust, but I guess not. :/

 

[goldenecitrone]

A better question would be: would it be morally acceptable for the alien to eat you? Imagine that it is super-duper intelligent, such that we are like pigs or lambs by comparison. How could we possibly object?

Who is going to be the first to douse themselves in relish and lie on a big bap to welcome our new alien overlords? I reckon Nicholas Witchell would do.

 

[kabbes]

In all honesty, what is there to say on food other than, "this is my line I won't cross"?

It's not like it is actually life and death. If I were literally starving then all my rules would go out the window. The rules are actually guidelines relating to personal preference.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It's not like it is actually life and death.

It is when you choose to kill what you eat. That's the whole point. Anyway, obviously no point in discussing it further.

 

[kabbes]

It is when you choose to kill what you eat. That's the whole point. Anyway, obviously no point in discussing it further.

Did you not read past that sentence?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

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?

It might make them feel a bit unwelcome ....

 

[ViolentPanda]

Moral relativism strikes again.

Moral relativism will always strike, because all morality is inescapably relative. It's a subjective human social artifact, not an objective law.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Moral relativism will always strike, because all morality is inescapably relative.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Saying that position X is both right and wrong is about as coherent as arguing that Nottingham is both North and South of London.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Saying that position X is both right and wrong is about as coherent as arguing that Nottingham is both North and South of London.

It's nothing like that, and moral relativism isn't stating "position X is both right and wrong", it's saying that ultimately whether position X is right or wrong will always be a matter of perspective for some people. That's always been the case, whether what informs the morality is religious in origin or civic.

 

[andysays]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Saying that position X is both right and wrong is about as coherent as arguing that Nottingham is both North and South of London.

But in that case it's easy to demonstrate who has a faulty compass.

With moral compasses, it's a bit harder, unless you have a divine creator to back you up.