No, I'm pretty sure that it's not all or nothing, and that we can and do discriminate. — Sapientia

Only by being inconsistent.

in terms of intellectual capacity — Sapientia

And what intellectual capacity does an infant possess that you think a pig doesn't?

Humans have reached that level and cows haven't. — Michael

What exactly is that level? What capacities do all humans possess that no cow does?

Only by being inconsistent. — NKBJ

No, there's a difference between discriminating between cases based on the application of different standards and being inconsistent. You haven't shown that it's the latter. There are a number of reasons why we don't slaughter babies or those with severe mental disabilities for food production, but we do slaughter chickens for food production.

And what intellectual capacity does an infant possess that you think a pig doesn't? — NKBJ

I wasn't singling out infants or specifying any other particular group. I thought that I'd already clarified that for you. I was talking about humans in general. But one difference is that a pig won't develop the intellectual faculties of an adult human within its lifetime.

Are you really making an equivalence between the severely autistic or mentally disabled and chickens? — Sapientia

Yes, because it is clear that some humans have the same capacity for thought as other animals. Is this the bullet I was supposed to bite? Yet, it’s just a fact. Some humans are not capable of a higher intellectual thought, and therefore would be on the same level (intelligence wise) as a chicken/pig/cow.

So again, are you going to bite the bullet on your inconsistent position? Stating that “advanced intelligence capacity” is not present in chickens, therefore we can kill them, should also follow that we can kill someone humans who also don’t have “advanced intelligence capacity “. Otherwise, you’d be contradicting yourself and would have an inconsistent position within your own subjective ethics. And as I said before, consistency matters, otherwise you’d have arbitrary lines drawn that are based on nothing other than what you feel is right or wrong.

It seems that we justify the eating of vegetables based upon the fact that squash lacks consciousness, — Hanover

Fruit has evolved to be eaten!

It may be intutitive to generate a rule based on proximity to our own species, but I see scant ethical basis for it.

Furthermore, if humans really are at the top of some hierarchy because of their unique qualities, it still doesn't follow that they have dominion over life and death of all below them. And even if it did, why not the same dominion over other humans who sit lower on the scale? Being at the top could just as well imply green custodianship.

Once again, if it is that intelligence is the determinant for moral worth, then yes, Man can eat chickens all day, but as I brought up, this also means that it is morally justifiable on the same premises that one that is more intelligent than us can and ought to eat us as food. — Buxtebuddha

No, because if we are sufficiently intelligent then it is wrong to eat us, no matter how much more intelligent some other species is.

Sap wasn't saying that X can eat Y if X is more intelligent than Y. He seemed to be saying that X can eat Y if Y isn't sufficiently intelligent.

A cow isn't sufficiently intelligent, and so we can eat it. We are sufficiently intelligent, and so a much more intelligent species cannot eat us.

can and ought to eat us as food

How did you derive an "ought" from Sap's reasoning? He was only saying that it isn't wrong to eat animals; not that we ought eat animals.

What exactly is that level? What capacities do all humans possess that no cow does? — NKBJ

I don't know. I'm only explaining to the best of my understanding Sapientia's argument.

Sap wasn't saying that X can eat Y if X is more intelligent than Y. He seemed to be saying that X can eat Y if Y isn't sufficiently intelligent. — Michael

If so, then this is a distinction without a moral principle at play. An apple is not an orange. Great, but...? Okay, what else? I mean, sure, I'm more intelligent than a pig, but such a fact says nothing of whether I ought or ought not eat said pig.

A cow isn't sufficiently intelligent, and so we can eat it. We are sufficiently intelligent, and so a much more intelligent species cannot eat us. — Michael

Seems to me that Sappy has defined this into being without providing anything that supports it.

I mean, sure, I'm more intelligent than a pig, but such a fact says nothing of whether I ought or ought not eat said pig. — Buxtebuddha

Well, that is the is-ought problem.

Seems to me that Sappy has defined this into being without providing anything that supports it. — Buxtebuddha

I don't think it's right to say that he's defined it into being. At the very least it describes most people's actual moral decisions. I'm OK with eating pigs but I'm not OK with eating humans. I can't put this down to simple speciesism as I can imagine not being OK with eating some intelligent alien. So how do I explain the difference? The intelligence of the species certainly seems like the most obvious distinction.

And how else are we to judge a moral theory if not by testing it against our moral intuitions?

Yes, because it is clear that some humans have the same capacity for thought as other animals. Is this the bullet I was supposed to bite? Yet, it’s just a fact. Some humans are not capable of a higher intellectual thought, and therefore would be on the same level (intelligence wise) as a chicken/pig/cow.

So again, are you going to bite the bullet on your inconsistent position? Stating that “advanced intelligence capacity” is not present in chickens, therefore we can kill them, should also follow that we can kill someone humans who also don’t have “advanced intelligence capacity “. Otherwise, you’d be contradicting yourself and would have an inconsistent position within your own subjective ethics. And as I said before, consistency matters, otherwise you’d have arbitrary lines drawn that are based on nothing other than what you feel is right or wrong. — chatterbears

If you think that claiming something like that to be clear and factual is sufficient, then you're wrong. I acknowledge that there are similarities, but that's as far as I'm willing to go unless shown otherwise or I ascertain knowledge to the contrary some other way.

And in hindsight, perhaps I shouldn't have humoured you when you told me to name the trait, as if there were only a single reason why it's considered acceptable to farm chickens, but not humans. If not intellectual capacity, at least in the case of those humans who it is claimed have an intellectual capacity of an equivalent level to that of a chicken, then it must be some other reason, or some additional reason or reasons.

I don't think it's right to say that he's defined it into being. At the very least it describes most people's actual moral decisions. I'm OK with eating pigs but I'm not OK with eating humans. I can't put this down to simple speciesism as I can imagine not being OK with eating some intelligent alien. So how do I explain the difference? The intelligence of the species certainly seems like the most obvious distinction. — Michael

Yes, at least I'm giving it some thought instead of jumping straight for the conclusion they're pushing me towards, like a lamb to the slaughter.

And in hindsight, perhaps I shouldn't have humoured you when you told me to name the trait, as if there were only a single reason why it's considered acceptable to farm chickens, but not humans. If not intellectual capacity, at least in the case of those humans who it is claimed have an intellectual capacity of an equivalent level to that of a chicken, then it must be some other reason, or some additional reason or reasons. — Sapientia

Meat eaters have a plethora of reasons, but you must take each reason one by one and deploy an ethical consistency push. Because if each reason breaks down and is not consistent or valid, then we can discard it and move on to your next reason.

So it seems you concede the point that using the justification of "intellectual capacity" to farm a living being (human or chicken), is not valid nor consistent. Because again, if there was a human who lacked "intellectual capacity" in the same way the chicken does, is it now OK to farm the human? No. And you haven't actually came out to finally bite the bullet on that point, but instead tip toe around minor details.

So do you have another justification for why we can farm a chicken but not a human?

Well, if there were a human who had the same level of intelligence as a chicken, who looked and acted just like a chicken, had the same kind of flesh as a chicken, and was to all intents and purposes treated just like a chicken on a farm, then I would have no qualms with eating a human burger made from this human. So yes, it's fine to eat both humans and chickens under the right circumstances.

Yes, but I've been also understanding you to be agreeing with him:

I'm OK with eating pigs but I'm not OK with eating humans. I can't put this down to simple speciesism as I can imagine not being OK with eating some intelligent alien. So how do I explain the difference? The intelligence of the species certainly seems like the most obvious distinction. — Michael

So, again, I put to you the question, what marker of intelligence do all humans possess that no cow possesses?

Yes, but I've been also understanding you to be agreeing with him: — NKBJ

That's not me agreeing with him. That's me explaining what I feel about eating certain animals and which trait I think has the greatest influence over that feeling.

So, again, I put to you the question, what marker of intelligence do all humans possess that no cow possesses?

And again, I don't know.

Yes, at least I'm giving it some thought instead of jumping straight for the conclusion they're pushing me towards, like a lamb to the slaughter. — Sapientia

I'm glad you're trying to give this some thought--really I am. But I don't think your snark or portraying our argumentation in such a negative light as the above lends itself to the idea that you are unbiased and encountering our side with an open mind.

So how can you claim that there is a significant difference if you don't know what it is? Or are you admitting to a mostly unexplored and possibly just biased gut feeling about the whole thing?

Well, if there were a human who had the same level of intelligence as a chicken, who looked and acted just like a chicken, had the same kind of flesh as a chicken, and was to all intents and purposes treated just like a chicken on a farm, then I would have no qualms with eating a human burger made from this human. — Sapientia

Ok, now you just went to justification overload. Here are your justifications:

1. Intelligence level.
2. How one 'looks'
3. How one 'acts'
4. Difference in 'flesh'

Again let's take them one by one and deploy a consistency push to them. Intelligence level, we can already throw out, because you don't accept humans (who are of lower intelligence) to be farmed.

#2 - How one looks. Is it OK to farm something just because it "looks" different? I assume your answer is No, so we can discard that.

#3. How one 'acts'. Is it OK to farm something just because it "acts" different? I assume your answer is No, so we can discard that one as well.

#4. Difference in flesh. Is it OK to farm something just because their flesh is different than ours? I assume your answer is No, so we can discard that one too. But just in case your answer is Yes. Would you be OK with an Alien species farming you, just because your flesh is different than theirs? No. So we can discard that reasoning.

You're again, left with 0 valid/consistent justifications to use for why you can farm animals but not humans.

So how can you claim that there is a significant difference if you don't know what it is? — NKBJ

You asked me for a marker of intelligence that all humans possess and that no cow possesses. I don't need to know of a such a thing to know that humans are far more intelligent than cows.

Or are you admitting to a mostly unexplored and possibly just biased gut feeling about the whole thing?

It's certainly not a biased gut feeling. It is an empirical fact that humans are more intelligent than cows.

You haven't shown that it's the latter. — Sapientia

I have. But you haven't shown that there is a significant difference that would make killing animals acceptable.

I was talking about humans in general. But one difference is that a pig won't develop the intellectual faculties of an adult human within its lifetime. — Sapientia

If you're talking about humans in general deserving certain treatment on the grounds of a specific trait, all humans have to have that trait.
So, if I have a handicapped person who is permanently intellectually at the level or below that of a pig or chicken or cow, does that mean I can cause that person pain or kill him/her?

that humans are far more intelligent than cows. — Michael

Generally, yes. But not all humans are. Which means, if merely intelligence is your marker, that those humans would be fair game to torture and/or kill.

Generally, yes. But not all humans are. Which means, if merely intelligence is your marker, that those humans would be fair game to torture and/or kill. — NKBJ

No, because I'm not saying that it is wrong to torture and/or kill something if and only if it reaches a certain level of intelligence. I'm only saying that I am OK with eating pigs but not humans, and that the difference in intelligence of these species seems to be the trait that best explains why I feel the way I do.

That sounds contradictory to me.
Your first sentence seems to be claiming that intelligence is not the marker that makes killing permissible.
Your second sentence seems to be claiming that intelligence is the best marker you can think of that makes killing permissible.
If not, can you please clarify it for me?

I'm glad you're trying to give this some thought--really I am. But I don't think your snark or portraying our argumentation in such a negative light as the above lends itself to the idea that you are unbiased and encountering our side with an open mind. — NKBJ

Okay. Does this help? :halo:

I'm only saying that I am OK with eating pigs but not humans, and that the difference in intelligence of these species seems to be the trait that best explains why I feel the way I do. — Michael

Then you need to be willing to bite the bullet on humans who have the same intelligence as a pig. If not, you are being inconsistent in deploying your justification of "intelligence".

Michael is OK eating animals because they have a lower level of intelligence.
Michael is not OK eating mentally handicapped humans because they have a lower level of intelligence.

I think the contradiction is clear. You may want to clarify your position here.

That sounds contradictory to me.
Your first sentence seems to be claiming that intelligence is not the marker that makes killing permissible.
Your second sentence seems to be claiming that intelligence is the best marker you can think of that makes killing permissible.
If not, can you please clarify it for me? — NKBJ

The first sentence argues for moral cognitivism and sets out the necessary and sufficient conditions for the (im)morality of killing.

The second sentence expresses an emotional sentiment and best explains which perception influences that sentiment.

Well, if there were a human who had the same level of intelligence as a chicken, who looked and acted just like a chicken, had the same kind of flesh as a chicken, and was to all intents and purposes treated just like a chicken on a farm, then I would have no qualms with eating a human burger made from this human. So yes, it's fine to eat both humans and chickens under the right circumstances. — Sapientia

At least you're trying to be consistent, even if I think you might just be biting the bullet here!

However, what if we tweaked the above scenario just one iota and said a human who was in every regard like a chicken except that he/she looked like a human?

(Also, I'm curious, why does it matter to you how others have treated this human?)

So.... basically, you have no idea what the actual markers of difference would need to be between humans and animals?

What makes you think that you can reasonably break up my conditions and assess each of them in isolation? That's not how I answered the question. If all of those conditions were met, then I would have no qualms.

So.... basically, you have no idea what the actual markers of difference would need to be between humans and animals? — NKBJ

That's literally what I have said (twice) previously.