Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2012, 07:00 PM
RE: Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
(29-03-2012 06:46 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  
Quote:
My personal preference is to reduce the human population, reduce the consumption of each human....
and manufacture non-living food for ourselves.
I too share that view. The human population really needs to drop dramatically. I am not sure as to what the magic number would be, but it isn't 7 billion.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 07:14 PM
RE: Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
Quote:I
can't help but think your question was being addressed in the tone that
the forceful action of applying morality is and will always be wrong.
Correct me if that wasn't your intentions.
Personally I consider morality to be make-believe, unnecessary unwritten rules that some people worry about and trap themselves within.

I have no belief in morality. I think enforcing one's belief in morality onto others results in oppression and conflict.

But I am interested in what others believe with regards to morality, why it troubles them so much, and how it affects them regarding their own decision making process but also their desire to thrust a standard of morality onto others.

I understand you would believe that you are a good person and that your own moral standard is well thought out and makes you good. That you do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.

But I believe that the road to hell is full of good intentions. "Hell" being oppression and conflict and all things that good moral people want to avoid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 07:58 PM
RE: Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
(29-03-2012 07:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
Quote:I
can't help but think your question was being addressed in the tone that
the forceful action of applying morality is and will always be wrong.
Correct me if that wasn't your intentions.
Personally I consider morality to be make-believe, unnecessary unwritten rules that some people worry about and trap themselves within.

I have no belief in morality. I think enforcing one's belief in morality onto others results in oppression and conflict.

But I am interested in what others believe with regards to morality, why it troubles them so much, and how it affects them regarding their own decision making process but also their desire to thrust a standard of morality onto others.

I understand you would believe that you are a good person and that your own moral standard is well thought out and makes you good. That you do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.

But I believe that the road to hell is full of good intentions. "Hell" being oppression and conflict and all things that good moral people want to avoid.
So I have to ask, what are you "following" when you don't steal, rape, kill, etc...
And why are you not doing these things.

Assuming that you refrain from doing these things.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 08:08 PM
RE: Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
(29-03-2012 07:58 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  So I have to ask, what are you "following" when you don't steal, rape, kill, etc...
And why are you not doing these things.

Assuming that you refrain from doing these things.
In a way think of it as similar to people whom believe in god.
They struggle to understand why an atheist doesn't steal, rape, kill, etc...
because to them without god there is no good and without good people will act selfishly and steal, rape, kill, etc...

It is not a belief in morality that stops me from stealing, raping and killing.
1. If I rape, steal, or kill then I will find myself in mortal danger from other people, the people I am attacking and bystanders will likely see me as a threat and will retaliate with force. Therefore selfishly it is in my best interests not to rape, steal or kill...
2. As a member of society I don't want people raping, stealing from or killing me, therefore selfishly it is in my best interest to support and belong to a society where rape, theft and murder is not tolerated.
3. Within a society where rape, theft and murder is not tolerated and offenders face imprisonment, therefore selfishly it is in my best interest not to rape, steal or kill...

I don't not do these things because they are wrong and hence against my desire to be self righteous, I don't do these things because selfishly it is in my best interest not to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 08:33 PM
RE: Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
(29-03-2012 04:40 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  So I have went full vegetarian. I have done a tremendous amount of reading, and discussions with my philosophy board and ethics class has prompted my change. The strongest argument I find with abstaining from eating meat is the well-being and happiness it retracts from animals. Considering I can be perfectly fine with eating vegetables the rest of my life, I see no problem with removing meat from my diet.

Now, to bring about a hypothetical question from the viewpoint of my previous statements. IF, one day we are to discover that plants can feel pain when killed and/or somehow are aware of their existence, and we operate on the morality concerning well-being/autonomy & respect, would it not then be moral to starve to death?

Trivial comments displayed with no moral than an impulse thought directed by your adrenaline glands and shrunken cerebral cortices will be met with no more than a request to go educate yourself, and to get fucked. I want a serious inquiry into the moral implications of well being/autonomy, and our status if our only source of food would require use to ignore the morality of the previous given criteria
You are making the assumption that it is morally wrong to eat something that can feel pain. I personally do not share that assumption, because it doesn't particularly make sense. The predator prey relationship has existed for almost as long as life has existed on this planet. If it is morally wrong to consume other life forms for nourishment, then inherit morals have never existed within life.

Morals are developed through the animals reasoning skills, some animal species can reason slightly better than others, but the basis for our morals is the same, survival. Morals are just a bi-product of survival of the fittest, so why should we put ourselves on a pedestal and pretend we are morally superior?

I guess I didn't answer the question, so I will try again.


In order for humans to feel sympathy for another life form they would have to be able to transpose themselves with the other life form. If I got to the store and buy some bacon, I don't even give a second thought to the horrific suffering the pig may have endured. You on the other hand, have probably seen some of the documentaries regarding corporate farms, and have a completely different reaction to that bacon. Most people have not seen those films, so its not even in there thought process, while others such as myself have seen them, but are not moved enough to stop eating bacon.

Anyways, the point is that even if we somehow discovered that plants are self aware, there is no way for us to transpose ourselves with a plant. We can't get in the plant's shoes and understand its pain. Therefore, there is no sympathy and no pity for these plants.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 09:58 PM
RE: Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
(29-03-2012 07:00 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 06:46 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  My personal preference is to reduce the human population, reduce the consumption of each human....
and manufacture non-living food for ourselves.
I too share that view. The human population really needs to drop dramatically. I am not sure as to what the magic number would be, but it isn't 7 billion.


Ever read the Hot Zone ? If that Belgian nun from Zaire had gotten on the plane to Europe, with Ebola, there would have been a huge population drop. It's only a matter of time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 10:27 PM
RE: Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
(29-03-2012 09:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 07:00 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  I too share that view. The human population really needs to drop dramatically. I am not sure as to what the magic number would be, but it isn't 7 billion.


Ever read the Hot Zone ? If that Belgian nun from Zaire had gotten on the plane to Europe, with Ebola, there would have been a huge population drop. It's only a matter of time.
?? What are you talking about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 10:39 PM
RE: Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
(29-03-2012 10:27 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 09:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ever read the Hot Zone ? If that Belgian nun from Zaire had gotten on the plane to Europe, with Ebola, there would have been a huge population drop. It's only a matter of time.
?? What are you talking about?

Sometime in the late 90's or 2000's there was an Ebola outbreak in Africa. Ebola is an EXTREMELY virulent hemorragic virus, for which there was no cure. They didn't know where it came from, how it was transmitted, or how to cure it. Anyone who came in contact with it, died, (a horrible death).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease
A Belgian missionary nun picked it up, and was about to get on a plane home to Europe. Instead she dropped dead. If she HAD gotten on the plane, everyone on the plane would have died, as well as everyone they came into contact with the passengers, or her, until they figured out the chain of infection. Luck stopped that one. Someday, either Ebola, (or one of the other forms of Marburg Virus), will get out. It's curtains for anyone who comes into contact with it, (unless they find a vaccine).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 11:06 PM
RE: Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
For starters, on the title of the thread, I enjoy the nod to Zat. Good to keep his ongoing type of moral questioning in this philosophy forum going.

On the moral like question, I've always been questioning with the idea of what is the real issue with suicide which goes into assisted living suicide types of questions.

I've yet to find a better argument that settles with myself.. So I've always given attribute to the idea that Socrates mentioned. I believe there is a moment nearing his death in that work of Plato that speaks how there will always be more knoweldge ot be gained in the world; therefore to prematurely end a life is shameful to the search for knowledge.

I've maintained as long as I can read or write, I want to be kept alive. If I am incapable of that act and it seems unlikely that I can recover, I see no further benefit to keeping alive and wish my body to be used for study after that point.

On actual topic, I think it would be immoral. That is based on my morality since I believe we all create our morality. I do think there is a standard we can uphold but I would measure that sentient life that can currently achieve conscious knowledge as higher than plants with nerves per-se.

The closest thing to this issue I have ever thought of relates to the world of Pokemon. In the TV show it showed them eating non Pokemon like fish, although, we never do seem to see these creatures alive. It makes me wonder since plants can also be Pokemon, what if that world existed with no life not human/Pokemon. The Pokemon are perceived as intelligent to the point that most people in our culture wouldn't want to eat them just like the stigma of eating Cats & Dogs. In that case, I would think it might be immoral, but I believe they have some type of chemical food for that issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 03:24 AM
RE: Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question.
I eat meat because it is only natural for humans to do so. You might argue with this with classic vegetarian facts, but humans are not meant to eat only grass, or we would have stomachs like sheeps, or cows. We are not predators only, or we would have teeth like dogs, we are in between, like pigs, we eat everything.

I also love the taste and I have a problem with my metabolism, if I do not eat meat I am forever hungry.

As for your "morality" it is faulty at this time already, you do not need to wait for something like plants feelings. They are alive, so they do feel stuff, only in a different way than we do, so that makes the confusion. But what we do know is that plans produce oxygen and are a vital part of all life on earth, while cow is not. So in that way, you are doing bigger damage to this planet than I am.

It is all a matter of your personal perspective. If you want to save the world from your footprint, you must kill yourself. So, if you think that is stupid, or you do not want to do it, then why bother with other stuff? We are talking about existence here, eating equals existence. Eating normally, even animals is a part of natural way we humans have evolved.

Do I hate how and what the meat industry is doing? Of course, what kind of a person would I be if not? What do I do against it? I try to buy meat from private individuals, people from village, people who have their own cows and sheeps, so the whole process is far less brutal. Do the animals die in the end? Yes, but how else am I suppose to live and eat meat? It is a part of nature, a tiger also has to kill it's food, and the victim there suffers while dying. That is also a natural part of living...

I don't see anything wrong with eating meat, I see something wrong with the way it is being produced on a mass scale. But, that is price we and our planet is paying for our technological advances and improvements. There is a way to change all that, but that is all in some other post, so roam around, you might stumble upon it...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: