Evidence that fish have feelings

I happen to have what you call 'basic respect' for living things, I find a dude snapping the neck of a rabbit 'icky'.

I see that as me having grown up in a city and never having to snap necks to make a meal that evening. If I end up living on a farm, I'm sure I'll quickly get used to snapping necks of chickens and rabbits no problem.

See, your whole argument boils down to 'why aren't you more like me? Isn't being like me better than being like you?'

That's one point of view, I'd much prefer other people be more like me as well, so that I can get along with them better etc. I just recognize that that's simply a self-serving preference.

My answer is because I don't feel like it on that day. Sometimes I feel like practicing non-violence, other days I feel like practicing it and letting off some steam.

There is no inherent moral virtue in not picking up a stick when walking through a forest and slashing tall grass as you walk around.

Now if tall grass can express discontent similar to human discontent and you happily ignore it, then the issue is that you're likely to inflict human violence with no second thought.

THAT societies don't like. But don't get it twisted with empty moralizing - we want people to feel bad about violence to prevent violence to other humans within our tribe, that's it.

I see from another comment that you are Vegan, so how did you make the distinction of what living things are acceptable to eat, and which are not? Plants are just as alive as mammals, fish or insects; so if it isn't 'life' that you are preserving, what exactly is it? some idea of consciousness? intelligence? How does something like Honey fit into your view of this issue?

Further, how do you justify your greater reliance than meat eaters on migrant underpaid labor? Is human suffering for your nutrition preferable to animal suffering?

Isnt this just a game of semantic false moral superiority until there is a nutrition source that is completely death and suffering free?

The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. That doesn't make our beliefs moral truths, or our arguments sound.

What you're advocating is that we change those norms to proscribe the eating of animals based on your value-preferences - you're advocating a change of our tastes, in both senses of the word. And you are not going to sway many people to make a fundamentally emotional decision with 'logical' or 'moral' reasoning, particularly when for many people the eating of meat (or even the killing of animals) is not only something they like but part of their cultural identity. Even so, people like me are still going to be steadfast in their opposition to your attempted revolution of social norms based simply on their value-preferences and because, frankly, I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better.

> There is plenty wrong with causing suffering.

What, specifically? What makes it wrong?

> I think in the case of eating animals, society is quite detached from the experience, though. That's why we shy away from watching slaughterhouse videos, why we put pictures of happy cows on cartons of milk - why such an unbelievably rosy picture must be painted to justify ruthless and horrific violence taking place all the time.

For millions of years, most people hunted down and slaughtered their own food. In many cases the animals suffered horribly, even as badly or worse than they do in our industrial farming environments.

I agree that most people are far removed from the experience of the suffering and killing of farm animals. I think that's exactly why people like you exist. Most people are raised up surrounded by puppies and kittens, not food animals, and grow up watching Disney movies full of friendly, talking animals. The majority of modern western society is far removed from the reality of life. No surprise that when confronted with excerpts from it, they respond with horror, it being utterly at odds with their prior experience.

> To the same point, the reason it is acceptable to raise and kill billions of animals are also social norms and culture. Is the hypocrisy of it all not apparent?

No. There is no larger moral framework. Morality is a social phenomena that manifests in arbitrary ways, though with humans (as with other social animals) it will always tend to some degree of in-group altrusim. There is no hypocrisy to be had because it is fundamentally arbitrary.

> It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior

This is my point. Our culturally contextual blinders generally prevent us from coming to objective conclusions about right and wrong. There is no objective right and wrong. There is no telescope science can use to inform us about moral reality. There are no sacred laws inscribed on our souls by God. Innumerable philosophers have tried to ground morality in something objective and all of them failed. This is why you keep repeating that the suffering and killing of animals is wrong, but cannot explain to me why this is so, except that is appalling that I need an explanation. It is a reality for you, insofar as it is a reflection of your feelings and tastes, but your feelings and tastes are not my feelings and tastes nor at they anyone else's; they are yours alone. History is the single best teacher of the subjectivity of morality.

There's nothing wrong (in my opinion) with having the feelings and tastes you do (and therefore the moral-philosphical positions), but you cannot convince me, or people like me, of your position by stamping your feet and asserting a moral superiority that not only does not exist but cannot exist.

> Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of.

My moral nihilism, or whatever you might choose to label it, came to fruition long before I had the vaguest idea of defending the eating of animals. Nor do I feel particularly strongly on the subject; if a law was passed tomorrow I would chiefly be annoyed at the difficulty of getting the protein/calorie ratio demanded by my workout and diet regimen.

I am not interested in the documentary, having seen plenty of examples of gratuitous animal cruelty myself, and having killed animals (legally) myself. There is no amount of suffering that a video could show me that would change my mind because I deny that the suffering is inherently wrong. I merely prefer that the suffering of animals be minimized to the extent that it can be done without raising the cost of meat significantly.

Occam's razor can just as easily be applied here to come to a conclusion that is opposite your conclusion.

Fish do things that mammals (humans) do. We know that mammals do those things (stress fever) because they are experiencing things in a way at least somewhat comparable to the way we experience them (they are experiencing discomfort and fear and their body is responding to it, just as ours do). What is the simpler explanation here?

1. Your conjecture that fish are utterly and completely different from other living things that exhibit this response and that they are exhibiting this response for reasons unlike our reasons (i.e. they aren't experiencing discomfort and fear, but are still heating up like we do).

2. They're more like other sentient beings than we'd previously assumed, and are experiencing things in some ways similarly.

In short: If you're coming at this with the strongly held belief that fish are impossibly different from humans and can't possibly have feelings, you would interpret your way. But, if you're coming at it with no strongly held beliefs on the subject, and you see a fish behave in ways that indicate they are sentient and experience suffering like other animals...well, you assume the responses and behaviors are because they are kinda like those other animals.

Your assumption (that this response has no relation to the similar response in mammals) requires a new explanation for why the response happens. Thus, it seems to not be the simplest explanation (to me).

Have not seen a convincing argument that we will not find an evolutionary line in the sand between sentient and automaton animals.