Hacker News Reader

Comment by spindritf | Hacker News Reader

> It's also okay to kill animals. Why? Because it's natural.

I'm not sure if you're mocking the naturalistic fallacy or committing to it.

The problem of a higher order they have is the underlying axiom of decreasing total suffering. We lack information to asses the full consequences of our actions and so any morality based on the ultimate results will be unworkable.

View on HN

>We lack information to asses the full consequences of our actions and so any morality based on the ultimate results will be unworkable.

So then what should we do? If any morality based on our small understanding of suffering is largely unknowable, then why should it be immoral to eat animals? Furthermore, is this a question of knowing, or is it universal? Is it alright for tribesmen to kill animals if they haven't even considered the animal's suffering?

Following the same logic you could replace the word animals with "people" in your counter argument and you'll see where that gets you. Our morality has evolved since prehistoric times and continues to do so in the face of challenges such as this (and many more). An example of a move towards more ethical food practices would be something like this: Since a pig is as smart as a three-year-old human, perhaps it might be a little more ethical to treat that pig humanely while it is alive even--if we do end up eating it. So lets move towards more humane treatment of livestock.

> Following the same logic you could replace the word animals with "people" in your counter argument and you'll see where that gets you

It doesn't get you anywhere useful. It gets you back to the original argument of whether people are an exceptional animal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com