Are we evil?

[Melzentir]

All consumption is death for the consumed. Yet all must eat, so we all bring damnation to one creature or another.

Yeah, Gravemind.

[Frozen_Feet]

Is that relevant? If this minority of a minority produces enough to, quantitatively, feed the world three times over, then it doesn't matter if it's a local thing. Everywhere has that sort of locality. Those locations are global.

It is relevant if you want to evaluate global efficiency of food production and distribution. Even now, we technically produce enough to feed the global population twice over, but still one billion people starve, and another one-and-half billion are obese. It continues to matter as long as the inefficiency remains, as that inefficiency is to blame for the suffering and unethicality.

Give those medieval farmers better tools, better practices, a bit of subsidy. Help them help themselves. Focus on the concept of agriculture across the world. Help them maintain their land. If our tiny sliver of land can produce such abundance, help them improve their slivers of land.

We've tried. It hasn't stuck. It may one day, but in the interim, billions of people, animals and what not suffer.

[SiuiS]

It is relevant if you want to evaluate global efficiency of food production and distribution. Even now, we technically produce enough to feed the global population twice over, but still one billion people starve, and another one-and-half billion are obese. It continues to matter as long as the inefficiency remains, as that inefficiency is to blame for the suffering and unethicality.

That's my point. It sounded like you believed that since it was a local matter, people shouldn't network. That those people who were usig medieval tools in the other half of the world should be left to do that while we continue to do our farming stuff here.


And it's been done, but it's never been done for people with good motives by people who have the funds of greedy motives. If it was a world goal, we could get it done.

[Frozen_Feet]

The difference between what we are doing and what we could be doing usually answers the title question, aye.

[Colemanus]

Yes we can complain. Bad people complained about the Nazis hurting them. People in prison bitch about being used by others.

[veti]

When the main character asks one of these parasites "You guys are monsters, why are you doing this?" the parasite responds with "We're not monsters, we're eating humans for food." At this point there have been about 80 of these strange murders caused by these things. The parasite then asks "Aren't humans really the monsters? How many millions of things do you kill each year and eat?"

The real problem here is that the character is using undefined terms ("monster"), introducing an emotionally loaded argument, and generally engaging in sloppy thinking. The reason to fight these things is nothing to do with their alignment, or the definition of the word "monster". The reason to fight them is that they're eating people. It's not complicated, and it's a mistake to make it so by introducing vague terms.

Imagine a Siberian tiger is about to kill your son. If you have the means, would you kill it?

I would, unhesitatingly, and I wouldn't waste a moment thinking about the fact that the tiger is an endangered species, or that it just wants to feed its cubs. When it's trying to kill my son, those things are not the point. It could be sprouting feathery wings and a halo, and its every word echoed by an invisible choir of joyous voices, and I'd still be doing my very best to kill it. I don't care who's the monster in that scenario, it's eating my son, and at that point "moral" just doesn't matter any more. I quite literally don't give a damn.

[Zrak]

Firstly.

No, it really doesn't, it's just sophistry. If they're intelligent enough to talk to us, they're definitely in the wrong morally, since they don't have to eat humans, they're just choosing to do so. And also creating quite a bit more trouble for themselves than they really would want anyway.

We don't have to eat creatures that [can feel pain/have faces/can recognize individual humans/have spines/&c.], we're just choosing to do so.

This is like people who insist on both freedom of expression and also no consequence for expression. Sorry, either A) you have to accept you can't say anything no matter how outlandish, or B) you have to accept that I can express my dislike with a fist just like you can.

I don't think most definitions of freedom of speech include expressions of the fist any more than they do propaganda of the deed. Someone can believe in their right to say something, however outlandish, and your right to say something back (however outlandish) without believe either of you has the right to use physical violence as a response to outlandish speech.

All consumption is death for the consumed. Yet all must eat, so we all bring damnation to one creature or another.

Eating apples hardly kills the tree.

Imagine a Siberian tiger is about to kill your son. If you have the means, would you kill it?

How old is he? I mean, are we talking "cute years" or is this kid about to hit middle school? That tiger might be doing me a huge favor.

[Razade]

We don't have to eat creatures that [can feel pain/have faces/can recognize individual humans/have spines/&c.], we're just choosing to do so.

Doesn't make them not tasty.

Eating apples hardly kills the tree.

But does kill the apple.

How old is he? I mean, are we talking "cute years" or is this kid about to hit middle school? That tiger might be doing me a huge favor.

Does it matter? If something is trying to kill someone do you not feel obligated to help them regardless of their age or their ability? I know I do.

[Eldan]

Depending on your definition of "feeling pain", very few living things don't. Plants react to being hurt, after all, and communicate the fact to other plants nearby.

[Zrak]

Doesn't make them not tasty.

Nor would our ability to speak make us not tasty to the hypothetical aliens.

But does kill the apple.

Apples aren't discrete organisms, so, no, it doesn't.

Does it matter? If something is trying to kill someone do you not feel obligated to help them regardless of their age or their ability? I know I do.

Well, yeah, if the middle-schooler is trying to kill the tiger that's trying to eat him, I would feel obligated to help defend the poor innocent kitty. I was saying I'd just stand by under the assumption the tiger has taken the middle-schooler by surprise.

[Asta Kask]

What standard of 'evil' do we use?

[warty goblin]

But does kill the apple.

In point of fact, the entire purpose of an apple is to be attractive enough that something eats it. It's why they were relatively sweet even before we spent a couple thousand years breeding them. It's how apple trees (and most other fruiting plants) solve the problem of moving their seeds. Unless you're regularly grinding up and eating apple seeds, you are doing exactly what the parent tree wanted, carrying and then discarding its seeds somewhere else. Just eating the seeds whole is fine, they'll go right through unharmed.

If we're attaching ethics to eating plants, you only run into trouble when you start eating either the entire plant, or its actual seeds. Eating corn kills the kernels, eating a walnut destroys that seed, eating lettuce involves the rampant shredding of lettuce plants, as well as usually lopping off any seed heads that the plant grows, or else pulling the entire plant up when it starts to bolt. Gardening requires the wholesale destruction of a lot of desirable plants, not to mention the constant slaughter of hordes of weeds and legions of insects and other arthropods.

[Aedilred]

Unless you're regularly grinding up and eating apple seeds,

Incidentally: Don't do this, they're full of cyanide. One or two won't hurt you too much (and swallowing them whole is fine), but it's not good for you all the same.

[SiuiS]

The real problem here is that the character is using undefined terms ("monster"), introducing an emotionally loaded argument, and generally engaging in sloppy thinking. The reason to fight these things is nothing to do with their alignment, or the definition of the word "monster". The reason to fight them is that they're eating people. It's not complicated, and it's a mistake to make it so by introducing vague terms.

Imagine a Siberian tiger is about to kill your son. If you have the means, would you kill it?

I would, unhesitatingly, and I wouldn't waste a moment thinking about the fact that the tiger is an endangered species, or that it just wants to feed its cubs. When it's trying to kill my son, those things are not the point. It could be sprouting feathery wings and a halo, and its every word echoed by an invisible choir of joyous voices, and I'd still be doing my very best to kill it. I don't care who's the monster in that scenario, it's eating my son, and at that point "moral" just doesn't matter any more. I quite literally don't give a damn.

I can respect that.

I would actually try to scare the tiger off, if I had any reason to believe I could use something less than lethal force and survive.

Tangent question: you know 100% by engaging the tiger, you will die. Your son will still be out in tiger infested wilderness (though safe from this tiger). Do you still do it?

Firstly.

Neat, haven't heard the original before.

I don't think most definitions of freedom of speech include expressions of the fist any more than they do propaganda of the deed. Someone can believe in their right to say something, however outlandish, and your right to say something back (however outlandish) without believe either of you has the right to use physical violence as a response to outlandish speech.

Then I did a poor job of explaining.

The common use of freedom of speech is "I can say whatever I want, but you cannot challenge me because then you're challenging my freedom of speech", that is, if I were to call you a dirty name, and you reported me to the moderators, you're at fault for not letting me speak freely.

That's asinine. Freedom of speech applies to everyone. You have the freedom to say something inflammatory, sure, but then I have the freedom to verbally tear you a new one for being an (hypothetical) idiot.

I just default to animal morality sometimes. It's always in the back of my mind that push comes to shove, the guy with the knife is right because there comes a point where he says "I'm right" and the other guy can no longer disagree. It keeps me civil.

Eating apples hardly kills the tree.

Precisely. This argument is like saying sloughing skin slowly kills you because the cells die.

But does kill the apple.

Apples aren't relevant to the idea of creatures. This is like holding your breath because metabolism causes molecular separation of air. Giving equal weight to apples and humans is ludicrous.

Does it matter? If something is trying to kill someone do you not feel obligated to help them regardless of their age or their ability? I know I do.

I do not value human life above animal life. I respect your position though, in the sense of respecting you and not just a patronizing 'I get that, sure'. We need more folks like that sometimes.

[veti]

I can respect that.

I would actually try to scare the tiger off, if I had any reason to believe I could use something less than lethal force and survive.

Tangent question: you know 100% by engaging the tiger, you will die. Your son will still be out in tiger infested wilderness (though safe from this tiger). Do you still do it?

To the last question: yep. Obviously that's a sub-optimal outcome in many ways, but if only one of the three of us is going to survive this encounter, there's no doubt in my mind who that should be.

Yes, if there were an option that involved sparing the tiger while still saving the kid, I'd do that. But for purposes of this thought experiment, I assumed there wasn't.

[Aedilred]

To the last question: yep. Obviously that's a sub-optimal outcome in many ways, but if only one of the three of us is going to survive this encounter, there's no doubt in my mind who that should be.

Yes, if there were an option that involved sparing the tiger while still saving the kid, I'd do that. But for purposes of this thought experiment, I assumed there wasn't.

I would rather not kill the tiger if it could be avoided, but that's mostly because I'm generally in favour of tigers and they're in short supply. If however one was directly attacking me/my loved ones I'd probably do what needed to be done and if it died then mourn it later.

I would have much less compunction about killing a member of any species attacking me/a loved one that wasn't endangered, still less if it were an invasive species in that habitat. I don't have a problem with killing mice, rats, cockroaches, clothes moths, fruit flies or bluebottles that invade my home even if they're not directly hurting anyone, and would fairly happily shoot game birds or rabbits in order to eat them.

[warty goblin]

Apples aren't relevant to the idea of creatures. This is like holding your breath because metabolism causes molecular separation of air. Giving equal weight to apples and humans is ludicrous.

Quite right, it isn't an apples to apples comparison. The apples to apples comparison involving apples and humans is probably something like comparing apples to sperm. Which leads quite naturally to that most fundamental of horticultural problems; trying to get the apple tree to wear a condom.

I do not value human life above animal life. I respect your position though, in the sense of respecting you and not just a patronizing 'I get that, sure'. We need more folks like that sometimes.

I value human life more than animal life, but I'm human. I am under no illusion that a disinterested third party would necessarily judge me to be worth more than the pig whose leg I slow-cooked to delicious perfection last night. To such a creature the pig may well be worth more, because I really suck at digging holes with my face. I would protest quite stringently if the third party decided I should die for my swine-murderin' ways, but I cannot say I can meaningfully prove the third party wrong.

[Razade]

Apples aren't relevant to the idea of creatures. This is like holding your breath because metabolism causes molecular separation of air. Giving equal weight to apples and humans is ludicrous.

And I wasn't making that argument. Your comment that eating causes death to the consumed. Zrak responded that eating an apple doesn't kill the tree. My point was you don't eat the tree. You eat the apple. Which doesn't live after you eat it. I was backing up your point.

I do not value human life above animal life. I respect your position though, in the sense of respecting you and not just a patronizing 'I get that, sure'. We need more folks like that sometimes.

I don't not value animal life over human life. Saving someone from being killed doesn't place them above another being over all, just in the moment. Secondly I wouldn't go to the "kill" option if it wasn't the only option. Thirdly, if I saw a human trying to kill a dog I'd try to stop that person from doing it with all my power.

[Kornaki]

And I wasn't making that argument. Your comment that eating causes death to the consumed. Zrak responded that eating an apple doesn't kill the tree. My point was you don't eat the tree. You eat the apple. Which doesn't live after you eat it. I was backing up your point.

Did the apple live before you ate it? Is an apple a living organism?

[Bhu]

OP: No we aren't evil, we're amoral. Good and evil are polite fictions created by humans, for humans, to justify what they do to one another, and to manipulate others into changing their behaviors. They are lies that allow society to function, but that doesn't make them any less of a lie.

[Razade]

Did the apple live before you ate it? Is an apple a living organism?

Depends on how you define Life I guess. The apple isn't dead, the cells are still active after all.

[Heliomance]

Incidentally: Don't do this, they're full of cyanide. One or two won't hurt you too much (and swallowing them whole is fine), but it's not good for you all the same.

But they're tasty!

[SiuiS]

And I wasn't making that argument. Your comment that eating causes death to the consumed. Zrak responded that eating an apple doesn't kill the tree. My point was you don't eat the tree. You eat the apple. Which doesn't live after you eat it. I was backing up your point.

But the apple is not alive in the same sense. Alive does not mean possesses cellular metabolism. It's a distinction that has to be made. It may be arbitrary, but there must be a line where you say "okay, this spot here, this is where distinction matters". Otherwise we end up with the doctor manhattan issue; at a particle level there is no difference between a livif body and a dead one.

I don't not value animal life over human life. Saving someone from being killed doesn't place them above another being over all, just in the moment. Secondly I wouldn't go to the "kill" option if it wasn't the only option. Thirdly, if I saw a human trying to kill a dog I'd try to stop that person from doing it with all my power.

I did not mean to imply anything and was speaking solely for myself.

It's an old martial arts parable (old as in older than me), that a practitioner was arrested and spent his time meditating on fighting a tiger. If done well enough, one can come out of solitary prison confinement just as sharp mentally as one went in, because all opponents are in the mind.

I told you that so I could tell you that tigers, actively attacking, are probably the best illustration I can think of for the continuum of force. There is not escalation, there are no steps, there is only lethal force. It's a topic of interest for me, much navel gazing involved.

Children, animals and the disabled (through age or infirmity), aye. It's an irrational bias, but I attribute a moral weight to assault of someone that cannot fathom an attack as such and cannot defend themselves. Like, a dog is a wolf in body, right? For given values of dog. But dogs are conditioned to like people, or respond to people as people do. Someone hurting a dog will get a rise out of me that someone hurting an adult human male will not*.




* caveat: tears or clear dismay.

[Zrak]

The point I was arguing was not that we ate apple trees, but that considering an apple on is own rather than a part of the tree frames the question disingenuously. If you consider the apple alone, rather than the organism of which it is a part, the statement I argued against is technically true, but pointless; "killing" things which are not discrete organisms and, in fact, are a creature's means of reproduction that rely on consumption doesn't really entail the conclusion implied in the post to which I responded, that "we all bring damnation to one creature or another." Eating an apple does not bring damnation to the apple tree. In fact, it pretty much does the opposite.

[Razade]

But the apple is not alive in the same sense. Alive does not mean possesses cellular metabolism. It's a distinction that has to be made. It may be arbitrary, but there must be a line where you say "okay, this spot here, this is where distinction matters". Otherwise we end up with the doctor manhattan issue; at a particle level there is no difference between a livif body and a dead one.

Sure, and it's up to you to draw the line I suppose. Not you specifically of course but more so you as the individual. And that's cool.

The point I was arguing was not that we ate apple trees, but that considering an apple on is own rather than a part of the tree frames the question disingenuously. If you consider the apple alone, rather than the organism of which it is a part, the statement I argued against is technically true, but pointless; "killing" things which are not discrete organisms and, in fact, are a creature's means of reproduction that rely on consumption doesn't really entail the conclusion implied in the post to which I responded, that "we all bring damnation to one creature or another." Eating an apple does not bring damnation to the apple tree. In fact, it pretty much does the opposite.

Sure, I wasn't really supporting the argument to show where you were wrong but more as pointing out that SiuS's point wasn't exactly false as you framed it either. Though I wouldn't argue that eating the Apple Tree's ability to proliferate somehow is the opposite of dooming it unless you want to say that since we want the apples we keep the trees safe. Though in that sense then we're not really dooming the cow as a species either since we're going to keep breeding them because we want their steaks. Sucks for the individual cow sure but it's not exactly roses for the individual tree either. We just give more weight to the cow because we value it's life as more important, a distinction I find arbitrary.

[warty goblin]

Sure, I wasn't really supporting the argument to show where you were wrong but more as pointing out that SiuS's point wasn't exactly false as you framed it either. Though I wouldn't argue that eating the Apple Tree's ability to proliferate somehow is the opposite of dooming it unless you want to say that since we want the apples we keep the trees safe. Though in that sense then we're not really dooming the cow as a species either since we're going to keep breeding them because we want their steaks. Sucks for the individual cow sure but it's not exactly roses for the individual tree either. We just give more weight to the cow because we value it's life as more important, a distinction I find arbitrary.

Depending on the specific tree, it can in fact be very good, so long as it produces apples that we like. Apples don't breed true for their fruit (by which I mean the fruit of a cross of two apples is very different from either of the parent tree's fruit), so if we want more apples, we clone the tree. We also do this for apples that have otherwise favorable characteristics, such as rootstock.

[Razade]

Depending on the specific tree, it can in fact be very good, so long as it produces apples that we like. Apples don't breed true for their fruit (by which I mean the fruit of a cross of two apples is very different from either of the parent tree's fruit), so if we want more apples, we clone the tree. We also do this for apples that have otherwise favorable characteristics, such as rootstock.

Right, I said exactly that. It's good for the tree if you want to frame it in that we keep the trees that produce the apples we want. But the same can be said for the cow if you want to frame it in that sense. It's great for the cow that we want their steak and milk and leather because we're going to keep breeding the stock that produce the best qualities of all of those.

[warty goblin]

Right, I said exactly that. It's good for the tree if you want to frame it in that we keep the trees that produce the apples we want. But the same can be said for the cow if you want to frame it in that sense. It's great for the cow that we want their steak and milk and leather because we're going to keep breeding the stock that produce the best qualities of all of those.

Eating a tree's apples does not doom it as an individual. In fact it may make that particular genetic strain vastly more long-lived than it could manage left to its own devices. Since we don't tend to eat animals that keel over of old age however, eating a cow does doom that individual. The difference does seem relevant.

[Razade]

Eating a tree's apples does not doom it as an individual. In fact it may make that particular genetic strain vastly more long-lived than it could manage left to its own devices. Since we don't tend to eat animals that keel over of old age however, eating a cow does doom that individual. The difference does seem relevant.

I don't particularly see it. The cow regardless of what it's use it has (in general) a higher standard of living and especially in the case of dairy farms a much longer life expectancy than a wild cow. This is of course ignoring Factory Farming and the like. My family cows have most certainly had a better standard of living and much longer lives than they'd have at the mercy of things much faster and hungrier than themselves. Even the ones we used for meat. I freely accept that a Tree and a Cow aren't really equal to most people but I put more worth on the tree in my personal view.

[Murska]

Answering the title question: Morality is not objective. Therefore, no, we are not evil. (And yes, we are, from some other point of view, but that is unimportant as the only morality I can follow is my own.)