Is it okay for vegans to eat oysters?

[TheDeceased]

Being brain-dead, completely paralyzed and unaware of yourself doesn't really sound like a good life to you either does it?

If a person is brain-dead and cannot move feel or think, then they might as well be dead.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Can we eat him?

 

[skoat]

Yes.

 

[TheDeceased]

Yes as far as I'm concerned. Eat them.

I want to be eaten by worms. I want to be buried in the ground. If I was in a completely vegetative state then I would want to be put out of my misery. In fact, if I had a moderate to high level brain injury I would also want to die. And if my dead body could be used to feed hungry people or hungry animals rather than just being put into a box under the ground to rot, I have absolutely no moral issue with that whatsoever.

The persons family might have a problem with it. People keep loved ones alive for the sake of it. They have trouble letting go. So I wouldn't eat a comatose person because it's illegal and potentially upsetting.

I'm not advocating cannibalism generally, but honestly I don't see the issue (aside from the family thing) if that person is brain-dead or actually dead.

It is far worse in my opinion to kill a dolphin that it is to kill someone who by all accounts should be dead and lacks the potential to ever enjoy or experience anything.

I don't value human life higher than all other species without exception.

 

[L2R]

a person in a persistent vegetative state, with no consciousness or capacity for movement is not ethically equivalent to an oyster with similar capabilities. the difference between the two is that only one belongs to a species in which it is reasonable to expect a life of far greater capacity.

whilst subjectively and experientially, the above hypothetical person knows no better, they are nonetheless going through an objective tragedy. their interests, whether they know of them or not, have been severely undermined.

at the same time, the oyster can't be said to be experiencing this tragic existence. they have no reasonable interests beyond being an oyster, and all that entails. the quality of the oyster's life is therefore high, as it is living a full oyster's life.


...and they are so yummy

 

[Busty St Clare]

One oyster's sandy vagina is another oyster's free pearl.

 

[L2R]

ba-zing! hahah

 

[TheDeceased]

whilst subjectively and experientially, the above hypothetical person knows no better, they are nonetheless going through an objective tragedy. their interests, whether they know of them or not, have been severely undermined.

What's the difference between someone who is brain dead going through a tragedy and someone who is dead going through a tragedy? ie. what's the significance of the "tragedy" when they don't know it's happening?

I'm not seriously condoning eating people, but morally I see no difference between killing an animal that is incapable of thought and killing a person that is incapable of thought.

Either way there is no quality of life, in terms of the way we view life.

a person in a persistent vegetative state, with no consciousness or capacity for movement is not ethically equivalent to an oyster with similar capabilities.

I didn't value oysters over comatose people. Simply because they are my own species, though, I would value them slightly higher than an oyster, but certainly not higher than a member of a sentient species that doesn't have substantial cognitive damage.

I valued dolphins over comatose people.

Do you honsetly believe the life of a brain dead, paralyzed man (who obviously is being kept alive by machines as he would be naturally incapable of feeding himself, defacating etc.) is more important than the life of a dolphin?

Why?

 

[L2R]

What's the difference between someone who is brain dead going through a tragedy and someone who is dead going through a tragedy? ie. what's the significance of the "tragedy" when they don't know it's happening?

I'm not seriously condoning eating people, but morally I see no difference between killing an animal that is incapable of thought and killing a person that is incapable of thought.

Either way there is no quality of life, in terms of the way we view life.

Yup, this you established at the start of the thread. This is what i first replied to by commenting that there are ethical considerations outside of the subjective experience. Your entire basis is valuing life which would suffer more by being killed. I don't agree that it is that simple.

I didn't value oysters over comatose people. Simply because they are my own species, though, I would value them slightly higher than an oyster, but certainly not higher than a member of a sentient species that doesn't have substantial cognitive damage.

Why would you value a suffering life over a healthy one? Outside of incompatability (such as in the HIV question), species allegiance is not an adequate response.

I valued dolphins over comatose people.

Do you honsetly believe the life of a brain dead, paralyzed man (who obviously is being kept alive by machines as he would be naturally incapable of feeding himself, defacating etc.) is more important than the life of a dolphin?

Why?

I never said this.

My point is that a healthy oyster is not living a low quality life as you asserted.

 

[TheDeceased]

species allegiance is not an adequate response

Not an "adequate response"? Bullshit. Why not?

Your entire basis is valuing life which would suffer more by being killed. I don't agree that it is that simple.

No actually that isn't my entire basis. We've already done this. You and me. I've listed the other contributing factors.

My point is that a healthy oyster is not living a low quality life as you asserted.

If this is your point you have yet to establish it.

Please explain the quality of an oysters life.

I'm not being smug.

If you going to take the time to continue to the discussion then flesh out the reasons as to why you believe oysters have quality of life. Particularly how is it possible to have quality of life if you cannot think. Do viruses have quality of life? Do you kill them? Do you value them differently to other things that are "alive". If so, why?

I never said this.

No you didn't. You implied that the life of a comatose brain dead man is more important than the life of an oyster. I made the leap to dolphin.

I didn't say that you said anything. I asked you a question. Another one that you ignored.. thought I was the one ignoring questions?

 

[TheDeceased]

I value a "suffering" human life over the life of a non-sentient being because:

a) I am suffering to some extent. A chicken that is suffering is more important to me than a plant that is not suffering.
b) Other people put value in the life of that person, perhaps misguidedly, but nonetheless. I don't want to hurt people's families. Oysters don't have families. Or friends.
c) Species allegiance (the same reason people/animals generally don't commit cannibalism).

That enough?



I see very little value in the life of someone on life support who has no chance of recovery. I don't care if they die. I see very little value in oysters. I don't care if they die.

The difference isn't substantial. If you really can't understand that the fact I belong to one of the species, among other reasons, persuading me towards caring slightly more in one direction then you aren't really trying to understand.

L2R, you seemed to bail on the idea of having a serious discussion about halfway through this thread. Now you appear to just be argumentative for the sake of it.

Species allegiance isn't an adequate response?

Seriously you can do better than that. The caliber of your posts seems to have deteriorated substantially, unlike Busty. That is, originally you were discussing things in a mature respectful manner but now, like Busty, you're just being silly.

Keep doing so if you like. I don't mind.

It's a free world.

But, I'm not sure what you're getting out of it.

?

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

No you don't. Nobody does.

That statement contradicts a number of things you've already said.

Then I was either wrong with my other statements or you are *more likely* misunderstanding me. Your brain clearly works completely different than mine... anyway it isn't impossible for contradictory things to exist you know. Things can be both one way and another.

Anyway, since you've gone into the territory of telling me what I can or cannot value, I'd say this convo has gotten stupid and I've grown bored with it. Enjoy the debate, it isn't my thing.

/exits

 

[TheDeceased]

I never told you what you can or cannot value.

I was either wrong with my other statements or you are *more likely* misunderstanding me.

You made a statement that cannot be true unless you are an extraordinarily strange person:

I believe all life is equal and worthy of the same respect, plant animal bug or human.

Do you value ants equally with humans? Do you value the life of a cockroach equally with the life of a dog? Do you value a potato equally with an elephant?

Course you don't.

If you did, you would be a lunatic.

How the fuck do you respect a potato?

 

[Macee]

Wow seriously?

If people want to eat any animal they like, it's their business I don't care. yes even a 'cute' puppy, as long as it's not stolen from someone else. I draw the line at cannibalism. Would I eat a 'cute' puppy myself? probably not.

Vegans don't have a set rule. It's a belief that the individual has to make, if they want to eat oysters they can, if they don't they won't. Simple.

But of course your rebuttal will probably be something like. 'but then what if the individual wants to eat a baby, would that be right?'

Then the answer would be, No, why? because western civilization's culture has deemed that an immoral and horrid thing to do, much like it's culture advocates religion etc... however this is one thing I and many others (I presume) agree is a good thing, eating babies is wrong.

If you want to remove all cultures and learned beliefs. Then yes, it's ok to eat a baby, it's ok to eat a giraffe, it's ok to eat plutonium. because once that moral barrier that society has given us is gone we are free to do whatever we like. (well the mother of the baby might still be pissed that you ate her baby)

Note, no I don't advocate eating babies.

 

[L2R]

Not an "adequate response"? Bullshit. Why not?

Can you not understand how personal bias cannot influence matters of ethics? Do you not see how unethical that is?

If this is your point you have yet to establish it.

Actually, I have established it far more than your assertion that they have a lower quality of life.

Please explain the quality of an oysters life.

If you going to take the time to continue to the discussion then flesh out the reasons as to why you believe oysters have quality of life. Particularly how is it possible to have quality of life if you cannot think. Do viruses have quality of life? Do you kill them? Do you value them differently to other things that are "alive". If so, why?

Those organisms live as they are naturally meant to. This is a high quality of life.

By your rationality, all creatures without some form of arbitrarily defined intelligence is living a poor life, and is therefore better off extinct.

No you didn't. You implied that the life of a comatose brain dead man is more important than the life of an oyster. I made the leap to dolphin.

No, i didn't say that at all, so your leap is nonsense.

I didn't say that you said anything. I asked you a question. Another one that you ignored.. thought I was the one ignoring questions?

The question was completely besides the point. If you pay attention to the conversation, as you've repeatedly neglected, you'd see that the comment was in response to your assertion that an oyster's life is as low a quality as a person in a vegetative state. My point is that this does not correlate.

So therefore, clearly the quality of life for a dolphin is greater than the quality of that of a person in a vegetative state.

I value a "suffering" human life over the life of a non-sentient being because:

a) I am suffering to some extent. A chicken that is suffering is more important to me than a plant that is not suffering.

Again you completely avoid or miss the point about objective harm.

b) Other people put value in the life of that person, perhaps misguidedly, but nonetheless. I don't want to hurt people's families. Oysters don't have families. Or friends.

Objective harm is not just about others either. That is still subjective.

c) Species allegiance (the same reason people/animals generally don't commit cannibalism).

Garbage, cannibalism is generally not practised (anymore) because it causes serious health issues (in humans).

That enough?

no, you haven't really thought about this much at all. either that or you have no basic understanding of ethics.

I see very little value in the life of someone on life support who has no chance of recovery. I don't care if they die. I see very little value in oysters. I don't care if they die.

The difference isn't substantial. If you really can't understand that the fact I belong to one of the species, among other reasons, persuading me towards caring slightly more in one direction then you aren't really trying to understand.

Oh i understand, but personal bias has no place in ethics or morality.

L2R, you seemed to bail on the idea of having a serious discussion about halfway through this thread. Now you appear to just be argumentative for the sake of it.

Incorrect, my questions are entirely valid.

Species allegiance isn't an adequate response?

Of course not, and until you can figure this very basic fundamental in the discussion, there is little point in continuing. THIS argument HAS NO ethical basis.

Seriously you can do better than that. The caliber of your posts seems to have deteriorated substantially, unlike Busty. That is, originally you were discussing things in a mature respectful manner but now, like Busty, you're just being silly.

Keep doing so if you like. I don't mind.

It's a free world.

I love being silly, and take up any chance to display it. It's one of my things.

However, in this thread I've shown little of it.

But, I'm not sure what you're getting out of it.

?

good question. i'll stop now.

let me know when you learn a little about ethics. once you understand how species allegiance is not a contributive factor in this discussion, i'll be willing to entertain you some more.

 

[TheDeceased]

Actually, I have established it far more than your assertion that they have a lower quality of life.

No you haven't.

Those organisms live as they are naturally meant to. This is a high quality of life.

No it isn't.

By your rationality, all creatures without some form of arbitrarily defined intelligence is living a poor life, and is therefore better off extinct.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

No, i didn't say that at all, so your leap is nonsense.

You implied it.

Again you completely avoid or miss the point about objective harm.

You haven't established "harm" in any context objective or otherwise.

Objective harm is not just about others either. That is still subjective.

I didn't say it was objective. Your hung up on "objective". Not me. Generally when comparing the impact of the loss of life of two species, objective and subjective need to be covered. I was explaining why I value a suffering human life over a non sentient animal life, I wasn't directly responding to your "objective" comment (which is unsubstantiated/ makes very little sense anyway).

Garbage, cannibalism is generally not practised (anymore) because it causes serious health issues (in humans).

Yeah I guess morals/ethics don't come into cannibalism....

no, you haven't really thought about this much at all. either that or you have no basic understanding of ethics.

Three reasons is not enough to explain why I don't eat my own species over an oyster. How many reasons would you like? Twelve? A hundred and sixteen. This is how you're being silly. You're not juggling snails. You're saying bullshit. Rather than actually contributing anything substantial your arguing nonsense. I don't understand ethics because I have a different opinion to you? Right, that's mature. "You just don't get it!" Good way to win an argument.

Of course not, and until you can figure this very basic fundamental in the discussion, there is little point in continuing. THIS argument HAS NO ethical basis.

It is one of the three reasons that I value human life slightly over another species. It doesn't disprove the entire conversation. Perhaps it's not fair that I value human life over other species in some respects but that is how it is due to the three reasons I have stated and some others (d) my survivalist instincts, e) the law). If you think that trumps the entire argument whatever. It doesn't.

You're just attaching yourself to one thing.

let me know when you learn a little about ethics. once you understand how species allegiance is not a contributive factor in this discussion, i'll be willing to entertain you some more.

I never said it was a major contributing factor to this thread. I was just being honest and you're using the fact that I said something which makes me imperfect to disprove everything I have said/ discredit me entirely - which is nonsense.

Eating your own species is a moral issue as far as I'm concerned. It raises certain questions, doesn't it? Species allegiance doesn't exist outside of the world of ethics, Mr. Professor of ethics. There are implications to eating members of your own family or eating members of your own company or your own race/species.

Rather than being a self-righteous wanker and throwing words around, explain how there isn't any moral/ethical implications to cannibalism. Please do. You took the time to say. "It's ethics. You just don't know ethics. Learn more about ethics," but you, for some reason, don't share this undoubted wealth of information you have about the nature of ethics/morals. It's a good way to avoid actually responding to something while.

Well done.

By the way, "ethics" is your word.

(But it is very impressive.)

Anyway, how is cannibalism not a moral/ethical issue?

(There appears to be quite a lot of articles on the ethical/moral implications of cannibalism on the net.)

 

[L2R]

t_d, my questions and answers do not invalidate your decision to draw the line of what to eat and what not to eat where you have. they merely reinforce what others have all said, that the distinction is up to the individual. the line is essentially arbitrary and is far from the objective truth, as you've also seen with the various vegans/veggies you know.

also, questions of harm are entirely within the realm of ethics. i'm no professor, i just so happened to be studying it now in uni and have become more aware of how to approach such dilemmas. (i'd be happy to share all the info (readings, lecture notes and mp3 lectures) on this unit with you (or anyone reading) if you are interested).

 

[TheDeceased]

No thanks I don't want your University ethics notes. What you said was inherently wrong so maybe you need the notes more than I do. I suspected that you were studying something relating to the subject. Your tone indicated as much.

The sort of self-righteous and unsubstantiated ramblings of a first year university student intent on proving him/herself as some sort of expert.

That is the way you came across in that last post where you repeated the word ethics endlessly and to no avail.

No offense.

I need to go get my dick sucked now.

 

[L2R]

i hope whoever you find doesn't do what you did with this thread and bite off more than they can chew. perhaps you could have simply asked "are oysters really animals or vegetables?" and avoided the whole scary hornet's nest.

 

[TheDeceased]

He sucked my dick like it was sustaining his life. Thanks for the concern.

I don't see the point of your distinction. If I rephrased it in that way, how would that have avoided the "hornet's nest"?