This article would be greatly improved by at least a single sentence saying what your proposed alternative is. Otherwise it sounds like you're saying "having to eat is really annoying. let's stop eating".
No. What the gp is saying is basically the categorical imperative. "It is bad to eat people because I don't want to live in a world where I could be eaten (me also being people)".
He's not saying it's okay as long as you don't get eaten he's saying "as a human, I do not want to get eaten. Therefore, I do not want to inflict this on other humans either".
The quote from C. S. Lewis about a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims" is the worst kind of tyranny is very appropriate. There is a strong difference between being told what we should eat vs what we can eat.
I’m reminded of the bit in 1984 where they’re trying to remove the pleasure from orgasms. I don’t entirely disagree that this would be good to make accessible but removing the joy from eating is so bleak
We could generalize this to all laws. Hey, if you don't want to do it, simply don't do it, but it's not your business whether I do.
Anyway, interesting how the discussion quickly moved from "billions of people are starving, it would be unethical not to..." to "...but they like the taste of chicken".
Following your example, if after you ate something the state forced you to digest it and outlawed inducing vomiting then you would have lost body autonomy. You're not in control of your body anymore.
>If immmigration is bad then you want as little as possible. It doesn't make sense as a goal to say you want to limit something you want to get.
People want food to sustain themselves. But, for a lot of people, limiting the amount of food consumed and picking healthy foods over junk food is a good idea. You don't want just "any" food, you want the food that will sustain you and will be good for your health in long-term.
I'm with the Chinese on this one; the penalty for fucking with the food supply is... well, death does seem a little extreme, so maybe I'm not completely with the Chinese on it, but I can certainly see where they're coming from.
If you can't trust what you're putting in your mouth, the game of modern civilisation is over.
> it's hard to draw a clear and reasonable line between "life that is acceptable to eat" and "life that is not acceptable to eat".
How about the line between "life that will likely suffer when prepared for us to eat" and "life that will likely not suffer when prepared for us to eat"?
reply