all the research I can find indicates there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that non-human animals understand personal mortality, so given the choice, the pig would even understand.
I would think the cases of non-human animals committing suicide (mostly cetaceans) would be indicative that at least some of them can comprehend personal mortality on some level. It’s a bit different if an animal doesn’t eat due to stress or whatever and starves to death, I wouldn’t call that suicide. But whales occasionally just drown themselves, that’s pretty hard to rationalize any other way
Nothing concrete of course, because it’s very difficult to study at a stage where we cannot communicate or directly observe the emotional states of animals, nor ethically design a study where one attempts to cause animals enough distress to engage in self harm or bring about their deaths (and simultaneously prove that was their intent).
It’s in no way a concluded topic, but it doesn’t make sense to reject outright either - and I definitely think there is enough evidence around for animals understanding of their peers mortality, why start with the assumption that they have an inability to recognize their own mortality in the first place? It’s good to be skeptical, but unproven anthropomorphism is just as illogical as the opposite assumption.
i am open to evidence, but I do not have enough evidence now to support the belief that nonhuman animals understand personal mortality, so I do not believe that they do.
Unlike you, I am familiar with the pig government and we actually have an agreement that we eat their death row inmates. Crime has never been so delicious.
Are you telling me that you eatpork as some sort of... preemptive revenge? Because even in a hypothetical universe where pigs are top of the food chain, it would still be wrong to imprison and kill them. Which is why doing this to tiger/lion/bear would also be wrong in our universe.
It’s actually irrelevant whether or not you buy a product made from slave labour, the product is already made! How much product is made is completely independent of how much gets purchased, because that’s how markets work!
That’s just useless semantics, neither funny nor clever. The pig you bought may be dead, but the money you pay will be used to raise and kill other pigs.
the pig was slaughtered in the past, before I walked into the store or decided what I’m eating this week. everyone involved was paid before all that, too.
Yeah, by everyone that buys meat. It’s simple. If we all stop buying it now they’re gonna run out and stop producing meat. The meat you buy today pays the meat that enters the store later.
They wouldn’t kill, or even raise the pig if they didn’t count on the money down the chain. We indirectly but surely pay for pigs to be created / killed, for our consumption.
It’s fine if you don’t care about that or accept it as your standards, that’s your choice and fair in our current social context. Just realize the economics behind it.
Yes, but they only pay those people if they expect to make a profit by selling the end product to you. You are one of the people who make it worthwhile to set up a chain of payments like that.
If they do not expect you (or other people) to buy the meat, they won’t pay those people to raise / kill the pigs.
Whether it’s you this time or someone else doesn’t matter. As long as there is a demand by end consumers they will continue. If no-one buys it they stop, it’s that simple.
You’re part of the group that enables this dynamic and your money goes to paying those people. It’s fine if you like meat, just don’t deny this basic logic.
No you’re not, but to dismiss that your actions still have influence on other people/systems is short-sighted.
Once more, it’s fine if you eat meat. You don’t have to consciously manage other people’s expectations. But just know that you automatically do. Buying meat is supporting the future production of meat, that’s all.
I believe if I didn’t buy meat, it would continue to be made, and in ever-increasing quantities. my purchases have no impact whatsoever on whether any animal is bred, raised, or slaughtered.
Academic philosophy is mostly concerned with the Greeks and Germans. The Romans had their philosophers, but they did not have the same influence on modern thought.
Also, often times philosophers do use an original word or phrase because it cannot be translated well into English. Language evolves over time and concepts as they were originally understood can be lost or muddled by modern uses of a word used to substitute. Also, etymology is more and more important in philosophy.
I read and write in academic philosophy for a living. Philosophers causally throw around Latin phrases in their writing (and, sometimes embarrassingly, even when speaking):
Many from historical figures (e.g., Kant’s a priori/a posteriori, Berkeley’s “esse ist percepi”, Descartes “cogito ero sum”, Leibniz’s “salva veritate”, etc.)
Forms/rules in logic (e.g., “modus ponens”, “modus tollens”, “reductio ad absurdum”, etc.)
As well as a myriad of other commonly used terms you’re expected to know when reading philosophy (e.g., prima facie, mutatis mutandis, a fortiori, eo ipso, ex nihilo, sui generis, ceteris paribus, ad hoc, non sequitur, etc. etc.).
This is not a random list. Every one of these Latin phrases sees heavy use in today’s philosophical literature.
lemmyshitpost
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.