pi_noir

Hannibal Lecter, supergenius, seems to think that it's okay to eat people since he is intellectually superior to them. But we eat cows and chickens etc. and don't feel guilty because we have a higher level of consciousness than them. We see the world in a way animals can never even dream of. But Hannibal Lecter sees the world on a higher plane than the average person. So there is only a quantitative, not qualitative, differnce between the two situations. My question is: is it permissable to eat animals? If it is, then wouldn't geniuses be allowed to kill, say people with an IQ under 70, in a Nietzschean fashion? Or should we all become vegetarians?

Ensign Steve

Hannibal Lecter is a (fictional) sociopath. IIRC, he knows that killing and eating people is wrong, but he has no vested interest in doing the moral (right) thing. He would eat victims depending on his tastes (I remember he likes to eat the rude), but he would kill people indiscriminately and without remorse. Anybody who is a sociopath, or has no interest in being moral, might go ahead and kill and eat animals, stupid people, bad musicians, even geniuses and other cannibals, using any or no justification, but that doesn't make it okay.

However, if you would like to eat something or someone, and remain moral, you need to decide what you consider to be a moral agent. Do you think that animals should have individual rights, and not be treated as a means only? Then you probably shouldn't eat them. A lot of people in PETA feel this way. However, if you don't consider an animal to be a moral agent, then eat away.

Most people in modern societies who are not sociopaths consider all people (stupid and smart) to be moral agents, and deserving of their life and autonomy as an end alone, and not as a means to someone else's end.

Ensign Steve

Sorry, that should read "non-human animals". I forget how egocentric we humans can be.

In the same vein, that should read "human beings".

Pyrrho

So are you saying that all morality is subjective? And if I think that people with an IQ less than 100 are not moral agents, then it is okay for me to eat them?


What do you mean by "moral agent"? I suspect that many people do not consider all humans, no matter what their brain state, to be "moral agents". Many regard those who are 'brain dead' as not agents at all, much less "moral" ones.

SimplyAtheistic

Hannibal Lecter doesen't "know" eating people is wrong, he doesen't agree with the social standards. He feels eating people is perfectly acceptable, and this is no big super genius feat. People think that someone like Hannibal Lecter would be invincible because he is so intelligent, but in reality many posters on this board are smarter than that fictional bastard :-)
Jake

Ensign Steve

No I never said that. I am a moral objectivist. It is the case, though, that while I consider morality to be objective, I can still be humble enough to know that it is really likely that I don't have the inside scoop on what all the correct, objective morals are.

Since there is open debate about the morality of eating animals, I didn't want to come in and proclaim that it is moral to eat animals, because many disagree with me. That's not being subjective, just open-minded to the possibility of being incorrect.

Ensign Steve

A moral agent is someone whose life and autonomy is valuable as an end in itself, and not a means to somebody else's end.

What various people consider to be a moral agent is often the subject of debate. Animals. Fetuses. Human slaves, once upon a time. Women in some cultures. In this case, it is people with a low IQ. The morals themselves are often agreed upon (ie: don't murder) but who exactly they apply to can be tricky.

SimplyAtheistic

Anything that is conscious is a moral agent. At least thats my opinion.
Jake

Pyrrho

In that case, don't you think it would have been better to say:

"If you consider an animal to be a moral agent, then don't eat one"

instead of:

"However, if you don't consider an animal to be a moral agent, then eat away"?

After all, if you are saying that it might be wrong to eat animals, then you are telling people to go ahead and do something that may be wrong as long as they believe it is right.

Or let me put this another way: if it is wrong to eat animals, then you gave very poor advice, as you told people to go ahead and eat them as long as they believe it is okay. Your advice is only good if it is okay to eat animals.

Bill Snedden

A very interesting discussion, but better suited to the Moral Foundations forum...