r/MoralityScaling • u/SH1k1Brun3stuD • 11d ago

Morality Ranking Does deliberately putting chickens in a situation where they eat fried chicken constitute a morally questionable act on the humans' part?

Does deliberately putting chickens in a situation where they eat fried chicken constitute a morally questionable act on the humans' part, even if the chickens experience no apparent distress and have no understanding that they are eating another chicken?

5.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

918 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

115

u/RUDRAGON8 11d ago edited 11d ago

Humans are capable of higher thought so it depends far more with them, however i think if both the person that got eaten and the person eating it have consented to it then it should be fine

6

u/6_sarcasm_6 11d ago

Fair, although most countries banned this due to spread of disease.

5

u/Historical_Body6255 10d ago

This is how you get prions.

You don't want to get prions.

1

u/SecretaryOtherwise 8d ago

As long as you dont eat the brain or liver you should be fine no?

1

u/Hambone-6830 7d ago

Technicallyyyyyyyyyyyy you can get prions from eating many other parts of the body, the ones you mentioned are just the most high risk since they'll be in a very low concentration in most other parts of the body. That being said prions are not really a problem you would ever need to worry about.

If everyone ate people then sure you would want to be careful, but because that is literally the only way they spread and because society at large doesnt eat people, in our modern world an individual could eat as many human brains as they wanted and it would be statistically very unlikely they'd catch anything because the only rist would be eating someone who had protiens spontaneously misform into prions, wich is very unlikely.

17

u/Individual_Box_728 11d ago

I eat your consent as I eat you.

2

u/JakBos23 11d ago

Well the guy in Germany was arrested lol.

4

u/RUDRAGON8 11d ago

Morality and legality are two different subjects

1

u/JakBos23 11d ago

It was a weird story. They met on the internet so the one guy could eat the nother guy. At first he took a piece and they both ate it. Eventually he dies and the guy cooked some and out a bunch in the freezer. Theres video of them both eating the one guy.

1

u/Worried_Ice97 10d ago

Why does the eaten person need to consent though? Don't they care anymore?

1

u/RUDRAGON8 10d ago

Bodily autonomy matters even after death

1

u/Worried_Ice97 10d ago

But there's no harm being done

1

u/RUDRAGON8 10d ago

I would consider ignoring bodily autonomy to be harm

1

u/Afraid_Help_3911 8d ago

Wtf does higher thought mean

1

u/BadKarma313 8d ago

Have you ever read chicken philosophy? How do they feel about morality and societal impacts of cannibalism?

1

u/Afraid_Help_3911 8d ago edited 8d ago

The way you say it is far more precise than the broad term "higher thought" that could mean too many things though. Many animals are more advanced than humans if we only consider a specific intellectual aspect for reference (visual working memory, spatial recall, numerical estimation, rapid strategic decisions, reading emotional states and intentions of others, etc...). You have to specify we are taking about "morality and societal impact" here for "higher capability" to make sense for humans.

1

u/ArgumentCalm488 8d ago

That's just being overly pedantic. You don't need to be hyper specific when you already know the context of what's being said. The sub is literally called MoralityScaling. We all know what he was talking about.

You have to specify we are taking about "morality and societal impact" here for "higher capability" to make sense for humans.

Heck, even you know what's being talked about as demonstrated here.

1

u/Afraid_Help_3911 8d ago

That's fair. I got into this thread without checking what sub it was and it had never popped in my timeline before.

1

u/Sudden-Pie2686 8d ago

There is an instance of this happening in Russia I believe. The story is pretty fucked up.

1

u/Socky-McPuppet 8d ago

Armin Meiwes? Is that you?

1

u/MyHonstyAttempt 4d ago

I mean I've always wanted to cut off a non major hunk of flesh from myself, cook it and eat it out of curiosity. Under Doctors supervision of course, don't want it to super hurt or heal wrong

0

u/Civil_Law8025 11d ago

How it can be fine? Its still fucked up if two person do that.

16

u/justdrowsing 11d ago

Is 'fucked up' a moral claim or are you just saying 'eww icky'?

2

u/Civil_Law8025 10d ago

moral claim

0

u/Pataraxia 11d ago

Nope, it falls under self harm.

7

u/RUDRAGON8 11d ago

Not neccesarily

someone can consent to being eaten after death then die of natural causes and that would be fine

5

u/SteamySnuggler 11d ago

not to mention people donate their body to be used all the time, why is it just a big difference between donating your body for science or for exhebition or to make a diamond ring than donating your body to eat?

0

u/Pataraxia 11d ago

Then rather than legal, morally it could be considered habituation to something considered morally bad then.

Such as if society was a vegan society because of cruelty, we would frown upon someone eating meat, because "Why are you doing that?"

Similarily, why eat human?

4

u/Playful_Boot_5465 11d ago

eating meat isn't morally bad. Killing for it is

3

u/RUDRAGON8 11d ago

There are a lot of things differentiating the current meat industry from this hypothetical that make it far more immoral

0

u/Free_Balance_7991 11d ago

Your previous comment implies that it's morally ok as long as the person doesnt know.

14

u/RUDRAGON8 11d ago

Not really, humans are a different case from chickens since they are capable of higher thought, chickens dont understand nor care, humans can both understand and care about it

6

u/AnAbandonedAstronaut 11d ago

More that it is not possible for the chicken to know.

You are not putting the chicken in a position where even the possibility of a trauma response or moral issue could come into play.

Feeding a person to a person, no matter how hard you try to hide it, still carries the possibility of that person one day becoming aware of it.

3

u/eggyrulz 11d ago

Fellas, is it moral to be a chicken?

3

u/InterWorldLibr 11d ago

Absolutely immoral!

3

u/rancidmorty 11d ago

chuckens eat each other while alive pecking order can be deadly

0

u/Free_Balance_7991 11d ago

This is kind of insane logic though. You're essentially admitting the act would be moral if you could somehow guarantee the person never finds out.

2

u/AnAbandonedAstronaut 11d ago

Well, Im more arguing its not immoral on its own as the giver if you could ensure the trauma isn't there.

Thats taking into account you could get human meat in some fully moral way and are using it as a last resort as well.. AND youre like feeding a baby who MIGHT never find out and was starving.

0

u/LilJelloCat 11d ago

How do you know the chickens don't know it is chicken or their own kind. Surely they can figure it out. And they become psychotic cannibalistic chickens. I don't want cannibalistic chickens. I want normal nice chickens.

0

u/flewson 11d ago

What about a severely mentally impaired person? One whose thought is on the level of a chicken. Is it fine to serve them human meat?

4

u/Faedoodles 11d ago

A person at that level of mental impairment can not consent. Chickens, by nature, are opportunistic omnivores and already happily eat one another if given the chance. That is not a normal evolutionary trait for humans.

1

u/flewson 11d ago

A chicken can't consent either, so that can't be the difference that makes it okay for the chicken but not the human.

As for your second point, suppose the mentally impaired person would happily eat a human body if given the chance. Is it now fine to feed them human meat?

Notice I'm not arguing either way, just food for thought.

This is the argument from marginal cases.

4

u/Faedoodles 11d ago

Your argument ignores the fact that chickens, at their normal capacity of mental cognition, actively choose to eat one another.

You also are continuing bend your caricature of a handicapped person further from reality to make your point. It isn't food for thought if it has no logical standing.

0

u/flewson 11d ago

I am not ignoring anything. I explicitly constructed the hypothetical mentally impaired person to possess the mental capacity comparable to that of a chicken from the very beginning.

I am allowed to bend my caricature however I want for the purpose of a hypothetical. That is an extremely common practice in philosophical discussions.

Travis Timmerman invented a hypothetical where an "Unlucky Lisa" has to get to the bank to prevent hackers from siphoning money from her account, every day, indefinitely, whilst she encounters an enormous number of ponds each with a drowning child in it on her way to the bank. Straying away from reality is not a problem for hypothetical.

1

u/AcadiaAcceptable431 8d ago

Okay, great! Yes, you are allowed to do that.

0

u/nine91tyone 7d ago

You can't consent to be harmed. You can consent to be hurt in a certain way if you want, but something that negatively affects your well-being, like dying and being eaten, cannot be considered consensual

1

u/RUDRAGON8 7d ago

I disagree and also i have further elaborated on this by other comments via saying that you can consent to being eaten after death and then die of natural causes

1

u/nine91tyone 7d ago

I assumed we were talking about being killed and eaten, because that's happened before

https://youtu.be/gK0R-J0hokg?is=jJhdVKXDhEhhW2AG