An... interesting hypothetical

[thedoclc]

I thought this up a while ago, and I've been trying to decide how it would turn out ever since. *snip*

If the planet's life forms didnt use the amino acid, then the creatures wouldnt have it in their body anyway and eating them would be in vain

I said they modify other amino acids into those amino acids, and are the only ones to do so. This has been observed in nature; we -create- the amino acid ornithine in our bodies. We don't rely on it from our diet.

And ornithine isn't even an amino acid coded for in DNA. The enzymes which make it are, of course.

So, yes, an organism could have an amino acid in its body which is not found in another organism or in the creature's diet.

I they produced the amino acid and didn't need it, wouldn't it be expelled as waste? If so, you could ingest the waste (given that there are no toxic chemicals such as ammonia, like human waste) and get them that way.

In the example I used, the sapient natives modified an existing amino acid in their cardiac muscle and used it there. I didn't state they excreted it as waste. To make the example "tighter," we could always add that when the proteins in their hearts get turned over, the waste products don't include the amino acids. This is pretty normal; we filter out amino acids in our kidneys all the time, but then reuptake them back into circulation to avoid losing them. Amino acids in your urine means you have a problem. Exactly what has to be determined.

Of course, that does miss the point of a hypothetical moral question. In the OP's post, it was about what you would do if...? and to answer the moral question, you have to just take the premises as a given. Do you kill and eat a sapient creature that means you no harm and did nothing to create your desperate situation in order to survive?

 

[The Ghost]

I would convince them that I am a god sent from the heavens and have them sacrifice of them to me once a week.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

Well, sheesh, you could have just said the hard-science version first...

I'd attempt grave robbing, fleeing if spotted. Wolves did this all the time with village scraps in the primitive years of Homo Sapiens. Better than killing others.

 

[careful]

a hungry stomach is ostensibly persuasive. i say let the massacre begin before you become debilitated from malnourishment. then you should grind the bones to pigment the stale blood so it can be used as war paint during the next slaughtering.

 

[Faladorian]

I thought this up a while ago, and I've been trying to decide how it would turn out ever since. *snip*

If the planet's life forms didnt use the amino acid, then the creatures wouldnt have it in their body anyway and eating them would be in vain

I said they modify other amino acids into those amino acids, and are the only ones to do so. This has been observed in nature; we -create- the amino acid ornithine in our bodies. We don't rely on it from our diet.

And ornithine isn't even an amino acid coded for in DNA. The enzymes which make it are, of course.

So, yes, an organism could have an amino acid in its body which is not found in another organism or in the creature's diet.

I they produced the amino acid and didn't need it, wouldn't it be expelled as waste? If so, you could ingest the waste (given that there are no toxic chemicals such as ammonia, like human waste) and get them that way.

In the example I used, the sapient natives modified an existing amino acid in their cardiac muscle and used it there. I didn't state they excreted it as waste. To make the example "tighter," we could always add that when the proteins in their hearts get turned over, the waste products don't include the amino acids. This is pretty normal; we filter out amino acids in our kidneys all the time, but then reuptake them back into circulation to avoid losing them. Amino acids in your urine means you have a problem. Exactly what has to be determined.

Of course, that does miss the point of a hypothetical moral question. In the OP's post, it was about what you would do if...? and to answer the moral question, you have to just take the premises as a given. Do you kill and eat a sapient creature that means you no harm and did nothing to create your desperate situation in order to survive?

Isn't that what we do on Earth right now anyway? I'm not saying breeding and eating animals is wrong, but they are creatures that have done nothing to us except house the nutrients we need to survive. So probably, yes.

 

[thedoclc]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Isn't that what we do on Earth right now anyway? I'm not saying breeding and eating animals is wrong, but they are creatures that have done nothing to us except house the nutrients we need to survive. So probably, yes.

The alien organisms we would eat are sapient, which the animals we eat on earth are not. This is a key difference.

Most of us believe that our moral obligations to a creature are heavily dependent on how aware that organism is. For example, we all feel we have different obligations to a bacterium, a tree, an ant, a dog, and a person. What those obligations are you can argue. The alien species may not be human, but they are sapient, and then we would have different moral obligations to them than we do to other animals.

 

[thedoclc]

*snip*

*snip*

Sir, that is probably the most intelligent question I'm going to hear today, and I think you win instead of that other guy.

Ack, heh, flattered.

 

[Anarchemitis]

If their biosphere was entirely compatible for our respiratory system but entirely incompatible with our digestive system, WHAT

 

[Czargent Sane]

four words.

"bring me your dead"

Like this?


As I've said before, I would rather commit suicide that starve and I refuse to eat sapient and intelligent beings or their dead due to unrelated reasons.

yes. exactly like that.

 

[Ace of Spades]

I'd kill myself with whatever means I had. I refuse to eat these natives, and I refuse to starve to death. I'd just jump off of whatever high object I could find.

 

[Faladorian]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Isn't that what we do on Earth right now anyway? I'm not saying breeding and eating animals is wrong, but they are creatures that have done nothing to us except house the nutrients we need to survive. So probably, yes.

The alien organisms we would eat are sapient, which the animals we eat on earth are not. This is a key difference.

Most of us believe that our moral obligations to a creature are heavily dependent on how aware that organism is. For example, we all feel we have different obligations to a bacterium, a tree, an ant, a dog, and a person. What those obligations are you can argue. The alien species may not be human, but they are sapient, and then we would have different moral obligations to them than we do to other animals.

Yes but the only real difference between sapient life forms and those not, is that we have a hard time realizing our insignificance. The fact that we are more hesitant to kill a human than a dog or a cow shows a sort of superiority complex which frankly we don't deserve. I'm not justifying murder, I'm just saying organisms that are aware of themselves tend to be a bit more egotistical. So while I would be an insignificant lifeform and, in fact, the alien in this situation, I'm not inclined to believe that the other creatures should seem any more significant. I don't think the moral reservations would be too severe, since the only path to true innocence is to be unaware of the fact that you could perform evil deeds, such as cows and pigs, who simply live life because it's there, while we are arrogant self-loathing-yet-self-loving ego monsters. I would think this lifeform would express the same characteristics if it was truly sentient.

 

[thedoclc]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Isn't that what we do on Earth right now anyway? I'm not saying breeding and eating animals is wrong, but they are creatures that have done nothing to us except house the nutrients we need to survive. So probably, yes.

The alien organisms we would eat are sapient, which the animals we eat on earth are not. This is a key difference.

Most of us believe that our moral obligations to a creature are heavily dependent on how aware that organism is. For example, we all feel we have different obligations to a bacterium, a tree, an ant, a dog, and a person. What those obligations are you can argue. The alien species may not be human, but they are sapient, and then we would have different moral obligations to them than we do to other animals.

Yes but the only real difference between sapient life forms and those not, is that we have a hard time realizing our insignificance. The fact that we are more hesitant to kill a human than a dog or a cow shows a sort of superiority complex which frankly we don't deserve. I'm not justifying murder, I'm just saying organisms that are aware of themselves tend to be a bit more egotistical. So while I would be an insignificant lifeform and, in fact, the alien in this situation, I'm not inclined to believe that the other creatures should seem any more significant. I don't think the moral reservations would be too severe, since the only path to true innocence is to be unaware of the fact that you could perform evil deeds, such as cows and pigs, who simply live life because it's there, while we are arrogant self-loathing-yet-self-loving ego monsters. I would think this lifeform would express the same characteristics if it was truly sentient.

If you really believe sapience does not change a creature's moral standing, you have an extraordinarily strange viewpoint. Sentience, by the way, is the ability to perceive. Sapience is self awareness and "human-like" thought. Sci-fi writers have -really- screwed this one up. Obligatory wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience

As for myself, I choose neither despair nor the whining attitude of how humans are so horrible. It's a dull, boring view, with promise for neither happiness nor growth. I've seen horrible evils plenty of times, but more often I see those who decide to light candles instead of pretending everything is darkness.

Finally, good luck finding a moral philosopher who would support the view that the unconscious action of a non-sapient can be called good or evil. It's just "responding." Only beings able to reflect and chose can do good. Innocence, by itself, is no virtue. It is just virtue untested, to borrow Milton's phrase.

 

[Faladorian]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Isn't that what we do on Earth right now anyway? I'm not saying breeding and eating animals is wrong, but they are creatures that have done nothing to us except house the nutrients we need to survive. So probably, yes.

The alien organisms we would eat are sapient, which the animals we eat on earth are not. This is a key difference.

Most of us believe that our moral obligations to a creature are heavily dependent on how aware that organism is. For example, we all feel we have different obligations to a bacterium, a tree, an ant, a dog, and a person. What those obligations are you can argue. The alien species may not be human, but they are sapient, and then we would have different moral obligations to them than we do to other animals.

Yes but the only real difference between sapient life forms and those not, is that we have a hard time realizing our insignificance. The fact that we are more hesitant to kill a human than a dog or a cow shows a sort of superiority complex which frankly we don't deserve. I'm not justifying murder, I'm just saying organisms that are aware of themselves tend to be a bit more egotistical. So while I would be an insignificant lifeform and, in fact, the alien in this situation, I'm not inclined to believe that the other creatures should seem any more significant. I don't think the moral reservations would be too severe, since the only path to true innocence is to be unaware of the fact that you could perform evil deeds, such as cows and pigs, who simply live life because it's there, while we are arrogant self-loathing-yet-self-loving ego monsters. I would think this lifeform would express the same characteristics if it was truly sentient.

If you really believe sapience does not change a creature's moral standing, you have an extraordinarily strange viewpoint. Sentience, by the way, is the ability to perceive. Sapience is self awareness and "human-like" thought. Sci-fi writers have -really- screwed this one up. Obligatory wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience

As for myself, I choose neither despair nor the whining attitude of how humans are so horrible. It's a dull, boring view, with promise for neither happiness nor growth. I've seen horrible evils plenty of times, but more often I see those who decide to light candles instead of pretending everything is darkness.

Finally, good luck finding a moral philosopher who would support the view that the unconscious action of a non-sapient can be called good or evil. It's just "responding." Only beings able to reflect and chose can do good. Innocence, by itself, is no virtue. It is just virtue untested, to borrow Milton's phrase.

You've essentially proven what I said correctly, since what I was saying is that the only true innocence is the inability to choose an evil path. And never did I say that humans are terrible. The point I was trying to make is that we are only superior because we made up our own superiority complex in which we man the top. In no way are we actually better than anything else, because just as the world could do without fleas and the food chain would not be too violently interrupted, the universe [or even the solar system] would not see much of a change if humans were wiped off of the face of the earth (nor would it benefit the universe, don't mistake me for a misanthropic doomsayer). So, if we already perceive ourselves as superior to cows and chickens because of an arbitrary complex, why not one more animal? If we amongst ourselves feel superior to each other in one of many ways (smarter, sexier, more talented, greater-than-thou conscience that we could do without, but is part of human nature) then not much will stop us from feeling superior to an alien creature of matched intelligence. In fact, humans are notorious for their xenophobia. It's in our blood to be afraid of new and foreign things, it's a good instinctual reflex. You shouldn't trust something you don't know. Humans sometimes take it a step further and feel superior to the alien just because it's an alien. With that said, the killing of other creatures for the sake of survival is justified, and is how nature is designed. So, while I would have my reservations, yes I would attempt to eat the creature. If I fail and die, that's fair enough.

 

[Srdjan]

Well if I am strong enough to eat them I could rule them as well, I get to be space vampire overlord.

 

[Michael Logan]

Well maybe I could just eat their legs or something, thats nice of me right?


right?

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Try to work a deal with them. If they have some unwanted members of their species that they want to get ride of, I'll be there. If they decide to sacrifice themselves to me, well I wouldn't encourage it, but I don't think I'd turn it down. If they want to get ride of their dead (especially if they believe that a corpse being eaten isn't so bad, perhaps even good) I can do that. If they just don't care, well, that was easy.

If such a deal couldn't be made, I don't know whether I'd start eating them anyway. Part of me values sentient life, no matter its form, but other part of me realizes that its a dog eat dog world. I wouldn't go around terrorizing the fuck out of them, try to make them realize I'm only doing this to survive. Although I might just decide to let myself starve rather than take the life of an innocent

Of course if they tried to kill me, then its on like Donkey Kong. I ain't holding back.

 

[DarthAchaeron]

In response to the hard science version, which is basically like beating yourself with a stick and having the natives say saying "...anything more I can do for you?", I would work out some way of finding audience with the ruler of this feudal system, or someone with the power to condemn a prisoner to death, and explain to them my plight. I offer to take a prisoner (whom they have condemned to death) and fight them in single combat. If I win, the prisoner is dead, I have won my right to their flesh, and the books balance: I get to live, they get their death-row inmates killed, and they don't need to pay an executioner.

It's sorta the equivalent of walking into the kings chambers with a cardboard sign that says "will kill murderers for food"

 

[Zakarath]

Well, we dragons have been known to snack on humans from time to time, so this wouldn't be too jarring a change for me.

 

[thedoclc]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

You've essentially proven what I said correctly, since what I was saying is that the only true innocence is the inability to choose an evil path. And never did I say that humans are terrible. The point I was trying to make is that we are only superior because we made up our own superiority complex in which we man the top. In no way are we actually better than anything else, because just as the world could do without fleas and the food chain would not be too violently interrupted, the universe [or even the solar system] would not see much of a change if humans were wiped off of the face of the earth (nor would it benefit the universe, don't mistake me for a misanthropic doomsayer). So, if we already perceive ourselves as superior to cows and chickens because of an arbitrary complex, why not one more animal? If we amongst ourselves feel superior to each other in one of many ways (smarter, sexier, more talented, greater-than-thou conscience that we could do without, but is part of human nature) then not much will stop us from feeling superior to an alien creature of matched intelligence. In fact, humans are notorious for their xenophobia. It's in our blood to be afraid of new and foreign things, it's a good instinctual reflex. You shouldn't trust something you don't know. Humans sometimes take it a step further and feel superior to the alien just because it's an alien. With that said, the killing of other creatures for the sake of survival is justified, and is how nature is designed. So, while I would have my reservations, yes I would attempt to eat the creature. If I fail and die, that's fair enough.

The first point is I disagree entirely with your premises, but as this is not a disagreement about facts about the world but instead about principles, there is no argument there except to agree to disagree. I stand by my comment that that is an incredibly boring view.

"The point I was trying to make is that we are only superior because we made up our own superiority complex in which we man the top." This idea is not logically sound at all. If I make up yard-stick for measuring certain qualities, pointing out that the yard-stick is self-serving or arbitrary is by no means establishes the yard-stick is invalid. Denying this premise causes the rest of the argument to collapse.

Also, the entire argument can easily be taken down by pointing out that it commits the "Is-ought" fallacy, specifically an "appeal to nature" type of the Is-ought. Likewise, the argument extremely smugly concludes it is proven without mentioning the many, many times it has been argued against on various grounds, from moral, religious, utilitarian, to the amusing, "So fucking what if man is the measure of all things - sapience is needed for comparison and as the only sapient beings known, our standards are correct." No one "proved" anything here.

Additionally, the statement "nature is designed" is quite incompatible with evolutionary theory and naturalism, so unless you're advocating creationism, the statement is out of place. If you are advocating creationism, you must also explain this apparent lack of absolute standards in the face of god. I'd suggest maltheism.

The Is-Ought Fallacy: the false belief that a statement about how something is ("xenophobia, it's in our blood, etc") is how it ought to be ("therefore I should do this.") More technically, descriptive statements are not normative statements.