Quid pro quo

[BeRational]

Just by way of a thought experiment, if super advanced aliens landed tomorrow whose development was in the same relationship to us as ours is to, say, pigs and they started farming us for food would we have a legitimate ethical objection - or perhaps an ethical objection more legitimate than that to which pigs are entitled wen we farm them?

If "yes", then why?

(I speak as a carnivore by the way, but I don't have a good answer to that.)

I don't think we could make a case, and perhaps more importantly, it would not matter what we thought.

[SqueakyVoice]

Just by way of a thought experiment, if super advanced aliens landed tomorrow whose development was in the same relationship to us as ours is to, say, pigs and they started farming us for food would we have a legitimate ethical objection - or perhaps an ethical objection more legitimate than that to which pigs are entitled wen we farm them?

If "yes", then why?

You could probably put together a case around sentience/ self awareness, the quality of life the animal experiences (whether farmed or wild) and the humane-ness (?) of the slaughter process.

It seems fairly widely accepted that humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and (possibly? ) dolphins and whales (?) have well developed senses of 'self' (and can communicate in various ways). So they're off the menu.

Fish/ birds seem to be much 'lower down' the sentience scale so remain on (if certain conditions around quality of life/ humane-ness off death can be met).

Pigs/ cows/ camels etc probably fall somewhere between fish and humans so, if they could have a decent life and a quick/ painless death could still be eaten.

And, I for one, welcome our new philosophical farming alien overlords.

[jeremyp]

Cannibalism, which is what you appear to be advocating is, to my mind, toitally unacceptable under any circumstances. I know there have been supposed cases of it after disasters of various forms, but even then its acceptability is highly questionable.

You'd insist the survivors of the Andes air disaster starve to death rather than eat the dead passengers?

[jeremyp]

Just by way of a thought experiment, if super advanced aliens landed tomorrow whose development was in the same relationship to us as ours is to, say, pigs and they started farming us for food would we have a legitimate ethical objection - or perhaps an ethical objection more legitimate than that to which pigs are entitled wen we farm them?

If "yes", then why?

(I speak as a carnivore by the way, but I don't have a good answer to that.)

They wouldn't do that. Much as I like a bacon sandwich, I strongly suspect that, as we advance, more and more of us will take the same view as Shaker. I would not be at all surprised if there is a point in our future where our descendants view our dependence on other animals' meat in much the same way as we view our ancestors' dependence on slavery. Your hypothetical aliens would certainly have passed that point.

[Owlswing]

You'd insist the survivors of the Andes air disaster starve to death rather than eat the dead passengers?

I am seriously surprised that it has taken this long for someone to bring up this little tid-bit!

No, I would not. The reason being contained in your comment, "the dead passengers". The cannibaliised meat was not killed, specifically, it was not "butchered", for the purposes of consumption by the survivors. They merely used the bounty provided for them by a merciful and magnanimous God to ensure their survival. (Do you know how hard it was to type that with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek?)

[Jack Knave]

I think the problem is that they may get a taste for it and so hunt it out. Animals usually stick to what they know so when they come across something odd and they aren't overly hungry they'll leave it be.

[Sassy]

Cannibalism, which is what you appear to be advocating is, to my mind, toitally unacceptable under any circumstances. I know there have been supposed cases of it after disasters of various forms, but even then its acceptability is highly questionable.

The fact the the human bodies mentioned so far in thgis discussion have all been adults makes Sassy's introduction of te bodies of children nothing more than a ploy to allow her to make herself look righteous and you otherwise.

Again your ignorance let's you down.

I am the righteousness of God through Christ Jesus.

King James Bible
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Christianity, is about people who acknowledge they are sinners so unrighteous. They have no righteousness of their own just the righteousness afforded them through the body and blood of Christ. We do not try to be righteous we allow Gods Spirit who leads us into all truth and goodness.

So big fat ploy fails yet again.

My objection was correct, it was true and it was clearly based on the suggestion of feeding our loved ones - dead bodies to animals for food.  It does not, it will not, it cannot be any clearer nor can anything you say change the truth and the factual reasons for making the obvious clear. It would include feeding the bodies of dead children.
Whatever sick and perverse actions have been thought up in the past, this has to be the sickest I have ever seen on a forum REGARDLESS OF WHO SUGGESTED IT.

My sister died two days after her 13 birthday having spent it in a coma. Then someone who has never lost a child suddenly suggests feeding our loved ones to animals. I cannot find by any stretch of the imagination that it be anything but a repugnant idea.

SICK is all that I can say and still describe it as... but your reply shows that you believe it wrong to feed dead bodies to animals and it was the thought of feeding the body of a child that brought it home to you. So nothing about this topic can be about me or my beliefs. You already know the suggestion is wrong.