> I know they are very smart, but this fact doesn’t makes them less delicious to me.

There are lots of experiences that feel "delicious," but that doesn't make it moral to rip that experience for yourself out of the flesh of a sentient being. Maybe you consider cephalopods potentially sentient or maybe you don't, but the argument is "It's immoral to eat them because they can have thoughts and an internal experience, just like us," and "But they taste good" is not a counterargument.

> and millions of other people

That is also not any kind of an ethical defense of one's behavior.

> don’t feel any affection towards these cephalopods makes the argument of “farming octopuses is unethical […]” less agreeable.

One thing about logical reasoning - it doesn't really matter how "agreeable" its conclusion feels.

> "It's immoral to eat them because they can have thoughts and an internal experience, just like us," and "But they taste good" is not a counterargument.

There is an implied "We are on top of the food chain" along with "they taste good".

There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator. Ultimately market forces should align the price to equal the cost of framing / hunting. Additionally we have huge ethical problems in how humans treat each other we should work on before even worrying about an invertebrate's problems.

I don't actually hold those worldviews, but they are implied with the sentence "but they taste good"

> Additionally we have huge ethical problems in how humans treat each other we should work on before even worrying about an invertebrate's problems.

The deep patterns of thinking underlying the mistreatment of humans and the mistreatment of other animals are the same to a large extent. It just needs contemplation to get to that.

> There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator.

It's more like it's definitional of an apex predator that it eats what it pleases. It isn't a question of legitimacy.

> There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator.

Many men are strong enough to forcibly overpower many women and therefore there is some legitimacy to the idea that they should rape whoever they please.

Might does not make right.

Shared morality makes right, but might makes right wherever a conflict of moralities cannot be resolved by shared ideals.

Humans can, and should, be better than their baser instincts.

Regarding the bit about "millions of other people", it's not an entirely unfounded argument. We are social beings and the vast majority of our behavior is driven by leaning on the thoughts and experiences and pressures of others. It is impossible for an individual to logically reason about everything, and even if it were, it's a bit self centered to always consider your own reasoning to be supreme and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Unfortunately politicians and marketers take advantage of this social dynamic to mislead people but that doesn't mean that the wisdom of the group should be entirely thrown out.

To be specific to this particular issue, an example narrative to counter yours would be that the view of a single life and suffering is not taking into context the greater cycle of life in which we will be eaten by bacteria and in which a Jainist might find being eaten by a tiger a beautiful thing. We are base primates and are not so separate from the ecosystem and our drives as we'd like to believe. Now this is just an example of a reasoned counter argument that could possible underlie the collective subconsciously of the "millions", and isn't necessarily my own reasoning.

No it does not make more agreeable. We had slavery back in the day, in some instances we still have it, but just because we have enough ppl doing something does not make it more “agreeable”. Ethics is not something dictated by a number of ppl sharing a belief.

>Ethics is not something dictated by a number of ppl sharing a belief.

Unless you believe ethics is given from some sort of higher authority, ethics is dictated by the number of people sharing a belief.

My argument is that a higher number of believers doesn’t make something more ethically correct.

My personal belief is that we have a responsibility for all species on our planet (as the most intelligent, evolved, smart, etc of them). Even if everyone believes except 1 person that does not make their argument less or our argument more valid. Purely from an ethical perspective.

I understand your perspective, but as the GP said, ethics is exactly whatever the collective Haas decided it is. Unless we're involving God or some kind of external divine guidelines on ethics, it's pretty much something we've collectively agreed to.

Let's at least be honest about our moral/ethical frameworks. They are useful for social cohesiveness, peace and order. But they're still just made up.

> I understand your perspective, but as the GP said, ethics is exactly whatever the collective Haas decided it is. Unless we're involving God or some kind of external divine guidelines on ethics, it's pretty much something we've collectively agreed to.

I don't have time for a complete response, but as an expert in this field (ethics) I feel compelled to let you know that nearly every professional philosopher (particularly in ethics) disagrees with this position.

Ethics is not simply whatever the majority says it is. You're not going to get anyone in ethics (including those who think ethics are in some sense "made up") to sign off on that.

> that nearly every professional philosopher (particularly in ethics) disagrees with this position.

So you are (at least partially) defining ethics by the consensus of people (in your case professional philosophers).

Even in pure mathematics, which is considered to be among the most rigorous of fields, a whole lot depends on consensus about axioms and consensus about what is a valid proof.

Yes, I agree there are logical principles for determining ethical actions given a set of ethical axioms, but however, the ethical axioms themselves, and indeed the logical principles, are determined by consensus.

> So you are (at least partially) defining ethics by the consensus of people (in your case professional philosophers).

I am not. I'm saying that people on HN make some very hasty assumptions about ethics (e.g. the claim made in the parent comment) that ethicists broadly agree are deeply misguided. I'm hoping to encourage a little more caution. Ethics are not defined by what professional philosophers agree on, but professional philosophers are in a good position to point out when lay comments are making simple mistakes in their reasoning. This is such a case.

>that nearly every professional philosopher

>You're not going to get anyone in ethics

Isn't this exactly an argument supporting collective position ?

I dont care who or what is dictating them, as long as they are consistent. If someone is making the claim that it is OK to eat anything as long as they are delicious, I want to know what their stand on cannibalism is.

How about if someone makes the claim that their ethical framework is to try to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for humans. Therefore since eating delicious animals brings pleasure to many humans, and does not cause suffering for humans, it is a good thing.

I think then the discussion would be around why only minimizing suffering for humans. If minimizing suffering is a good thing, why is there not also value in minimizing suffering for all beings that can suffer?

Because there's no pleasure in that for humans?

Of course that becomes wrong if many humans embrace the idea that minimizing suffering for animals is a good thing. At that point you would also be increasing the humans' "moral/ethical pleasure" in a kind of self fulfilling way. But there's no reason for this to happen except human hubris.

My ethical framework is ethical egoism. Therefore I consider eating octopus is good but cannibalism is bad. Because cannibalism, even if it delicious, is not practical, and maybe illegal thus will cause me trouble.

Promoting cannibalism is generally not a good policy if only because you could be next.

The truth value of a given logical proposition is independent of how many people believe either way about it.

You're mistaking ethics as a branch of philosophy for norms dictated by society.

Do the philosopher have a clear ethical answer of the morality of death penalty? [or replace this with your favorite flamewar topic]

The truth value of given logical proposition is dependent on people agreeing in some common axiom.

Right, and that choice of axiom is how two reasonable people can come to wildly different conclusions about a subject even after spending time resolving reconcilable differences.

But empirically speaking, almost all people would agree at a high-level that minimizing suffering is an agreeable axiom.

>almost all people would agree at a high-level that minimizing suffering is an agreeable axiom

Yes, they would, but there is a weighting based on the perceived status of the animal. Otherwise we would feel compelled to destroy all carnivores, since a single carnivore can kill many, many prey throughout its lifetime. We agree that the utility a lion gets from eating a dozen zebras is greater than the suffering of those zebras. Also, note that predators, do not just kill strictly what they need for food(biggest example is housecats, though other examples include wolves killing elk https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/03/160325-wolf-...).

Similarly, humans have a weighting function. Many people think that the utility/pleasure that a human gets from eating octopuses is greater than the suffering of those octopuses.

So if one morality position is animal suffering = bad then rather than arguing using animal well being/suffering, they should instead for example promote artificial meat that look and taste exactly like octopus. That I believe would be more effective approach.

yes so if you can make almost all people would agree that eating octopus is bad or eating octopus is good then that will be the outcome.

Morals are not decided by a democratic majority. Nor do ethical beliefs need to stem from a higher authority. You can have consistent principles independent of either.

Moral are decided by the whoever can force other (persuasively or physically) to conform to their morality. Democratic majority often get to decided the morality because there is strength in numbers.

Nope, that's a false dichotomy. The ethical system you're proposing signs off on cannibalism of 49% of people as long as 51% of people click their heels together and really wish that cannibalism were ethical...

this seems like the idea that Americans eat cows and pigs, but not horses and dogs... not necessarily an ethical issue, but more a social norms issue.

> not necessarily an ethical issue, but more a social norms issue.

I'm not convinced these two things are mutually exclusive. I'd even guess that social norms are most often spurred to change by people who start the conversation about the flawed "ethics" of a given social norm.

I eat Children because they are delicious, not because I think they are dumb. I know they are very smart, but this fact doesn’t makes them less delicious to me. Also, the fact that I —and millions of other people— don’t feel any affection towards these small humans makes the argument of “farming children is unethical […]” less agreeable. Many people in America eat cows, while they are considered sacred in Hinduism. > […] Numerous videos on the internet of children escaping from their cells or stealing guards lunches have fuelled a human fascination with the only subset of people that the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness considers sentient alongside mammals and birds. Mammals and birds, I hope everyone read that. --- People are going against my comment thinking I am on the wrong side of the argument. And I feel like explaining my point of view even further will just increase the anger in the people that already expressed their counter arguments below. We will see if the public agrees with the thesis in this article and changes their eating habits to protect one of the hundreds of animals that are also considered sentient.

Which, If you believe that, I will acknowledge that it is your morality. Its as valid as mine even though I might not agree with it.

No, it isn't. Get that moral relativism bullshit out of here.