我系每年都有一個寫作比賽，由同事輪流出題，學生自由參與，事前不知道題目，到比賽時看到題目便當場思考寫作，連想連寫，只給一小時。比賽後由三個同事當評判，將所有文章逐一細評，但文章作者的名字都抹去，以表公正。獎金雖然不多，學生都樂於參加。
其中一次，有個素食的同事出了以下的題目：
「一群智力高超的外星人來到地球，他們智力之高，是超乎我們想像的；我們比豬牛雞鴨的智力高出很多，但這些外星人的智力比我們高出更多，甚麼相對論、哥德爾不完備定理等，對他們來說比我們的基本加減乘除更簡單。他們見地球人的肉質像極他們星球上的一種美味和高價的牲畜，而看來嫩滑過之，便決定大量捕捉地球人，殺之而後食，餘者製成罐頭運返老家。他們的武器很厲害，我們全無反抗能力。然而，他們卻非常講邏輯和道理，只是他們都是無神論者，所以講耶穌可以免了。如果你有一個強而有力的論證能說明為何他們不應該吃我們，他們會接受，然後立刻離開地球。你有這樣的一個論證嗎？」
題目的用意是要學生思考一下我們殺其他動物而食之，是否不該。一個能說明外星人為何不該吃我們的論證，很可能也會說明我們為何不該吃其他動物。勝出的學生在文章裏寫的是外星人不該吃我們，但我們吃其他動物卻沒有問題；我已忘記了他的論證的內容，只記得是沒有甚麼說服力。
如果你是一個食肉者，你會覺得這是個難題嗎？
我是個食肉怪物，我現在的老板則是個少有素食主義者（理由是他非常愛護動物，他也反對動物實驗）。有一年他開“Animal Rights”，類似題目也曾拿來在課堂上討論過。我們事後跟他開玩笑說，至少我們現在還沒有碰到這樣高等生物，而且現在最好的知識（宇宙學與進化論之類）告訴我們有機會碰到這樣高等生物並且這種生物會拿我們當食物的概率很低，因此與地球暖化之類不同，我們現實上碰到這樣倫理問題的概率幾乎等於零。因此，從策略上講我們可以繼續食肉。
回覆刪除>連想連寫，只給一小時。
回覆刪除我覺得一小時，而且是philosophical writing，學生很難發揮的。
地球污染嚴重，越在食物鏈上層的積存的污染物越多。唔怕死就食我地啦！
回覆刪除貴星球的人真的如此聰明的話，就不要亂吃「野味」。應該抓少量優良品種的地球人（如哲學家等），回去配種，在無污染的優良環境下飼養，天天按摩、供應啤酒，有如地球那些「和牛」一樣。
結論：可以吃人，但不是吃現在活在地球的人，而是抓少量人回去人工培養。
CYC,
回覆刪除你應該知道這個討論與外星人事實上會不會到地球來無關。
一小時是短了點，但他們只須寫幾百字。
Meshi,
回覆刪除那麼他們應該先抓素食的哲學家。
Wong，
回覆刪除是無關的，這只能拿在飯局上開玩笑。
If I am in this hypothetical scenario, this is my response...
回覆刪除"please eat me .. however, to make sure i taste good, make sure u feed me the best kobe beef available"
because I don't see there is anything wrong with the super intelligent aliens eating us. will u listen to chickens and not eat their wings?
RandomCoil,
回覆刪除If you don't see anything wrong with the aliens eating, then you are at least consistent.
//那麼他們應該先抓素食的哲學家。
回覆刪除Peter Singer 死梗。到時所有手指也會指著他。
應該雜食哲學家都要抓。抓雜食哲學家應該另有一翻風味。但要找冇肚腩、食得健康、經常做運動，唔食麥當勞、冇乜邪念的，他們應該有種野性的風味。最好拿他來BBQ，他們的骨拿來煲高湯，內臟用來做大炸大腸、人雜等等。
Well, we human beings are good at doing things to destroy ourselves(H-bomb, chemical weapons...). We will certainly develop a disease to screw up the aliens when they eat us.
回覆刪除As a vegetarian, I just wonder that has your friend ever considered eating vegetables to be cruel? Vegetables are still living organisms.
Matt,
回覆刪除But vegetables don't have a central nervous system and don't feel pain.
有的哲學家，比如Kant、Locke、Wittgenstein，雖然是雜食獸，但看來過了保質期，營養不良又乾巴巴的，煮了也像他們的書一樣，屬於難以下嚥之物
回覆刪除而按yan的烹飪法，我覺得比如Berkeley，Hume口感應該會不錯
我在上面忘了說，當年我們是在聚餐邊吃肉前跟他老人家present的
yan,
回覆刪除//但要找冇肚腩、食得健康、經常做運動，唔食麥當勞、冇乜邪念的，他們應該有種野性的風味//
嘩，好彩我有邪念同食麥當奴！
CYC,
回覆刪除yan可能最想食Wittgenstein，以報苦讀之仇。
Wong,
回覆刪除其實我好專敬Wittgenstein啊，吃了他很可惜。
他的 consistent 及 integrity， 令我生在這趨炎附勢世界有點安慰啊。
yan,
回覆刪除Wittgenstein死了這麼久，即使你想吃也不輪到你了。
Wong,
回覆刪除Whatsoever how this means, you are right about this.
yan,
回覆刪除It doesn't mean what you think it means.
So you don't eat animal because they would feel the pain and you eat vegetables because they don't have central nervous system. What if you give some sedatives to animals and they would not feel the pain when you kill them. Would that justify your eating of animals? If yes, would that apply to human being as well?
回覆刪除It's not that simple. I was merely pointing out pain as one relevant consideration; there are certainly other considerations, such as the fact that vegetables are not capable of intentional action.
回覆刪除The way you argue is problematic, for you can give the same kind of argument no matter what is being suggested as the relevant consideration for treating vegetables differently from humans or other animals. If, for example, I suggested that it is all right to eat vegetables because they can't think, then you could argue that it implies that it is all right to eat a human provided that we take away his ability to think before we eat him.
Indeed, suppose you think that we should not eat vegetables simply because they are alive, I could use your argument and say it is all right to eat them provided that we make them not alive first!
Pain might be one relevant consideration but it doesn't seem to be the critical consideration. Again, I am not sure incapability of intentional action would justify eating vegetable, or not eating because they don't have an option to resist being eaten.
回覆刪除I don't think it is the problem of my argument. It simple because we can not find a good reason treating vegetables differently from humans or other animals so that we can not justify our eating of vegetables but not animals. Then why do you think we can eat vegetable but not animals?
For the last paragraph, are you suggesting it is all right to eat human being if we could make them not alive first... So cruel!
My point is we cannot find a logical reason to treat vegetables differently. But emotionally yes, because they don't look like they are suffering, at least not in the same way as animals do...they leave our mind in peace when we eat them.
I don't think people would go through all the 'considerations' before they can finally make a decision about 'to eat or not to eat'. They do it simply because they want to.
My last paragraph was an attempt to use your argument against you: if I asked you why we should not eat vegetables, you might say "Because they are alive" (actually, what else can you say?), and if I argued your way, I could say "What if we make them not alive first?". And this would be a ridiculous argument.
回覆刪除Actually it is you who answered the question that why eating vegetables are not cruel by saying "But vegetables don't have a central nervous system and don't feel pain."
回覆刪除So the way you argued, as you pointed out later yourself, is not correct. That is also what I was trying to point out.
Again, my point is not we should not eat vegetables, but we could not find logical reasons to treat them differently from animals.
Thank you for your reply.
I don't think we were trying to point out the same thing.
回覆刪除I did suggest that one of the reasons why it is all right to eat vegetables is that they don't feel pain. Your response was that if that justified eating vegetables, it would also justify eating animals (or even humans) if we made them not feel pain first. Then I pointed out that this way of arguing is problematic because no matter what difference we point to between animals and vegetables that may justify eating vegetables, you could argue the same way.
So what you were trying to point out was that the reason I gave does not justify eating vegetables, while what I was trying to point out was that your argument can be generalized and has ridiculous implications.
Wong,
回覆刪除How about this approach to the problem:
The question only assumes a tremendous gap in IQ/knowledge between the aliens and human beings. It does not imply that the latter are necessarily inferior to the former in terms of logical reasoning and moral sensibility. The very fact that we could reason/argue with the aliens (and both agree to be bound by the force of better argument) indicates that human beings are one of their kinds (even though we're extremely primitive in terms of knowledge or technology).
Human beings are capable of articulating with networks of meanings and making qualitative value-based distinctions and it's this ability that differentiates them from other animals and plants. If we travel back to ancient Egypt in a time machine, we won』t have problem recognizing the Egyptians as human beings like us.
However, being logical is not incompatible with the practice of cannibalism :-) and we all know that recognizing others as our own kind does not necessarily stop us from doing horrible things to them. I don't think our chance is good in our debate with the aliens. But that's the best argument I can put forward.
CW,
回覆刪除Thanks for your interesting comments. I think the aliens would see the difference between us and them as much bigger than that between ancient Egyptians and us.
CW,
回覆刪除/*
Human beings are capable of articulating with networks of meanings and making qualitative value-based distinctions and it's this ability that differentiates them from other animals and plants.
*/
I see this as a grammatical remark on our language rather than a fact of difference between men and animals. The remark is: animals simply don't talk like us.
May be, extraterrestrials can talk to plants and animals even if we don't know how it would be.
Therefore, the grammatical joke can hardly be seen as as a premise for extraterrestrials not eating us. Please take a note of my formulation of your argument:
(To extraterrestrials:) Please don't eat us, because animals doesn't talk like how we talk and it is impossible for me to know how they talk.
A stronger would be:
(To extraterrestrials: Please don't eat us, because we human are limited in number and you cannot eat us forever. And if you want to pasture us, you would use so much effort and not economical to you to explore the universe and maximize your benefits. Why don't you let us to pasture in the proxy of you and provide you the most tasty food on earth. You can enjoy your flight and we supply you food on time. It is only us, human, have such ability on earth to help you.
I still don't think not feeling pain would justify eating vegetables. Let's not use examples of giving sedatives. There are human beings who suffer from traumatic brain damage and are in what we called 'vegetative state'. They are not able to feel the pain as well...
回覆刪除Pain is quite a subjective term. Vegetables may feel sth bad but not able to convey to human being. It is also difficult to use the same reason to argue with aliens if aliens don't have neural system and don't understand what pain is.
Wong,
回覆刪除/*
. I think the aliens would see the difference between us and them as much bigger than that between ancient Egyptians and us.
*/
I agree. But it's a 'given' of the question that the aliens allow us to defend ourselves in terms of reasoning or argument. That means at least some dialogue and understanding is possible between the two. This should help narrowing down the difference. We don't attempt to communicate with an ant or a flower, at least not in the commonsense meaning of communication.
Yan,
It's my fault for not stating my point clear. I see this as something goes beyond a 'grammatical remark on our language'. We're different from animals not just that we speak English or Chinese and they don't. But that the language we use give us the ability to articulate meanings and to make value distinctions and judgments.
Here's a reformulation of my argument:
(To extraterrestrials:) Please don't eat us, because animals don't think/behave like we do. Although we do not have your knowledge or technology, we are capable to feel and reflect on things as you do. We're one of your kind.
匿名,
回覆刪除//It is also difficult to use the same reason to argue with aliens if aliens don't have neural system and don't understand what pain is.//
That's right. But I have never suggested that the aliens should not eat us simply because we feel pain. All I have pointed out is a relevant difference between vegetables and animals that may (partly) explain why we think eating vegetables is all right.
CW,
回覆刪除Good point.
如果問題變成「能否吃人屍」呢?
回覆刪除雖然殺人是不行的,
但人總會死, 所以總會有人屍出現,
為甚麼人不能吃人屍?
人屍不單沒有感覺,
連生命跡象都沒有,
可說是比蔬菜更低級了。
我問這個問題的原因是, 王先生說蔬菜沒有感覺(我將之理解成「所以吃蔬菜沒有問題」), 那這理由又能不能套用到吃人屍的問題上呢? 我相信大部份人(包括王先生)不會接受吃人屍, 所以我想知道有沒有其他理由可以支持可以吃蔬菜但不能吃人屍但又不會訴諸情感?
回覆刪除如果死者生前同意，死者的家屬也不反對，我想不到吃人屍有甚麼不該。我不會吃人屍，只因為不對胃口。
回覆刪除哈哈哈, 我也會不對胃口。 我覺得吃蔬菜、吃肉還是吃人的問題主要都是來自「對不對胃口」, 我記得世上也有食人族, 我想, 他們吃人也只是對胃口而已, 而那些素食主義者只是覺得肉類不對胃口而已。
回覆刪除無論是吃肉還是不吃肉, 人總能找到似是疑非理由去支持他們的行為: 吃肉的會說動物和人的思考能力不是同一檔次, 所以可吃; 吃素的說動物和人同樣有痛覺, 不能吃, 但蔬菜沒有痛覺, 所以可吃; 更甚者會說蔬菜也有生命, 所以不能吃, 果實沒有生命, 所以能吃。
以上言論背後的理念是, 「和人類相似就不能吃, 和人類完全不同就可吃」, 問題是在每種食物上總能找到些和人相似的地方及不同的地方, 隨便抓著食物的某特性就說它能吃或不能吃難道不是太自以為是了嗎? 吃還是不吃, 似乎不是一個可以以邏輯解決的問題, 更大程度是一個道德問題, 大家都是以「這食物對不對自己胃口」作為考慮, 潛意識決定了吃還是不吃才開始找理由。
Thanks that is also my point. People eat vegetables or meat just because they want. They are looking for logical reasons to show that they are doing the right thing and then they feel more comfortable about what they are doing.
回覆刪除兩位匿名讀者的留言，我就一起答吧。
回覆刪除有很多人根本不認為我們須要找理由去justify吃蔬菜，正如他們不認為我們須要找理由去justify聽音樂一樣。這個justification的問題，是先有人提出了，如果大家認為有需要回應，才會嘗試提出能夠 justify自己行為的理由，至於那理由是否充分，便要詳細探討才能定奪。
一個不認為須要有理由去justify吃蔬菜的人可能會問兩位，吃蔬菜有甚麼不妥，需要justification？
Just came to this great blog!
回覆刪除What an interesting question!
though I dun know how to answer in a philo way, how about this?
As aliens keep livestock which taste v. similar to human beings. Can we be their farm to keep the livestock? so they can get food for free, even dun need to hunt or feed.
我可以反問外星人:如果有比你智力高更多的外星人,你會願意被他吃嗎?然後說服由於會做道德推論的生物(即人類)存在,所以願意在別的更高智慧的外星人想吃你們時幫助你們,所以消滅掉會做道德推論的生物(即人類)對你們也沒好處,換言之,在此,人類可以與這群外星人訂下互助以及不傷害我們人類的契約。然後本人認為,這不意謂地球人便不可以吃一般動物,為何?因為他們並非在智力上足以做道德推論且訂出契約的生靈,所以,人類沒有理由不吃動物(因為吃動物沒違背任何契約)。
回覆刪除