I don't know if I think it's "sensible," but it doesn't matter. It's a fact that (foundational) moral stances are how an individual feels about interpersonal behavior, and that's all they can be. — Terrapin Station

It does matter to me, because I want to understand how you determine right from wrong. What mechanism do you use to differentiate a wrong action from a bad action?

I'll try one different way of looking at this.

If you were raising a child, how would you teach that child to make assessments regarding good and bad behavior?

Examples:

- A religious person may point to the bible and say, "Follow these 10 commandments and they will teach you what is good and bad."

- A person who derives his morals from the law, may tell their children, "Whatever the law says, is how you should decide what is right from wrong."

- You (Terrapin) would seem to tell your child, "Whatever you feel is right, just go with that."

Correct me if I am wrong. But I still am not fully clear on your position, and I think this question of "how would you teach your children right from wrong" could help create some clarity.

**As a side note: A person can "feel" something is wrong, but go against it because they put more importance on the law. So to say that people base their moral stances on how they feel, isn't always the case. People will conform to societal pressure or the law, versus abide by their own personal feelings.

No. You're not understanding what I'm saying. Let's do this one step at a time: first, just to be clear, a justification for a moral action can't be something that's just factual; it would have to itself be a value judgment the person is making.

Do you understand/agree with that part? — Terrapin Station

I have no idea what you just wrote. How about we start over. I said this:

"the reasoning you use to justify a moral action, is "feeling". Correct?"

Let me try to rephrase.

Do you believe how you "feel" is a sensible reason to base your moral actions on? If so, do you believe how someone else "feels" is a sensible reason for them to base their moral actions on? If not, you have a logical contradiction in place. Where you accept "feeling" as a sensible reason for your actions, but do not accept "feeling" as a sensible reason for someone else's actions.

Do you understand this?

I've reviewed my arguments and I think I will stick to my personal opinion rather than attempt to include perspectives I don't fully understand.
Personally, I agree that it's cruel to kill animals for food. As to whether it's ethical or not, I don't know. I think it depends on one's basis for ethics and whether it applies to animals as well. However, as far as I know, there is no such world-wide ethical acceptance.
Now, please allow me to bow out of this discussion, thanks. — BrianW

Saying that something is cruel, means you are deploying ethics. So if you say something is cruel, you are saying it is unethical. Ethics and Morals are synonyms, which essentially mean the same thing.

This thread was for people to explore this topic and ask questions for which they may not fully understand. I'd encourage you to stay in this thread and chat a bit more before you leave.

If we forget about other people for now, may I ask you this. What is your basis for ethical/moral decisions? Meaning, how do you differentiate a good action from a bad action?

My original query is,

Is natural law unethical?

I'm investigating, not assuming that it already is. I'm trying to understand it from as comprehensive a perspective as I can.

What about the wild animals? How do we deal with them?

Do animals have the right to free-will? — BrianW

My mistake. I thought you were assuming that natural law is ethical.

Wild animals (+ALL animals) should be left alone, as much as possible. Yes, they should have the right to freedom and the ability to express their free-will. If you don't think they deserve the right to life and freedom, you'd need to present a case for that. Why don't animals deserve the right to life and freedom?

You want me to give you a program for achieving Veganism? How about you try this: https://www.challenge22.com/challenge22/

They will assign you a mentor to you help you along the way if you have any questions. You will also get guides/recipes on veganism. Is this what you are looking for?

Also, I don't need to come up with a plan in order to change people's minds. I am here to spread awareness and allow people to realize their ethical inconsistency. This comes before the plan is put into place. Nobody will follow a plan if they believe what they are currently doing is right or correct. People on this thread have not even stated in the slightest that they will stop eating animal products, let alone ask me what the best plan is to do so.

There are plenty of resources out there, in regards to following a plan for veganism. I am here to put you in the correct mindset, so you are able to pursue that plan on your own without feeling obligated or guilt-tripped in some way. Slave owners who release their slaves shouldn't need to feel guilt in order to do the morally right thing. You evaluate your beliefs and actions, see if they line up, and if they don't, you correct them and change your perspective. If you care to be a moral agent, then it requires a constant evaluation of your beliefs and actions. If you don't care to be a moral agent, continue living on the way you have, while conforming to societal norms and common law.

I see. Why were you out in the wilderness? Was it necessary for your survival? Furthermore, human settlements, like cities, exclude "wild life" but all take up vital space and resources from "wild life". Are they necessary or unnecessary? — Πετροκότσυφας

I wasn't out in the wilderness, as I was merely giving an example. Cities/towns/villages are necessary for survival, but not in the types of excess as we have it today. 10,000 sq ft. homes for 2 people, should not exist. Golf courses (which take up unnecessary amounts of land) shouldn't exist. Funeral homes and cemeteries, shouldn't exist. There are a lot of things that humans have created, in which they are completely unnecessary, and most of the time, useless.

Hey, you figured it out! — Jake

lol yeah. It took me a while... Karl doesn't understand the concept of answering a question. Maybe you can try to ask him in another thread. This is what you may encounter.

Why are animals not worth of moral consideration if we cause them unnecessary suffering?
"Because they aren't on top of the food chain."
Why is the food chain an indicator of how to treat sentient beings?
"Because.... dinner."

If you want to talk about food chains, how about you ask Karl to fight a tiger or bear with what he was naturally born with (hands and feet and teeth). That food chain will get resolved real fast, lol...

What does "unnecessarily" mean here? What is it that makes suffering necessary or not? — Πετροκότσυφας

You may define the term "unnecessary" differently than I do, but in this context, I define it as such:

Unnecessary = Not need for our survival. We can pursue alternative methods.
Necessary = Needed for our survival. No alternative method was available.

Example of unnecessary: Fox fur coats, vs, fake fur coats. One causes unnecessary suffering (to the fox), while the other is made in a lab (or some other way that doesn't cause suffering to a sentient being).

Example of necessary: Self-defense. If I am out in the wilderness and an animal (or person) attacks me, I may need to hurt that animal (or human) to help my own survival.

Do the animals know what rape is or an alternative to rape? Humans decide that rape is wrong, therefore, humans determine alternative actions.
Animals have their own moral codes. They commit acts that we would not and they're no less for it because of what and how they are. — BrianW

You seem to have side-tracked. The original line of statements were as follows:

You: Factory farming is natural. Why is natural law unethical?
Me: Just because something occurs in nature, doesn't make it morally acceptable. Rape occurs in nature, and is therefore natural. Does that mean it is morally acceptable to rape?
You: Animals may not know what rape is, but humans do know. Animals have their own moral codes.

If your original statement stands of, "Why is natural law unethical?", you would understand why natural law is not something you want to base your moral actions on. Animals are part of natural law. The actions of animals, are part of natural law. Yes, humans decided rape is wrong, but not because of natural law. We decided it was wrong because it goes against universal human rights, which is irrelevant to natural law.

If we let them die off, isn't that lack of compassion? — BrianW

No. The way they are being bred into existence is via rape (forced artificial insemination). Is it more compassionate to rape or not rape?

Is the compassion for animals born out of a sense of equality or out of self-gratification. If animals are equal to us, shouldn't we treat all of them alike. Would you suggest letting humans die out for the sake of achieving a more pleasing equilibrium? — BrianW

They are not equal in every way possible. They shouldn't be allowed to drive cars or vote. But they do deserve basic rights, such as the right to live, or the right to freedom. Some "special" animals are granted these rights, in which people are not allowed to own them as pets or kill them. Instead of only granting those rights to specific animals (such as owls), we should grant them to all animals.

And, if it's a matter of perspective, then consider animals bred for food only know the life they've been given. In such instances most suffering occurs in fear of impending death which humans are increasingly alleviating by diminishing such awareness. — BrianW

Just because a sentient being doesn't know any better, doesn't mean we should continue breeding those sentient beings into existence.

This argument is largely dependent on human acceptance of the idea of indisputable equality between humans and animals. However, if such a perspective were forced, it would defeat the case for compassion. Are humans and animals equal? For most people, they are not. Why should such people conform to your perspective? — BrianW

Again, I never said they are equal in all aspects of life. They should be treated equally in the sense of not causing them unnecessary suffering. That is all...

Have fun on another thread. I'm going to stop responding to you now.

Here's the conversation.

Chatterbears: It is wrong to kill animals and people unnecessarily.
Karl: But animals are not people.
Chatterbears: Why does that matter? They both can feel and suffer.
Karl: Animals are not people, they are dinner.
Chatterbears: Ok. That doesn't answer anything. Why should we cause harm to animals unnecessarily?
Karl: Because animals are not worthy of the same moral consideration.
Chatterbears: Still haven't answered. Why aren't they worthy of the same moral consideration in regards to unnecessary suffering?
Karl: Because animals are not human beings. They are lower on the food chain.

Smh...

Factory farming is human activity. Humans (including their activities) are a part of nature. — BrianW

And is nature is a good indicator of how we should live our lives? Animals rape in nature. Should we then start raping each other since it is 'natural'?

Do we lack the compassion or the capacity? Should we and can we domesticate all animals? If we leave others to the wild, then don't we allow them to suffer from conditions which we would otherwise protect ourselves from? — BrianW

If we have the capacity to show compassion to some animals (such as cats or dogs), then we have the capacity to extend that compassion to other animals. We don't need to domesticate all animals. We need to stop breeding animals into existence that we are going to torture, exploit and slaughter. The chickens/cows/pigs/sheep/goats/etc... that we have bred into existence, would and does not exist in the wild. The simple idea is, stop breeding these animals into existence. The current ones that already exist, we can let them die off naturally, while keeping a small percentage in animal sanctuaries.

Personally, I think causing harm to animals is wrong. But, it would be unfair to constrain others by our own restrictions. Is it wrong for the lion to kill the gazelle? If so, how would you inform it? — BrianW

You think causing harm to animals is wrong, so does that mean you're vegan? It is not wrong for the lion to kill the gazelle because the lion NEEDS to kill to survive. We do not need to kill farm animals to survive.

Also, why are you looking to the lion for how you should act? Lions commit infanticide. If I killed my child, and you condemned me for it, could I just point to lions and say, "Hey, Lions kill their own children, why can't I do the same thing?"

I submit that most of the people who are not already vegetarians will ignore your guilt trip rhetoric. If you want to change people's behavior (and not just convince them that you are right and they are wrong) you will have to come up with a strategy that makes a vegetarian diet convenient, attractive, and even "trendy".

So shut up with the guilt tripping and come up with something that will actually WORK. — Bitter Crank

There's no guilt trip rhetoric. Unless you want to claim that people who were against slavery 200 years ago, were guilt tripping slave owners into abolishing slavery?

You want to talk about convenient, attractive and trendy?

Was it convenient for slave owners to stop owning slaves? No.
Was it attractive to let slaves go and start doing hard work yourself? No.
Was it trendy to stop owning slaves, even though the majority was doing it? No.

Your points are weak, and I don't need some elaborate or fancy reason to convince you to be a compassionate human being. It's fairly simple. You can call it a guilt trip, but I call it a logically consistent step in the right direction.

1. Anything that a product of nature produces, is itself a product of nature.
2. Humans are a product of nature.
3. Humans produce factory farms.
4. Therefore factory farms are a product of nature — Mentalusion

Then that by logic, everything is a product of nature. Which makes the term useless, and it shouldn't be something we point to as a way to live our lives.

Rape is a product of nature. Is it now ok to rape people?

You keep making analogies to immoral acts committed on people to those committed on animals in the context of animal consumption. I suggested in another post that while it may be true that animals are moral agents to some extent - such that they are not completely irrelevant w/re to our moral calculations - they are by no means moral agents to the same extent people are. As a result, I think you need to give some explanation about why you think there is a one-to-one equivalence between people and animals that justifies these analogies. — Mentalusion

Cows/chickens/pigs are sentient. Humans are sentient. We have the ability to suffer and experience pain, as well as pleasure. To commit an unnecessary amount of pain to another sentient being, would mean we would need a valid justification to continue that action.

I never said there is a one-to-one equivalence between humans and animals, as humans can understand things far greater and also obtain more rights (such as the right to vote, or the right to drive). The part I am saying we are equal to animals, is the fact that we both can suffer and feel pain. As a more intelligent species, why would we not use that knowledge to become more compassionate instead of more cruel? In the U.S., we have plenty of animal cruelty laws that prevent animals from being harmed, but they are more geared toward pets (such as dogs or cats). People already understand that dogs have the ability to feel, as well as the ability to experience joy. Animals are not objects who don't think, as they have a far greater sense of understanding than we treat them for. You see mother cows chase the trucks that take away their new born calf moments after birth. Dogs and pigs mourn for their lost family members or loved ones, just as we would. Just because they do not vocalize their pain into words, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Aside from the fact that they can experience pain and suffering as we do, it is also logically consistent to grant these animals the same right we would grant for ourselves. Which is the right to life, and the right to be free from pain. If you think that animals do not deserve to live a natural life, you'd have to make a case for why that it is.

The examples you give of extreme human exploitation are immoral. More moderate examples of human exploitation are not necessarily going to be unacceptably immoral (an inefficient labor market, for example, where people are not able to get a fair wage in exchange for their labor). Similarly, if animals are not of the same moral equivalence as people, then exploitation of them may be totally justifiable, even to the point of consuming them in some way or to some degree. — Mentalusion

Could you explain why 'extreme' human exploitation is immoral, but extreme animal exploitation is not immoral?

Also, I think it would be helpful to the discussion to take the environment and health risks from over-consumption of meat off the table. If you don't, then your argument is going to depend on industrial animal consumption producing these externalities. Even assuming you are correct about them and that they are significant, it is possible that we could find ways to harvest animals that did not produce significant environmental damage. People could also moderate their animal consumption so it was not detrimental to their health. If both of these things happened, then they would no longer provide a justification for abstaining from animal consumption. in other words, what is the argument for abstinence if you don't make these consequentialist assumptions? — Mentalusion

The health and environmental aspects are icing on the cake. The core problem is killing a sentient being that doesn't want to die, against their will. Enslaving a species and exploiting them, against their will. That's the main issue.

My answer for this discussion is that our dominion (or any dominion for that matter) is a product of nature. Is natural law unethical? — BrianW

Factory farming isn't a product of nature. It is a product of humans who abuse their power in immoral ways.

A better question would be whether it is more compassionate (or humane) to alleviate suffering in animals, as much as we can, considering we now know that animals experience emotions and, consequently, not only pain but also suffering. — BrianW

This is the same question, because an unethical dominion over animals would imply the lack of compassion. It is unethical, since we lack the compassion to alleviate the suffering these animals endure.

it stands to reason that if a large number of people in a population are alcoholic, then perhaps alcoholic products are too cheap, too affordable, and too available. Prohibition isn't necessary, but some control is.

Similarly with animal vs. plant diets: the best strategy to achieve higher rates of vegetarianism is to make high quality vegetarian foods readily available to population who isn't familiar with them. The "market" can do this, but the government may need to 'prime the pump'. — Bitter Crank

Would you be saying the same thing if alcohol was solely produced on the back of tortured children? That the only way alcohol could be produced was child slave labor, would you still say "prohibition isn't necessary, we just need some control of it." - Meaning, child slave labor would still exist, but we should just lessen it, correct?

Because that is what is happening in the case of farm animals. Lessening it doens't make it better, in the fact that unnecessary suffering is still occurring. As of right now, when people buy alcohol, they are usually just harming themselves (aside from drunk drivers). When people buy animal products, they are ALWAYS harming the animal, as well as harming the environment AND themselves (health wise). That is not even comparable to alcohol or smoking.

Can you honestly be saying at this stage of debate - that if people were vegetarians, animals would not be farmed? There's a difference between simple and simplistic. Constantly seeking to bias the argument by needlessly introducing terms like needlessly - demonstrates that your argument is a prejudiced opinion. Prejudice obscures the truth. — karl stone

Vegans, not vegetarians. Animals are factory farmed because we eat them. If we stopped eating them, they wouldn't be farmed. If you want to say they would be farmed for clothing (such as a leather), that's a separate issue. But Vegans do not buy any animal products, including leather. So that would go away as well. You talk about bias and prejudice, yet you can't understand simple supply and demand?

But is't also a fact that animals are not needlessly killed. They're killed for food, and the vast majority of people eat meat. They are not likely to stop doing so - and you have not established, morally speaking, that they should. — karl stone

And black people were bred for slavery in the US. And the vast majority of people owned slaved. And they were not likely to stop doing so. Should that be a reason to continue doing it, because it is a demand and the majority supports it?

Also, morally, it's quite simple. Veganism is a logically consistent extension of whatever moral system you already have in place for yourself. You cannot be logically consistent without being Vegan.

For example. A person could give these reasons:

"I eat meat because I like the taste."
"I eat meat because it is convenient to do so."
"I eat meat because animals are not as intelligent as I am."

If we take just those 3 justifications for the action committed, we can apply logically consistency to their position and see if they would still accept it.

"I eat new born babies because I like the taste."
"I am a cannibal because it is convenient to do so."
"I eat new born babies because they are not as intelligent as I am."

If you wouldn't accept the second set of claims, then you are not logically consistent. Since this clearly demonstrates that these reasons are not sufficient justifications to commit an action.

I'm not a farmer. I don't know anything about raising pigs. I don't have a dog either. I imagine there are reasons that pigs are farmed, and dogs are not. But it's not universal, is it? In China and Korea dogs are farmed and eaten. And there were cannibals in New Guinea that ate human flesh. Interestingly, I understand - eating human brains gave them the equivalent of mad cow disease. — karl stone

And you still haven't answered.... I think at this point it is clear you are being either dishonest and/or purposely evasive. I don't know how to raise a child, but I would never condone killing one. You don't need to know anything about raising pigs or dogs, to understand why you would eat one but not the other. And instead of answering my question, of why you would support the killing of pigs but not of dogs, you constantly evade the question.

I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I think it is pointless at this point. If you cannot answer a simple question, after I have asked it 3 times, this isn't a discussion. This is you failing to understand my position and basic questions you are being asked. Or as I am more convinced of, you're being dishonest.

Re this, I explained this in detail in the post you're responding to. Again, trying to make sense of a "justification for action in relation to a moral stance," "I feel that x is moral" would be sufficient for me to feel that doing x is justified (or validly or reasonably justified to use your term), because that's what it means, basically, for me to feel that x is moral--that it's acceptable to do x. — Terrapin Station

Just to be clear, the reasoning you use to justify a moral action, is "feeling". Correct?

Example: Terrapin kills dogs for furr clothing because he feels like it.

And to be even more clear. Do you (Terrapin) believe that "feeling" is a reasonable justification to base your moral actions on? If yes, do you also believe that someone else is reasonably justified to base their moral actions on what they feel is right?

Example: Jack kills old people for fun because he feels like it.

Lastly, to be the most clear. I am not asking whether or not you think Jack is reasonably justified to himself. I am asking you whether not YOU (Terrapin) believe Jack is reasonably justified to base his moral actions on what he "feels" like is the right thing to do.

This is where logically consistency comes into play.

That's not the same thing as "If Jack feels that y is moral then I feel that y is justified (validly justified)," because what it means for Jack to feel that y is moral is NOT that I feel that it's acceptable to do x. Rather, Jack would feel that it's acceptable to do x. — Terrapin Station

This is my point, but you still haven't really addressed it. What Jack "feels" may be different from how you feel. Which is why 'feeling' is never a good reason to justify a moral action. But aside from that, if you believe that your reasoning (of how you feel) is good enough to justify a belief, it seems contradictory to then say "I may not accept Jack's reasoning of how feels when committing a moral action."

Either "feeling" is a reasonable justification for moral actions, or it is not. It doesn't matter which person is initiating the feeling. Whether that is the pope or hitler, do you think "feeling" is what they should base their moral actions on?

Or in other words, I certainly don't have a view that any x is justified--that it's acceptable to do--just in case some person feels that x is moral. I could say that I feel that x is justified, or x is acceptable to do in other words, just in case I feel that x is moral. — Terrapin Station

It seems like you do though, because you believe that a person can reasonably justify their moral actions based on feeling, correct?

First, I wouldn't use the word "valid." When we're talking about moral stances, we're not talking about truth value. No moral stance is either true or false. — Terrapin Station

I never said anything about true or false. Validity is in reference to logic (or fact), which I have already talked about in regards to logically consistency. But when I say valid justification, I am referring to two things here.

1. Valid justification. A justification you would accept for yourself in which you would base an action on.

2. Valid justification based on consistency. A justification that you have used, in which somebody else would/could use to deploy in the same way.

- Terrapin owns black slaves, because he thinks black people are inferior.
- Jack owns chinese slaves, because he thinks chinese people are inferior.

In this case, the justification is "believing someone is inferior." - I would then ask you, do you believe that this justification is valid; meaning you should base your actions on it? Not whether or not it is true or has some truth value. I am talking about whether or not it is valid enough for YOU to use and deploy yourself.

A different example can be taste preference based on peer pressure. Someone could have been peer pressured into drinking beer, but ended up acquiring a taste for beer, and enjoying it. I would never say that "peer pressure" is a valid reason for obtaining preferences, as I think peer pressure does more harm than good in most cases.

If you don't want to use the word valid, I can replace it with the word 'reasonable'. Do you believe Jack is reasonably justified in his actions of owning slaves (based on the feeling of chinese people being inferior). In this context, 'reasonable' and 'valid' are synonyms. Valid justification vs reasonable justification. Same concept and meaning. Or as you wrote, "sufficient justification". Sufficient, valid, reasonable. Take your pick.

That Jack feels that y is morally permissible isn't a sufficient justification for me to feel that doing y is justified. — Terrapin Station

Why do Jack's actions not have a sufficient justification, but your actions do? And let me bring up the example again to be clear.

A: Terrapin believes it is morally acceptable to kill non-human animals needlessly, based on an intuitive feeling.

B: Jack believes it is morally acceptable to kill old people needlessly, based on an intuitive feeling.

Jack's justification is based on an intuitive feeling. Terrapin's justification is based on an intuitive feeling. Why is Jack's justification not sufficient, but yours is?

People DO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR when there is a clear personal necessity or benefit for them to change. — Bitter Crank

In other words, humans are selfish assholes, lol. But I agree. Humans, I'd argue, are one of the worst species on the planet lol. All we do is ruin the lives of everything around us, including our own species. It's quite sad actually.

My guess is that a self interest argument would prove the most effective. — Jake

I've tried many different angles, but the health and environmental aspects are the least effective (from my experience). People eat food that they KNOW is bad for them, such as a fast food / candy / soda / etc... What makes you think they would care to switch off a meat based diet for a plant-based diet? They are also selfish, which produces a lack of interest for caring about the environment. The moral arguments seem to be most effective when people actually care to answer honestly instead of evading or avoiding the questions.

the reason for it is that that is how I intuitively feel about it. — Terrapin Station

Do you think how you intuitively feel about something is a valid justification for an action? This is where ethically consistency comes into your normative ethics.

A: Terrapin believes it is morally acceptable to kill non-human animals needlessly, based on an intuitive feeling.

B: Jack believes it is morally acceptable to kill old people needlessly, based on an intuitive feeling.

For you to be logically consistent, you would have to state that both situations (A and B) have valid justifications for the action committed. Since, in both situations, the same justification has been deployed. So, do you think Jack is justified in his action, which is based on the same justification you have deployed yourself?

I have read everything you have written, but still did not notice or understand an answer to my question.

So before I continue to answer your questions, please answer mine. If you think you have already answered it, and I apparently missed it, please re-state here and make it clear for me.

Why is it okay to needlessly kill non-human animals for food, but not humans?

It seems a bit evasive to not answer my question, at very least. I have asked it three times now, " Why is it okay to needlessly kill non-human animals for food, but not humans?"

Instead of answering that question, you seem to be side-tracking and now asking me questions in return?

But since you won't answer my question, I'll answer yours. No, I don't think any arbitrary moral stance you could state necessarily rests on some other moral stance you could state. Why and how is that relevant to my question? And how it is relevant to logically consistent ethics?

It's fine to state the foundational moral stance (Metaethics), but that is irrelevant to whether or not your normative stance is internally consistent. The question of grounding is separate from the question of logical consistency. Better worded: The question of how your ethics are grounded (Metaethics) is separate from the question of whether your ethics are logically consistent.

Example:

Metaethics - I believe things are morally right, based on my personal preference.
Normative Ethics - I believe it is morally right to kill old people.
Contradiction - I believe it is morally wrong to kill old people.

You can have a contradiction within your ethical system, irrespective of how that system is grounded. Whether it is grounded upon the will of god, personal preference, societal norms, etc... Doesn't matter. The fact remains, that your system could still be internally inconsistent, AKA, logically contradictory.

A different analogy.

My favorite color is red.
My favorite color is not red.

It doesn't matter what my color preference is based on (the grounding), because there is still a clear contradiction here. Whether the color preference is based on family tradition, peer pressure, etc...is irrelevant. Because in my system, there is a logical contradiction, of my favorite color being (and not being) red.

You seem to only be talking about Metaethics, when I am in fact talking about Normative Ethics. Or in the specific case of Veganism, Applied Ethics. If you don't know the difference between the three, here's a link from the IEP.

- https://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

As I said before, I agree that the ground floor of an ethical system is subjective, which is in reference to Metaethics. But I am asking you about your ethical system that you already have put in place, within your own mind. In your subjective ethical system, Why is it okay to needlessly kill non-human animals for food, but not humans?

And please refrain from talking about people (in a general sense). I only care about your (Terrapin) subjective view on morality. Please answer the question, based on that, without going back to Metaethics.I am trying to see if your normative ethics are logically consistent. (Although you have stated that you don't find it important to be logically consistent, correct?)

The article which supports your claim of 51% is extremely dubious. (read: written from a blatant and bias laden agenda) — VagabondSpectre

It is extremely doubtful that agriculture accounts for 51% of green-house-gasses. — VagabondSpectre

If this Article is incorrect, I am fine with acknowledging better research out there. I don't have a problem with accepting new studies and peer reviewed journals. The point still remains though, that animal agriculture causes a lot of damage to the environment, as well as our health. It may not be 51%, but it still a significant amount, even if that is 25%.

I don't think it's okay to needlessly kill "an animal, any animal" for food. I think it's okay to needlessly kill non-human animals for food. — Terrapin Station

Why is it okay to needlessly kill non-human animals for food, but not humans?

Re the other questions, I don't categorically have a problem with people being inconsistent in their moral stances, and I particularly don't have a problem with that re hypocrisy — Terrapin Station

Then I guess there may not be a point to discuss further if we disagree about that aspect. If you don't think logic is an essential tool we should use when trying to reason and evaluate our beliefs, this conversation won't get much further.

In mine, consumer sovereignty is an unsustainable cognitive burden, and responsibility lies with the producer. — karl stone

Plain and simple, animals would not be needlessly killed if society stopped buying animal products. If everybody stopped buying meat tomorrow, do you think farms would continue to breed animals into existence for product that isn't going to be purchased? No. It's not an opinion that I am conveying. It's a fact, that the consumer demands what product is produced. Once the consumer stops demanding that product, that product stops existing.

I see the trap here. Pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs, so I'm led to believe. I don't know if it's true - because my experience with either animal is extremely limited. I've never eaten dog meat - while I eat bacon regularly. Would I eat dog? Under the right circumstances - north pole expedition, holiday in Korea. But otherwise, no! — karl stone

And you still haven't explained WHY it is ok to kill and eat a pig, but not a dog or human? Are you going to actually answer this question?

If you're attempting to establish hypocrisy in my position, it shouldn't be difficult. But then I'm not the one making claim to moral superiority. It's you that needs a consistent position. Ultimately I can simply say - I love a bacon sandwich, and I don't care. But I'm attempting to meet you on the ground laid out by your proposition - to test the idea that our dominion over animals is unethical. — karl stone

What a fail on many different levels. To come into a philosophy forum and claim you don't have to be consistent in your ethics, followed by justifying an action by saying "I love a bacon sandwich and I don't care." - Do you actually even care to be consistent in your ethics?

Let me ask you a question. If scientists developed a pill you could take, and you'd have all the nutrition you need without having to eat at all - would you think that a good thing, and take it? I wouldn't. I love to cook, and I love to eat. I have a theory that vegetarians can't cook. They don't really like to eat. It is in their view, a chore. Where in my view, it's a pleasure - and to be utterly honest, the savagery and sacrifice adds to the experience. — karl stone

Depends on the cost efficiency of that pill. Sometimes I don't feel like cooking, but sometimes I do. On the days I don't feel like cooking, I could pop that pill and be done with it. But at least I would have the choice. Also, people who become Vegan are more likely to cook, since animal products are prevalent throughout society. Even before I was Vegan, I didn't feel like cooking or eating all the time, and I feel the same way even after becoming Vegan.

It's a rhetorical point. I have no evidence. If the point were raised against me - I'd dismiss it on the grounds that human beings have free will. All I'm saying is that you're happy to depend on human labour, but were it an animal it would be condemned as exploitation. It's your morals that are in question, not mine. I accept that life is a web of inter-dependencies. The food chain is one of them. The plants you eat are part of that web, a web of life that involves animals eating other animals. — karl stone

Most humans have the ability to work or stop working. They have the free will to choose a different trade or profession. They are not enslaved into a working environment, and unable to exercise their free-will. I condemn all forms of exploitation, and I try my best to avoid supporting it. Also, the more you refuse to take responsibility for your moral actions, the less likely it is I will be responding to you in the future. If you keep saying, "I don't need to be consistent. It's your morals that are in question, not mine." - Then there is really no point to have a discussion, since you want it to be one-sided without any criticism or responsibility on your side.

I did explain at the bottom of my previous post - the difference between animals and human beings. In a word, awareness. — karl stone

Still doesn't explain a thing. There are human beings who have the same awareness as a cow or dog or pig. Mentally retarded people, or severely disabled people who have the same consciousness level as a pig. Does that mean it is OK to kill mentally disabled people because they have a lower awareness?

You're not taking anything I say on board, are you? Nothing. I understand where you're coming from, and criticize your position, but you don't understand and criticize mine. All you're doing is banging the same drum - it's cruel, it's cruel, it's murder, it's wrong, it's cruel. That's not philosophy - is it? It's the opinion of an opinionated person. — karl stone

How ironic it is to say, "that's not philosophy - is it?", coming from the person doesn't care to be consistent, and justifies their actions by saying "I don't care." - Is that your version of philosophy? Talk about an opinion...

I can't say I like the idea. And it's not necessary to torture an animal to kill it and eat it, and use its skin for clothing. As I've said, I do care about animal cruelty, but believe that responsibility lies with the producer. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you will take up the point and question it - rather than simply ignoring it, and insisting it's cruel, it's murder, it's torture blah, blah, blah. — karl stone

You say you don't like the idea of animal cruelty and unnecessary torture, but then continue to support industries that do it? Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Would I? Do I have to be consistent? Can I not extend sympathy to a person, who's personhood is damaged in some way? But let's examine the proposition. If it were a survival situation - say, there's limited oxygen, and besides yourself - you could only save one person. Would it be them? Are you telling me - that they would have an exactly equal chance of being saved? Or would the retarded person be the first out the airlock - if push came to shove? In extremis, given no other options, that's a bullet I'd bite - and if you're honest with yourself, so would you! But even the retard would outlive the dog! — karl stone

You can never answer any of my questions, can you. It may be pointless to continue this conversation (between us), because you don't care about actually answering questions and challenging your own moral inconsistencies. As I said before, it's laughably ironic to say to me, "That's not philosophy - is it?", but then say things like "Do I have to be consistent." - Followed by taking the question out of context by applying it to an extreme survival situation, instead of the situation I framed the question in.

Smh.

"One should consider the rights and well-being of sentient beings" isn't anything aside from a way that some of us feel. Again,it's a way that our brains work (re the people whose brains work in that specific way, that they agree with it). — Terrapin Station

Yes, I get what you are saying in your entire reply. That at its core, morality is subjective. But I am fine with that, because internal consistency will clear up any issues real quick.

I should ask you though, do you think ethical consistency (logic) is important? As I have told others, Ethics requires consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development. Do you agree with this? Or do you think it is ok for people to have contradictory beliefs? And/or be hypocritical?

For example. I assume you are not Vegan. Why do you think it is ok to needlessly kill an animal for food, but not needlessly kill a human for food? And by "needlessly", I am saying it is not needed. We do not need to kill an animal to survive, be healthy and enjoy food.

So obviously I do what every other single person on Earth does--I "intuit" how I feel about the behavior in question. Again, I can reason on top of that, but foundationally, it's a matter of how I feel about the behavior.

Re "cheating," yes, but I'm pro polyamory, not fond of monogamy. — Terrapin Station

I am not part of this "every other single person on Earth does" that you speak of. I don't base my moral actions on intuition like you do, as that is a very dangerous way of thinking. The white man can justify slavery by intuition, or justify revoking the rights of women by intuition. You can ask the white man why women do not deserve the right to vote, and he can just respond and say, "Because I feel that men are superior to women." - Superiority is a type of "feeling" one has, and it is a very dangerous way to base your decision making on. He may call it intuition.

If a person felt like hitting you in the face, are they then justified in doing so because they felt like it? What I am trying to get at is, you should try to re-evaluate your moral foundation and base your actions on something other than intuition. Something like, considering the rights and well-being of sentient beings.

When you purchase a manufactured object, are you concerned about the working and living conditions of the animals (people) who produced the shirt, the smart phone, the car, the strawberries, and so on? — Bitter Crank

Yes, absolutely.

Millions of workers are subjected to extremely harsh working conditions at poverty-guaranteeing wages. They live in developing countries where living costs are low, but they still do not make enough to rise above wretched working and living conditions. It isn't "necessary" that they labor under such conditions. It is only necessary that they receive such small remuneration for their life time of labor to maximize the profit of everyone in the supply chain who exploits the workers. — Bitter Crank

Which is why I try my best to buy from companies who do not exploit workers in that way.

Child labor; dangerous, unsafe working conditions; ruthless exploitation; toxic chemicals; very long hours; dehumanizing treatment... Citizens of developed countries would not accept these working conditions, yet our lives are full of objects which entail horrible working conditions and ruined lives.

What have you done in your personal life to avoid using, purchasing, and benefitting from this exploitation? — Bitter Crank

I do the best I can with the best resources and research I have available. I try my best to stay away from companies that exploit workers and animals. You can research most of this stuff online, or talk to the companies directly if need be.

But again, if someone were to provide me evidence that a current product I was buying, was produced by child workers, I would stop buying from them. No questions asked. But everyone here in this thread knows how animals are tortured and killed. And even if they lived a torture free life, they are still killed unnecessarily, which is the most important part.

In my first post in this thread, which is the post you quoted and responded to already, I wrote this:

"Morality boils down to individuals feeling however they feel about interpersonal behavior."

Everyone just abides by however they feel at the time. There's nothing else to be had. You can reason on top of that, which why I used the "boils down" metaphor, but at root, there's nothing other than individuals feeling however they feel about interpersonal behavior. — Terrapin Station

I understand what you are saying, but I am specifically asking you about your subjective moral foundation. Not about society or people in general. I am asking about how YOU (Terrapin) decide whether or not an action becomes morally good or bad. Do you have any method that you use to determine a good action from a bad action?

For example. Are you ok with your spouse cheating on you, if that is just what they feel like doing at the time?

You might argue current regulations are insufficient, and that's an argument to take up with government. If you did, I might support you - but guilting the consumer is fundamentally the wrong approach. — karl stone

The point is dead if you're not willing to understand it. If you cannot get past the idea that you, as the consumer, are partly responsible for how a good/product is produced, then I don't know what else to tell you.

The only point I wanted to make was that there's no moral equivalence between killing people and killing animals. — karl stone

And you still haven't explained why. Why is it ok to kill a dog or pig for unnecessary reasons, but not ok to kill a human for unnecessary reasons?

So are you saying that not eating meat is an alternative to eating meat? I completely disagree. And so it seems, do most vegetarians. You don't eat vegetables - so much as vegetables disguised as meat. Producers mimic meat stews, sausages, cutlets - they give them a pseudo-meat flavour, and try to create the same mouth feel. — karl stone

Plant-based products are a cruelty-free alternative to eating meat. You don't have to eat plant-based products that mimic meat. You can eat rice, grains, pasta, beans, nuts, vegetables, fruits, tofu, fortified soy milk, rice milk, etc... You can get all your daily nutrients without eating meat. There's alternatives, so why aren't you going to use them?

Furthermore, those products are made by human labour. Have you ever stood in one place, in the cold, packing crap in a box for nine hours straight? So you would torture humans to produce fake meat, and then break your arm patting yourself on the back - because you haven't been cruel to animals. So it can't be about "equality and compassion" - for while you maintain "animals are people too" - you don't act like "people are animals too." — karl stone

Again, provide evidence that humans are being slaves in the same ways animals are. You make up hypothetical scenarios without any data to back it up, while I actually have data to show you what goes on in these farms. Also, even if it were the case that all plant-based products were produced by human labor, you eat those as well, do you not? So you support two types of exploitation (human and animal), while I only support one type (human). But I find it interesting that you won't answer questions, but instead just keep shifting the focus away from yourself and pointing the finger at me without any proper data.

You clearly meant to equate killing animals with the murder of a human being. But as we've shown above, your equality is hypocritical. The fact is animals eat eachother - so, to be consistently equal - if "humans are animals too" - you would need to condemn all animals that kill and eat other animals. Do you feed your dog meat? — karl stone

And you still haven't explained why murdering a human is wrong, but murdering an animal is not? Also, animals eat each other out of necessity for survival. We eat animals out of pleasure and convenience, not for survival. If you were in a survival situation, such as wild animals are, I would then be happy to deploy my consistency and not condemn you for eating an animal for survival. But you are not in that situation, so why are you trying to compare two things that are not equal? Also, no. I do not feed my dog meat. We order eggs from an ethical farm (which does not kill or strain the animals), in which I cook those eggs with lentils, carrots, peas, etc...

I'm having a discussion with someone who believes eating meat is wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with me justifying eating meat. It requires no justification. It's legal, it's available, and I like it. That's my justification, and I find it perfectly sufficient. If I go deeper it's for the purposes of debate. — karl stone

Based on that criteria, it must have been ok for slave owners to own slaves a few hundred years ago, right? It was legal, available, and the slave owners liked it. Must have been a valid justification, right?

My reason for engaging in this debate is because I find your approach fundamentally misconceived and potentially fatal. Placing the burden of responsibility with the consumer - gives producers a free hand to produce in the cheapest, dirtiest was possible - and market their goods to people who just don't care. — karl stone

Again, not going to go over this with you again. If you don't understand simple supply and demand, I don't know what to tell you.

Person A supports company X.
Company X exploits children.
Person A continues to support company X.
Company Y does not exploit children.
Person A continues to support company X, instead of supporting company Y.
Company X continues to exploit children, since consumers such as person A continue to support them.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not excluding people from making ethical choices. I'm saying that consumer sovereignty is a flawed approach. (p.s. unless you know for a fact that Samsung does use child labour - don't make things like this up. This is slander, or libel - and I wish to disassociate myself from your remarks.) — karl stone

Are you saying that if it was a widely known fact, that Samsung was exploiting children, you would stop buying from them? If so, why do continue to buy animal products, when it is a widely known fact that animals are being exploited? And if you are going to appeal to species, then what's your justification. Why is it ok to exploit an animal, but not exploit a human?

That said, it again comes back to adequate regulation - because a) I can't know everything about how anything is produced, and b) I may not care. Government on the other hand, is meant to know and is meant to care. That's their job. It's not my job - and if you leave it to me, it won't get done! — karl stone

It's well known how animals are treated. And if you don't know, it takes a 1 minute google search to find out. If I knew for a fact that Samsung was initiating into child labor, I would stop buying their phones. Similarly, I know for a fact that animals are being exploited, so I stopped buying animal products. This is called ethical consistency, which you don't seem to care about.

In short, the human being has a future and a past, a consciousness of itself and the world, and the ability to think creatively. It's that - that's deserving of moral consideration. — karl stone

So because a dog does not have consciousness of itself and the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, we are then justified in exploiting that dog for our pleasure and convenience, correct? I can torture and kill that dog and use its skin for my boots and/or clothing, since his consciousness isn't as high as mine, right?

For you to stay consistent, would you then be ok with us exploiting a human who has the same consciousness as a dog or cow? Such as a mentally deranged or handicapped person, who has a lower level of consciousness compared to normal human beings. Since they do not have the same awareness of themselves and of the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, are we then justified in exploiting mentally retarded people? Let's see if you're willing to bite the bullet here.

As example, you won't change anybody's mind here in this thread. Instead, you will provide all of us with fodder for the debate and debunk experience, which we seek for emotional reasons. Thus, unless your goal is simply to entertain us, the process we're both engaged in is not really that facts and reasoned based. If your goal is to somehow advance the cause of animal rights, you are engaged in delusion mostly, not facts and reason. — Jake

I understand that, and I am not necessarily trying to change the minds of people I am directly debating. A vast majority of the time, the people I talk to directly are not on the fence. But the people who are watching and/or reading the discussion, are more likely to change or think twice about their actions. I do it for the readers/viewers, not necessarily for the direct opposition.

I agree with this theory. But it's just a theory about what should be, not an accurate reflection of the real world. In the real world, masses of people are going to continue to abuse animals and support factory farming with their dollars until something or somebody forces them not to. — Jake

It's not a theory, as it is a way of life you can actually deploy in reality. It is the way I live, and the way I think. I try my best to obtain the most accurate information about the world around me, and make informed decision based on facts, rather than my own personal agenda or feelings. While acquiring facts about the world, I also evaluate my actions in accordance to those facts and how they affect things around me. It's really not that difficult of a thing to do, but most people would rather watch Netflix.

Again, I'm not challenging your posts or this thread so much as I am the effectiveness of philosophy in general, including my own posts. People like us want the world to be about logic because we were born inclined towards logic calculations, thus a logic based world would be a comfortable place for us to reside. Regrettably, there is a great deal of wishful thinking involved here, our own form of illogical thinking. — Jake

It's not illogical, as it is wanting a better world. You could have said it was illogical for women to stand up for their rights and pass the law so they could vote, but they stuck together and were granted that right. Same with black people in civil rights. Same with homosexuals in same sex marriage. Same with plenty of other unnecessary discriminating acts around the globe. It's not a theory or wishful thinking to strive for better and change people's minds by using facts and reason.

If I just wrote, and you just quoted "no moral utterance can be true or false, objectively correct or incorrect," do you think that I'm going to say "It is morally permissible to kill old people" is correct (or incorrect for that matter)? It's as if you quoted me without really paying any attention to what I'd said. — Terrapin Station

Likewise. Did you not read the rest of what I said? I followed that up by asking you how you differentiate a good action from a bad action. And I am referring to your subjective view on morality, not some objective truth or fact about what is right or wrong. How do you decide whether or not an action it morally good vs. morally bad? Or do you not have a method at all, and just abide by however you feel at the time?

The bigger picture: rapidly accumulating CO2, global warming, desertification, excessive unseasonable precipitation, rising temperature and humidity levels, melting ice, rising sea levels, and so on and so forth will settle or moot the ethics debate about eating meat. There won't be much meat for anybody to eat. Many people will be lucky to find enough vegetarian food. We're headed into a global catastrophe. The time when we could have averted the worst of it is past. The resolve to radically alter our life ways is lacking. Thus, we are probably totally screwed. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but we don't need to speed up our demise, and we may even possibly able to reverse it.

Although some plant-based products cause some environmental damage, it is not even near the destruction that animal products produce. Check this out:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13959.epdf?referrer_access_token=SoILYIvjAMcpgoUNBzFHZdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PGdh-SWpKH6GvtYOFzpWBvyEWbegyOl-mnrBQoNaPnCJYCT5b90ObV4XC4vAnj3P0Qpkv0oV4o7SZNp1SlUbR49KHn3yKc9LUpaT2eG0Y5FUtSdeYIH_he26Psehdnmk0MEv_lPsZpM71HHPqEGsJIR_G3PNhpmUzIK_WsI1d8Mwh9hGwKc_xNN16IZhc5WY7hhtFuZpWw0XZdMS4RM3_N&tracking_referrer=www.cnn.com

However, (2) I think the politically safer argument most utilitarians make - and this is similar to the response to the rape scenario above - is that because slavery generates as much suffering as it does utility, it is not justifiable from a utilitarian perspective. — Mentalusion

This is why this approach fails. If you take a society where 60% of the people were slave owners, and 40% were slaves, this is useful and beneficial for the majority. It doesn't matter whether or not the 40% suffer. Because by your logic, could you not deploy the same argument for animals? Animal agriculture actually creates MORE suffering than it does utility, so why would it be justifiable from a utilitarian perspective? If 2 people rape 1, is that not beneficial to the majority? Expand those numbers out by a lot and flip them... 7 billion people, 50 billion animals killed per year. How is that suffering justifiable under utilitarianism?

Edit: Also forgot to mention. Not only is it bad for the animals themselves (since they suffer), but it is also bad for our health and the environment we live in. So if you want to talk about suffering and detrimental aspects of animal agriculture, utilitarianism is not compatible with opposing Veganism in the slightest. If anything, true utilitarianism should lead you to Veganism.