I think there's an easily exploitable flaw in your trifecta, which is that you're relying upon empathy. And many of us don't have the emotional reservoir to be empathic towards every living thing -- not even every living thing that experiences pain. — Moliere
And I would also argue, you may not even need empathy, but could replace empathy with a foundation for basic universal human rights. — chatterbears
But that is now a far worse argument. All humans may be animals, but not all animals are human. So it would be logically inconsistent to grant human rights to non-human animals. — apokrisis
You would still need to explain why you deserve those rights, but an animal does not. — chatterbears
Because in many cultures, especially in the west, we grant these 3 rights to dogs. People can actually get locked up for abusing a dog, so people have recognized that dogs deserve these same basic rights. And that anyone who infringes on the dog's rights should be punished. — chatterbears
So why stop at dogs? Why not grant other animals the same rights as well? — chatterbears
But if they are human rights, then they are human rights.....Now you just risk leading people into legalistic confusion. — apokrisis
And they are lesser rights that pragmatically recognise the difference in sentience. So that in itself becomes a problem with this legalistic turn in your approach. — apokrisis
Zero. Why is that relevant? — chatterbears
Both are not a relevant distinction that would condone mistreatment of the living being. Species and skin color, are both a form of discrimination against how one looks. — chatterbears
My consistency within my own internal ethical model is what is superior to your perspective. — chatterbears
You cannot justify an action in one context, but then reject the same justification in another context. That is called inconsistency, or put more simply, hypocrisy. — chatterbears
So again, what is the distinction? After how many pages of this thread, you still have not answered that question. Why do you get to justify killing a living being, based on superfluous reasoning? Is it that the chicken has feathers? Is it the beak? Is it the chicken's intelligence level? Is it the height of the chicken?
You'll never answer, and until you do, I don't see a point in responding anymore. You cannot even pinpoint your reasoning for why you get to justify killing another living being. That in and of itself, is inferior to my morality. — chatterbears
I wasn't saying you have used intelligence as a justification. I was stating that other people have (in this thread), and this is how the argument follows. — chatterbears
There are more commitments than you're letting on that makes your belief work. — Moliere
Similarly, black people should be allowed to vote, as well as women. — chatterbears
If we conclude that it's OK for the lion to kill the gazelle because it doesn't know right from wrong, then, in order to be consistent, we must also conclude that it's OK for the mentally disabled person to kill whomever they wish because they don't know right from wrong. — Pseudonym
Whilst he can safely and soundly expound the notion that killing other beings unnecessarily is wrong. — Marcus de Brun
Indeed. I've thought that from the start. We've had to try to tease them out. The opening post doesn't say anything about equality, for example, yet some kind of equality seems to be a big part of it, and a part which is much more controversial. Perhaps that's why it was hidden. — Sapientia
People keep misinterpreting what I mean by the moral trifecta. I am not stating that most people adhere to this moral trifecta, because in reality I would say most people do not. You don't need empathy for other animals to lead to Veganism. All you need is empathy for humans, and logically consistency. And I would also argue, you may not even need empathy, but could replace empathy with a foundation for basic universal human rights. So just focus on these two things. — chatterbears
Do you believe in the most basic universal human rights?
And I am not even referring to all 30 articles of human rights. For the sake of argument, let's just say these:
- Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
- Freedom from Slavery
- Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
If you believe that every human deserves at least those 3 articles of human rights, that ultimately leads to veganism. You don't even need to bring empathy into the discussion. Because after you acknowledge those 4 articles of human rights, it now comes down to ethical consistency.
Why do you deserve those 3 articles of rights, but an animal does not? Whatever that trait/quality may be, if it were true of a human, would you then be willing to violate the rights of that human? Simple consistency test.
You don't need empathy for other animals to lead to Veganism. All you need is empathy for humans, and logical consistency. — chatterbears
You might ask whether that would lead to the conclusion that we ought to intervene on the gazelle's behalf. The problem there is that the ecosystem relies on the balance of all of these animals behaving in just the ways they do, and if we intervene, it could lead to widespread disaster. We would be causing more death and suffering than we averted.
This might lead you to ask about the overpopulation of deer and the necessity for humans to hunt. Note that if this were true, we'd still have to get rid of all factory farms, and only a tiny percentage of the population would be able to eat meat on a very rare occasion. But it's also not true, because there are numerous avenues we can explore for population control that have been widely ignored so far. — NKBJ
But what does it mean to talk of killing other beings unnecessarily? The killing that we're talking about is necessary to meet the demand for meat produce, so it can't be unnecessary in that sense. Does it just mean, "Not necessary for any purpose of which I approve"? If so, then it's really about your personal approval more than it is about necessity, and speaking in terms of the latter masks this. That would mean that what's being said is that to kill other beings for any purpose of which I do not approve is wrong. What makes your approval authoritative? — Sapientia
You sidled from moral culpability to practicality. Are you saying that if a practical method arose by which we could prevent the lion from eating the gazelle without harming the ecosystem we would be morally obligated to do so? Ie, is your argument that the impractical or undesirable consequences are the only thing preventing us from having a moral obligation to prevent all predators from killing their prey? — Pseudonym
You (more chatterbears) seem to make a rights-based argument when it comes to eating meat, but now you're switching to a consequentialist argument when it comes to our obligation to prevent the murder of the gazelle by the lion. — Pseudonym
Hey, that's actually a pretty decent question! :wink:
I think part of the problem here rests on a bit of an equivocation. There is a difference between causal and moral necessity. Yes, in order for you to eat meat, it is causally necessary to kill animals.
When we talk about moral necessity, though, we have to be comparing two or more moral issues. You eating meat does not inherently entail a moral good. There are situations in which it might: like if your life depended on it, saving your life would be a moral good.
Even if you did argue that the fleeting pleasure of eating flesh was a moral good, it is clearly a very, very minor one and does not even come close to outweighing the bad of the suffering and death of the animal. — NKBJ
Saving the ecosystem is a greater good than saving the gazelle, though both are good. Since I cannot save both at this moment in time, I have to choose the greater good. When it becomes possible to do both, I should do both. — NKBJ
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.