Just like the legal notion of mitigating circumstances. I am not saying humans cannot manage meat eating but carnivorous and omnivorous behaviour is more innate in nature than some other behaviours. — Andrew4Handel
Also Doctors often cause the death of a patient by decisions about their medical care in life or death circumstances. — Andrew4Handel
I don't. Don't pretend that it doesn't end up in their best interest, in light of the consequences, in some cases, regardless of the motive. — Sapientia
Oh good, so presumably you agree with the point that was made about an extended lifespan in captivity versus a shorter lifespan in nature. — Sapientia
Says you. And it's okay if they die of natural causes, then? — Sapientia
Leaving animals to natures mercy is not clearly the most ethical thing. — Andrew4Handel
It seems problematic to me that vegan (and possibly vegetarian ethics) hinges on the claim that we don't need to eat meat. — Andrew4Handel
It isn't in their best interest. It would be best for them not to be brought into existence. How can a life of agony, which ends prematurely, be good for anyone? — NKBJ
For one: I do not agree. — NKBJ
I personally would rather live free and die young, than live in captivity into old age. — NKBJ
I don't know what leads you to believe that animals used for food live much longer than in the wild? — NKBJ
Again: how does that argument even make sense? Of course it's okay. — NKBJ
The animals under consideration already exist. — Sapientia
They don't live a life of agony. — Sapientia
"How can a life which ends prematurely be good for anyone?" - That question assumes a false premise, namely that for a life to be good, it must not end prematurely. — Sapientia
I see only two interpretations: — Sapientia
and:That's a strawman. You need to pay closer attention to what myself and others say. What I said was nowhere near as general as that, nor was the original comment by another participant which you replied to. — Sapientia
Oh good, so presumably you agree with the point that was made about an extended lifespan in captivity versus a shorter lifespan in nature. — Sapientia
No need to bring up old ladies. — Sapientia
I'll repeat myself once more: so, since rape, murder, incest, etc. occur in nature, or are "innate" as you claim, are we to excuse those who commit these crimes? The naturalness, innateness, or whichever term you want to call something in an attempt to dodge your moral culpability, of an act or impulse does not change whether it is right or wrong. It has no impact on the rightness or wrongness of the act. — NKBJ
Heavens, the ending of slavery was based on moral arguments. Who cares that such arguments were not authoritative, and that it did not have near universal agreement? What matters is that they ended slavery. — andrewk
You've been watching too much Shark Week. Nature has brutal moments, and some animals kill to live, but most of a wild animal's life is not "red in tooth and claw." Perhaps you should spend some time observing animals in their natural day to day? They very much enjoy being free, alive, and unbothered by humans. — NKBJ
A doctor killing a patient against his or her will is called murder — NKBJ
As I said before, I have no interest in validity. It is only you that is talking about validity.The ending of the official slave trade is not proof that a moral argument is valid.
It's a glass half full or empty thing isn't it? We can lament at there being still a lot of cruelty and injustice in the world or we can be glad at many forms of widespread cruelty and injustice having been greatly reduced (while still working to reduce what remains).Humans behaving less than terrible is actually quite demoralising. So finally Western woman have equality, some gays have equal rights after thousands of years and much philosophy. But these things should have been the default.
One reason you can't derive an ought from an is, is because you really never do, even when it looks like you are. You are simply failing to put a tacit assumption into words. — NKBJ
In the universe I observe, all moral justifications follow emotional responses.Secondly, is the real reasons that people take on these unnatural practices. These fall into two categories, both emotional and not logical or moral, being basic squeamishness about blood and death, and the other being the anthropomorphisation of animals, particularly that concurrent with the rise of vegetarianism in the 20thC which I have called the Disney Effect.
Moral justifications follow these emotional responses they do not preceded them. — charleton
How would you know that the child's suffering mattered if it didn't bother you at all? — Andrew4Handel
Pain is essential for survival. People with congenital pain deficit die younger and cause themselves lots of injury. — Andrew4Handel
I think a notion of goodness such as what causes least harm will have to reference nature because harm is natural/biological. — Andrew4Handel
I think your mistake might be the assumption that vegans and vegetarians have some sort of coherent moral standpoint. This is not the case. — charleton
First is that there is many local ecosystems that cannot reasonably offer humans survival without the use of meat and other animal products. And that to impose veganism or vegetarianism in such places would be seriously injurious in terms of pollution from the energy to bring food to those places. — charleton
Secondly, is the real reasons that people take on these unnatural practices. These fall into two categories, both emotional and not logical or moral, being basic squeamishness about blood and death, and the other being the anthropomorphisation of animals, particularly that concurrent with the rise of vegetarianism in the 20thC which I have called the Disney Effect. — charleton
Sure, our position may not be as well justified as the pythagorean theorem, — petrichor
Humans are more valuable for sure, in my way of looking at all this — petrichor
I assure you that no Disneyesque image of a talking, dancing animal ever came into my mind in the examination that I went throught that led me to stop eating meat. — petrichor
So you think that all of the animals you will ever eat already exist? — NKBJ
An animal can (hypothetically/occasionally does) live longer in captivity and be treated nicely and then killed swiftly... — Andrew4Handel
You say that all animals must die anyway, and use that to justify killing them for food/our own pleasure.
— NKBJ
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
a) Don't pretend we're killing the billions of cows, pigs, and chickens we eat every year for their own good.
— NKBJ
I don't. Don't pretend that it doesn't end up in their best interest, in light of the consequences, in some cases, regardless of the motive. — Sapientia
Certainly. And interestingly, this pain brings a message of ought-not. It dissuades — petrichor
Domesticated animals exist because of humans. Without meat eaters there would be no animals on the land at all.
Far from living at their expense; we guarantee their survival and they live in far better comfort and security than their natural cousins; they die cleanly, with no pain. And provide good shit for the soil. — charleton
My point was that it is not a bad thing in the sense that it aids survival. The idea of no one experiencing pain sounds positive until you hear about people who don't experience pain and suffer severe injuries. So do you want to eradicate pain or preserve pain for its survival value? — Andrew4Handel
As I said before, I have no interest in validity. It is only you that is talking about validity. — andrewk
If you don't intend to eradicate pain then it is somewhat arbitrary what pain your try and eliminate. — Andrew4Handel
...they live in far better comfort and security than their natural cousins; they die cleanly, with no pain. — charleton
I forgot to address this. Even if all that were true, it wouldn't make it okay. It would be wrong even if we fed them a constant supply of pleasure drugs. — petrichor
False analogy.Put humans in their place and see if you think it would be okay. Round up all the homeless struggling for survival and do to them what we do to food animals. Would this be right? — petrichor
Have you looked into what conditions are like in factory — petrichor
If all the cattle were free-range cattle, it wouldn't be quite so bad, but it would still be wrong. — petrichor
And do they die without pain? Some methods are fairly quick, but there is a lot of fear and often struggle involved. — petrichor
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.