A system of morality does not require being based on whether the objects of moral concern feel pain or not. — MetaphysicsNow

It's not just about pain. My moral foundation is specifically in reference to sentient beings. That we care about the well-being of sentient creatures. This is separate from whether or not they can feel pain (on a case by case basis).

Whereas harm is avoided if I don't own you as a slave. — Michael

Not sure what to tell you, because it is very simple.

You are paying for an animal to be killed. That is directly causing harm to animals. Also, by paying for this animal to be killed, you are supporting the factory farming industry, which causes more harm to the environment. It is the same as driving a car. If you drive a car (that is not electric), you are causing direct harm to the environment. But if you stop driving a car, you avoid causing harm to the environment. If you stop eating meat, you avoid causing harm to an animal, as well as causing harm to the environment. Irrespective of whether you stop driving cars or eating meat, other people will still drive cars and eat meat. But the fact that YOU stopped, means that the overall contribution to the harm has lessened. And the more and more people who do this, the less and less the contribution is. Not sure how to make myself any more clear than this.

But why is sentience morally important? I thought the general line of reasoning in the foregoing was based on the idea that sentience is morally important because with sentience comes the capacity for pain. But if someone challenges the idea that capactity for pain is morally relevant, how do you respond?

But if someone challenges the idea that capactity for pain is morally relevant, how do you respond? — MetaphysicsNow

Tell them to use that logic on themselves. If a human suddenly loses the capacity for pain, should we be justified in killing them? Same with animals. Cows/chickens/pigs all have the capacity for pain, but if one suddenly loses its capacity for pain, does that make it justified to kill them? No.

Sentience encompasses the capacity for pain, so they go hand in hand.

But despite which one you are more empathetic towards, do you think both do not deserve to be in that cage? And do you think both deserve the right to live a life free from pain and suffering? — chatterbears

They both don't deserve to be in that cage, but it's fine to farm chickens, and it's not fine to farm humans. And no to your second question - that's not even possible - but they both deserve the right to be treated appropriately, which will be similar in some respects and different in others. I don't condone senseless violence towards humans or chickens. But farming chickens for slaughter is not anywhere near being on the same level as slaughtering humans.

Both are about the treatment, not intrinsic wrong. — chatterbears

If you're arguing for principle over preference, you kinda need to establish that eating meat is intrinsically wrong, otherwise you'll get every sort of hedonist screaming, "me like taste *grunt*"

you kinda need to establish that eating meat is intrinsically wrong — Buxtebuddha

I don't think eating meat is intrinsically wrong though. Just like I don't think eating human flesh is intrinsically wrong. They can go to taste, then I'll just throw a consistency test at them. Which fails at its core.

but it's fine to farm chickens, and it's not fine to farm humans. — Sapientia

Why is it OK to farm chickens but not OK to farm humans? Name the trait.

You misunderstand the position - the idea is that pain is morally irrelevant, that morality should be based on something other than a capacity for pain. That is not at all the same thing as suggesting that things that do not feel pain should not be given moral consideration.

It is part of basic universal rights. The right to live free from pain and suffering. We call this universal human rights, which are granted at birth. The same rights should be granted to animals, and you'd have to present an argument for why that shouldn't be the case. Because anything that can feel pain and suffering and has a will to live, should be granted basic rights. Such as, the right to not be killed.

Human's construct rights to enable a workable society, they are not by nature and as such animals don't have rights, except as what might be conferred on them by law, custom or tradition. To pretend that all of human societies are inherently immoral because the eat meat, is wrong and I think it is a form of intellectual elitism.

To state that your position is free from logic and reason, just puts you at odds with ethical consistency.

I didn't say that ethical concerns are free from logic or reason, only that these benchmarks can't describe the fullness of human experience. If you think reason & logic are the sole constituents of moral behavior then I think you have an impoverished view of morality which is evident in the elitist position you are trying to maintain.

You are paying for an animal to be killed. — chatterbears

No I'm not. I'm paying for an animal that's already been killed.

Also, by paying for this animal to be killed, you are supporting the factory farming industry, which causes more harm to the environment.

My contribution doesn't cause more harm. My contribution is negligible. The same amount of harm is done regardless of whether I buy meat or not.

This differs from slavery where the very act of owning a slave is itself an injustice, regardless of whether or not it provides a non-negligible contribution to the slave trade. That's why it's a false analogy.

If you drive a car (that is not electric), you are causing direct harm to the environment. But if you stop driving a car, you avoid causing harm to the environment. If you stop eating meat, you avoid causing harm to an animal, as well as causing harm to the environment.

Driving a car pollutes the environment. Eating meat doesn't harm an animal (assuming I'm not eating it alive). Again, this is a false analogy.

But the fact that YOU stopped, means that the overall contribution to the harm has lessened.

The overall contribution has lessened, but the overall harm hasn't lessened. If the overall harm hasn't lessened then I am not the cause of any harm, and if I am not the cause of any harm then I am not behaving unethically (given that "causing harm" is the only measure you've offered).

that morality should be based on something other than a capacity for pain. — MetaphysicsNow

I'd have to know the position here. What is the "something other than" that you're referring to?

Organic, cage-free, free-range, etc... Are all irrelevant to the actual treatment and killing of these animals. You are one of the few to admit to inconsistency, but then continue to proceed in the same action. If I was being inconsistent within an ethical position, I would change my actions. I am still confused as to how people do not. — chatterbears

Because ethics isn't the be-all and end-all.

I wonder; what if I steal meat? I'm not contributing (even negligibly) to the meat industry. Or what if I buy it but don't eat it?

If anything, your argument isn't against eating meat but buying meat.

To pretend that all of human societies are inherently immoral because the eat meat, is wrong and I think it is a form of intellectual elitism. — Cavacava

It isn't about inherently immoral. It is about ethical consistency. You'd have to explain why an animal is deserving of slaughter and a human is not. And if that trait is present in the human, is it now OK to slaughter the human?

If you think reason & logic are the sole constituents of moral behavior then I think you have an impoverished view of morality which is evident in the elitist position you are trying to maintain. — Cavacava

Reason and logic are a part of it. The rest is empathy and compassion, which I stated in my original post here. You still have not made the case for why "taste" should be a valid justification to slaughter animals? And if a human used the same justification of "taste" to slaughter humans, would you accept that as valid? If not, you're inconsistent in your own subjective ethics.

Knowingly supporting a harmful activity is unethical. By paying for meat, you increase demand for it. That's support for its existence.

Because ethics isn't the be-all and end-all. — Sapientia

Not sure how this is relevant? My point was, if you can avoid causing suffering by making a simple change (moving to a plant based diet), why wouldn't you do that? Especially already acknowledging that you have an inconsistent and immoral position.

Frank already explained this, and I have tried many times already. Not sure how to keep explaining this, as I thought it was fairly simple.

"Being human" might be one response that an animal eater would be tempted to offer. Filling out what it is about being human that is morally relevant will include ideas about the capacity for reason, reflection and so on, but needn't touch on pain. Sure, there will be difficult cases to deal with - what does one do with the brain-dead for instance - but any system of morality that has a cut and dried answer to all moral dillemas is probably missing the point about what morality is anyway.

If I hold a pigs head over a flame, will the pig not squirm and do everything in its power to get away from the flame? Meaning, it has a will to live and will avoid pain if possible. And if I observe the pig's actions, that is me recognizing the pig's will to live. And their will to live is part of universal animal rights. We call it human rights, but I extend it to all animals. — chatterbears

No, it means no such thing. Reflex does not indicate a will to live or avoid pain. You're reading that into it.

Why is it OK to farm chickens but not OK to farm humans? Name the trait. — chatterbears

Advanced intellectual capacity.

Advanced intellectual capacity. — Sapientia

Off to the pastures you go, then!

It isn't about inherently immoral. It is about ethical consistency. You'd have to explain why an animal is deserving of slaughter and a human is not. And if that trait is present in the human, is it now OK to slaughter the human?

I did say that we don't confer such rights to animals, and you have admitted that you value human rights over those of animals, therefore since eating meat does not contravene against any human rights, nor the rights we have allowed to animals, therefore we are acting within our rights, i.e., consistently by eating animals, and not humans.

Reason and logic are a part of it. The rest is empathy and compassion, which I stated in my original post here. You still have not made the case for why "taste" should be a valid justification to slaughter animals? And if a human used the same justification of "taste" to slaughter humans, would you accept that as valid? If not, you're inconsistent in your own subjective ethics.

You asked why I eat meat, and I answered because I like it, and then you asked how my liking it can provide reason or justification, and I replied that not all human actions need to be justified. Now adding that when it comes to questions of taste that have no impact on the rights of other humans there is no possibility of acting inconsistently.

Advanced intellectual capacity. — Sapientia

So if a human did not have this capacity, such as in a severely autistic or mentally disable person, would it then be ok to farm them? If not, youre being inconsistent in your ethics.

Frank already explained this, and I have tried many times already. Not sure how to keep explaining this, as I thought it was fairly simple. — chatterbears

Frank's reasoning isn't the same as yours. You said that it's wrong because it causes harm. Frank said that it's wrong because it supports an industry that causes harm. That's not the same thing.

Not sure how this is relevant? My point was, if you can avoid causing suffering by making a simple change (moving to a plant based diet), why wouldn't you do that? Especially already acknowledging that you have an inconsistent and immoral position. — chatterbears

It's relevant because it gives a reason for things being other than how you understand them to be. There are other motivations besides morality, and these other motivations sometimes take precedence in determining behaviour. That's just how it is. There's a mismatch between reality and your ideal.

And whether or not such a change would be a "simple" change isn't given, but is relative to various factors, like circumstance, habit, desire, and psychology.

I actually did say that already. You can go back and read it.

I actually did say that already. You can go back and read it. — chatterbears

You mean this?

Also, by paying for this animal to be killed, you are supporting the factory farming industry, which causes more harm to the environment.

I took that as you saying that paying for the animal to be killed (indirectly) causes more harm to the environment.

Is that not what you were saying?

Off to the pastures you go, then! — Buxtebuddha

:grin:

So if a human did not have this capacity, such as in a severely autistic or mentally disable person, would it then be ok to farm them? If not, youre being inconsistent in your ethics. — chatterbears

Are you really making an equivalence between the severely autistic or mentally disabled and chickens? Your counter-argument only works if you do. And if not, you're being inconsistent in your ethics.