A system of morality does not require being based on whether the objects of moral concern feel pain or not. — MetaphysicsNow
Whereas harm is avoided if I don't own you as a slave. — Michael
But if someone challenges the idea that capactity for pain is morally relevant, how do you respond? — MetaphysicsNow
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
Both are about the treatment, not intrinsic wrong. — chatterbears
you kinda need to establish that eating meat is intrinsically wrong — Buxtebuddha
but it's fine to farm chickens, and it's not fine to farm humans. — Sapientia
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.
To state that your position is free from logic and reason, just puts you at odds with ethical consistency.
You are paying for an animal to be killed. — chatterbears
Also, by paying for this animal to be killed, you are supporting the factory farming industry, which causes more harm to the environment.
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.
But the fact that YOU stopped, means that the overall contribution to the harm has lessened.
that morality should be based on something other than a capacity for pain. — MetaphysicsNow
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
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
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
Because ethics isn't the be-all and end-all. — Sapientia
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
Why is it OK to farm chickens but not OK to farm humans? Name the trait. — chatterbears
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?
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.
Advanced intellectual capacity. — Sapientia
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
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
I actually did say that already. You can go back and read it. — chatterbears
Also, by paying for this animal to be killed, you are supporting the factory farming industry, which causes more harm to the environment.
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
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.