This is clearly incorrect.I have no idea how much meat you eat, but if over the course of a year you ate the equivalent of 1 steer, 2 pigs, and 20 chickens then you are responsible for the death of those animals. That's just the way it is. — jastopher
The same argument goes for humans; natural causes, probably not a great idea. Accident; why not? Many cultures and individuals have consumed human flesh. The reason we don't eat victims of accidents is convention and learned disgust. Nevertheless, we have have no problem in using their organs, which, although not eating, is a form of consumption that could, at a stretch, be argued to be cannibalism that bypasses the alimentary canal.
A reason I don't consume human flesh from accidents is the same as why I will not eat a boiled egg; it disgusts me. Nevertheless, this does not imply that it is unethical.
Me buying meat doesn't kill or harm animals, either directly or indirectly (given that my individual contribution isn't sufficient enough to have an affect on the amount of harm done or number of animals killed). — Michael
That's just speculation. You have no way of knowing that outward behaviour is indicative of an inner subjective state (or that any inner subjective state is similar enough to your inner subjective state that you are capable of empathy). — Michael
This is a non sequitur. Hypocrisy doesn't show that it's wrong to kill cows for food. It could be that it's acceptable to kill cats for food, too. All this shows is that given our particular culture (remember that some cultures eat those animals, too) we have a stronger emotional attachment to these animals. — Michael
We've already established that there's nothing wrong with eating a cow burger. Your issue has been with killing and harming animals. So, presumably, eating a cow that has died naturally is morally acceptable? But then what of eating a human that has died naturally? Many people might say that that would be unacceptable. The above suggests that you agree? If so then there is some other reason – unrelated to the immorality of harming and killing things which can suffer – for eating a human to be unacceptable, and this other thing can explain the difference between a cow and a mentally disabled person, and so we can avoid the reductio ad absurdum against Sapientia's position regarding intelligence as a measure. — Michael
Yes it does. When you buy a product, you are paying for all of the services that went into making that product the way it is. In the case of a chair, that means craftsmanship, and in the case of meat, it means slaughter. — NKBJ
Perhaps one single person's contribution is but a drop in the bucket, but you can't use that as excuse to take part in something immoral. In part because this system exists due to the sum of single persons contributing to it, and in part because the fact that I can't stop x doesn't mean I should take part in, condone, or in anyway support x.
Actually, I do have ample evidence to suggest it is. Evolutionary theory, ethology, and what we know of animal biology (nervous systems, brain structures, etc) all tell us that this is the case... you on the other hand have no evidence to suggest it is not the same. As such, the only rational thing to do is to assume that it is the case.
And it's not a non sequitur, since if I'm right, hypocrisy would point to the wrongness of hurting all animals.
Eating a naturally dead cow or human would be gross. And there may be an Aristotelian/Kantian argument to be made you shouldn't even be engaging in behavior like that because it sets a bad precedent. However, since in our current reality eating burgers implies the killing (and overwhelmingly also the lifelong torture) of an animal, cow and human burger eating are both wrong.
How so? I didn't kill them. I didn't pay for them to be killed. They were already dead before I bought them.
You would have to show that those animals were killed because I bought their meat. And that, I think, is wrong. — Michael
My contribution is so negligible as to have no affect on the number of animals killed.
But even then, let's consider this hypothetical situation: I promise to pay you £100 if you kill a cow for me. You kill the cow. I refuse to pay you £100. Who is responsible for the death of the cow? I say you, not me. And the responsibility remains yours even if I were to change my mind and pay you. At most I can be held responsible for the solicitation of a killing, but certainly not for the killing itself. — Michael
'Negligible' and 'no effect' are not the same. The sum of many negligible effects is more than negligible whereas the sum of no effects is no effect. You need to clarify. — jastopher
This is word-play. Remove 'those' and change 'bought' to 'buy', and I'll happily attempt a rebuttal.
Why not both of us?
The negligible amount of money I have contributed has no affect on the number of animals killed. — Michael
You said that I am responsible for the deaths of the 20 chickens I bought. I'm not. I didn't kill them. I didn't even solicit someone else to kill them. I just purchased already dead chickens from the supermarket. — Michael
Or are you claiming that there is fixed amount of meat produced, whether or not there is demand (including yours) for it. If this is the case, then I think the burden of proof falls upon your shoulders since it goes against everything we know about how markets function. — jastopher
If you buy a dead chicken then the space on the supermarket shelf will necessitate the killing of another chicken. Your purchase of an already killed chicken directly precipitates the killing of another chicken. — jastopher
You are confusing two points here. You stated that a lion doesn't understand the concept of right and wrong, AKA good or bad. But we, as humans, DO understand that concept. So a lion perceives pain as something it wants to avoid. We label that same perception as BAD/WRONG if we inflict that pain onto another. A lion does not understand that to the same extent we do.Then I don't understand the point of this thread. Is it "wrong"/"bad" to eat animals? — Harry Hindu
What does it even mean to say that "humans have a higher capacity for moral value"? Humans have the capacity to put themselves in others' shoes. We think that other people and animals think and want the same things we do. They don't. So all you are doing is applying your own rules to others. As I told you before, morals and ethics are subjective and are not applicable across the board in every situation for every organism. — Harry Hindu
The grounds of the exception are imposed diminished well-being, which I already explained, but apparently you didn't read.How can an exception be justified if it has no grounds? — apokrisis
In the same way you claim that Veganism is too much effort for you, I could claim that a slave owner could use the same justification. Imagine talking to a slave owner, telling him to stop owning slaves, and his response was "It is too much effort to stop owning slaves. And I really like the pleasure of owning them". This reasoning is flawed and doesn't even work when you use it against yourself.Sure fine. But your dependence on subjectivity and absolutism leaves you open to the counter-position that veganism is all too much effort for me, I really like the taste of meat. And I only feel my own pain or suffering. I don't actually experience that of any animal involved. So the primary duty of care remains the servicing of my own selfish wishes here. — apokrisis
You keep going back to my subjectivity and absolutism. Where is my subjectivity and absolutism being deployed? As I said before, my views/perception are completely irrelevant here. We can use your beliefs specifically, and it would still lead to Veganism, unless you're willing to bite the bullet on some absurd positions. I'd like you to tell me why you believe that eating animals is justified, without pointing to what you think my view is. Especially when you keep getting my view wrong.I'm not saying I would take that unbalanced view personally. I'm saying it is equally valid given your subjectivity and absolutism. — apokrisis
You eat meat because you don't have a strong enough reason not to? How about causing needless suffering and pain to animals? Or global warming concerns? Or the fact that plant based foods are actually healthier than animal products? It seems that you just haven't done the research, or are being willfully ignorant on this topic, if you haven't found a good reason to stop eating animals.I eat meat because I don't have a strong enough reason not to. I believe that lot of ethical choices do frankly fall into a gray area where there is nothing terribly significant at stake. I see ethics as a pragmatic work in progress and there are many cultural habits to be working on. — apokrisis
Morality based on social norms is flawed, as we have had terrible norms in the past, such as slavery. So I am not sure of your point here?If that were customary in my society, then I'm sure I'd be quite use to the practice and wouldn't have a strong objection. — apokrisis
Eating autistics is similar to eating animals. There is no NEED for the consumption of either of these living beings. Plant based foods, which cause no pain or suffering and are better for the environment, are a much better option than animals or autistics. That's the point.Does eating autistics achieve some reasonable goal? What are the actual pros and cons. Any ideas? — apokrisis
My individual demand has no affect on the supply. — Michael
I applaud your dogmatism. — jastopher
Your use of the term "paying for" is misleading. I exchange my money for some meat at a supermarket. That's the extent of my involvement. That the supermarket then uses some of that money to cover their costs of purchasing that meat from farmers who in turn kill animals for that meat is not any of my responsibility. — Michael
You said that me eating meat (or rather buying meat) is responsible for those deaths, and so is wrong. Now you're just saying that it's wrong to support an industry that kills animals. That's a different argument altogether. — Michael
How does animal biology and evolutionary theory show that there's something it's like to be an animal (to use Nagel's phrasing)? — Michael
Again, it's not the eating that's wrong. It's the killing that's (supposedly) wrong. The problem is that you haven't shown a sufficient connection between the two to warrant blaming those who eat meat for those killings. — Michael
It's not ridiculous if it's true that eating human meat isn't unethical, and you agreed that it isn't. — Michael
I think you should stop trying with Michael. If he can't understand how supply and demand works, I don't know what to tell you. — chatterbears
Otherwise you could justify paying for and consuming all sorts of heinous products including, but not limited to: elephant tusks, child pornography, soap made out of the ashes of dead Jews (like they made during the Holocaust), and so on. — NKBJ
The grounds of the exception are imposed diminished well-being, — chatterbears
And the slave owner continues, as you have, and says, "I only feel my own pain or suffering. I don't actually experience that of any slave involved. So the primary duty of care remains the servicing of my own selfish wishes here." — chatterbears
I'd like you to tell me why you believe that eating animals is justified, without pointing to what you think my view is. — chatterbears
You eat meat because you don't have a strong enough reason not to? How about causing needless suffering and pain to animals? Or global warming concerns? Or the fact that plant based foods are actually healthier than animal products? It seems that you just haven't done the research, or are being willfully ignorant on this topic, if you haven't found a good reason to stop eating animals. — chatterbears
Morality based on social norms is flawed, as we have had terrible norms in the past, such as slavery. So I am not sure of your point here? — chatterbears
Eating autistics is similar to eating animals. There is no NEED for the consumption of either of these living beings. — chatterbears
Who said anything about justifying it? — Michael
I'm never responsible for what other free agents choose to do. — Michael
You cannot claim that eating meat is a form of self-defense, when it is not necessary for your survival (we have plant-based alternatives). — chatterbears
You are conflating self-defense (something that is necessary for survival) and eating meat (something that is NOT necessary for survival). — chatterbears
You can believe you are a pink unicorn too if you want. Doesn't make it true. — NKBJ
So like me, you would prefer our beliefs to be founded on reason and evidence. — apokrisis
Chatterbears's position asks us to just accept our subjectively revealed beliefs as if they were objective moral absolutes. — apokrisis
Apo is clearly trolling you. He likes to disguise the vapidity and trollishness of his replies in an endless word-jumble that he'll inevitably say you don't understand anyways. — Akanthinos
When the argument requires you to consider the cannibalism of autistic human as a limit-case, then you know you are fighting a battle that can only be won by not participating. — Akanthinos
However I was addressing his initial argument that subjectively we feel compassion and empathy for sentient creatures, so as soon as we recognise sentience in a creature, ethical consistency demands a compassionate and empathetic response. — apokrisis
I've mainly seen him defending beliefs with reason and evidence and therefore arriving at sound moral conclusions. — NKBJ
But I'd also say it is impossible to accept these 3 moral pillars while simultaneously eating animals. And these 3 pillars are: Empathy, compassion and ethical consistency. — 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.