What are the distinct set of circumstances? — chatterbears

Those I've already given. Those in the thought experiment I referred to, about looking, acting, tasting, etc., just like a chicken. Those circumstances of being sufficiently chicken-like make it okay. That's the answer.

A slave owner could point to a set of circumstances, as well as have others that can relate and indentify with the slave owner’s position. — chatterbears

That would be a really good counterargument if the two sets of circumstances were comparable. But there's no good reason for thinking that they are.

It depends on what your moral foundation is based upon. And if you have no foundation you can point to, then you are basically incapable of discerning right from wrong. Because I base my morality on improving the well-being of sentient beings. If it was possible for me to save a baby from a burning house, without putting myself at great risk, it would be wrong for me to not save the baby, because I would be allowing the baby to have a diminished well-being. If my goal is to improve/consider the well-being of sentient beings, saving the baby would be in my framework.

It all depends on the risk factor. Saving a baby from a burning house is of high risk. And I wouldn’t say it is wrong for someone to not save a baby if their own life was at great risk. But if they were at a low (or nonexistent) risk, then it would be wrong. Similarly, you aren’t at any risk to stop eat animals. All you need to do is switch your diet. — chatterbears

None of that explanation is necessary. I can intuitively know that there's something wrong about it.

And I eat meat because I enjoy doing so, whether it's right or wrong. I probably won't be switching diet any time soon, even if it was an easy thing to do, which it actually wouldn't be for someone like me. I can live with that.

It's extremely ignorant to conflate mental hardship with physical pain. The pain I am referring to is physical pain, which is an evolutionary trait. — chatterbears

Who are you to say that physical pain is worse than mental hardship? When a child is molested and carries that mental hardship with them for the rest of their lives, is that worse, or not as worse as you burning your hand while steaming your veggies? Pain is a mental state, not a physical state. Damage to your body is a physical state, which your mental state represents as pain. We can eliminate physical pain with drugs, but not so much with mental anguish.

I mean, sorry Sap, but as much as I have enjoyed our discussion for entertainment purposes, your final statement about basically being okay with eating a mentally disabled human is just a hilarious example of biting the bullet.

I don't recall anyone saying it here, but I am reminded of how ironic it is when people think vegans are crazy or ridiculous, when all we're saying is "don't eat the cows, just eat a veggie burger" and omnis say things like "in order to justify my cow burger, it's okay to eat a human burger."

But I do appreciate the discussion with both of you! — NKBJ

I agree that it's pretty funny, but there's a serious point underlying it which shouldn't merely be dismissed out of hand. And if you do so, then I will consider that giving up in a sense. It puts the ball in your court and calls into question what exactly it is about humans which causes many of us to unthinkingly assume that they're untouchable, that it would be out of the question under any circumstance. It's intuitively compelling, and, of course, it escapes any charge of inconsistency, which has been the basis of one of your main objections, as well as those of others.

Look, I don't care about anything you've asserted my way thus far, because it hasn't given me any reason to concede that the degree of consciousness should not be factored into consideration with regard to appropriate treatment, which was my point, as I clarified.

The hypothetical I was referring to is where your point was presumably leading, which was food production whereby humans were turned into food which would have an appealing taste. If it wasn't leading to that, then it was leading nowhere.

If you have something to say worth listening to, then please let me know. Otherwise, kindly do not bother me.

P.S. the fallacy you were thinking of was quoting out of context, not cherry picking. You can have that one on me.

If humans wish to eat other animals and wish to justify their consumption, then they can't just say it's okay to eat animals since humans are animals also. Consequently, they have to find something unique about our species that precludes its consumption and permits the consumption of other species. This something is usually human consciousness since there's not really much else to distinguish us. This can be easily shown to not be a great argument given all the grim orang-utan, baby, mentally disabled consequences that obtain.

Vegetarians, on the other hand, have to do less work, but they do still have to accept some undesirable consequences such as the moral desirability of eating roadkill. The hardest problem though is how a vegetarian responds to the question, "would you kill an animal in order to save a starving child?"

They can either say no, which results in bullet-biting not dissimilar to eating the mentally disabled, or they say yes and admit to the same speciesism as the carnivore. If there are circumstances in which a vegetarian would eat a non human animal, the argument becomes about what circumstances are morally acceptable rather than whether it is or isn't morally acceptable.

So, vegetarians, would you kill an animal in order to save a starving child? What about killing a severely mentally-disabled person to feed a starving child?

There may be a justification for killing and eating the flesh of other animals, and for not killing and eating that of our own species, but it has not been put forward on this thread. However, so far, there isn't an argument for never killing and eating the flesh of other animals either.

When we exercise, we experience physical pain, but we keep doing it for the health and social benefits. Physical pain teaches you what is dangerous to your body and what isn't. We need pain in order to survive. It evolved for a reason. — Harry Hindu

Are you going to continue to point toward pain that is beneficial to human health, rather than pointing to the pain that I am referring to that is dangerous to human health. Put yourself in the position of a factory farmed animal. Is the pain and suffering you go through (along with abrupt death) comparable to someone who exercises? Or put yourself in the shoes of a slave 300 years ago. Is the physical pain of a slave comparable to your pain when you exercise? The more you talk, the more I learn about your lack of empathy and reason.

It is not a rare case for someone to end their lives. People do it every day. — Harry Hindu

In the United States, the annual age-adjusted suicide rate is 13.26 per 100,000 individuals. That's 0.0001326 % of the population. I would say that is pretty rare.

If it is about pain that you are worried about, then we can kill animals without them feeling any pain. If it is life you are worried about, then you kill life every time you eat a head of lettuce and are being inconsistent yourself. Who are you to determine which organism gets to live simply because of the arbitrary boundary you have chosen of having a nervous system or not. — Harry Hindu

It is about BOTH. I care about the "life" that can experience pain and suffering. I don't care about every life equally. And by the logic you're using, you might as well say that sticks, rocks, dirt and sand have life. Lettuce cannot feel pain and suffering, and neither can a rock. So I am not being inconsistent when I say I care about all life that can experience pain and suffering. I do also care about plants, but for a different reason.

Also, there is no arbitrary boundary. It is just a fact that things without a nervous system cannot feel pain. We, as humans, experience pain, as well as other living things. All these living things share the fact that they want to avoid pain and suffering. If plants cannot feel pain, we don't need to be morally responsible for our actions in the same way we would toward a living thing that DOES feel pain.

Who are you to say that physical pain is worse than mental hardship? — Harry Hindu

Would you rather get killed or get molested? Would you rather be enslaved or get molested? Would you rather get tortured and slaughtered, or get molested? Would you rather get attacked by a lion, or get molested? Stop being ignorant.

If a person gets molested, they still have a chance to have a healthy life. They can pursue mental help to assist them in their traumatic experience. Stop committing this false equivalency.

But there's no good reason for thinking that they are. — Sapientia

So you claim...

I can intuitively know that there's something wrong about it. — Sapientia

This is shaky grounds for what you would base moral decisions on. I'd rather use reason and logical consistency instead of "feelings" or "intuition".

And I eat meat because I enjoy doing so, whether it's right or wrong. — Sapientia

And slave owners enjoyed owning slaves. Your grounds for morality are that of a slave owner who doesn't want to give up a habit that is condoned and enabled by society. Instead of using logic and reason, with a bit of decency, you'd rather commit actions (which you imply may be wrong) than actually make a change for the better. I think that says more about you than you realize.

but they do still have to accept some undesirable consequences such as the moral desirability of eating roadkill. — jastopher

There is no 'moral' connection between me and roadkill. There is no pain I can cause to the animal, and therefore the only concern (if I were to eat it) would be health concerns. Animals and Humans both die as a result of our current transportation. But it isn't specific to animals, as many people die as well in car accidents.

"would you kill an animal in order to save a starving child?" — jastopher

As I stated in this thread before, moral dilemmas (such as this one you have provided) are completely separate from moral consistency. But I will still answer your question.

I would kill an animal to save a starving child, because I believe the child(human) has more value than an animal. I have never advocated that animals are of equal value to humans. I have advocated that animals deserve the same basic rights as humans (right to freedom, right to live, right to not experience needless pain and suffering).

That at the very basic level, not violating the rights of another sentient being (human or non-human) is something we owe them. It's the absolute minimum a person can do to be considered a moral agent. We aren't obligated to befriend them, feed them, domesticate them or save them from predators. But at the most minuscule level of moral agency, we are obligated to NOT violate their rights. Their bodily rights (of consent) and their right to life (not die). And you may think this contradicts my position on your moral dilemma, but it does not. In the moral dilemma, the starving child has no other means to survive, other than me killing an animal to feed it. In the world we live in right now, we have other means to survive that do not consist of eating meat. Necessary harm (moral dilemma) vs unnecessary harm (factory farming).

What about killing a severely mentally-disabled person to feed a starving child? — jastopher

Same concept. If the only option was to save one or the other, I would save the starving child who isn't severely mentally-disabled. When there is no other option, I would consistently choose the thing of higher value in that specific situation. And by higher value, I am referring to things like: Higher levels of moral capacity and deep reasoning, higher probability of making a positive change in the world, etc.

But when it comes to factory farms and animal harm, we aren't in a position of having no option. We aren't in a position of having a moral dilemma, similar to that of "Would you kill an animal to save a starving child?" - The harm we cause to animals is completely needless, and is not remotely comparable to the dilemma you have put forward. In the moral dilemma, the person either let's the child die, or tries to save it. In the factory farming situation, we are intentionally killing a life, when it had no threat of being harmed or dying in the first place. That is the key difference here.

So yes, I'll bite the bullet on the rare moral dilemma (that I would probably never be faced with in reality), compared to the meat eaters who have to bite the bullet on their internal inconsistency. Some of which commit in reality as of right now. Many meat eaters in the world own pets. This is a clear example of discrimination and hypocrisy/inconsistency. Why care about one animals life (dog) over another (cow)? And neither the cow nor dog is in any immediate harm, or deserves any imposed harm.

There may be a justification for killing and eating the flesh of other animals, and for not killing and eating that of our own species, but it has not been put forward on this thread. — jastopher

Is justification needed? Shouldn't the burden be on the person who claims that it is wrong to eat the flesh of an animal (whether human or otherwise)? They might say that it is wrong because it causes animals to suffer, and it is wrong to cause suffering, but then how do they justify the claim that it is wrong to cause suffering?

There may be a justification for killing and eating the flesh of other animals, and for not killing and eating that of our own species, but it has not been put forward on this thread. However, so far, there isn't an argument for never killing and eating the flesh of other animals either. — jastopher

I'm vegetarian. I don't eat meat because I don't need to. Were I stranded someplace and needed to eat meat, I would eat meat. Such would be a necessary evil. If I had to feed my child through immoral means, I would likely do so, though with the reservation that my choices were immoral, but necessary. In my opinion, preexisting moral obligations, including to yourself, carry more value than duties that are newly sprung and arise completely out of your control.

Edit: Necessary evils are almost always tied to instances of desperation, which is why decisions that are immoral but necessary are so tragic. However, and especially in the West, decisions to eat meat rarely arise out of instances of desperation, but rather choices of base preference and frank disregard for moral consideration. Choosing whether to steal food to feed your child is desperately difficult. Choosing whether to buy chicken or pork at the grocery store is easy.

I would kill an animal to save a starving child, because I believe the child(human) has more value than an animal. — chatterbears

So you admit to speciesism?

So you claim... — chatterbears

Yes, so I claim, and as I think most people would accept. If you would claim otherwise, then I think that the burden would lie more with you than with me, since your claim would be much more controversial.

This is shaky grounds for what you would base moral decisions on. I'd rather use reason and logical consistency instead of "feelings" or "intuition". — chatterbears

It's not either the one or the other. In my view, moral decisions boil down to feelings or intuition. I'm not saying to disregard reason or logic, I'm just saying that one can have an intuitive indication of right or wrong prior to any appeal to a process of reasoning or utilisation of logic.

And slave owners enjoyed owning slaves. — chatterbears

And comparing eating meat to owning slaves is just silly.

Is justification needed? — Michael

If you're happy with a war of attrition, you can use the rhetorical strategy of repeatedly demanding that your interlocutor do all the work in the hope that he or she will eventually give up.

If you're genuinely interested in the question, then you may wish to attempt to justify your actions even if it's only to yourself.

If you're happy with a war of attrition, you can use the rhetorical strategy of repeatedly demanding that your interlocutor do all the work in the hope that he or she will eventually give up.

If you're genuinely interested in the question, then you may wish to attempt to justify your actions even it's only to yourself. — jastopher

It's not about attrition. I'm just asking why I need to justify my actions at all. Why is it that I must show that my actions are ethical, and not that you must show that my actions are unethical?

I'm just eating a hamburger. If you want to accuse me of behaving unethically then surely the burden is on you to support that accusation? I don't see why I should have to play defensive to your unsolicited opinion.

I don't eat meat because I don't need to. — Buxtebuddha

How do you move from this to 'humans shouldn't eat meat because they don't need it?'

Also would you accept that if I could establish a 'need', then it would be acceptable to eat meat?

What kind of need would be sufficient?

I'm just eating a hamburger. If you want to accuse me of behaving unethically then surely the burden is on you to support that accusation? — Michael

In principle, is there anything I could say that would convince you that you were behaving unethically?

Someone who aids and abets the killing of an animal is responsible for aiding and abetting the killing of an animal, not for the killing of an animal. — Michael

That's like saying someone who shoots another person is only responsible for pulling a trigger, and is not responsible for his or her death.
Actions have consequences. Your aiding and abetting leads to the death of animals. You know that your money will be used in this fashion. Therefore, you are co-responsible for it. The fact that there is a step between these two things doesn't remove the causality.

In principle, is there anything I could say that would convince you that you were behaving unethically? — jastopher

That's the very issue I tried to highlight in my post here (and also in another discussion here).

There doesn't appear to be any measure that can be used to verify or falsify a moral claim. Unlike whether or not it's raining, it doesn't seem to be an empirical matter, and unlike maths or logic, there aren't any formal axioms or rules of inference from which to derive a conclusion.

So how does one actually prove that something is right or wrong? It seems to me that you just either believe it or you don't.

But veganism IS cult-like. It is one thing to talk about the pragmatic health or environmental benefits. It is another to want to take over the world with an absolutist moral prescription. — apokrisis

Cult : "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object."

That's not veganism.
You can claim that vegans and animal rights advocates are misguided philosophically in some way. But claiming that those who live according to a moral system they have tried to establish through logic and empathy is cult-like is just fallacious, even if you do think they are wrong.
Not only is it fallacious, it's also just a cheap ploy so as not to have to seriously consider their arguments.

So how does one actually prove that something is right or wrong? — Michael

By accepting some of the basic premises.

but then how do they justify the claim that it is wrong to cause suffering? — Michael

Because you wouldn't accept another living being causing you to suffer needlessly, would you? No, which makes you hypocritical and causes you to have inconsistent ethics. If you wouldn't accept needless suffering for yourself, why would you impose that onto others? As I said before, all living beings try to avoid pain and suffering, because it diminishes the well-being of that life. And if you wouldn't want to allow a diminishing of well-being for yourself, why would you want to do that to another living being? This is where empathy and compassion come in, which you don't seem to have. But more importantly, you aren't even consistent within your own ethical perspective.

So you admit to speciesism? — jastopher

Not in the way you think I am. As me and Buxtebuddha already explained, there's a difference between a necessary evil and an unnecessary evil. Eating meat is not necessary. If you still don't understand the difference, I don't' know what to tell you.

And comparing eating meat to owning slaves is just silly. — Sapientia

This is not an appeal to authority, but some of the most brilliant minds alive today, have made this very same comparison. Look up the talk with Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins: https://youtu.be/GYYNY2oKVWU?t=1766

Richard states that his position on eating animals is similar to that of the position regarding slavery. Sam Harris and others have also made this same comparison. Stating that, in the future, we will look at Factory Farming as an abomination, similarly to how we look at Slavery right now. And there are many similarities to pinpoint.

- Enslaving other living beings for our benefit
- Causing unnecessary pain and suffering to other living beings
- Viewing other living beings as "lesser than", which justify our cruel actions
- The current societal norm
- Is not illegal at the time of being condoned

So you admit to speciesism?
— jastopher

Not in the way you think I am. — chatterbears

I'll take that as a yes.

So we have established that both carnivores and vegetarians are speciesist albeit to differing degrees.

That leaves utilitarian, deontological and virtue ethics.

Utilitarian: something is right/wrong to the extent that it causes pleasure/suffering. Animals can suffer. Eating animals causes animal suffering, which must be offset against the pleasure obtained by consuming meat. Factory farming comes out badly, but free-range etc. could produce more pleasure than suffering, and hence eating meat is not absolutely wrong.

Deontological, do unto others (animals included) as you would have them do unto you. Makes sense, but as Michael might say, 'Why?'. Why not do what I like, and others do what I like too?

Virtue ethics: We harm ourselves by harming others (including animals) in the sense that it is imperative to develop virtue and harming others is inimical to that aim.

I like utilitarianism since it permits me to continue to eat meat, but requires me to exercise my influence as a consumer in order to minimise animal suffering. The fact that free-range tastes better and that I feel less guilt when I eat only increases aggregate pleasure.

That's like saying someone who shoots another person is only responsible for pulling a trigger, and is not responsible for his or her death.
Actions have consequences. Your aiding and abetting leads to the death of animals. You know that your money will be used in this fashion. Therefore, you are co-responsible for it. The fact that there is a step between these two things doesn't remove the causality. — NKBJ

Causing death by shooting a gun is a case of homicide, not aiding and abetting.

And the relationship between pulling the trigger of a gun and the death of the target is very different to the relationship between buying meat at the supermarket and the farmer killing a chicken.

Yours is a terrible analogy.

By accepting some of the basic premises. — jastopher

Then what if I don't accept the premise that it is wrong to kill any animal that can feel pain? What if I only accept the premise that it is wrong to kill any member of a species that tends to have human-like or greater intelligence?

Because you wouldn't accept another living being causing you to suffer needlessly, would you? No, which makes you hypocritical and causes you to have inconsistent ethics. — chatterbears

My unwillingness to allow another living being to cause me to suffer has nothing to do with ethics. It has to do with my aversion to pain, and other feelings of self-preservation.

If the first thing that comes to mind when someone intends to hurt you is the morality of their behaviour, I would say that there is something very wrong with you.

So, no, there's no inconsistent ethics.

Then what if I don't accept the premise that it is wrong to kill any animal that can feel pain? — Michael

Well, you would either need to attempt to show why this (not difficult) or any other premise is wrong. If you insist on merely saying that you don't accept it, there's no reason to engage with you philosophically since your position will appear to be based on prejudice rather than reason.

I'll take that as a yes. — jastopher

If you want to go to the dictionary definition of 'speciesism', it is "the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals."

I never condone or support the exploitation of animals. Therefore I am not a speciesist. But if you want to redefine the term 'speciesism' to mean that anyone who holds the position that humans are of higher value than animals, this is not the same term. But as I stated before, even though I do think Humans are more valuable, I do not think they should exploit animals and/or cause needless suffering.

Another definition of 'speciesism' is "the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership". This again, does not apply to me. Because I do not assign higher value to humans solely on the basis of being a different species.

So when I said, "not in the way you think", I was implying that you are equating my position with a term that does not apply.

Why not do what I like, and others do what I like too? — jastopher

So 200 years ago, a slave owner could say the same thing too right? "Why not do what I like and own slaves, and other white people in my society can do what I like too?" - Flawed moral argumentation.

but free-range etc. could produce more pleasure than suffering, and hence eating meat is not absolutely wrong. — jastopher

Free-range, organic, grass-fed, cage-free, are all irrelevant to the treatment of the animals. This is just a lack of research and willful ignorance to continue in your obvious immoral actions.

You cannot justify eating animals without creating a contradiction within your own personal ethics.

If the first thing that comes to mind when someone intends to hurt you is the morality of their behaviour, I would say that there is something very wrong with you. — Michael

If you're talking about a spontaneous act of violence, of course i would not have time to think about the moral decision making of the person/animal trying to harm me. But if it was a person who lived their life and continuously caused harm, you SHOULD assess the morality of their behavior. If you do not, then you have no grounds to say what is or isn't moral at all.

You are causing environmental damage (to the earth), health damage (to yourself) and physical pain (to the animals), when you decide to eat meat. The science for the health and environmental concerns are clear, so that isn't even debatable. The ethics are just as clear as our perspective nowadays of slavery is, but you use every excuse in the book to continue your taste pleasure, rather than actually care about another living being who you are causing to suffer in pain.