If it were the case that meat were necessary, would you condone its consumption? If yes, what do you consider to be baseline necessity? — jastopher

"Ought implies can," so, yes.

Baseline necessity would be something that otherwise would seriously impact your health or life.

Please don't start telling me that abstaining from meat hurts your health, because the science has shown that it doesn't. And anecdotes don't count.

However, if I were on a lifeboat or deserted island with a chicken, I guess I would eventually eat it.

So when a cause becomes widely adopted by a generation, that doesn’t make it generational.

Sounds legit.

[Furious muffled scrapping noises resume down the deep hole.]

I hear millennials by and large wear shoes and brush their teeth... is that also generational then?

You can philosophise in isolation from reality all you like, but I happen to be one of those irksome people with a bad habit of disrupting such proceedings with an occasional reality check.

My point stands, whether you wish to engage with it or otherwise. That it might be wrong isn't enough. At least not if your interest goes deeper than claiming the higher ground and then buggering off. It might be wrong to steal a sandwich from a supermarket, but do I really care? No, not really. I would probably do so tomorrow if I felt like it and thought that I could get away with it. You'll find that there is a large swath of people who need a greater reason to care, and an even greater reason to change their behaviour accordingly, especially if they're aware that it's going to be no easy task. I am one of those people, in this case. Don't you think that that poses a challenge from your perspective if you have any interest in bringing your ideals down to earth?

Yes, of course meat production isn't necessary in an absolute sense. There isn't much that is. But it's necessary to meet the demand. And there is a demand. We could keep going back and forth like this. The bottom line is that you think that it's wrong, and I view it as acceptable in a sense.

It might be wrong to steal a sandwich from a supermarket, but do I really care? No, not really. I would probably do so tomorrow if I felt like it and thought that I could get away with it. — Sapientia

So we should just do away with morality completely because some people are jerks?

Do those things count as a recent mass movement based on a moral argument? Do you want to claim that?

If it were the case that meat were necessary, would you condone its consumption? If yes, what do you consider to be baseline necessity?
— jastopher

"Ought implies can," so, yes.

Baseline necessity would be something that otherwise would seriously impact your health or life. — NKBJ

OK. So if I could show you that, by your own definition, meat consumption satisfies a baseline necessity then you would adapt your position?

So we should just do away with morality completely because some people are jerks? — NKBJ

Where did I say that we should do away with morality completely? Rather, like I said earlier, morality isn't the be-all and end-all. If you can't see past morality, then in my opinion you have an impoverished view of the world. It's not all jerks and angels. There's a bigger picture where things like stealing a sandwich from a supermarket or eating a chicken burger lack significance.

Again, it's not recent...

This is a metaethical discussion. You may want to start a new thread.

I doubt you can, but you can try. And. yes, if you could, I would.

Again, it's not recent... — NKBJ

This is true, but it may just demonstrate that some individuals always gravitate towards asceticism and find it hard to empathise with those who don't.

LOL. What’s not recent? The surge in numbers due to a generational shift?

Are you claiming that it is all the Baby Boomers who are suddenly turning vegan for moral reasons? The fact that you would deny something so factual is frankly weird.

This is a metaethical discussion. You may want to start a new thread. — NKBJ

Maybe. But it relates to this discussion. You seem to just be assuming certain things, like these "animal rights" that you mentioned. These so-called rights aren't natural rights, as there's no such thing, and they aren't recognised in law if they're supposed to rule out the slaughter of livestock. They seem to just be a way of making your opinion sound more authoritative than it actually is.

You seem to just be assuming certain things — Sapientia

That's what one does in a discussion about anything not meta. You have to assume certain things.

They seem to just be a way of making your opinion sound more authoritative than it actually is. — Sapientia

All rights theorists are just self-important? Good to know. :rofl:

Even if that were the case, I've been arguing about suffering and the capacity to suffer. And I think that argument applies even if I am not a rights theorist.

aren't recognised in law — Sapientia

Laws can be immoral or not cover all things they should, obviously

And that's fundamentally what this entire debate has come down to. It's no longer an argument about who has the best reasons for the ideal moral stance. Instead it's become an exercise for finding any excuses necessary to justify existing lifestyles, lest we have too much pesky radicalism. Better to invent spurious reasons to justify the current state of the world than contemplate any meaningful change to improve our lives. Casual centrism reigns supreme. All the beautiful normative ideals have devolved into the brutal descriptive reality: humans have power over animals, so we can do with them as we please. Might makes right.

What a glorious philosophy! — Uber

:cheer: :100: :ok:

Animals are neither kind nor unkind they are perhaps more beautiful than humans

Normal human beings are gross, disgusting, cruel, stupid, selfish and unethical. Animals are not.

I am a normal human being who eats animals.

Sometimes when I am not being a normal human being, there is a special word that describes my occasional behavior vis : 'kindness'

When people do not eat animals they are clearly being kind to beautiful animals.

But vegetarians can be equally unkind (Hitler was a vegetarian)

Normal human beings can on occasion behave kindly. All action and behavior contains consequence and opportunity for kindness. A vegetarian participates in global warming and species loss every time he or she farts.

Being kind can be easier than farting.

M

Even if that were the case, I've been arguing about suffering and the capacity to suffer. And I think that argument applies even if I am not a rights theorist. — NKBJ

And I've been arguing that pointing to suffering and the capacity to suffer, in itself, evidently isn't enough for most people, who make distinctions which you choose to ignore, and is only accepted by the already converted and a small minority.

You've been making excuses to avoid properly addressing this.

I wouldn't be logically inconsistent. — Moliere

You still would. Because you need to explain why you don't feel empathy for a cow, but you do for a human. What is the trait that differentiates the two living beings?

Are you actually interested in knowing how others think about their ethical lives? — Moliere

Yes absolutely, but my point still stands. If you believe in universal human rights, that ultimately leads to veganism. The only way to be consistent without being Vegan, is to deny rights to humans. Which, 99% of people would not do, other than psychopaths.

It's not the same because I am an avowed speciesist so I don't have a problem in placing my needs and wants before those of animals. — Txastopher

Saying you're a speciesist is the same as saying you're a racist. Discrimination against another species (or race), simply because they are of a different species (or race). And to show you how flawed this position is, would you accept an Alien species farming humans but raising them humanely, and then kill them without pain when they turn 20 years old? Probably not, so your position is inconsistent.

In the first case you engaged in ableism and in the second case you are engaged in speciesism. — Txastopher

False, because neither of those two cases have anything to do with species. They have to do with moral capacity and positive impact for the world.

Yet more speciesism. — Txastopher

Again, no. Because I am not saying an action is justified on the sole basis of a difference in species. You may want to look up the term 'speciesist', because you seem to not know how to apply it properly.

It doesn’t follow from any of that that I am responsible for what other people do. I’m only responsible for buying meat from a supermarket. — Michael

Ok let's use your same logic here.

If I hire a hitman to kill someone, am I responsible for the person's death? Or am I only responsible for paying the hitman?

You're buying meat. The slaughter house is your hitman. You pay the hitman to slaughter your meat for you. Are you responsible for the slaughter, or just responsible for paying the slaughter house?

Because you need to explain why you don't feel empathy for a cow, but you do for a human. What is the trait that differentiates the two living beings? — chatterbears

It’s pretty obvious. Cows don’t have the cognitive capacity for empathy and compassion, let alone a desire for consistent ethical practices.

You still have not acknowledged the similarities I have pointed out between the two. All you can say is, "they aren't the same thing." - Just because you don't view it the same, doesn't mean it is not similar.

- Both situations (slavery & factory farming) are discrimination against other living beings
- Both situations have condoned it and allowed it be legalized
- Both situations are part of the societal norm
- Both situations cause unnecessary pain and suffering that can be replaced with an easy alternative
- Both situations devalue living beings (black people and animals)

I can probably think of more examples, but those similarities are good enough. And to say they aren't comparable and it would be laughable to claim they are, is just ignorant.

That's just how it is for many people, and that's just how it will continue to be for quite some time yet, I predict. I don't forsee a 'veggie revolution' on the horizon. Your views represent a minority. — Sapientia

This is completely irrelevant. Owning slaves was 'just how it was for many people, and it was just how it continued to be for quite some time.' - And the activist against slavery would have been a minority. Just because a group or view is not popular, doesn't mean it is incorrect. You seem to be engaged in an appeal to popularity fallacy.

It's not just a matter of whether it's right or wrong. It's a matter of, if it's wrong, how wrong? And why should I care enough to act any differently? You can make your case until the cows come home, but at the end of the day me likes meat. — Sapientia

Same for the slave owner. Here's the slave owner talking: "Why should I care enough to act any differently? The activist against slavery could make their case until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, me likes slaves"

Trying to justify your actions with preference and/or taste pleasure, is a bit absurd. At this point, you seem to hold positions of a person who is morally bankrupt.

It’s pretty obvious. Cows don’t have the cognitive capacity for empathy and compassion, let alone a desire for consistent ethical practices. — apokrisis

So if a human (such as a severely mentally disabled one) didn't have the cognitive capacity for empathy and compassion (to any better degree than a cow), are you now justified in killing them?

[This is where your consistency would need to kick in, otherwise you'd have internally contradictory beliefs]

Yes, of course meat production isn't necessary in an absolute sense. There isn't much that is. But it's necessary to meet the demand. And there is a demand. We could keep going back and forth like this. — Sapientia

What are you even saying here? An absolute sense? We have plant-based alternatives, so how is it necessary at all, let alone in an absolute sense.

Also, there have been MANY things that were 'necessary' to meet a demand. Again, back to slavery. People needed more slaves, so people bought and traded them. Just because there is a demand for something, doesn't mean that thing is actually good or necessary.

I am a normal human being who eats animals. — Marcus de Brun

Why do you eat animals?

If I hire a hitman to kill someone, am I responsible for the person's death? Or am I only responsible for paying the hitman? — chatterbears

You're only responsible for paying the hitman. The hitman is responsible for the person's death.

You're buying meat. The slaughter house is your hitman. You pay the hitman to slaughter your meat for you. Are you responsible for the slaughter, or just responsible for paying the slaughter house? — chatterbears

I'm not responsible for the slaughter, and nor am I responsible for paying the slaughter house. I'm only responsible for paying the supermarket for the meat on their shelves. The real life example of buying meat isn't even like your fallacious example of the hitman, because there isn't any solicitation between me and the farmer. I'm not offering the farmer money in exchange for him killing an animal. Rather he kills an animal because he knows that the supermarket will buy the meat from him, and the supermarket buys the meat from him because they know that I will buy it from them.

A better analogy would be a thief who steals diamonds and then finds someone willing to buy them. Even if the buyer knows that the diamonds are stolen, the buyer isn't responsible for the theft.

Buying stolen goods might be wrong, but it's not because it makes one responsible for the theft. So buying meat might still be wrong, but it's not because it makes one responsible for the killing of an animal.

A better analogy would be a thief who steals diamonds and then finds someone willing to buy them. Even if the buyer knows that the the diamonds are stolen, the buyer isn't responsible for the theft. — Michael

To make it more analogous, this thief would need to start a business. And that business would be based on the fact that he steals from others and then supplies it inside of a store. And everyone knows that he is stealing from others to supply diamonds to any random buyer. And the law would also see his stealing as fine and legal, and would not charge him for theft, as the law (and society) would be okay with him stealing.

So if there was a business like this out there, where you KNEW the business was working on the basis of stealing from other people, would you still buy from them? This is the same concept as you buying from a company that works on the basis of torturing and slaughtering other living beings (cows/chickens/pigs).

So if there was a business like this out there, where you KNEW the business was working on the basis of stealing from other people, would you still buy from them? — chatterbears

Does it matter? I'm only arguing that it is a fallacy to claim that in buying meat I'm responsible for the killing of animals, just as it would be a fallacy to claim that in buying stolen diamonds I'm responsible for the theft.

You can make a different case for why it is wrong to buy meat or stolen diamonds if you like.