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

I never said you are directly responsible for the theft or killing of animals. I have specifically stated, multiple times, that you are CONTRIBUTING to the killing of animals. Just as you would be CONTRIBUTING to the theft, if you continuously bought from that store. This makes you partially responsible in an indirect manner.

But conveniently, you didn't answer the question. I'll give you three scenarios.

A: The law does not see animal slaughter as illegal, and society generally condones it and does not see it as immoral. A business is built upon the foundation of torturing and killing animals, to present you with a product.

B: The law does not see stealing from others to obtain diamonds as illegal, and society generally condones it and does not see it as immoral. A business is built upon the foundation of stealing diamonds from other people, to present you with a product.

C: The law does not see slavery as illegal, and society generally condones it and does not see it as immoral. A business (slave-trade) is built upon the foundation of enslaving humans, to present you with a product.

Would you buy products that directly contribute to any of these businesses? If so, are you not partially responsible for contributing to the demand of what the business is supplying?

But it’s not me that demands your simplistic black and white form of consistency here, is it? It is you that is stuck with that as the dilemma.

Besides, this is about killing for eating. Are we back to eating autistics again here? What is the pragmatic reason for killing mental defectives in your scenario?

I never said you are directly responsible for the theft or killing of animals. — chatterbears

Here you said that in deciding to eat meat I cause animals physical pain. That's just wrong. The only person who causes animals physical pain is the one who does the killing. The fact that he does so only because he knows that he will get paid for it by a shopkeeper who does so only because he knows that he will get paid for it by me isn't sufficient to accuse me of being the cause. There are too many steps in between – steps which involve choices made by free agents.

I have specifically stated, multiple times, that you are CONTRIBUTING to the killing of animals. Just as you would be CONTRIBUTING to the theft, if you continuously bought from that store. This makes you partially responsible in an indirect manner. — chatterbears

No it doesn't. The responsibility is entirely the thief's. I may be partially responsible if I actually assist him in the act, such as by distracting the owner, but buying his goods doesn't reach this threshold.

This makes you partially responsible in an indirect manner. — chatterbears

Is indirect, partial responsibility sufficient to be held morally accountable?

Is indirect, partial responsibility sufficient to be held morally accountable? — Michael

Partial responsibility means still responsible, yes.

Not all kinds of responsibility are moral responsibility. I want to know if indirect and partial causal responsibility entails moral responsibility.

What is the pragmatic reason for killing mental defectives in your scenario? — apokrisis

So all I need is a self-serving reason to justify an immoral act?
So, I guess then I can steal food as long as I'm going to eat it.

Not all kinds of responsibility entail moral responsibility. I want to know if indirect and partial (causal) responsibility entails moral responsibility. — Michael

Yes, it does. Causing, partially or otherwise, an immoral act entails moral responsibility, partial or otherwise.

Do you have an argument to back up this claim?

Do you have an argument to back up this claim? — Michael

I have been. You haven't really presented a good counter argument though besides essentially saying "no it isn't."
It's really nonsensical to say you could knowingly be contributing to something immoral, while having the choice not to, and say that doesn't involve you morally.

It's really nonsensical to say you could knowingly be contributing to something immoral, while having the choice not to, and say that doesn't involve you morally. — NKBJ

It's sensible if you accept that people are free agents and that some other free agent is the direct cause of the immoral act. I'm not morally responsible for what other free agents choose to do, especially when I do not compel or solicit them.

Besides, I can turn your own arguments around. You say that they wouldn't kill animals if I didn't buy their meat. I say that I wouldn't buy their meat if they didn't kill animals. Therefore farmers are indirectly and partially responsible for my eating habits? That's ridiculous. Only I'm responsible for what I eat, and only farmers are responsible for killing their animals.

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. — chatterbears

No, it's not completely irrelevant.

For starters, I didn't say that it's incorrect, let alone for that reason. You're quoting me out of context and reading things into what you've quoted that were neither there nor intended.

What I said related to the following paragraph about a significance beyond right and wrong. Even assuming that the majority is wrong, the minority is burdened with the task of attempting to overcome the status quo. The views of the status quo are obviously of relevance in at least that sense. And one of those views consists of a distinction which you've decided to reject, though ultimately not on any reasonable basis, as far as I can tell, but rather on the basis of your own relative feelings of empathy and compassion: feelings which you use as a means of justifying the prohibition of actions which others find acceptable enough. But your feelings aren't enough, and are no more or less authoritative than the feelings of others. You have given me the impression that you think that there's a right and a wrong here beyond right and wrong in a relative sense, and that, in this sense, you're right and others are wrong. But that's debatable.

And I don't accept your repeated analogy with slavery as a true analogy, despite it being analogous in limited ways. I suspect that it's an attempt to appeal to emotion. I have yet to be convinced that they're of equal severity, and I represent the majority. And no, that doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong, but it does mean that you have something in common with Flat Earthers and anti-natalists, whether you like it or not.

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. — chatterbears

Well, I have been trying to bring to your attention that a difference in circumstance and severity relates to a difference in how we treat situations and how we behave, but you just keep redirecting back to me with your false equivalence with slavery and your assumption that you have the moral high ground.

small minority. — Sapientia

Ad populum.

Excuses for what? I'm not excusing anything. That would imply I was trying to justify something immoral. At most, if we hypothesized that you were right, my arguments are fallacious somehow. But you haven't been able to prove that's the case.

Plants are living things but cannot feel pain or suffering, because they do not have a nervous system or a brain. You value life and avoid pain and suffering. Every living creature on this planet (humans included) adheres to that basic level of wanting to live and wanting to avoid pain or suffering. Therefore, we shouldn't be causing pain to others. — chatterbears

You're right. Pain is a terrible thing and having the power to inflict it is, in a way, a curse. Let's not get into that but I do agree with you that killing animals is bad.

However, there's a difference between killing and eating. I believe that studies have shown that people tend to avoid being the primary instigator of moral misdeeds but if the evil act is sufficiently distanced from a person the instinct is to feel less responsible. That's why you don't mind picking up a $100 dollar note from the street floor even when you know someone misses it dearly but you would avoid actually putting your hand into someone's bag and stealing.

I think it's the same with nonvegetarians too. They don't actually kill the animal so they feel less or even not responsible for the animal's pain or death.

I think it's wrong because eating meat creates the demand that sustains the slaughter of animals for food. So, the fact is animals wouldn't be killed if you stopped ordering meat-based food.

We're human. We have great aspirations. We're animals. We have our nature.

It's sensible if you accept that people are free agents and that some other free agent is the direct cause of the immoral act. I'm not morally responsible for what other free agents choose to do, especially when I do not compel or solicit them — Michael

Free agentry only makes them also responsible. It doesn't absolve you.

Ad populum. — NKBJ

You should learn what an appeal to the masses actually is. It's more than merely using the term "small minority" in a discussion.

Excuses for what? I'm not excusing anything. That would imply I was trying to justify something immoral. At most, if we hypothesized that you were right, my arguments are fallacious somehow. But you haven't been able to prove that's the case. — NKBJ

I don't know why you're asking me that when I told you already: excuses for avoiding properly addressing what I've raised.

Free agentry only makes them also responsible. It doesn't absolve you. — NKBJ

I don't need to absolved for what they do. Why would I? What they do has nothing to do with me.

You haven't explained how I can be morally responsible for another person's behaviour.

You should learn what an appeal to the masses actually is. It's more than merely using the term "small minority" in a discussion. — Sapientia

Um... That's exactly what it is. You're trying to bolster your argument by repeatedly stating it's a minority position. As if it mattered.

Excuses for avoiding properly addressing what I've raised. — Sapientia

I have the feeling you would only consider agreeing with you "properly addressing." As such, this is getting tedious.

minority — NKBJ

Ad populum!

You haven't explained how I can be morally responsible for another person's behaviour. — Michael

I have. Repeatedly. And this is the last time I'm going to bother repeating it: aiding and abetting.

And this is the last time I'm going to bother repeating it: aiding and abetting. — NKBJ

Are you talking about the legal doctrine? If so, which country's law on the matter are you referring to, and what does that have to do with moral responsibility?

I'm not explaining this basic concept to you anymore. At this point, you either get it, or you don't.

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. — chatterbears

I don't get how you can ask how it's necessary at all, yet in the next breath mention the necessity of meeting a demand. It's not a simple necessity, but it's a conditional necessity. So long as there are sought after goals, there will be conditions necessary for achieving those goals.

I'm bored of your slavery analogy. Pointing to some similarities between the two isn't enough to refute the position that slavery is totally unacceptable and eating meat isn't. There's definitely a difference in degree, even if not in kind. And I never made the argument that something being in demand makes it good. Quit jumping the gun.

I'm not explaining this basic concept to you anymore. At this point, you either get it, or you don't. — NKBJ

You've never explained it. You just asserted, once, that buying meat is an example of aiding and abetting, and then asserted, once, that aiding and abetting makes me co-responsible.

The farmer isn't aiding and abetting and isn't responsible for my eating habits, even though I only eat meat because he kills animals.

I'm not aiding and abetting and am not responsible for the death of any animal, even though those animals are only killed because I'm willing to buy their meat.

There just isn't a sufficient enough connection between me exchanging money for meat at a supermarket and a farmer killing his animals to warrant holding me morally responsible for those deaths.

Even if we look at this from a legal standpoint, and not a moral one, someone who knowingly buys stolen goods from a black market isn't going to be charged with theft or aiding and abetting a theft. They'll be charged with possession of stolen goods (or something similar).

Although I'll admit that legality and morality are not the same thing. But as you brought up a legal doctrine, I thought it worth mentioning.

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

I know that this was directed at Micheal, but it has already been answered. What differentiates the one from the other is being sufficiently human-like and being sufficiently cow-like. It's not a single trait, as your loaded question assumes, but rather a set of traits. The difference is noticeable without any need for expressing it. Have you ever in your right mind mistaken the one for the other? Or, at least, without quickly realising your error?

Saying you're a speciesist is the same as saying you're a racist. — chatterbears

Ha! Not quite.

This argument is just going in circles. We're obviously not going to find a way to agree. Doesn't make sense to continue arguing this particular point anymore.

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? — chatterbears

I understand what you're trying to do here. Whatever trait I select is then applied to certain classes of human beings, and then...

But I said most explicitly that there is no trait difference. We are all animals.

The most likely reason is simply because of the culture I was raised in. How much empathy do you feel for Moray eels? Maybe in some universal sense you might, but most people wouldn't think much of them in terms of empathy. I'd wager that's mostly because of exposure and how similar they might feel they are to them.

If you aren't regularly exposed to a particular beastie then empathy doesn't develop.

So it's not so much that there is some singular trait among humans that makes them superior. It's simply that they are human. End of story.

And you know what a cow isn't?

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. — chatterbears

Given your commitment to reason I'd be interested in how you came up with that number. Where's the evidence?

Psychopathy isn't in any way related to a belief in universal human rights. If you lack empathy for other people then you might be a psychopath. If you don't believe in universal human rights then you might just not find the current political regime all that convincing, but still have a general sense of care for people and ability to feel where they are coming from.