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. — apokrisis
And I don't accept your repeated analogy with slavery as a true analogy — Sapientia
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. — TheMadFool
I'm bored of your slavery analogy. — Sapientia
And I never made the argument that something being in demand makes it good. Quit jumping the gun. — Sapientia
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. — Sapientia
What differentiates the one from the other is being sufficiently human-like and being sufficiently cow-like. — Sapientia
The most likely reason is simply because of the culture I was raised in. — Moliere
Given your commitment to reason I'd be interested in how you came up with that number. Where's the evidence? — Moliere
I eat animals because meat gives me pleasure and I am a disgusting human being. I also do other gross disgusting thing's. . but I try to make up for them by trying to be otherwise. — Marcus de Brun
And I'm bored of you failing to recognize the similarities, and also never presenting a counter argument. — chatterbears
Saying, " it is necessary for a supply to meet its demand ", is a completely flawed argument. Because a demand of something does not tell you whether that demand is condoning something moral or immoral. Again, just because slave traders demand the supply of more slaves, doesn't' mean that the demand of wanting more slaves is justified or morally permissible. — chatterbears
You framed this statement in a way that although meat production isn't necessary, there is a demand for it, which makes it necessary. This is contradictory, for one. But for two, you're indirectly saying that "because there is a demand for something, it makes it OK" — chatterbears
This is a failure to actually answer the question. What are traits in being sufficiently human-like? Skin type? Intelligence level? The ability to speak english? Hair color? — chatterbears
It is anecdotal, but nonetheless accurate to a greater degree than you may think. I've watched plenty of debates on this topic, as well as spoken to 100+ people about it. Out of the hundreds of opposing views I have read or watched on this topic, only 1 person has been internally consistent without being vegan. They were holding the view that human rights don't matter, and they also lacked empathy for ANY living being (human and animal included). This is a position, I would argue, almost nobody holds. — chatterbears
It is anecdotal, but nonetheless accurate to a greater degree than you may think. I've watched plenty of debates on this topic, as well as spoken to 100+ people about it. Out of the hundreds of opposing views I have read or watched on this topic, only 1 person has been internally consistent without being vegan. They were holding the view that human rights don't matter, and they also lacked empathy for ANY living being (human and animal included). This is a position, I would argue, almost nobody holds — chatterbears
So are you appealing to the societal/cultural norm? Which, I don't think I would need to state how flawed that position is. The cultural norm says nothing about what is moral or immoral, but more so what people have generally agreed is permissible. in Saudi Arabia, it is the cultural norm to put homosexuals to death, yet I think we would both agree that their cultural norm is immoral. So you cannot point to 'societal or cultural norms' as a justification for your actions. — chatterbears
I could list the similarities between a slingshot and a rocket launcher, yet they're markedly different regardless, and should be treated differently too. — Sapientia
This is a failure to address my related point about it not being necessary to express a precise distinction. We can tell the difference, like we can tell the difference between a heap of sand and just a few grains. — Sapientia
To function in the world is immoral, it is only fashion or fad that prefers one morality over another at a given moment in time. — Marcus de Brun
Do you only just make statements without explaining a word or deploying a counter argument of any kind?This is evidence that you're not so good at judging internal consistency. — Sapientia
Anecdotal experience is not evidence. — Moliere
What is flawed, I think, is your moral trifecta. If you want to argue for veganism then you need to include more than mere empathy -- because empathy is indeed influenced by cultural norms. — Moliere
Which is why the most important part of the trifecta is logical consistency. If you are a believer in universal human rights, that ultimately leads to Veganism. Because you cannot justify the discrimination of animals without internally contradicting your own position, as I have pointed out multiple times on this thread.
Person A believes it is okay to kill animals because animals are less intelligent.
Person A believes it is NOT okay to kill humans because humans are less intelligent.
These are two contradictory statements. One justifies killing based on intelligence level, while the other does NOT. Because as I have asked before, for this specific example, if you took a human (severely autistic) who had the intelligence level of being no greater than a cow, would we now be justified in killing them? No. Therefore using the justification of "lesser intelligence" to kill something, is invalid and inconsistent. — chatterbears
What is flawed, I think, is your moral trifecta. If you want to argue for veganism then you need to include more than mere empathy -- because empathy is indeed influenced by cultural norms. — Moliere
You're comparing two items. I am comparing two situations of similar discrimination which people use multiple reasons to justify condoning it. How many reasons have you used to justify eating animals? Probably 5+, correct? — chatterbears
Yes, we can tell the difference between a heap of sand and a few grains, just like we can tell the difference between a cow and a human. But what matters is the treatment between the two living beings. Similarly to, we can tell the difference between a black person and a white person, but how do we treat each of them? And if we treat one worse than the other, what trait are we using to justify the discrimination? — chatterbears
You still haven't provided a valid or logical response to this question, probably because you cannot answer it. It is necessary to express a precise distinction, when we are talking about why we would treat one living being differently than other. If you cannot pinpoint that trait difference, you have no grounds for committing that action. But even if you could pinpoint that trait difference, I doubt you could deploy it while being consistent within your own ethics. — chatterbears
But I didn't use intelligence. In fact I said intelligence is not a good basis for moral feeling. — Moliere
From what you're saying, this sounds like speciesism, correct?The difference between me and you and a cow is that you and I are human. That's it. — Moliere
If buying a bag of carrots does as much harm as eating a snail. Then should we not identify a real behavior that will actually fulfill your stated moral objective: WITHOUT the harm that is contained within the purchase of the carrots? — Marcus de Brun
However I do agree that we should try to limit the harm that we cause, and this cannot be achieved by vegetarianism, no more than global warming can be addressed through the purchase of electric cars. — Marcus de Brun
Fundamentally nothing has changed only the menu. — Marcus de Brun
How many times have you been on holiday this year? — Sapientia
Skin colour is not a relevant distinction. Species is, unless we're talking about a species which is sufficiently human-like. — Sapientia
It also isn't a given that your feelings or moral judgement in relation to this matter are somehow more authoritative than mine or those of anyone else. — Sapientia
It's sufficient to make that distinction based on whatever it is about chickens which makes them sufficiently chicken-like and insufficiently human-like. — Sapientia
From what you're saying, this sounds like speciesism, correct? — 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.