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

There's no black and white form of consistency. You're either consistent in your ethics, or you are not. A racist is inconsistent within their ethical framework; this is how it works.

A racist believes that he is justified in discriminating against a person of different skin color. But would he accept a different race discriminating against him because he has a different skin color? Probably not. Therefore he is logically inconsistent within his own ethics. His own beliefs contradict either each. And a simpler way of putting it is; he is being hypocritical.

You're doing the same thing within your own justification for killing animals. You believe you are justified in killing cows because cows don’t have the cognitive capacity for empathy and compassion. But you would accept being killed if you (or any human) didn't have the cognitive capacity for empathy and compassion, to any better degree than a cow? Probably not. Therefore you're being hypocritical. AKA, logically inconsistent.

This is a fairly simple concept, and I think you understand it. Which is why you refuse to answer the question when a consistency test is pushed toward your reasoning.

And I don't accept your repeated analogy with slavery as a true analogy — Sapientia

All you have ever said is, "I don't accept your analogy", or "It is not similar." - You haven't actually provided a counter argument or rebuttal to refute my comparison to slavery. Which, as I have stated many times, has strikingly similar characteristics to factory farming. And I'll write them again.

- Both situations (slavery & factory farming) are discriminating 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)

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

Except that a moral person would try to find the owner of that $100 is possible. An immoral person wouldn't think twice and just take it for themselves. Although one could make a case that it would be too hard to track down the owner of that $100, and therefore is justified in keeping it for themselves.

But this is not remotely similar to contributing to animal torture and death. We know who is responsible for the animal slaughter and yet we still contribute to it. Both situations display our selfish actions, which are indeed immoral.

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.

I'm bored of your slavery analogy. — Sapientia

And I'm bored of you failing to recognize the similarities, and also never presenting a counter argument. Even if the two situations weren't comparable at all (which it is clear they are), I am using your justification in another context to expose how invalid your justification is.

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.

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

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"

What differentiates the one from the other is being sufficiently human-like and being sufficiently cow-like. — Sapientia

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?

The most likely reason is simply because of the culture I was raised in. — Moliere

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.

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

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.

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 do you think you're immoral for eating meat? And if so, why don't you change it. Changing your diet is much easier than many other things in this selfish world we live in.

And I'm bored of you failing to recognize the similarities, and also never presenting a counter argument. — chatterbears

That's odd, because I have done both. I have actually been acknowledging similarities since at least page eight, I'll have you know. See for yourself. More recently, and in response to your analogy, I have said that it's analogous in limited ways, but I've also said that the similarities aren't enough. Your little list isn't enough, even if I were to accept each and every item on it. You aren't doing anything remarkable. I could list the similarities between a slingshot and a rocket launcher, yet they're markedly different regardless, and should be treated differently too. It only takes a single distinction of importance to render your analogy as inadequate, and as I've been saying, there's a difference in the degree or severity with which the one and the other are generally judged. I accept that you might judge it differently, but you don't get top trumps.

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 appear to have forgotten the context in which I said that it's necessary, and so are conjuring up your own. I said that it's necessary in contrast to your mention of unnecessary suffering, and I only meant that it's necessary in a conditional sense, as I've since clarified, if it wasn't already clear to you. It wasn't an argument for anything else.

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

That's a double whammy! It's clearly not a contradiction, because I was talking about two distinct senses of necessity. And no, I didn't say that because there is demand for something, that makes it okay. That's your straw man.

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

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.

I know I am immoral when I eat meat, but I do not care particularly more about this immorality than the others I am engaged in. If I buy vegetables, those vegetables must be organic, if I drive to the organic shop I do so in my immoral car with its immoral Co2, and then I hand the guy in the shop an immoral dollar, with which he can buy more guns, or a hamburger for himself. When he buys his hamburger with my dollar the guy who sells him his hamburger might donate that dollar to Trump and he will give it to the military so they can drop bombs, build walls or send Tennessee farm boys off to war.

What or where is the actual expiration of the immorality of 'my' dollar? When does it's inherent evil or immorality end? How many animals will my vegetarian spent dollar ultimately kill?

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.

The greatest evil is not the consumption of the hamburger, it is the unlimited evil that evolves out of the transaction.

Economic transactions are evil, not meat eaters.

As the Christians love to say: 'What would Jesus do?'

M

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

This is evidence that you're not so good at judging internal consistency.

I get it. You are not a pragmaticist. You live in a world of black and white where morality is objective and absolute.

Philosophical discussion is really a waste of time. You already have all the answers you need as a matter of faith.

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

Anecdotal experience is not evidence.

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 am merely telling you why I feel as I do, from a causal perspective.

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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.

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

So you think every evil is equivalent and we shouldn't waste our time trying to better our society to reduce pain and suffering? Because your stance seems to be, "No matter how good I try to be, I will always be contributing to evil in some way". Which is true, but highly irrelevant to this conversation. Just because we cannot reach perfection, which involves no harm to any living being, doesn't mean we cannot strive to do better. We should change our actions for the better, as much as possible. And for most people, it is possible to change their diet to an all plant-based diet. For most people, it is NOT possible to afford an electric car that doesn't produce CO2. There's a big difference here. What is easily changeable and possible, versus what is not.

I am not asking for perfection. I am asking for better than what we currently have. Similarly to the prohibition on slavery, or right now, the prohibition on factory farms.

This is evidence that you're not so good at judging internal consistency. — Sapientia

Do you only just make statements without explaining a word or deploying a counter argument of any kind?

Anecdotal experience is not evidence. — Moliere

Agreed, but it is based on deductive reasoning. In the same way I can state that, it is more probable than not, that over 90% of the human population would rather live than die.

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.

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

But I didn't use intelligence. In fact I said intelligence is not a good basis for moral feeling.

The difference between me and you and a cow is that you and I are human. That's it.

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

Agreed. It's too simplistic. It doesn't seem to take into account varying degrees of empathy or compassion, or varying levels of appropriateness in behaviour or judgement relating to the aforementioned. Merely sharing something in common with his position, like feelings of empathy or compassion, isn't enough of a basis to conclude that there's an inconsistency. You'd have to adopt his position, warts and all, whilst retaining what conflicts with it. But if you reject his premise as inadequate, then you can quite easily evade his trap.

"So you think every evil is equivalent and we shouldn't waste our time trying to better our society to reduce pain and suffering? "

That is a not a fair reflection of what I have said.

"Because your stance seems to be, "No matter how good I try to be, I will always be contributing to evil in some way". Which is true, but highly irrelevant to this conversation."

The point of your vegetarian stance is to do good... is it not? 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?

"Just because we cannot reach perfection, which involves no harm to any living being, doesn't mean we cannot strive to do better. We should change our actions for the better, as much as possible."

Outside of heaven. Harm to living beings is a necessity of existence. 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. As Zizek states you are simply including the delusion of 'a little bit of morality' into the new or preferred product.

"And for most people, it is possible to change their diet to an all plant-based diet. For most people, it is NOT possible to afford an electric car that doesn't produce CO2. There's a big difference here. What is easily changeable and possible, versus what is not."

Harm is the consequence of the consumptive act. Consume less= less harm. Consume something different, (electric cars and vegetables) just means that you want everyone to go to a different party where the rules are the same, but we are all eating vegetables and patting each other on the back.

Fundamentally nothing has changed only the menu.

M

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

I'm comparing two items which are similar in ways, yet markedly different in others, and you're comparing two situations which are similar in ways, yet markedly different in others. There is a distinction in terms of degree or severity. That's all that matters, as it's sufficient grounds for rejecting the analogy that you've been peddling as inadequate, so I don't see why I should humour your attempt to switch focus to other matters. How many times have you been on holiday this year? Once? Twice? Over five times?

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

I agree that it's about appropriate treatment. That's what I've been saying more or less from the start. And in judging appropriate treatment, one should factor in any relevant distinctions. Skin colour is not a relevant distinction. Species is, unless we're talking about a species which is sufficiently human-like. But the set of characteristics which make us human are unique enough to set us apart from all other species; and, moreover, there's a hierarchy comprised of various levels of closeness. A chicken is further away than a chimpanzee, and a wasp is further away than a chicken. I'm not equally empathic or compassionate, nor need I be, and if you are, then you're unusual. 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.

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

I have provided a valid and logical response to this question. You just haven't acknowledged it as such. Contrary to your assertion, it isn't necessary to express a precise distinction. It's sufficient to make that distinction based on whatever it is about chickens which makes them sufficiently chicken-like and insufficiently human-like. You're committing the continuum fallacy.

That's rich coming from the person driven to split us into two categories: pragmatic (those who agree with you), and not pragmatic (those who don't).

Your entire insistence on calling us black and white thinkers who base arguments on belief is therefore, inherently, a bad case of projection on your part.

Yeah. It is clear from this thread that passionate veganism relies on black and white thought at the expense of relativism and balance.

It's a shame as there are plenty of sound pragmatic reasons for promoting big changes in the standard western diet.

Balance is one thing. I like balance where it makes sense.
A relativist I am not, nor pretend to be. Relativism is insipid nonsense for the most part.
It also is basically diametrically opposed to pragmatism, by the bye.

But I didn't use intelligence. In fact I said intelligence is not a good basis for moral feeling. — Moliere

I wasn't saying you have used intelligence as a justification. I was stating that other people have (in this thread), and this is how the argument follows.

The difference between me and you and a cow is that you and I are human. That's it. — Moliere

From what you're saying, this sounds like speciesism, correct?

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

Do not equate snails to carrots. It is objectively true that less harm would be caused from eating a carrot, than eating meat. That's just a fact. Also, you kept stating my position as a vegetarian, when it is in fact a Vegan. Vegan means the consumption of NO animal products, whatsoever. People who are Vegan, are also aware of other animal harm, such as palm oil, animal testing in cosmetics and leather hand bags. All of which are unnecessary and have better alternatives.

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

To correct you again, it is Veganism (not Vegetarianism). But also, you're really going to tell me that a Vegan world would produce the same amount of harm as an omnivorous world? That's just demonstrably false.

Just from the environmental standpoint, emissions from the production of beef and lamb are 250 times higher than those from legumes, per gram of protein, and pork and poultry are 40 times higher than legumes. The US Department of Agriculture estimates that confined farm animals generate more than 450 million tonnes of manure annually, 3 times more raw waste than generated by Americans. When manure is repeatedly over-applied to farm land, it causes dangerous levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in the water supply. In such excessive amounts, nitrogen robs water of oxygen and destroys aquatic life. Also, the contribution of the livestock sector to global greenhouse gas emissions exceeds that of transportation. Do a little research, you can look up this stuff yourself. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Aside from the environment hazards, what about the 50+ billion animals we kill every year? To compare that harm to some harm caused from eating a carrot, is absurd.

Fundamentally nothing has changed only the menu. — Marcus de Brun

Again, this is just you lacking the awareness and knowledge of how much factory farms negatively contribute to climate change and health risks. Not to mention, again, the animal holocaust we have condoned every year that passes.

How many times have you been on holiday this year? — Sapientia

Zero. Why is that relevant?

Skin colour is not a relevant distinction. Species is, unless we're talking about a species which is sufficiently human-like. — Sapientia

Both are not a relevant distinction that would condone mistreatment of the living being. Species and skin color, are both a form of discrimination against how one looks.

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

My consistency within my own internal ethical model is what is superior to your perspective. You cannot justify an action in one context, but then reject the same justification in another context. That is called inconsistency, or put more simply, hypocrisy.

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

So again, what is the distinction? After how many pages of this thread, you still have not answered that question. Why do you get to justify killing a living being, based on superfluous reasoning? Is it that the chicken has feathers? Is it the beak? Is it the chicken's intelligence level? Is it the height of the chicken?

You'll never answer, and until you do, I don't see a point in responding anymore. You cannot even pinpoint your reasoning for why you get to justify killing another living being. That in and of itself, is inferior to my morality.

From what you're saying, this sounds like speciesism, correct? — chatterbears

Sure.

I think there's an easily exploitable flaw in your trifecta, which is that you're relying upon empathy. And many of us don't have the emotional reservoir to be empathic towards every living thing -- not even every living thing that experiences pain.

Empathy and compassion are important, but it just doesn't follow that having empathy and compassion and consistency implies veganism. Because we can have all three, feel nothing for certain animals, and continue on our marry way.

There are more commitments than you're letting on that makes your belief work.

These are not arguments, just angry noises.

:lol: :rofl:
Now you're just not even trying.