I'd say this suffers from a impoverished view of happiness. — Moliere
Namely that we are moral agents, and if aliens were sufficiently human-like to be moral agents then they'd be included and not treated like beasts. — Moliere
I don't believe there are moral foundations at all. — Moliere
Which creates an internal contradiction. — chatterbears
Not sure what you mean here. Can you rephrase and clarify?And so in turn, a felt natural contradiction that ethical reasoning ought to aim to balance. no? — apokrisis
Like you agreed about self-defence for example. — apokrisis
Can you rephrase and clarify? — chatterbears
Self-defense is justified because that living being's rights have been violated and needs to protect itself out of necessity. Well-being is still at work here, as someone's well-being has been diminished. — chatterbears
Eating meat is not a necessary harm in order to survive, therefore it is not justified. — chatterbears
Half the world's grain crops are fed to the world's 65 billion farm animals. How many insects/worms do you think are killed in the process of harvesting these crops for the farm animals? — chatterbears
I don't see how we could reasonable judge whether or not it became unnecessary for a lion to kill a gazelle. — chatterbears
Unless you are willing to only eat those animals who have died of natural causes, the eating of one implies killing it. Killing is a form of harm. The consequence of getting the flesh you want to eat is therefore harming a sentient being. Harming a sentient being is causing more harm than good. — NKBJ
Well yes. We went over this. Well-being or flourishing is the generic goal. And then the "contradiction" is between personal self-interest and collective self-interest. — apokrisis
Your monotonic absolutism makes it impossible for you to properly envisage that - even if in specific instances, as in killing in self defense, you feel forced to yield the issue. — apokrisis
I don't really see an ethical difference between killing plants for food and killing animals for food — Tomseltje
Have you done any research on the harm caused from factory farming?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1REgp2VreWfgHhatxycdk0GN6P9HyXID6UTzuNb4f7sY/edit?usp=sharing
Click the environmental tab.
It might be possible that humans could survive perfectly on a plant only diet, but it will be hard to convince me there is any practicality to it, seeing that even the most strict vegans eventually take supplements of animal origin. — Tomseltje
This is false. There are Vegan supplements, as well as fortified foods. Some of which are GMO.
Here goes the second of your two regular vacillations.First you switch between death per se and pain/suffering to suit your argument, then you switch to the environmental impact of factory farming when we talk about the impact of farming vegetables. Please try to stick to one issue at a time so we can determine what your line of argument actually is. — Pseudonym
To be clear absolutely no-one here is suggesting that modern factory farming of animals is fine and needs no intervention to make it better, so would you please stick to the argument that's actually being had, not the one you'd like to have. we're all trying to debate the morality of eating meat, the killing and consumption of another species of animal. — Pseudonym
There is no way the killing of one wild deer causes more environmental harm and animal death than the farming of five acres of legumes, so if you're using an environmental harm or total sentient deaths argument, then you should be advocating wild game and grass fed, free-range meat as part of a balanced diet. — Pseudonym
It clearly was not necessary for their survival for the wolf pack to kill those 18 Elk, they just left them there. So let's stick to the philosophical issue. Would you incarcerate or kill those wolves (in the same way as we would incarcerate or kill a psychopath) in order to prevent them from killing more elk that were beyond their food requirements? — Pseudonym
My objection was to the practicality, I didn't claim there weren't 100% vegan alternatives, I claimed that (for most I've seen) it was inpractical to obtain them. Perhaps they are easier to aquire where you live. Did you consider people living in countries that banned GMO? Are you aware that some supplements sold as vegan still contain substances of animal origin without this being mentioned on the product? — Tomseltje
I am referring to people who own farm animals and allow them to live without harm or death.
I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but even those animals suffer, eventually they all die. Allowing animals to live without harm or death is not within the capabilities of humans. All humans can do is reduce the suffering. They can't prevent all suffering, nor death. — Tomseltje
Is it impractical to obtain plant-based products where you live? Because as i have stated before, every single person I have talked to, owns a computer. They also live near a grocery store, which sells fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and grains. It is as simple as going down a different isle, nothing more. And yes, I acknowledge that some places have it harder to achieve a plant-based diet, but everyone I have talked to does not. So to refer to other places is a deflection, as I want to know why YOU have not changed your diet.
The main vitamin that Vegans need to worry about is B12. Which can be found in fortified foods, or supplementation. And yes, I am aware that we cannot know 100% of where our food/vitamins are coming from or how they are being created. But the point is, do the best that you can with as much research as you can, and make an informed decision. If you find out later than the supplement you have been taking for B12 was actually created from substances of animal origin, look for another supplement.
We can't even get past the idea that eating meat is immoral and worse for the environment, let alone which supplements are better than others. And as far as practicality, is the vegetable isle too far from the bacon? Practicality isn't a valid justification for people who live near a grocery store. Which i can reasonably assume, all of us in this thread do. — chatterbears
Pain and death go hand in hand, as they are both causing harm. — chatterbears
If it were possible for all 7.6 Billion of us to kill one deer and live off the protein for months, it would be much better than both vegetable farming and meat farming. But since that is not possible, vegetable farming is the lesser of the two harmful industries. — chatterbears
Would it be possible for you to grow some of your vegetables, grains, nuts, etc...? And whatever you cannot get, buy at a local store? — chatterbears
Preventing suffering is one thing. Causing suffering is another. Eating meat CAUSES suffering. Not sure how you don't see the difference here? — chatterbears
I am not suggesting we prevent all suffering from every animal in existence. I am suggesting that we prevent any suffering that we are causing them directly, if reasonably possible. — chatterbears
And to say that even the farm animal suffers because they eventually die, is like saying us humans suffer, because we eventually all die. That's not even remotely comparable to what factory farms are doing, which is direct harm, torture and abrupt death caused by the humans. — chatterbears
We incarcerate humans because they have a higher ability in thought, and can understand a deeper level of right and wrong. — chatterbears
What I meant by this was, how do you differentiate between right and wrong? What mechanism do you use to morally justify an action as right/correct? — chatterbears
Some humans aren't moral agents, such as mentally disabled people — chatterbears
For me, it's much easier to defend veganism on utilitarian grounds: it's good for our health, it's good for the ecological basis of civilization, and it simply makes you feel good — Uber
people suddenly turn into health and environmental experts when the topic of Veganism is brought up, while rejecting the actual scientific evidence. — chatterbears
this is the only post I will ever write on this thread — Uber
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.