So you would rather stay willfully ignorant, than to understand the truth and change accordingly? You are responsible for what happens to these animals, as you are the customer who demands the product they produce while being tortured and slaughtered. If we did not demand these products, the products would not exist. They only exist because we demand them, hence we are responsible for their existence. — chatterbears
- I kill peter myself.
- I hire a hitman to kill peter.
Are you trying to tell me that I am not responsible for the death of peter in the 2nd situation? — chatterbears
Veganism is about equality and compassion. — chatterbears
You are responsible for what happens to these animals, as you are the customer who demands the product they produce while being tortured and slaughtered. If we did not demand these products, the products would not exist. They only exist because we demand them, hence we are responsible for their existence. — chatterbears
To claim it is an unsustainable cognitive burden, is to completely lack any ability to take responsibility for your actions and improve as a thinking moral being. — chatterbears
You have time to think for an hour per day, researching what happens in the world we live in. This is how we become more aware and obtain knowledge of what goes on in our world. — chatterbears
Rape can produce a pleasure and convenience for a person who wants to have sex. But does that mean the "utility" of pleasure in the case of rape, means we should continue to condone/permit rape? No, because the victim involved within a rape does not become so insignificant to the point of utility becoming superior. — chatterbears
You could say the same thing for slave owners, as it brought them convenience to own slaves. And some slave owners would rape the slaves, which brought them pleasure. So does that mean, owning slaves has a utilitarian justification which should be considered as valid? No. — chatterbears
Are you taking the utilitarian approach? If not, how do you actually define morality. And how do you define how we should determine a bad action from a good action? — chatterbears
Not sure if you are aware, but factory farming is one of the leading causes of environmental damage. I'll assume you accept the science behind global warming being human caused/enhanced, correct? 51 percent or more of global greenhouse-gas emissions are caused by animal agriculture, which is more than transportation. — chatterbears
So if I feel it is morally permissible to kill old people, would it then be considered morally correct — chatterbears
You apply logic to actions taken by humans, in which you can improve the understanding of those actions and make better decisions in the future. If you cannot apply logic/knowledge to an action, then you will probably justify any action you want to. As I told someone else, ethics requires consistency (logic) in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development. — chatterbears
There won't be much meat for anybody to eat. Many people will be lucky to find enough vegetarian food. We're headed into a global catastrophe. The time when we could have averted the worst of it is past. The resolve to radically alter our life ways is lacking. Thus, we are probably totally screwed. — Bitter Crank
We claim to be the more intelligent species, yet we use that intelligence by abusing our power and act as the most selfish species on the planet. We are the most destructive and most self-centered species this world has ever seen. — chatterbears
Where did you hear that?
According to my sources, that's bologna. — VagabondSpectre
So what I'm saying is, that I would rather pay my taxes, have government decide scientifically on standards of animal husbandry - and apply laws on that basis that place the burden of responsibility on the producer - where it belongs. — karl stone
Are you saying that animals can be murdered? There's a case going through the British courts at present, in which for reasons too lengthy to relate - an employment tribunal judge is deciding whether "ethical veganism" is a philosophy.
I say it's not, because it lacks the cogency required of a philosophy. — karl stone
But it's not an equality that applies both ways. I know just from the fact you are using a computer you didn't build you are happy to exploit human labour, but if it were an animal performing labour, you'd have an ethical objection - and premise that on equality and compassion, that leads to you to equate the killing of animals with the killing of people. Killing people is murder, and any part in a murder has an equivalent moral consequence. That's not so if it's not murder. — karl stone
Certainly, to some degree - my demand induces supply. However, the assumption that it's wrong is not safe. Because it's the very question we are examining, it cannot be a premise. i.e. you cannot say eating meat is wrong because eating meat is wrong. It's a tautology. You cannot cogently argue that eating meat is wrong on grounds of equality, unless you would also forgo all interdependence on human labour. Do you imagine farmers want to plow, and plant and harvest crops? It's hard work - I imagine. So you would torture a farmer, but not a cow? The equality argument doesn't hold either. — karl stone
It's not realistic to place upon me the burden of knowing about farming because I'm not a farmer, and nor am I a farm inspector working for the government. I employ them, at some remove - in the expectation that the manner of production and slaughter is as humane as possible, or - to decide on my behalf, if such products should be available at all. There are products that are not available - despite a demand for them. So to say my demand is responsible for their production is false. — karl stone
That's the reality - and for you imagine that equality and compassion should prevail is a comforting pretense. That's your opinion and prerogative - but it has little to do with the world we live in. — karl stone
However, (2) I think the politically safer argument most utilitarians make - and this is similar to the response to the rape scenario above - is that because slavery generates as much suffering as it does utility, it is not justifiable from a utilitarian perspective. — Mentalusion
Yes, but we don't need to speed up our demise, and we may even possibly able to reverse it.The bigger picture: rapidly accumulating CO2, global warming, desertification, excessive unseasonable precipitation, rising temperature and humidity levels, melting ice, rising sea levels, and so on and so forth will settle or moot the ethics debate about eating meat. There won't be much meat for anybody to eat. Many people will be lucky to find enough vegetarian food. We're headed into a global catastrophe. The time when we could have averted the worst of it is past. The resolve to radically alter our life ways is lacking. Thus, we are probably totally screwed. — Bitter Crank
If I just wrote, and you just quoted "no moral utterance can be true or false, objectively correct or incorrect," do you think that I'm going to say "It is morally permissible to kill old people" is correct (or incorrect for that matter)? It's as if you quoted me without really paying any attention to what I'd said. — Terrapin Station
I agree with this theory. But it's just a theory about what should be, not an accurate reflection of the real world. In the real world, masses of people are going to continue to abuse animals and support factory farming with their dollars until something or somebody forces them not to. — Jake
Again, I'm not challenging your posts or this thread so much as I am the effectiveness of philosophy in general, including my own posts. People like us want the world to be about logic because we were born inclined towards logic calculations, thus a logic based world would be a comfortable place for us to reside. Regrettably, there is a great deal of wishful thinking involved here, our own form of illogical thinking. — Jake
It's not a theory or wishful thinking to strive for better and change people's minds by using facts and reason. — chatterbears
So until the government put animal cruelty laws in place, you didn't know how to not be cruel to animals? You seem to be saying, you will go along with whatever the laws/government say and not think for yourself, correct? Because I don't need the government to tell me not to kick my dog, as I know that causes unnecessary harm. Same with eating animals. — chatterbears
Animals can be killed. And whether or not I kill an animal myself, or I pay somebody else to do it, I am still responsible. Whether that is by 1st hand or 2nd hand, doesn't matter. This originally started with you saying you are not responsible for how the animals are treated or killed, yet you pay for them to be mistreated and killed. Same with a hitman. If I pay a hitman to kill somebody, I am responsible for that person's death. Instead of acknowledging this point, you focus on the term "murder", which isn't relevant here. What is relevant is whether or not you are responsible for doing a crime yourself, or paying someone else to do the crime for you. — chatterbears
Three points here.
1. You'd have to provide evidence that the parts I bought to build my pc, were made by humans who were exploited. You would then have to provide me with an alternative that is cruelty-free (made by humans were NOT exploited). After you have done that, I would happily buy those parts instead, which makes me ethically consistent. If I refused to buy different parts, even after you have shown me evidence of human exploitation, then you could say I am committing an immoral action. And that is the position you are in. I have shown you an alternative (plant-based diet), that would eliminate the exploitation of animals (animal products you eat). But instead of accepting that alternative and changing your actions accordingly, you will continue to support animal exploitation, correct? — chatterbears
2. Murder is a useless term in this context, as we are talking about unjust and unnecessary killing. Whether you want to call that murder, slaughter, or just killing, it doesn't matter. People can be killed unjustly. Animals can be killed unjustly. The term "murder" is irrelevant to the actual reality of sentient beings dying unnecessarily. — chatterbears
3. Lastly, a one time purchase of computer parts (every 5-7 years) causes far less suffering than eating 3 meals per day (which all include animal products). This leads to billions of animals being slaughtered every year. How many humans were slaughtered for my computer parts? Not to mention, for how many people I have talked to using my computer, in which they have change their mind on many different topics, has a positive net benefit overall. I am not saying this justifies human exploitation, but there is no net positive benefit to consuming animal products, unlike buying a computer. I can criticize racists and display animal rights activism through my computer, but what can eating a hamburger do for you? — chatterbears
It's a bit troubling how far you will go to rationalize your food consumption. Eating is not something you do once in a while that may or may not be linked to exploitation of sentient beings. Eating is something you do 3 times a day, which has massive impact on the world around you. And not just in regards to the immoral aspect of it, but what about the environmental damage it causes? — chatterbears
If it was a known fact that Samsung uses child labor to make the Galaxy Note 9, and I went out and bought the Galaxy Note 9, am I not contributing to the child labor in which Samsung has initiated? Or should I be like you and say, "I don't work in the tech industry, nor am I a phone inspector working for the government." - This is an extremely harmful way of thinking. — chatterbears
Ok, so should I apply your thought process to people too? Should we go back to owning slaves, since equality is not what nature has in store for animals? Since, it is a fact we are animals as well. We are a slightly higher intelligent animal, but still an animal. And by your logic, we should not abide by the values of empathy, compassion or equality, correct? And if you think those values should only apply to humans, but not animals, what is your justification for doing so? — chatterbears
As example, you won't change anybody's mind here in this thread. Instead, you will provide all of us with fodder for the debate and debunk experience, which we seek for emotional reasons. Thus, unless your goal is simply to entertain us, the process we're both engaged in is not really that facts and reasoned based. If your goal is to somehow advance the cause of animal rights, you are engaged in delusion mostly, not facts and reason. — Jake
You might argue current regulations are insufficient, and that's an argument to take up with government. If you did, I might support you - but guilting the consumer is fundamentally the wrong approach. — karl stone
The only point I wanted to make was that there's no moral equivalence between killing people and killing animals. — karl stone
So are you saying that not eating meat is an alternative to eating meat? I completely disagree. And so it seems, do most vegetarians. You don't eat vegetables - so much as vegetables disguised as meat. Producers mimic meat stews, sausages, cutlets - they give them a pseudo-meat flavour, and try to create the same mouth feel. — karl stone
Furthermore, those products are made by human labour. Have you ever stood in one place, in the cold, packing crap in a box for nine hours straight? So you would torture humans to produce fake meat, and then break your arm patting yourself on the back - because you haven't been cruel to animals. So it can't be about "equality and compassion" - for while you maintain "animals are people too" - you don't act like "people are animals too." — karl stone
You clearly meant to equate killing animals with the murder of a human being. But as we've shown above, your equality is hypocritical. The fact is animals eat eachother - so, to be consistently equal - if "humans are animals too" - you would need to condemn all animals that kill and eat other animals. Do you feed your dog meat? — karl stone
I'm having a discussion with someone who believes eating meat is wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with me justifying eating meat. It requires no justification. It's legal, it's available, and I like it. That's my justification, and I find it perfectly sufficient. If I go deeper it's for the purposes of debate. — karl stone
My reason for engaging in this debate is because I find your approach fundamentally misconceived and potentially fatal. Placing the burden of responsibility with the consumer - gives producers a free hand to produce in the cheapest, dirtiest was possible - and market their goods to people who just don't care. — karl stone
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not excluding people from making ethical choices. I'm saying that consumer sovereignty is a flawed approach. (p.s. unless you know for a fact that Samsung does use child labour - don't make things like this up. This is slander, or libel - and I wish to disassociate myself from your remarks.) — karl stone
That said, it again comes back to adequate regulation - because a) I can't know everything about how anything is produced, and b) I may not care. Government on the other hand, is meant to know and is meant to care. That's their job. It's not my job - and if you leave it to me, it won't get done! — karl stone
So because a dog does not have consciousness of itself and the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, we are then justified in exploiting that dog for our pleasure and convenience, correct? I can torture and kill that dog and use its skin for my boots and/or clothing, since his consciousness isn't as high as mine, right?In short, the human being has a future and a past, a consciousness of itself and the world, and the ability to think creatively. It's that - that's deserving of moral consideration. — karl stone
The point is dead if you're not willing to understand it. If you cannot get past the idea that you, as the consumer, are partly responsible for how a good/product is produced, then I don't know what else to tell you. — chatterbears
And you still haven't explained why. Why is it ok to kill a dog or pig for unnecessary reasons, but not ok to kill a human for unnecessary reasons? — chatterbears
Plant-based products are a cruelty-free alternative to eating meat. You don't have to eat plant-based products that mimic meat. You can eat rice, grains, pasta, beans, nuts, vegetables, fruits, tofu, fortified soy milk, rice milk, etc... You can get all your daily nutrients without eating meat. There's alternatives, so why aren't you going to use them? — chatterbears
Again, provide evidence that humans are being slaves in the same ways animals are. You make up hypothetical scenarios without any data to back it up, while I actually have data to show you what goes on in these farms. Also, even if it were the case that all plant-based products were produced by human labor, you eat those as well, do you not? So you support two types of exploitation (human and animal), while I only support one type (human). But I find it interesting that you won't answer questions, but instead just keep shifting the focus away from yourself and pointing the finger at me without any proper data. — chatterbears
And you still haven't explained why murdering a human is wrong, but murdering an animal is not? Also, animals eat each other out of necessity for survival. We eat animals out of pleasure and convenience, not for survival. If you were in a survival situation, such as wild animals are, I would then be happy to deploy my consistency and not condemn you for eating an animal for survival. But you are not in that situation, so why are you trying to compare two things that are not equal? Also, no. I do not feed my dog meat. We order eggs from an ethical farm (which does not kill or strain the animals), in which I cook those eggs with lentils, carrots, peas, etc... — chatterbears
Again, not going to go over this with you again. If you don't understand simple supply and demand, I don't know what to tell you. — chatterbears
why do continue to buy animal products, when it is a widely known fact that animals are being exploited? And if you are going to appeal to species, then what's your justification. Why is it ok to exploit an animal, but not exploit a human? — chatterbears
Similarly, I know for a fact that animals are being exploited, so I stopped buying animal products. This is called ethical consistency, which you don't seem to care about. — chatterbears
So because a dog does not have consciousness of itself and the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, we are then justified in exploiting that dog for our pleasure and convenience, correct? I can torture and kill that dog and use its skin for my boots and/or clothing, since his consciousness isn't as high as mine, right? — chatterbears
For you to stay consistent, would you then be ok with us exploiting a human who has the same consciousness as a dog or cow? Such as a mentally deranged or handicapped person, who has a lower level of consciousness compared to normal human beings. Since they do not have the same awareness of themselves and of the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, are we then justified in exploiting mentally retarded people? Let's see if you're willing to bite the bullet here. — chatterbears
The point is dead if you're not willing to understand it. If you cannot get past the idea that you, as the consumer, are partly responsible for how a good/product is produced... — chatterbears
Likewise. Did you not read the rest of what I said? I followed that up by asking you how you differentiate a good action from a bad action. And I am referring to your subjective view on morality, not some objective truth or fact about what is right or wrong. How do you decide whether or not an action it morally good vs. morally bad? Or do you not have a method at all, and just abide by however you feel at the time? — chatterbears
In my first post in this thread, which is the post you quoted and responded to already, I wrote this:
"Morality boils down to individuals feeling however they feel about interpersonal behavior."
Everyone just abides by however they feel at the time. There's nothing else to be had. You can reason on top of that, which why I used the "boils down" metaphor, but at root, there's nothing other than individuals feeling however they feel about interpersonal behavior. — Terrapin Station
I understand what you are saying, but I am specifically asking you about your subjective moral foundation. Not about society or people in general. I am asking about how YOU (Terrapin) decide whether or not an action becomes morally good or bad. Do you have any method that you use to determine a good action from a bad action?
For example. Are you ok with your spouse cheating on you, if that is just what they feel like doing at the time? — chatterbears
When you purchase a manufactured object, are you concerned about the working and living conditions of the animals (people) who produced the shirt, the smart phone, the car, the strawberries, and so on? — Bitter Crank
Millions of workers are subjected to extremely harsh working conditions at poverty-guaranteeing wages. They live in developing countries where living costs are low, but they still do not make enough to rise above wretched working and living conditions. It isn't "necessary" that they labor under such conditions. It is only necessary that they receive such small remuneration for their life time of labor to maximize the profit of everyone in the supply chain who exploits the workers. — Bitter Crank
Child labor; dangerous, unsafe working conditions; ruthless exploitation; toxic chemicals; very long hours; dehumanizing treatment... Citizens of developed countries would not accept these working conditions, yet our lives are full of objects which entail horrible working conditions and ruined lives.
What have you done in your personal life to avoid using, purchasing, and benefitting from this exploitation? — Bitter Crank
So obviously I do what every other single person on Earth does--I "intuit" how I feel about the behavior in question. Again, I can reason on top of that, but foundationally, it's a matter of how I feel about the behavior.
Re "cheating," yes, but I'm pro polyamory, not fond of monogamy. — Terrapin Station
I am not part of this "every other single person on Earth does" that you speak of. — chatterbears
The white man can justify slavery by intuition, or justify revoking the rights of women by intuition. — chatterbears
If a person felt like hitting you in the face, are they then justified in doing so because they felt like it? — chatterbears
What I am trying to get at is, you should try to re-evaluate your moral foundation and base your actions on something other than intuition. — chatterbears
Something like, considering the rights and well-being of sentient beings. — chatterbears
"One should consider the rights and well-being of sentient beings" isn't anything aside from a way that some of us feel. Again,it's a way that our brains work (re the people whose brains work in that specific way, that they agree with it). — Terrapin Station
Why do you think it is ok to needlessly kill an animal for food, but not needlessly kill a human for food? — chatterbears
In mine, consumer sovereignty is an unsustainable cognitive burden, and responsibility lies with the producer. — karl stone
I see the trap here. Pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs, so I'm led to believe. I don't know if it's true - because my experience with either animal is extremely limited. I've never eaten dog meat - while I eat bacon regularly. Would I eat dog? Under the right circumstances - north pole expedition, holiday in Korea. But otherwise, no! — karl stone
If you're attempting to establish hypocrisy in my position, it shouldn't be difficult. But then I'm not the one making claim to moral superiority. It's you that needs a consistent position. Ultimately I can simply say - I love a bacon sandwich, and I don't care. But I'm attempting to meet you on the ground laid out by your proposition - to test the idea that our dominion over animals is unethical. — karl stone
Let me ask you a question. If scientists developed a pill you could take, and you'd have all the nutrition you need without having to eat at all - would you think that a good thing, and take it? I wouldn't. I love to cook, and I love to eat. I have a theory that vegetarians can't cook. They don't really like to eat. It is in their view, a chore. Where in my view, it's a pleasure - and to be utterly honest, the savagery and sacrifice adds to the experience. — karl stone
It's a rhetorical point. I have no evidence. If the point were raised against me - I'd dismiss it on the grounds that human beings have free will. All I'm saying is that you're happy to depend on human labour, but were it an animal it would be condemned as exploitation. It's your morals that are in question, not mine. I accept that life is a web of inter-dependencies. The food chain is one of them. The plants you eat are part of that web, a web of life that involves animals eating other animals. — karl stone
I did explain at the bottom of my previous post - the difference between animals and human beings. In a word, awareness. — karl stone
You're not taking anything I say on board, are you? Nothing. I understand where you're coming from, and criticize your position, but you don't understand and criticize mine. All you're doing is banging the same drum - it's cruel, it's cruel, it's murder, it's wrong, it's cruel. That's not philosophy - is it? It's the opinion of an opinionated person. — karl stone
I can't say I like the idea. And it's not necessary to torture an animal to kill it and eat it, and use its skin for clothing. As I've said, I do care about animal cruelty, but believe that responsibility lies with the producer. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you will take up the point and question it - rather than simply ignoring it, and insisting it's cruel, it's murder, it's torture blah, blah, blah. — karl stone
Would I? Do I have to be consistent? Can I not extend sympathy to a person, who's personhood is damaged in some way? But let's examine the proposition. If it were a survival situation - say, there's limited oxygen, and besides yourself - you could only save one person. Would it be them? Are you telling me - that they would have an exactly equal chance of being saved? Or would the retarded person be the first out the airlock - if push came to shove? In extremis, given no other options, that's a bullet I'd bite - and if you're honest with yourself, so would you! But even the retard would outlive the dog! — karl stone
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.