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 perhaps didn't emphasize enough the division of labour I alluded to in my previous post. I am not a farmer. I don't know anything about farming. Other people do know about farming. They are specialists in the practice of keeping, raising and killing animals for food. Then there's government that regulates business. 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.

- 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

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.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-46421221/sacked-man-claims-discrimination-against-his-ethical-veganism

I say it's not, because it lacks the cogency required of a philosophy. It's an opinion, because - above you say:

Veganism is about equality and compassion. — chatterbears

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.

The concept you might have employed to better effect is consumer sovereignty - which you describe perfectly well here:

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

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.

In that context, if you would argue consumer sovereignty - you merely confirm that eating meat is a choice, and it's a choice the consumer - as sovereign, is perfectly entitled to make.

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

I disagree, because of the division of labour. This is inherent to the human condition. We cannot know everything - but we can be very good at a few things. We are interdependent specialists, and by these means I discharge my moral duty, if any. 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.

You say:

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

In that case, it behooves you to acknowledge the reality of evolution. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Animals appear designed in relation to their environment, because each surviving species is a marble cut from a mountain, where those not best suited to survive are simply discarded. Suffering and death is the fate of animals in nature - and the toll is sky high. 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.

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

I think you're confusing hedonism with utilitarianism. Hedonism is the belief that I am morally justified pursuing any activity that gives me pleasure. Utilitarianism is concerned about actions and institutions that create the greatest possible utility for the greatest number. Therefore, what you're describing in the quote above is not a utilitarian justification for rape. At best the rape case is a utilitarian wash because while the rapist gets pleasure, the rape victim does not, so there would presumably be no net gain in utility. Consequently, you're counterexample fails and I am left still thinking utilitarianism might provide a basis for believing animal consumption is ethical.

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

W/re to slavery, there are two ways to respond to this from a utilitarian perspective:

(1) [this is the "bite the bullet" response] assuming we are not necessarily talking about the politically charge experience of race-based slavery in the U.S. and Modern Europe, I would think a utilitarian could, in theory, argue that slavery was beneficial both for slaves as well as for slave owners. In other words, someone opposed to this idea would have to plausibly defend the idea that there are absolutely NO conditions that are humanly possible where it might not be the case that a society that practices slavery is not on the whole better off than if it didn't have slavery. Think of ancient cultures where slavery (usually war captives and their progeny) were closely incorporated into the soceities they were forced to be a part of, and often given positions of authority higher even than non-slave citizens. It seems to me plausible to think that there were some such societies where the slaves on average were better off than they had been in whatever communities they were taken from, such that on average the institution of slavery in that case actually did promote utility in the context of historical cultures as they existed at that time, especially with all of their myriad other dysfunctionalities and shortcomings stemming from their lack of technological advancement.

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.

Note, however, that the reason why that's the case is only because there is a one-to-one exchange of human suffering and pleasure in the case of rape and (according to argument 2) slavery. I do not think you can assume that that is necessarily the case in the context of factory farms or the institutions of animal exploitation generally. That is, it seems reasonable for the utilitarian to claim that the value of animal pain/pleasure - while it counts for something - does not count for as much as human pain/pleasure. This is a reasonable assumption because animals, since they are less rational (or in many cases, non-rational) are never going to be as efficient at converting their pleasure (or, in this case, lack of pain) into utility for other utility-agents in the same way humans can.

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

I was merely pointing out that animal consumption does seem to be justifiable from a utilitarian perspective. Your claim as I understood it was that it is unqualifiedly unethical. My response essentially was, "well, not necessarily if you're a utilitarian."

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

OF COURSE I accept the science of global warming. I am AWARE of the facts about coal, petroleum, and methane, and the various ways it ramifies through heating, cooling, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, et al.

Your OP was about the ethics of eating meat, not the ethics of living in a technological culture whose global economy is driven by consumption, profit-making, and waste--one piece of which is the slice of roast beef on the plate.

Industrial farming, even of grains, legumes, and seeds produces a lot of CO2, because it takes a lot of energy to produce fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fuel for tractors, combines, transportation, and so forth. The energy inputs in some areas exceed the energy harvested.

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.

So if I feel it is morally permissible to kill old people, would it then be considered morally correct — chatterbears

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.

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

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.

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.

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 are totally screwed if our future depends upon us being logic based creatures, agreed. However, there is another force at work which will come to our aid. Pain. That's the primary factor in human learning.

The example that always comes to mind here is the European experience of war. Europe is home to some of the greatest philosophers in history. European culture has an involvement with reason and philosophy that goes back thousands of years. None of the reason and philosophy was sufficient to persuade Europeans to stop constantly warring upon each other. What worked was WWII, bombing everything from London to Moscow in to rubble. What worked was pain.

The resolve to radically alter our way of life may radically evolve once the level of pain becomes sufficient.

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

I've been attempting to address in other threads, largely without success. The core problem is that knowledge and wisdom develop at different rates, with knowledge growing exponentially while wisdom grows incrementally at best. Thus, the gap between the two is widening at an ever accelerating rate.

Where did you hear that?

According to my sources, that's bologna. — VagabondSpectre

- https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
Global Emissions by Gas - Agricultural activities are part of all forms (aside from F-gases). They are included within Methane, Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide.

- http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294
This PDF goes more in depth: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

- http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
An assessment by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations indicated the contribution of the livestock sector to global greenhouse gas emissions exceeds that of transportation.

- https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/index.html
Sources cited throughout this article.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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

I never said eating meat is wrong because eating meat is wrong. I specifically have said it is wrong because it causes unnecessary suffering to sentient beings. The premise for my moral foundation are the rights of a sentient being, and their ability to suffer. Veganism is an extension of human rights to animals, in which we cannot avoid without committing an internal inconsistency.

A farmer has the free-will and right to leave his job to find another. He also can hire help so he doesn't have to work long days and the farmer can rest when he wants to. You are starting to become dishonest when you equate the "torture" of farm labor to the torture of animal farming, where they mutilate the genitals of animals without pain meds, as well as make them live in their own waste.

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

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?

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. You don't need to be an expert in the field to be knowledgeable about the business practices of an industry. And when you find out how corrupt an industry is, you stop supporting it, especially when there are plenty of other alternatives.

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

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?

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

This is why this approach fails. If you take a society where 60% of the people were slave owners, and 40% were slaves, this is useful and beneficial for the majority. It doesn't matter whether or not the 40% suffer. Because by your logic, could you not deploy the same argument for animals? Animal agriculture actually creates MORE suffering than it does utility, so why would it be justifiable from a utilitarian perspective? If 2 people rape 1, is that not beneficial to the majority? Expand those numbers out by a lot and flip them... 7 billion people, 50 billion animals killed per year. How is that suffering justifiable under utilitarianism?

Edit: Also forgot to mention. Not only is it bad for the animals themselves (since they suffer), but it is also bad for our health and the environment we live in. So if you want to talk about suffering and detrimental aspects of animal agriculture, utilitarianism is not compatible with opposing Veganism in the slightest. If anything, true utilitarianism should lead you to Veganism.

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

Yes, but we don't need to speed up our demise, and we may even possibly able to reverse it.

Although some plant-based products cause some environmental damage, it is not even near the destruction that animal products produce. Check this out:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13959.epdf?referrer_access_token=SoILYIvjAMcpgoUNBzFHZdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PGdh-SWpKH6GvtYOFzpWBvyEWbegyOl-mnrBQoNaPnCJYCT5b90ObV4XC4vAnj3P0Qpkv0oV4o7SZNp1SlUbR49KHn3yKc9LUpaT2eG0Y5FUtSdeYIH_he26Psehdnmk0MEv_lPsZpM71HHPqEGsJIR_G3PNhpmUzIK_WsI1d8Mwh9hGwKc_xNN16IZhc5WY7hhtFuZpWw0XZdMS4RM3_N&tracking_referrer=www.cnn.com

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

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?

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

It's not a theory, as it is a way of life you can actually deploy in reality. It is the way I live, and the way I think. I try my best to obtain the most accurate information about the world around me, and make informed decision based on facts, rather than my own personal agenda or feelings. While acquiring facts about the world, I also evaluate my actions in accordance to those facts and how they affect things around me. It's really not that difficult of a thing to do, but most people would rather watch Netflix.

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 illogical, as it is wanting a better world. You could have said it was illogical for women to stand up for their rights and pass the law so they could vote, but they stuck together and were granted that right. Same with black people in civil rights. Same with homosexuals in same sex marriage. Same with plenty of other unnecessary discriminating acts around the globe. It's not a theory or wishful thinking to strive for better and change people's minds by using facts and reason.

It's not a theory or wishful thinking to strive for better and change people's minds by using facts and reason. — chatterbears

I'm really not arguing entirely with your point, I'm just saying, changing people's minds using facts and reason depends on them being on the "facts and reason" channel, and most of us aren't most of the time.

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.

I'm not suggesting you should shut up, and I readily agree I'm doing the very same thing you are. But, you ask for facts and reason, and so that's what I'm trying to provide.

<—what he said

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

I don't keep animals. I don't keep farm animals, and I don't keep animals as pets. The question of animal cruelty isn't an issue for me. The question of how to properly cook and garnish a steak however - is a question close to my heart. Even so, generally, I obey the law. If meat were illegal - I wouldn't eat it. It would be so expensive, I couldn't afford it, and be of such questionable quality - I wouldn't want it. But make no mistake - it would still be available, and produced without any regulation on animal cruelty. 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.

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

I see that you are responding paragraph by paragraph - rather than reading the whole post before responding. I built a case, and addressed this matter again later. I understood your argument the first time. The only point I wanted to make was that there's no moral equivalence between killing people and killing animals.

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

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. 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."

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

Again, not so. Murder is not killing. Putting a person to death for a crime is not murder. Assisted dying is not murder. Killing in self defense, or the defense of others, is not murder. In none of these cases would you hire a hitman. I don't know who peter is - but he was murdered, if not by you then by your hitman. 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?

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

So some animal exploitation is okay. If I only eat meat occasionally - is it less morally wrong? Does that apply to other things? If a promise not to hire a hitman to kill anyone else, can I have peter killed? It was one in seven billion people, and just the one time - and he was really asking for it, like cows do by being so darn tasty! No! If it's murder, it's always murder.

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

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. 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.

I argue that the responsibility lies with government and producers - to produce in a scientifically justified, and sustainable manner. If that meant meat were illegal - then so be it.

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

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.) 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!

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

You do not seem to comprehend my thought processes. This is an implication from your argument. I make a distinction between human beings and animals, because human beings have a qualitatively distinct awareness of themselves in the world. In the anthropological literature, there was an event called the 'creative explosion' - that marks a sudden change in behviour, we know about because before - stone hand tools of a similar design going back about 1.5 million years, and afterward, improved tools, jewelry, cave art and burial of the dead.

To produce these things requires the psychological ability to construct forward facing strategies - to have an idea in mind, and to envisage the steps necessary to make that idea manifest. 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. But if we crashed on a mountain, and you were killed - I would have no compunction whatsoever about eating your flesh. Unless there was cow available, or even nut cutlets! I'm not keen on eating human flesh - but to survive, I would, and it wouldn't be small frozen chunks either. I'd fry you up with some onions!

Well done! (Pun intended)

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

I understand that, and I am not necessarily trying to change the minds of people I am directly debating. A vast majority of the time, the people I talk to directly are not on the fence. But the people who are watching and/or reading the discussion, are more likely to change or think twice about their actions. I do it for the readers/viewers, not necessarily for the direct opposition.

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 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.

The only point I wanted to make was that there's no moral equivalence between killing people and killing animals. — karl stone

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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

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...

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

Based on that criteria, it must have been ok for slave owners to own slaves a few hundred years ago, right? It was legal, available, and the slave owners liked it. Must have been a valid justification, right?

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

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.

Person A supports company X.
Company X exploits children.
Person A continues to support company X.
Company Y does not exploit children.
Person A continues to support company X, instead of supporting company Y.
Company X continues to exploit children, since consumers such as person A continue to support them.

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

Are you saying that if it was a widely known fact, that Samsung was exploiting children, you would stop buying from them? If so, 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?

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

It's well known how animals are treated. And if you don't know, it takes a 1 minute google search to find out. If I knew for a fact that Samsung was initiating into child labor, I would stop buying their phones. 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.

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

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?

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.

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

I do understand. I do not agree. What I would tell you is that there are many ways of conceptualizing the world. In your conception the consumer is responsible. In mine, consumer sovereignty is an unsustainable cognitive burden, and responsibility lies with the producer. The question is - which is more useful.

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I did explain at the bottom of my previous post - the difference between animals and human beings. In a word, awareness. And above I explained that I don't accept plants are an alternative to meat. I don't eat primarily for survival. I eat to assuage hunger, and I eat for pleasure. Thankfully, survival is a very distant motive. I wonder, if offered meat - would your dog enjoy it? It doesn't have sharp teeth for cutting grass. Our teeth are those of an omnivorous creature. Dogs mostly eat meat, and historically, it's why humans and dogs became companions. If humans had only gathered, and never hunted - we'd be on the dogs menu!

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

Do you really imagine I don't understand your simplistic argument? I made it clear I understand it - when I explained the concept of consumer sovereignty. The problem is, you think you're right - and therefore, anyone who doesn't agree is stupid. Allow me to assure you from this vantage point - it's the other way around. It's you who doesn't understand - why consumer sovereignty is a fundamentally misconceived approach.

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

Again, I explained this at the bottom of my previous post.

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

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.

I do care about animal cruelty, but as I explained - it's not my responsibility. The responsibility to farm and kill animals in a manner that is as humane as possible is best located with the producer - for the reasons already stated. I don't know anything about farming, and I don't want to know - just as I don't know how clothes, or electricity, or Samsung phones are made. And for you to suggest it's my responsibility to know is false. I cannot do that. I can only pay my taxes, and employ government to act on my behalf in the manner it sees fit.

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

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.

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

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!

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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

Yes, absolutely.

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

Which is why I try my best to buy from companies who do not exploit workers in that way.

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

I do the best I can with the best resources and research I have available. I try my best to stay away from companies that exploit workers and animals. You can research most of this stuff online, or talk to the companies directly if need be.

But again, if someone were to provide me evidence that a current product I was buying, was produced by child workers, I would stop buying from them. No questions asked. But everyone here in this thread knows how animals are tortured and killed. And even if they lived a torture free life, they are still killed unnecessarily, which is the most important part.

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. I don't base my moral actions on intuition like you do, as that is a very dangerous way of thinking. The white man can justify slavery by intuition, or justify revoking the rights of women by intuition. You can ask the white man why women do not deserve the right to vote, and he can just respond and say, "Because I feel that men are superior to women." - Superiority is a type of "feeling" one has, and it is a very dangerous way to base your decision making on. He may call it intuition.

If a person felt like hitting you in the face, are they then justified in doing so because they felt like it? 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. Something like, considering the rights and well-being of sentient beings.

I am not part of this "every other single person on Earth does" that you speak of. — chatterbears

Yeah, you are. You may believe you're doing something else, you may have mistaken beliefs about what morality really is of course, but you're ultimately just intuiting and reporting feelings like everyone else.

The white man can justify slavery by intuition, or justify revoking the rights of women by intuition. — chatterbears

And, if you think that slavery or nonequal right for women is wrong, and that's foundational for you, then you're also simply going by how you personally feel. (If it's not foundational, then whatever is foundational--maybe something like "Slavery is wrong because all people should have autonomy" or whatever your foundational view might be--is going to simply be how you personally feel. There is nothing else to be had when we're talking about this stuff.)

If a person felt like hitting you in the face, are they then justified in doing so because they felt like it? — chatterbears

There's no objective justification. Justification is always to someone. So some people will feel that a behavior is justified, others will feel that it's not justified--and it couldn't be more obvious that this is the case if you observe the world.

If you're asking if I feel that someone else is justified in that, it would depend on the exact circumstances, but if it's just something out of the blue, then no, I wouldn't feel it's justified. But others, including the person doing the hitting, might feel differently, of course.

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

And what you need to understand is the fact that there's nothing else to be had for moral foundations. Moral stances are personal phenomena. That's where they occur. They're phenomena re how our brains work. You could search for some other source of the phenomena, but you won't find it.

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).

"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

Yes, I get what you are saying in your entire reply. That at its core, morality is subjective. But I am fine with that, because internal consistency will clear up any issues real quick.

I should ask you though, do you think ethical consistency (logic) is important? As I have told others, Ethics requires consistency 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. Do you agree with this? Or do you think it is ok for people to have contradictory beliefs? And/or be hypocritical?

For example. I assume you are not Vegan. Why do you think it is ok to needlessly kill an animal for food, but not needlessly kill a human for food? And by "needlessly", I am saying it is not needed. We do not need to kill an animal to survive, be healthy and enjoy food.

Importance is subjective, too, by the way. (Not that you claimed otherwise, but just in case that's not clear.)

Re this:

Why do you think it is ok to needlessly kill an animal for food, but not needlessly kill a human for food? — chatterbears

I don't think it's okay to needlessly kill "an animal, any animal" for food. I think it's okay to needlessly kill non-human animals for food.

Re the other questions, I don't categorically have a problem with people being inconsistent in their moral stances, and I particularly don't have a problem with that re hypocrisy--the advice given by someone should be evaluated on its own merit, which won't hinge on whether the person in question is following the advice themselves. But there are situations where I might have a problem with inconsistency on certain things if it's affecting interactions with someone, and especially if we're talking about situations where control is being exercised--for example, via laws.

In general, though, I'm not fond of the "overarching principle" approaches to morality or legislation. I think those quickly turn into theory-worship, which I'm not fond of, and they can very quickly go off the rails with respect to what I feel is reasonable. I prefer a more situational, "common sense" approach, focused on not overreacting, not having a draconian framework, etc.

In mine, consumer sovereignty is an unsustainable cognitive burden, and responsibility lies with the producer. — karl stone

Plain and simple, animals would not be needlessly killed if society stopped buying animal products. If everybody stopped buying meat tomorrow, do you think farms would continue to breed animals into existence for product that isn't going to be purchased? No. It's not an opinion that I am conveying. It's a fact, that the consumer demands what product is produced. Once the consumer stops demanding that product, that product stops existing.

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

And you still haven't explained WHY it is ok to kill and eat a pig, but not a dog or human? Are you going to actually answer this question?

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

What a fail on many different levels. To come into a philosophy forum and claim you don't have to be consistent in your ethics, followed by justifying an action by saying "I love a bacon sandwich and I don't care." - Do you actually even care to be consistent in your ethics?

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

Depends on the cost efficiency of that pill. Sometimes I don't feel like cooking, but sometimes I do. On the days I don't feel like cooking, I could pop that pill and be done with it. But at least I would have the choice. Also, people who become Vegan are more likely to cook, since animal products are prevalent throughout society. Even before I was Vegan, I didn't feel like cooking or eating all the time, and I feel the same way even after becoming Vegan.

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

Most humans have the ability to work or stop working. They have the free will to choose a different trade or profession. They are not enslaved into a working environment, and unable to exercise their free-will. I condemn all forms of exploitation, and I try my best to avoid supporting it. Also, the more you refuse to take responsibility for your moral actions, the less likely it is I will be responding to you in the future. If you keep saying, "I don't need to be consistent. It's your morals that are in question, not mine." - Then there is really no point to have a discussion, since you want it to be one-sided without any criticism or responsibility on your side.

I did explain at the bottom of my previous post - the difference between animals and human beings. In a word, awareness. — karl stone

Still doesn't explain a thing. There are human beings who have the same awareness as a cow or dog or pig. Mentally retarded people, or severely disabled people who have the same consciousness level as a pig. Does that mean it is OK to kill mentally disabled people because they have a lower awareness?

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

How ironic it is to say, "that's not philosophy - is it?", coming from the person doesn't care to be consistent, and justifies their actions by saying "I don't care." - Is that your version of philosophy? Talk about an opinion...

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

You say you don't like the idea of animal cruelty and unnecessary torture, but then continue to support industries that do it? Talk about cognitive dissonance.

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

You can never answer any of my questions, can you. It may be pointless to continue this conversation (between us), because you don't care about actually answering questions and challenging your own moral inconsistencies. As I said before, it's laughably ironic to say to me, "That's not philosophy - is it?", but then say things like "Do I have to be consistent." - Followed by taking the question out of context by applying it to an extreme survival situation, instead of the situation I framed the question in.

Smh.