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. — Terrapin Station
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 — Terrapin Station
The article which supports your claim of 51% is extremely dubious. (read: written from a blatant and bias laden agenda) — VagabondSpectre
It is extremely doubtful that agriculture accounts for 51% of green-house-gasses. — VagabondSpectre
Why is it okay to needlessly kill non-human animals for food, but not humans? — chatterbears
Plain and simple, animals would not be needlessly killed if society stopped buying animal products. — chatterbears
Once the consumer stops demanding that product, that product stops existing. — chatterbears
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? — chatterbears
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? — chatterbears
Depends on the cost efficiency of that pill. — chatterbears
"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. — chatterbears
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... — chatterbears
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. — chatterbears
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. — 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
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
We do not need to kill an animal to survive, be healthy and enjoy food. — chatterbears
the reason for it is that that is how I intuitively feel about it. — Terrapin Station
My guess is that a self interest argument would prove the most effective. — Jake
My guess is that a self interest argument would prove the most effective. — Jake
Do you think how you intuitively feel about something is a valid justification for an action? This is where ethically consistency comes into your normative ethics.
A: Terrapin believes it is morally acceptable to kill non-human animals needlessly, based on an intuitive feeling.
B: Jack believes it is morally acceptable to kill old people needlessly, based on an intuitive feeling.
For you to be logically consistent, you would have to state that both situations (A and B) have valid justifications for the action committed. Since, in both situations, the same justification has been deployed. So, do you think Jack is justified in his action, which is based on the same justification you have deployed yourself? — chatterbears
People DO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR when there is a clear personal necessity or benefit for them to change. — Bitter Crank
First, I wouldn't use the word "valid." When we're talking about moral stances, we're not talking about truth value. No moral stance is either true or false. — Terrapin Station
That Jack feels that y is morally permissible isn't a sufficient justification for me to feel that doing y is justified. — Terrapin Station
I never said anything about true or false. Validity is in reference to logic, — chatterbears
Why do Jack's actions not have a sufficient justification, but your actions do? — chatterbears
In other words, humans are selfish assholes, lol. But I agree. Humans, I'd argue, are one of the worst species on the planet lol. All we do is ruin the lives of everything around us, including our own species. It's quite sad actually. — chatterbears
In other words, humans are selfish assholes, lol. But I agree. Humans, I'd argue, are one of the worst species on the planet lol. All we do is ruin the lives of everything around us, including our own species. It's quite sad actually. — chatterbears
What makes you think they would care to switch off a meat based diet for a plant-based diet? — chatterbears
Humans, I'd argue, are one of the worst species on the planet lol. — chatterbears
Clearly, you imagine your preference for animals over humans — karl stone
Clearly, you imagine your preference for animals over humans — karl stone
That's not actually what he's expressing, imho. By arguing for a plant based diet, he's also arguing on behalf of human interests. What he's struggling with is that he sees our human interest clearly, but can't find an effective method of communicating that interest to those such as yourself who are determined to never get it no matter what. — Jake
Humans, I'd argue, are one of the worst species on the planet — chatterbears
The anti-progress misanthrope — 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.