Re this, I explained this in detail in the post you're responding to. Again, trying to make sense of a "justification for action in relation to a moral stance," "I feel that x is moral" would be sufficient for me to feel that doing x is justified (or validly or reasonably justified to use your term), because that's what it means, basically, for me to feel that x is moral--that it's acceptable to do x. — Terrapin Station
That's not the same thing as "If Jack feels that y is moral then I feel that y is justified (validly justified)," because what it means for Jack to feel that y is moral is NOT that I feel that it's acceptable to do x. Rather, Jack would feel that it's acceptable to do x. — Terrapin Station
Or in other words, I certainly don't have a view that any x is justified--that it's acceptable to do--just in case some person feels that x is moral. I could say that I feel that x is justified, or x is acceptable to do in other words, just in case I feel that x is moral. — Terrapin Station
Can you honestly be saying at this stage of debate - that if people were vegetarians, animals would not be farmed? There's a difference between simple and simplistic. Constantly seeking to bias the argument by needlessly introducing terms like needlessly - demonstrates that your argument is a prejudiced opinion. Prejudice obscures the truth. — karl stone
But is't also a fact that animals are not needlessly killed. They're killed for food, and the vast majority of people eat meat. They are not likely to stop doing so - and you have not established, morally speaking, that they should. — karl stone
I'm not a farmer. I don't know anything about raising pigs. I don't have a dog either. I imagine there are reasons that pigs are farmed, and dogs are not. But it's not universal, is it? In China and Korea dogs are farmed and eaten. And there were cannibals in New Guinea that ate human flesh. Interestingly, I understand - eating human brains gave them the equivalent of mad cow disease. — karl stone
it stands to reason that if a large number of people in a population are alcoholic, then perhaps alcoholic products are too cheap, too affordable, and too available. Prohibition isn't necessary, but some control is.
Similarly with animal vs. plant diets: the best strategy to achieve higher rates of vegetarianism is to make high quality vegetarian foods readily available to population who isn't familiar with them. The "market" can do this, but the government may need to 'prime the pump'. — Bitter Crank
Would you be saying the same thing if alcohol was solely produced on the back of tortured children? That the only way alcohol could be produced was child slave labor, would you still say "prohibition isn't necessary, we just need some control of it." - Meaning, child slave labor would still exist, but we should just lessen it, correct? — chatterbears
My answer for this discussion is that our dominion (or any dominion for that matter) is a product of nature. Is natural law unethical? — BrianW
A better question would be whether it is more compassionate (or humane) to alleviate suffering in animals, as much as we can, considering we now know that animals experience emotions and, consequently, not only pain but also suffering. — BrianW
Factory farming isn't a product of nature. It is a product of humans who abuse their power in immoral ways. — chatterbears
You keep making analogies to immoral acts committed on people to those committed on animals in the context of animal consumption. I suggested in another post that while it may be true that animals are moral agents to some extent - such that they are not completely irrelevant w/re to our moral calculations - they are by no means moral agents to the same extent people are. As a result, I think you need to give some explanation about why you think there is a one-to-one equivalence between people and animals that justifies these analogies. — Mentalusion
The examples you give of extreme human exploitation are immoral. More moderate examples of human exploitation are not necessarily going to be unacceptably immoral (an inefficient labor market, for example, where people are not able to get a fair wage in exchange for their labor). Similarly, if animals are not of the same moral equivalence as people, then exploitation of them may be totally justifiable, even to the point of consuming them in some way or to some degree. — Mentalusion
Also, I think it would be helpful to the discussion to take the environment and health risks from over-consumption of meat off the table. If you don't, then your argument is going to depend on industrial animal consumption producing these externalities. Even assuming you are correct about them and that they are significant, it is possible that we could find ways to harvest animals that did not produce significant environmental damage. People could also moderate their animal consumption so it was not detrimental to their health. If both of these things happened, then they would no longer provide a justification for abstaining from animal consumption. in other words, what is the argument for abstinence if you don't make these consequentialist assumptions? — Mentalusion
1. Anything that a product of nature produces, is itself a product of nature.
2. Humans are a product of nature.
3. Humans produce factory farms.
4. Therefore factory farms are a product of nature — Mentalusion
Then that by logic, everything is a product of nature. Which makes the term useless, and it shouldn't be something we point to as a way to live our lives. — chatterbears
I submit that most of the people who are not already vegetarians will ignore your guilt trip rhetoric. If you want to change people's behavior (and not just convince them that you are right and they are wrong) you will have to come up with a strategy that makes a vegetarian diet convenient, attractive, and even "trendy".
So shut up with the guilt tripping and come up with something that will actually WORK. — Bitter Crank
Factory farming isn't a product of nature. It is a product of humans who abuse their power in immoral ways. — chatterbears
This is the same question, because an unethical dominion over animals would imply the lack of compassion. It is unethical, since we lack the compassion to alleviate the suffering these animals endure. — chatterbears
Vegans, not vegetarians. Animals are factory farmed because we eat them. If we stopped eating them, they wouldn't be farmed. If you want to say they would be farmed for clothing (such as a leather), that's a separate issue. But Vegans do not buy any animal products, including leather. So that would go away as well. You talk about bias and prejudice, yet you can't understand simple supply and demand? — chatterbears
And black people were bred for slavery in the US. And the vast majority of people owned slaved. And they were not likely to stop doing so. Should that be a reason to continue doing it, because it is a demand and the majority supports it? — chatterbears
Also, morally, it's quite simple. Veganism is a logically consistent extension of whatever moral system you already have in place for yourself. You cannot be logically consistent without being Vegan. — chatterbears
For example. A person could give these reasons:
"I eat meat because I like the taste."
"I eat meat because it is convenient to do so."
"I eat meat because animals are not as intelligent as I am."
If we take just those 3 justifications for the action committed, we can apply logically consistency to their position and see if they would still accept it.
"I eat new born babies because I like the taste."
"I am a cannibal because it is convenient to do so."
"I eat new born babies because they are not as intelligent as I am."
If you wouldn't accept the second set of claims, then you are not logically consistent. Since this clearly demonstrates that these reasons are not sufficient justifications to commit an action. — chatterbears
And you still haven't answered.... I think at this point it is clear you are being either dishonest and/or purposely evasive. I don't know how to raise a child, but I would never condone killing one. You don't need to know anything about raising pigs or dogs, to understand why you would eat one but not the other. And instead of answering my question, of why you would support the killing of pigs but not of dogs, you constantly evade the question. — chatterbears
Factory farming is human activity. Humans (including their activities) are a part of nature. — BrianW
Do we lack the compassion or the capacity? Should we and can we domesticate all animals? If we leave others to the wild, then don't we allow them to suffer from conditions which we would otherwise protect ourselves from? — BrianW
Personally, I think causing harm to animals is wrong. But, it would be unfair to constrain others by our own restrictions. Is it wrong for the lion to kill the gazelle? If so, how would you inform it? — BrianW
Here's the conversation.
Chatterbears: It is wrong to kill animals and people unnecessarily.
Karl: But animals are not people.
Chatterbears: Why does that matter? They both can feel and suffer.
Karl: Animals are not people, they are dinner.
Chatterbears: Ok. That doesn't answer anything. Why should we cause harm to animals unnecessarily?
Karl: Because animals are not worthy of the same moral consideration.
Chatterbears: Still haven't answered. Why aren't they worthy of the same moral consideration in regards to unnecessary suffering?
Karl: Because animals are not human beings. They are lower on the food chain.
Smh... — chatterbears
And is nature is a good indicator of how we should live our lives? Animals rape in nature. Should we then start raping each other since it is 'natural'? — chatterbears
The current ones that already exist, we can let them die off naturally, while keeping a small percentage in animal sanctuaries. — chatterbears
Have fun on another thread. I'm going to stop responding to you now. Ty — chatterbears
Do the animals know what rape is or an alternative to rape? Humans decide that rape is wrong, therefore, humans determine alternative actions.
Animals have their own moral codes. They commit acts that we would not and they're no less for it because of what and how they are. — BrianW
If we let them die off, isn't that lack of compassion? — BrianW
Is the compassion for animals born out of a sense of equality or out of self-gratification. If animals are equal to us, shouldn't we treat all of them alike. Would you suggest letting humans die out for the sake of achieving a more pleasing equilibrium? — BrianW
And, if it's a matter of perspective, then consider animals bred for food only know the life they've been given. In such instances most suffering occurs in fear of impending death which humans are increasingly alleviating by diminishing such awareness. — BrianW
This argument is largely dependent on human acceptance of the idea of indisputable equality between humans and animals. However, if such a perspective were forced, it would defeat the case for compassion. Are humans and animals equal? For most people, they are not. Why should such people conform to your perspective? — BrianW
I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I think it is pointless at this point. — chatterbears
What does "unnecessarily" mean here? What is it that makes suffering necessary or not? — Πετροκότσυφας
I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I think it is pointless at this point.
— chatterbears
Hey, you figured it out! — Jake
Hey, you figured it out! — Jake
If your original statement stands of, "Why is natural law unethical?", you would understand why natural law is not something you want to base your moral actions on. — chatterbears
I'm investigating, not assuming that it already is. I'm trying to understand it from as comprehensive a perspective as I can.Is natural law unethical?
lol yeah. It took me a while... Karl doesn't understand the concept of answering a question. Maybe you can try to ask him in another thread. This is what you may encounter.
Why are animals not worth of moral consideration if we cause them unnecessary suffering?
"Because they aren't on top of the food chain."
Why is the food chain an indicator of how to treat sentient beings?
"Because.... dinner."
If you want to talk about food chains, how about you ask Karl to fight a tiger or bear with what he was naturally born with (hands and feet and teeth). That food chain will get resolved real fast, lol... — chatterbears
Just to be clear, the reasoning you use to justify a moral action, is "feeling". Correct? — chatterbears
I repeat: If you want to change behavior, come up with a plan that has a chance of producing concrete results. — Bitter Crank
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.