It would be wrong because of the emotional attachments other humans (the only creatures human morality applies too) have to this severly mentally subnormal human. Like killing and eating someones pet.
Other than that, nothing. It seems pretty distastful to me but not immoral. — DingoJones

Interesting response. You and I clearly live on different planets when it comes to morality.

Are you saying that it's morally wrong to eat any member of the species homo sapiens, but morally okay to eat a member of any other species? — Herg

Yes.

Are you saying that it's morally wrong to eat any member of the species homo sapiens, but morally okay to eat a member of any other species?
— Herg

Yes. — Terrapin Station

I see. Now supposing Neanderthals were still around, would it be okay to eat them? How about homo habilis, or australopithecines? I infer from what you say that you'd be okay eating a gorilla, chimpanzee or orang-utan, but in terms of our direct ancestors, where exactly would you draw the line?

Gorilla, chimp, etc. sure, if we're simply talking about food. I wouldn't kill species that are endangered, but not because I have a problem with eating them for food.

Re early precursor hominids, I'd have to meet them. It would simply be an intuitive matter.

Interesting response. You and I clearly live on different planets when it comes to morality. — Herg

Not really. The suffering of the humans if I ate their kid or sibling is real, and a moral consideration. Likewise with the pet. You just think that in addition, its wrong to eat a pet cuz its wrong to eat animals. I dont add that, because it doesnt make sense. Thats the only real difference.
You were trying to make an emotional appeal by using humans in example rather than an actual argument, and now you are trying to pretend Im some kinda crazy person with otherworldly moral sensibilities so you once again do not have to make an actual argument.

I see. Now supposing Neanderthals were still around, would it be okay to eat them? How about homo habilis, or australopithecines? I infer from what you say that you'd be okay eating a gorilla, chimpanzee or orang-utan, but in terms of our direct ancestors, where exactly would you draw the line? — Herg

why stop your slippery slope at animals? Why are we morally justified eating/exploiting plants? Maybe we shouldn't be eating anything and just letting ourselves starve to death.

In other words, if there are no relevant distinctions anywhere among these species, then there will be no grounds for basing any morality, positive or negative. Consequently, it wouldn't make a difference one way or the other whether we consume animals across the board or not. Whether anyone wanted to eat other homo sapiens, then, would just be a matter of personal preference; there would be no moral implications to their decision given the lack of any real difference among species.

You were trying to make an emotional appeal by using humans in example rather than an actual argument, and now you are trying to pretend Im some kinda crazy person with otherworldly moral sensibilities so you once again do not have to make an actual argument. — DingoJones

Actually I was just trying to find out how you see things.

Not really. The suffering of the humans if I ate their kid or sibling is real, and a moral consideration. Likewise with the pet. You just think that in addition, its wrong to eat a pet cuz its wrong to eat animals. I dont add that, because it doesnt make sense. — DingoJones

So you think it 'makes sense' to say that the suffering of humans is a moral consideration, but it doesn't 'make sense' to say that it's wrong to eat animals. Now to me, 'making sense' is a matter either of language or of logic, but I don't think you're using the phrase to mean that. I suspect that by 'makes sense' you actually mean 'conforms to my moral views'. In which case, all you are doing is offering me a moral intuition; so you're not advancing an argument either.
What I was seeking, from both you and Terrapin, was some rational justification for your belief that it's okay to eat animals but not humans. I'm not getting one, so I assume neither of you has one to offer.
So I will offer you both an argument. Nothing new, just the same old stuff you have probably heard from vegetarians before. What makes an action immoral, in the end, is that it adversely affects the interests of a being that is capable of having interests, which means any sentient being. So there is no line between humans and other sentient beings, e.g. other animals, that could justify drawing a line between them and saying that action against the interests of one is wrong and actions against the interests of the other is not.
If you disagree but don't say why, I can only assume that you think that for some unstated and perhaps unstateable reason, the interests of the species you happen to belong to count, but the interests of oither species you donlt belong to don't. This seems to me fundamentally irrational.

What I was seeking, from both you and Terrapin, was some rational justification for your belief that it's okay to eat animals but not humans. — Herg

There is no rational justification possible of foundational moral stances.

What makes an action immoral, in the end, is that it adversely affects the interests of a being that is capable of having interests, which means any sentient being. So there is no line between humans and other sentient beings, e.g. other animals — Herg

1. The equation of being capable of forming "interests" with sentience is totally unjustified and probably unjustifiable. Having an interest requires not only sentience but self-awareness. Almost no animals beside humans exhibit conduct consistent with attributing to them self-awareness.

2. Not all animals are sentient even. Insects for one are not. Do you think it is morally acceptable to eat crickets?

This, for example:

What makes an action immoral, in the end, is that it adversely affects the interests of a being that is capable of having interests — Herg

Is not a fact.

If it's a foundational moral stance for you, no rational justification of it is possible.

Someone could just as easily say, "What makes an action moral, in the end, is that it adversely affects the interests of a being that is capable of having interests."

That wouldn't be a fact, either.

Objectively, it would be on an even playing field with your stance.

What I was seeking, from both you and Terrapin, was some rational justification for your belief that it's okay to eat animals but not humans. I'm not getting one, so I assume neither of you has one to offer. — Herg

It is because generally speaking animals are not ethical creatures, they are not moral agents. You are basing morality off of suffering, rather than moral agency. I do not.
Sorry, I lost track of who I have been interacting with on this topic and thought you and I had been over that already. Have you read the rest of my posts concerning this topic?

Once you have some foundational stance (which can be one of many), you can reason from there--so, for example, if it's a foundational stance for you that "one shouldn't nonconsensually initiate violence" it would likely follow for you that "one shouldn't murder," but the foundational stance can't be anything other than a way that you feel. — Terrapin Station

What is your foundational stance? I understand you are describing how people operate within the moral sphere, but I want to know where you derive your moral foundation from.

Firstly, why would it be necessary to torture the dog? And secondly, if it was the same thing happening in each scenario, then there would be torture in the second scenario as there was in the first, but, for some reason, you left that out of the second scenario. So no, on the face of it, it's not the same thing. (Did you just forget to mention it the second time around or did you leave it out intentionally?). — S

That's the point I am making. It is not necessary to torture or kill a dog, just as it is not necessary to torture or kill a pig. Also, I did said both scenarios have torture within them. Did you not read?

Scenario 1: I torture and kill the dog. (animal slaughter house workers)
Scenario 2: I pay somebody else to torture and kill the dog. (consumers who pay the animal slaughter house workers to do their dirty work)

But to answer your question, judging by our actions, we, for the most part, think that it is. (Again, as you probably already know). In a sense, it doesn't really matter what you or I think about the morality of it. There'll be mixed views, and it'll fill pages of discussion with a back-and-forth exchange of views consisting of those in favour and those against, because it's just one of those hot topics, like abortion, but it won't be as productive as focusing on what is, in my opinion, a better question: what, realistically, can be done about that? What actions, with the greatest chance of success, do you propose in order to rectify this situation? — S

I didn't ask about what 'we' as a society think about it. I am ask you directly. It seems many people on this thread do not want to answer for themselves, but instead answer on behalf of the society/world they live in. I want to know if pleasure and convenience is worth the torture and death of innocent sentient beings? (From your personal perspective)

These questions ought to be put into an appropriate context. If there was a mass demand for turning cats, dogs, and severely mentally disabled humans into produce for consumption, as there is for the animal produce already on the market, then who knows what we'd find acceptable enough to put up with? But that's another reality, a hypothetical reality. It's a counterfactual. So it's difficult to judge.

If chickens were a man's best friend and dog burgers tasted good...

If pigs could fly...

Who knows? But, minimally, I predict that if things were different, then we'd probably view things differently. — S

Hypothetical scenarios are brought to the table to display an inconsistency or contradiction within one's moral view. And again, you still did not answer my question, so I will ask again.

If there was a demand for turning cats, dogs and severe mentally disabled humans into produce, would you find that morally right? This isn't too far off from what the Nazi's did to Jews, or what slavery did to black people. The point is, unjust discrimination against a group of people or animals.

All I'm saying is, before you label people as ethical/moral or unethical/immoral, you might want to take a moment and understand them first. If not, you might find you're the immoral one for degrading humans to the level of animals and for denying them a source of nutrition which is rightfully theirs. — BrianW

You still have not expressed what your own views are, and I am not sure why. You are just explaining what societies have thought throughout our history, and how they operate. I am still waiting for you to tell me how you determine a bad action from a good action. Not how society determines that. I want to know how YOU (personally) determine that.

Also, cannibals can kill a human against their will, and claim that is a source of nutrition that is rightfully theirs. Would you grant cannibals the same right as you are granting meat eaters?

Instead of wanting humans to stop mistreating animals, you should want them to learn what mistreatment is and why it is. This means the information should be given in such a way that it is acceptable. In that way, they act out of knowledge not coercion.

Currently, it is too early for humans to cease mistreating animals completely. But, considerable efforts have been exerted to diminish the cruelty that has been realised as such. So, it stands to reason that there will come a time, in the future, when all such mistreatment will be a thing of the past. As it stands, presently, there isn't enough justification for it. So the best we can have is some people being vegans while the rest persist with the carnivorism. — BrianW

The vast majority of humans already know what mistreatment is. We have put up laws against animal cruelty, especially regarding dogs or cats. There's a massive sense of cognitive dissonance here, where you can understand why a dog needs love and affection, but not why a pig would need the same thing.

Slavery was a "current" thing a few hundred years ago. And imagine a person like me, being opposed to slavery. And telling you that we should not mistreat people, just because of their skin color. And you would respond and tell me, "when all such mistreatment will be a thing of the past. As it stands, presently, there isn't enough justification for it. So the best we can have is some people being against slavery while the rest persist with the slave ownership."

What is it necessary for and why is it necessary? — Πετροκότσυφας

Survival, because both sentient beings have a will to live.

That's up to you and how you want to create your own moral system. If you don't care about a person's will to live, you don't need to care about that. I personally do care about animals and humans, and their will to live. And I will do my best to not limit their freedom to express their will to live, such as enslaving black people or enslaving animals for leather and food products that we don't need.

But from what you are saying, you don't care about a human's will to live? Or do you not care about an animal's will to live? If you care about one, but not the other, what distinction are you making to create that difference in separation?

The vast majority of humans already know what mistreatment is. We have put up laws against animal cruelty, especially regarding dogs or cats. There's a massive sense of cognitive dissonance here, where you can understand why a dog needs love and affection, but not why a pig would need the same thing. — chatterbears

That is the point I'm trying to make. The laws we enact are dependent upon our interaction but not on some fundamental equality for all animals. We decide according to what suits us and that makes it just as selfish and inconsiderate as can be. I am yet to see comprehensive impartial efforts for animal justice.

That is the point I'm trying to make. The laws we enact are dependent upon our interaction but not on some fundamental equality for all animals. We decide according to what suits us and that makes it just as selfish and inconsiderate as can be. I am yet to see comprehensive impartial efforts for animal justice. — BrianW

And do you think this is how it should be? That we should base laws on our interaction instead of equality? This is what slave owners thought a few hundred years ago. They based their laws on interactions with black people, and not on some fundamental equality for all humans.

You, again, keep answering for society. Answer for yourself. Do you believe that laws should be based on equality, fairness and justness? If so, should we extend animal cruelty laws to other animals (such as pigs), and not just dogs or cats?

You, again, keep answering for society. Answer for yourself. Do you believe that laws should be based on equality, fairness and justness? — chatterbears

I've already given you my personal views. As to society, is there individual/personal equality? The laws of equality are for the collective whole. What does it matter if I'm the most compassionate/cruel being within a society of people contrary to myself? It's not just about being right as an individual, it's about helping others develop the capacity to be right.

Give a man fish and you'll feed him for a day; teach a man how to fish and he'll never go hungry.

Your opinions are decent but society isn't waiting for an individual to make decisions for them. Animals will have equality when enough of the individuals in the society are capable of perceiving them as equals. So, the question becomes, "how do we develop that capacity in others?"

As investigations into the nature of animals advance, we realise more and more how much they are like humans in terms of social needs and capacities. In this way, we learn that we can give them more consideration in terms of compassion, comfort, discipline/training, etc. This is why domestic animals which are primarily kept for companionship get the first taste of decent treatment. Because of their proximity to humans, their nature is more readily evident than that of others. Unfortunately, as a human collective, we're still slow to progress and not even one sincere man's appeal for expedition will change that.

why stop your slippery slope at animals? Why are we morally justified eating/exploiting plants? Maybe we shouldn't be eating anything and just letting ourselves starve to death.

In other words, if there are no relevant distinctions anywhere among these species, then there will be no grounds for basing any morality, positive or negative. — Mentalusion

The relevant distinction is the ability to feel pleasure or pain. If plants can feel pleasure or pain, then, other things being equal, we should not eat them.

Re early precursor hominids, I'd have to meet them. It would simply be an intuitive matter. — Terrapin Station

Appealing to intuition is copping out. Much as if you claimed that God had told you something was right or wrong.

1. The equation of being capable of forming "interests" with sentience is totally unjustified and probably unjustifiable. Having an interest requires not only sentience but self-awareness. — Mentalusion

Not true. I take my dog to the vet to be inoculated because it's in his best interests. Having interests is nothing to do with having self-awareness.

What makes an action immoral, in the end, is that it adversely affects the interests of a being that is capable of having interests
— Herg

Is not a fact.

If it's a foundational moral stance for you, no rational justification of it is possible. — Terrapin Station

The foundation for morality is that, other things being equal, pleasure is by its nature good, and pain is by its nature bad. This is why almost everyone seeks pleasure and tried to avoid pain; if subjectivism were true, attachment of the labels 'good' and 'bad' to pleasant experiences and painful experiences would be random, and people and animals wouldn't care whether they experience pleasure or pain; but this isn't the case.

Someone could just as easily say, "What makes an action moral, in the end, is that it adversely affects the interests of a being that is capable of having interests." — Terrapin Station

Of course they could say this, but that wouldn't mean that they weren't making a mistake in saying it. I could say either, "The sun is larger than the moon" or "The moon is larger than the sun", but the fact that I can say either of these doesn't mean that neither of them is factually correct.

It is because generally speaking animals are not ethical creatures, they are not moral agents.
You are basing morality off of suffering, rather than moral agency. I do not. — DingoJones

You don't get to choose what to base morality on. That's the subjectivist error again - see my answer to Terrapin above.

Appealing to intuition is copping out. — Herg

No cop out, that's what morality is.

The foundation for morality is that, other things being equal, pleasure is by its nature good, and pain is by its nature bad. This is why almost everyone seeks pleasure and tried to avoid pain; if subjectivism were true, attachment of the labels 'good' and 'bad' to pleasant experiences and painful experiences would be random, and people and animals wouldn't care whether they experience pleasure or pain; but this isn't the case. — Herg

If you're going to argue against a view, you need to understand the view and not just present a straw man version of it, because when you only present a straw man version, the people you're arguing against are only going to think that you're inattentive (and unconcerned about it), or dishonest, or an idiot, and that's not going to persuade anyone.

Subjectivism doesn't posit or imply anything about randomness.

"pleasure by its nature is good" is at best a stipulative tautology about how one is going to use using the word "pleasure," and it doesn't tell us anything about morality.

No stance is going to be everyone's foundational moral stance, by the way.

You don't get to choose what to base morality on. That's the subjectivist error again - see my answer to Terrapin above. — Herg

Although you seem to be advocating for Veganism, and I am on your side on that point, I also will recognize that morality is completely subjective at its core. The baseline axiom of any moral system is subjective.

For example. Let's have a mini-back n' forth here. You seem to be basing your moral actions on whether or not a being can suffer, is this correct? If so, you have put value into actions that avoid causing suffering. I would then ask you, why do you value actions that avoid causing suffering? You would then probably say, "because suffering is bad." - In which I would ask, why is suffering bad? You would then have to finally acknowledge, suffering is bad because it is bad. Or you may say, suffering is bad, because it causes pain. But then I would go one level deeper, and ask why causing pain is bad. You would then have to give your subjective axiom.

That's the point I am making. It is not necessary to torture or kill a dog, just as it is not necessary to torture or kill a pig. — chatterbears

Facepalm. Yes, I am familiar with your views in that regard. What I meant is, why would it be necessary to torture the dog for the purpose of attaining its skin to make shoes, as you seem to have suggested? That part seems superfluous to me. Couldn't it just be killed?

Also, I did said both scenarios have torture within them. — chatterbears

Not in the relevant part of your opening post, you didn't. See for yourself:

The same thing happens within the animal industry. You (the consumer) pays (demands) for an animal (the supply) to be killed, whether that is for food, clothing, etc... — chatterbears

You should have made that clearer from the outset. Why not go back and edit your opening post? It would only take a minute.

Did you not read? — chatterbears

Did you? I read your opening post. I haven't read every single comment of yours over the seven pages of discussion, and I shouldn't really have to. It's your oversight.

Scenario 1: I torture and kill the dog. (animal slaughter house workers)
Scenario 2: I pay somebody else to torture and kill the dog. (consumers who pay the animal slaughter house workers to do their dirty work) — chatterbears

Okay, so you've clarified. Now you just need to explain why torture would be necessary as a means to the end. My suspicion is that it isn't necessary in that respect, and in fact you know that it isn't necessary in that respect, but as it's a thing that happens in some places, you use torture as part of your argument in order to bolster it, even though it's actually quite misleading to do that. The truth is, if I want dog skin shoes, I could just shoot Bingo in the head and turn him into a lovely pair of loafers, without needing to subject him to waterboarding or lock him in a room with Justin Bieber playing on repeat. No torture required.

I didn't ask about what 'we' as a society think about it. I am ask you directly. It seems many people on this thread do not want to answer for themselves, but instead answer on behalf of the society/world they live in. I want to know if pleasure and convenience is worth the torture and death of innocent sentient beings? (From your personal perspective) — chatterbears

Then we're at cross purposes. I know exactly what you asked, and I told you my opinion that what you or I think doesn't really matter compared to the bigger picture, which I believe is better addressed with the kind of questions that I put to you.

I've already given you my personal views. As to society, is there individual/personal equality? Equality is for the collective whole. What does it matter if I'm the most compassionate/cruel being within a society of people contrary to myself? It's not just about being right as an individual, it's about helping others develop the capacity to be right. — BrianW

You actually have not given me your personal views, at all. You have vaguely described them, followed by explaining what societies think and social norms. You have yet to provide me with something of your own personal perspective, regarding how you differentiate a good action from a bad action. Unless you are trying to tell me, you just follow along with whatever society is accepting of at the time? So if you were living 200 years ago, I presume you would be accepting of slavery and might even own slaves yourself? You wouldn't be part of the civil rights movement, or the women's march for their right to vote?

It does matter if you are more compassionate than the society you live in, because every person counts. The type of thinking that stops progress of a society, is the one you seem to be adopting. "Why should I enact change when society is overwhelmingly against my views?" - The more and more people who stop purchasing animal products, the less and less these products will be created and sold. Same goes for slavery and women's rights. The more people who stand up for the victims, the more likely it will be to succeed as a movement. Black people were the victims of slavery. Women were the victims of discrimination and had the inability to vote. Animals are the victims of torture and slaughter. What you believe and how you act, do matter. If you stop contributing to the animal agriculture industry, that's one less animal that has to die.

Your opinions are decent but society isn't waiting for an individual to make decisions for them. Animals will have equality when the enough of the individuals in the society are capable of perceiving them as equals. So, the question becomes, "how do we develop that capacity in others?" — BrianW

Apparently you seem to be doing the opposite. You let society make decisions for you as the individual. You conform to the social norm. You aren't Vegan because society is overwhelmingly omnivorous. Right?

As investigations into the nature of animals advance, we realise more and more how much they are like humans in terms of social needs and capacities. In this way, we learn that we can give them more consideration in terms of compassion, comfort, discipline/training, etc. This is why domestic animals which are primarily kept for companionship get the first taste of decent treatment. Because of their proximity to humans, their nature is more readily evident than that of others. Unfortunately, as a human collective, we're still slow to progress and not even one sincere man's appeal for expedition will change that. — BrianW

You keep saying how selfish we are, but do you apply those beliefs into your own actions? Are planning on become Vegan, since it seems to me that you think it would be selfish not to, correct?

Okay, so you've clarified. Now you just need to explain why torture would be necessary as a means to the end. My suspicion is that it isn't necessary in that respect, and in fact you know that it isn't necessary in that respect, but as it's a thing that happens in some places, you use torture as part of your argument in order to bolster it, even though it's actually quite misleading to do that. The truth is, if I want dog skin shoes, I could just shoot a Bingo in the head and turn him into a lovely pair of loafers, without needing to subject him to waterboarding or lock him in a room with Justin Bieber playing on repeat. — S

Torture isn't necessary, but that is what we do within the factory farming business. These animals are tortured before they are killed. But even in a slightly better scenario, where an animal is not torture, but is still killed against its own will, that is still the main issue. Torture is just icing on the cake of injustice.

Do you think it is morally good to kill an innocent being that does not want to die?

Then we're at cross purposes. I know exactly what you asked, and I told you my opinion that what you or I think doesn't really matter compared to the bigger picture, which I believe is better addressed with the kind of questions I put to you. — S

And you still haven't answered. I'll try asking one last time, Is pleasure and convenience is worth the death of innocent sentient beings?

We are in a philosophy forum, where answering questions seems to be the least valued concept within it. Very odd...

But why do you need an answer from me? So you can give me a lecture? Try to dissuade me? I'm already familiar with your position. We've discussed it at length, as have others, and it's all here to go back over at any time of my choosing. That hasn't stopped me from eating meat and consuming other products derived from animals.

I'm more interested in what can actually be done to solve what you clearly see as a problem, whereas you seem to be more interested in bickering over whether it's right or wrong: an activity which seems increasingly pointless the more that I think about it.

For someone to change their behavior, they have to believe their current behavior is incorrect or wrong. I want to know if you actually believe that supporting the animal agriculture industry (buying animal products) is wrong. If you do not think it is wrong, why would we even discuss further than that?

I am not trying to give you a lecture. I am trying to understand what you personally believe. I don't care what society currently believes, because I already know about that. I am in this forum to talk to people directly, not people who speak for society as a whole. I want to know your personal views. Because if your views are inconsistent and do not line up with your actions, that's the first step. How could I lecture you, when I don't even know what your actual views are. And even if I did, I would continue to ask questions. A lecture does not involve this much questioning and back n' forth. I am here to have a discussion, not inject a sermon.

You actually have not given me your personal views, at all. — chatterbears

I believe the following, from my previous posts, suffice as personal views:

personally, I think all animals should be under partial or complete domestication. This means that, even wild animals should be regulated through family planning methods until their numbers are greatly reduced and manageable. Also, we should tag all animals (if possible) so that we know where and how they are at all times for the sake of regulating their activities, like in times of natural crises or to protect them from human activities that may harm them. — BrianW

Personally, I think causing harm to animals is wrong. — BrianW

Personally, I agree that it's cruel to kill animals for food. — BrianW

How I determine ethics/morality is a combination of:
1. Precedence.
2. Personal analysis.
3. Reciprocity.

This doesn't mean I follow any precedence, just that I take it into consideration. — BrianW

For example, stealing. There's previous precedence that makes stealing a unanimous no no. Also, personally, I'm against it due to the negative effects it has. And, since I would not like to be stolen from, I think it would be wrong to steal from others. — BrianW

You conform to the social norm. — chatterbears

I am vegan in a predominantly 'omni-canivorous' society. How is that conforming? In somethings I conform, in others I don't.

I seek harmony with my environment. Part of that is understanding what it is, how it is, why it is, etc. I know I can't change anything by trying to use rationale that is not familiar. The way to make people take better care of animals is by showing them how animals are a significant (in terms of equality) part of their community. For example, how would you convince christians that it is wrong to kill animals for food when their religious teachings contrast that?

What I'm saying is there is a way and a time in which the results we aim for unfold. If one is going to accomplish something one better recognise what they're working with. It is wasteful to expect more from a situation than what can be achieved.