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? — chatterbears
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? — chatterbears
You don't get to choose what to base morality on. That's the subjectivist error again - see my answer to Terrapin above. — Herg
they apparently feel compelled to communicate that objection at every juncture. I have never met a vegetarian - I only later discovered was a vegetarian.
— karl stone
I've only just met you, and already you've told me you're a meat-eater. Funny, that. — Herg
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. — Herg
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. — Herg
What makes an action immoral, in the end, is that it adversely affects ... any sentient being. — Herg
You didn't explain what the "will to live" is though. Nor if it can be ignored (by those who think that life is immoral, for example). — Πετροκότσυφας
Is pleasure and convenience is worth the death of innocent sentient beings? — chatterbears
For example, how would you convince christians that it is wrong to kill animals for food when their religious teachings contrast that? — BrianW
As for your point about inconsistency, even if you can tie me down on an inconsistency, people can continue their lives with that knowledge and yet remain fairly content. I may be one of those people for all you know. It's a matter of what your values and priorities are, what you can or can't live with. Sometimes it's not even really an option. What if I were gay, but being gay conflicted with my morals? If I couldn't bring myself to abandon my morals, then it could come down to a choice of being consistent and unhappy or inconsistent and happy. Which would you choose? In some respects, my life choices reflect a life motivated by pleasure seeking and contentment over and above the life of some sort of noble sage. And yet, in spite of all of this, I can still sleep at night. I'm not racked with guilt. I'm not burdened with regrets. I like animals, but then I also like the taste of meat. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — S
The arguments work for humans because it's clear that we're equal. That is not the same for animals, hence the current inconsistencies. — BrianW
But even if it were the case, that humans only treat other humans well, but not other animals, why is that? They would have to provide a justification for why one sentient being is deserving of life, and another sentient being is not. — chatterbears
Some animals are bred for food, some for companionship, some for work, etc. — BrianW
I wouldn't eat meat, including fish, if I had to kill and prepare it for myself. Not for any ethical reasons. Just because I'm a lazy f---. I don't even like eating chicken, say, if it has bones, etc. So, for example, I don't like Kentucky Fried Chicken where you've got to eat around a bone. I don't like to have to do any work when I'm eating. I don't like eating shelled peanuts either. I like peanuts, but I'm not going to sit and take them out of the shell to eat them. I also don't like eating fruit unless it's already cut up/deseeded, etc.
So it's not a moral thing, I'm just hate having to do any work to prepare my food to eat. (I don't cook either, by the way. The most I'd do if I were on my own is throw something into the microwave.) — Terrapin Station
To me personally, this isn't the interesting question because I already agree with your sentiments (though I did kill a roach today). To me the more interesting question is not moral but tactical, what is the most effective way to share this understanding? — Jake
Do humans have dominion over animals? Macro animals, maybe, but not necessarily animalcules. My hackles go up anytime it's assumed humans have dominion over anything other than themselves. Actually, I tried to access the OP linked video and was asked to sign into youtube. Plants could be considered sentient. Life eats life. Can't live off of air and saliva. — Anthony
I don't think you did. Whether I am willing to ignore it or not does not explain what you mean by the "will to live". Also, your example is not symmetrical at all to mine. Whether Hitler was willing to kill Jews says nothing about whether, for example, those who find life in general immoral are able to ignore their own will to live. — Πετροκότσυφας
That's because I'm not advocating a moral stance, I'm just trying to explore yours. Also, what the will to live is supposed to mean has not been answered, so I cannot answer either way. But, generally, my ethics is not essentialist, therefore the question does not make much sense to begin with. From within an essentialist ethics, the distinction (any distinction) drawn could simply be based upon self-interest. — Πετροκότσυφας
Action potentials, yes. Plants have senses. Actually, they share genes with humans; mutated genes in deaf people mess up the hair cells in cochlea ; the same genes mutated in plants deforms their root hairs . All meat lovers should have to slaughter their own animal, if they continue to eat meat afterward, they're alright with me. The convenience of buying food off the shelf is unreal if we want to be self-sufficient: suffice it to say that that's not where your food came from. If people weren't so dependent on other people for alimentation, it might change their perspective entirely. In a way that makes sense. Some of the most self-sufficient animals are meat eaters or at least omnivores. Living from the earth clears up confusion as I see it. The point: when you are faced with ontological directness (sun and earth), you'd probably eat what you had to in case you might die otherwise (a dyed in the wool vegan would start frog gigging, I'm sure). Having so much choice at the market is a bit of a puerile dependence. Gardening is possibly my favorite activity because it feels right to be more self-sufficient in a market society of commercialized people as products and consumers. Haven't hunted yet, though it could still happen. Btw, factory farms are hideous and we likely agree if that's where you're coming from. Always take no more food than what you need. Mass production and industrialization are enormities. Surplus grain from cash cropping rots away in bunkers. Meat recalls. Diseases on factory farms leads to millions of animals' needless deaths with no food value, usually chickens. What a waste. There's a lot more going on than animal cruelty, here. We're all complicit in the market society.Do plants have a nervous system? — chatterbears
Would you accept "laziness" as a justification to harm another human or animal? — chatterbears
And by the same "utility" standards, could I not justify slavery by saying "Some humans are bred into slavery (black people), some for companionship (white people), etc..." — chatterbears
What is the most effective way to share an understanding of how not to rape? Or how not to steal? Or how not to kill a child? It's quite simple. Recognize that another sentient life should be valued. — chatterbears
Action potentials, yes. Plants have senses. Actually, they share genes with humans; mutated genes in deaf people mess up the hair cells in cochlea ; the same genes mutated in plants deforms their root hairs — Anthony
All meat lovers should have to slaughter their own animal, if they continue to eat meat afterward, they're alright with me. — Anthony
Btw, factory farms are hideous and we likely agree if that's where you're coming from. Always take no more food than what you need. Mass production and industrialization are enormities. Surplus grain from cash cropping rots away in bunkers. Meat recalls. Diseases on factory farms leads to millions of animals' needless deaths with no food value, usually chickens. What a waste. There's a lot more going on than animal cruelty, here. We're all complicit in the market society. — Anthony
Would you say that there could be a difference between accepting someone else proposing something (y, say) as a justification (for x, say) and yourself feeling that that x is justifed by y? (I'm asking because I want to understand just what you're asking me--I can't really answer until I understand the idea you're getting at.)
At any rate, by the way, as I've expressed many times, NO non-moral stance can justify any moral stance.
In general, you keep bringing up "justification(s)," but I don't talk about justifications when it comes to morality, and I don't think it really makes a whole lot of sense to talk about them, except as another way of saying that someone has whatever moral stances they do. I see justifications as good reasons to believe that something is the case, but when we're talking about morality, we're not talking about anything that's the case. We're talking about ways that people feel. — Terrapin Station
All humans are, presently, believed to have free-will as part of the equality package. This means that, unlike animals, humans get to determine their circumstances. — BrianW
While we have a tendency to govern animals by their utility, we are building momentum where we govern humans by choice. — BrianW
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.