Not going to address anything beyond this until you address this point. Are you saying that anything which serves a useful purpose is morally permissible. Slavery has a useful purpose to the slave owner. Therefore, by your logic, slavery is morally permissible, correct? — chatterbears

Allow me to rephrase: the slaughter of animals has enabled and continues to enable humans to thrive, and contributes to the security of human existence. Slaughter can be "useful" because it serves human needs (need humans thrive?), and those needs are generally of very high importance. As I have suggested many times, there is a spectrum of utility and need that can be applied to the present day consumption of animals. For instance, factory farming is neither economical nor beneficial to humans, but traditional farming is in fact economical, and does in many ways contribute to human food security and dietary health. Given the myriad of national, economic, and individual circumstances, it's true that a portion of the population are capable making an economically secure switch to an animal free diet, but it's also true for a great many others that the switch would come at great cost and entail varying degrees of risk (in some cases it would be impossible)

By my logic, slavery is not ethical. I pointed out one of the differences between slaughter/consumption of animals and rape/torture. With the lion analogy, we're comparing similar acts done for similar reasons (the killing and consumption of animals as a means of sustenance and means to thrive), and while it's absolutely necessary for lions to eat meat to survive, individual humans and human groups exist on a spectrum of varying need regarding the exploitation of animals.

Do you think it's moral for growing or developing countries to consume meat if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan?

You seemed to have quoted the only non-important part of everything I said to you. Let's back up a bit before you get more side-tracked.

You: "You do NOT have to accept the axioms as true--at least not in any "extra-systemic" way--in order to play the games in question. You're just operating with them as givens."

Me: "Similarly, you can do the same with ethics. To put it in your terms, you do NOT have to accept the axioms as true, but you are operating with them as givens."

You: "Finally, something seeming self-evidently true to someone isn't at all about their preferences. They might very well prefer that things were otherwise. They might prefer to believe something else. Or maybe they have no preference about it."

Me: "Ok, so accepting axioms as a "given" is not about their preferences? Could I not say the same about metaethics? I have no preference about accepting the self-evidently true axiom of maximizing the well-being and rights of sentient creatures. I just accept this as a given. [Therefore, my ethics are not based on personal preference.]"

I want you to address these points first. I can number them if need be.

1. You said axioms are a given. Does this mean metaethical moral axioms can also be a given?
2. You said someone who finds something self-evidently true (an axiom) isn't about their preferences. Could you not say the same thing about metaethics?

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Before this, you said that all ethical views/stances, are based on preference. But then you said that accepting an axiom is not a preference. Well, there are axioms within metaethics, so you need to explain why some axioms are not based on preference, while others are based on preference.

And just to be clear. It is my view that ALL axioms are based on preference, whether that is math, logic, philosophy, etc... You seem to hold the view that some axioms are based on preference (such as metaethics), while others are not.

Allow me to rephrase: the slaughter of animals has enabled and continues to enable humans to thrive, and contributes to the security of human existence. Slaughter can be "useful" because it serves human needs (need humans thrive?), and those needs are generally of very high importance. — VagabondSpectre

Why are you putting "higher importance" on the needs of humans, but not on the needs of non-human animals (such as pigs, goats, sheep, cows, chickens, etc...)? Surely there is some property in which you are making a distinction between humans and non-human animals. What is that distinction, in which allows humans to live free from torture and/or slaughter, but not non-human animals?

For instance, factory farming is neither economical nor beneficial to humans, but traditional farming is in fact economical, and does in many ways contribute to human food security and dietary health. — VagabondSpectre

This goes against scientific peer reviewed studies on many levels. You can do the research yourself, but I will link a few articles below.

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/
- https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets
- https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179

By my logic, slavery is not ethical. I pointed out one of the differences between slaughter/consumption of animals and rape/torture. — VagabondSpectre

No you didn't, unless I missed it. Was it, the slaughter of animals allows humans to thrive? Why should we thrive off the suffering/torture/slaughter of another species? Because we have the power to do so?

With the lion analogy, we're comparing similar acts done for similar reasons (the killing and consumption of animals as a means of sustenance and means to thrive), and while it's absolutely necessary for lions to eat meat to survive, individual humans and human groups exist on a spectrum of varying need regarding the exploitation of animals. — VagabondSpectre

No we are most definitely not. A lion cannot survive if it does not eat meat. We can survive if we do not eat meat. But that is irrelevant to the point of, why is it ok to holocaust one species but not another? Would you be ok with humans creating a holocaust for dogs? Or how about if humans only created a holocaust for severely mentally disabled humans, in which we exploited their bodies for meat and other products?

Do you think it's moral for growing or developing countries to consume meat if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan? — VagabondSpectre

If they have adequate land for animal agriculture, they should have adequate land for plant agriculture. It would be the same as me asking you, "Do you think it is moral for growing or developing countries to consume human flesh if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan?"

I am pointing out what is wrong with our actions in regards to animal slaughter. You think it is more "tactical" to offer a replacement, rather than talk about the ethics behind it. — chatterbears

Right, that is the focus of your efforts here, pointing out what somebody else is doing wrong, ie, moralizing. Ok, so continue, your posts are yours to write.

If the focus of your efforts was serving animals, you'd see that offering a non-animal alternative to meat that meat eaters would find acceptable is going to be more effective than waving our finger of morally superior judgment in their faces.

It all depends on what the goal is.

If the goal is establishing our moral superiority, you're doing a good job.

If the goal is serving animals, not so much.

If the focus of your efforts was serving animals, you'd see that offering a non-animal alternative to meat that meat eaters would find acceptable is going to be more effective than waving our finger of morally superior judgment in their faces. — Jake

This is the 2nd or 3rd time you have ignored my analogy completely. And I will type it again.

As I have pointed out with my child molester analogy, do you think it is better to point out what is wrong about the actions committed by the child molester? Or should we give the child molester a replacement (robot life like child)?

As I have pointed out with my child molester analogy, do you think it is better to point out what is wrong about the actions committed by the child molester? Or should we give the child molester a replacement (robot life like child)? — chatterbears

Which choice will be more effective in protecting the child?

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that child molesters are typically immune to moral judgment, prison, social rejection etc.

But, if you could demonstrate that casting moral judgment upon the molester would be more effective in protecting the child than offering a replacement target, then I'd be for that.

What I keep suggesting to you, and what you keep ignoring, is that my sense is that you are interested in moral judgment primarily because it allows you to position yourself as being superior to somebody else. That's ok, no problem, I'm just suggesting that this self serving agenda might be made clear, and not be confused with an animal serving agenda.

If you can make a successful case that lecturing meat eaters is more effective at protecting animals than offering meat eaters a non-animal alternative, then ok, please proceed with that.

What I keep suggesting to you, and what you keep ignoring, is that my sense is that you are interested in moral judgment primarily because it allows you to position yourself as being superior to somebody else. That's ok, no problem, I'm just suggesting that this self serving agenda might be made clear, and not be confused with an animal serving agenda. — Jake

I actually told you multiple times, this is not what I am doing. You are incorrectly assuming I am trying to position myself as superior to somebody else.

If this forum existed 200 years ago, I would be saying the same thing about slave owners. I would tell people that they should not own slaves, because humans should be free from slavery, torture and death. I am telling people the same thing here in regards to animals. You keep perceiving my words as my attempt to act superior, which is absurdly false.

There's no replacement for slave owners, as there is no replacement for child molesters. I don't and should not need to offer a replacement to slave owners in order to convince them that their current actions are immoral. My focus would still be for the slaves to be free, just as my focus is for the animals to be free from torture and slaughter.

1. You said axioms are a given. Does this mean metaethical moral axioms can also be a given?
2. You said someone who finds something self-evidently true (an axiom) isn't about their preferences. Could you not say the same thing about metaethics?

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Before this, you said that all ethical views/stances, are based on preference. But then you said that accepting an axiom is not a preference. Well, there are axioms within metaethics, so you need to explain why some axioms are not based on preference, while others are based on preference. — chatterbears

Okay, so one baby-step at a time:

First, ethical utterances are NOT true or false.

Do we both understand that? If so, then we can move on from there, and I'll just remind you if I need to that ethical utterances are not true or false if that comes up again.

First, ethical utterances are NOT true or false. — Terrapin Station

Why is this even relevant? You have stated that axioms are both based on preference and NOT based on preference. This seems to be a contradiction, in which you would need to clear up. Can you clear this up?

Are you stating that a moral axiom is not a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true? You seem to think that self-evidently true is different from true/false, correct?

This may help you.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

An axiom is a concept in logic. It is a statement which is accepted without question, and which has no proof. The axiom is be used as the premise or starting point for further reasoning or arguments, usually in logic or in mathematics.

Moral axioms follow the same logic. They are self-evidently true, as you cannot "prove" them to be true or false. They are used as the premise or starting point for further reasoning or arguments, similar to logic or math.

Do we agree on this?

Why is this even relevant? — chatterbears

It doesn't matter for the moment why it's relevant. Do you agree that moral utterances are not true or false? Let's do really, really simple things one step at a time. I don't want to try anything more complicated if we can't do that.

Do you agree that moral utterances are not true or false? — Terrapin Station

In some objective sense outside of a mind? I would agree. But the same is true for logic and math as well. Do you agree?

In some objective sense outside of a mind? — chatterbears

There is some sense in which you would say that moral utterances can be true or false?

There is some sense in which you would say that moral utterances can be true or false? — Terrapin Station

If we are going to have a back n' forth, you should at least respond to my questions as well.

So to ask my question again, here it is. In the same way that moral utterances are not true or false, would you agree that the same could be said for logic and math? Meaning, logic utterances are not true or false.

If we are going to have a back n' forth, you should at least respond to my questions as well. — chatterbears

I can, but I want to keep things simple first, and you haven't finished answering my question, because it's not clear if you agree that moral utterances can't be true or false unconditionally, in any sense.

Why are you putting "higher importance" on the needs of humans, but not on the needs of non-human animals (such as pigs, goats, sheep, cows, chickens, etc...)? — chatterbears

My own needs are, to me, more important than your needs, even though were both human. Insofar as your human form allows you to reciprocate my behavior toward you (and insofar as that allows us to cooperate), I elevate my consideration of other humans above my consideration of lesser creatures for practical reasons.

The fact is, if you're willing to kill and eat another animal, even if it is the only way to survive, then you've valued your own needs above the needs of the other.

Surely there is some property in which you are making a distinction between humans and non-human animals. What is that distinction, in which allows humans to live free from torture and/or slaughter, but not non-human animals? — chatterbears

Intelligence. Basically, farm animals are too stupid and ill-equipped to be the masters of their own lives. In fact, unless humans rear and slaughter them on a continuing basis then they cannot live at all, let alone free of suffering; we need their meat to pay for their existence and they're incapable of surviving on their own, therefore it's impossible for them to live without slaughter. The fact that we cannot make moral agreements with animals (they're stupid) often pits us against them, where it's either our suffering or theirs.

This goes against scientific peer reviewed studies on many levels. You can do the research yourself, but I will link a few articles below. — chatterbears

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/
- https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets
- https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179[/quote]

Why do you keep inflicting random digital refuse upon me without lifting a single finger to actually cite the material? (your method of link pasting is not an adequate form of citation, and none of these links adequately or directly address the claim I made)

These links lead to articles, position statements, and studies that lean heavily on a less than complete picture of the economic factors and hurtles involved in producing a global/national nutritionally adequate diet. They rely on the assumption that a no-animal-product system would be nutritionally, environmentally, and economically feasible/beneficial in the long run, but they have not demonstrated these to be facts:

Showing that we eat too much meat is not the same as showing that a vegan diet gives better health results than a diet with some animal products (nobody bothers to carry out that specific study because they're all funded by diametrically opposed lobby groups). Secondly, none of these studies even attempt to show that producing these ideal vegan diets en masse is economically viable (there are seasonal considerations to make, limitations on available land, issues of storage and transportation (let alone inventing a brand new magical crop fertilizer) and more). Animal agriculture has the edge in some of these respects: we can dry store their feed-grain in giant silos and it will not rot (and it grows in more places), and we can selectively slaughter animals to meet changes in demand; we can move livestock around without the need for refrigeration. Too many animals being raised simply because we love to eat meat is clearly not economical or of nutritional value, but nobody is denying that. What's being denied is that the complete elimination of all animal products from human life (given the myriad of complex interdependence throughout all industry) would actually save us money. Very obviously it would cost us money and would create various agricultural and logistic problems for us to solve, ultimately threatening global food security.

The environmental assumptions made in favor of animal-free agriculture as opposed to limited use are at times laughably naive. For instance, given that (IIRC) about half the world's food is fertilized, and that there is no emission free fertilizer, it stands to reason that some manure producing livestock is in-fact economical. The actually peer reviewed study you cited blames livestock for 64% of all ammonia emissions but conveniently fails to acknowledge that the ammonia emitting manure in question is often used as fertilizer for the vegan diets they're advocates for. If we did eliminate all livestock, we would have to mine (using fossil fuels) oil and other materials to use as synthetic fertilizer, which may actually pollute the planet even more than livestock.

None of the articles you "cited" are scientific. One of them might have been peer reviewed, but a list of potentially misleading statistics in a publication for family physicians isn't exactly "scientific". It reads like an editorial...

No you didn't, unless I missed it. Was it, the slaughter of animals allows humans to thrive? Why should we thrive off the suffering/torture/slaughter of another species? Because we have the power to do so? — chatterbears

Yes, the slaughter of animals contributes the the ability of humans to thrive. That's a difference between rape/torture and the slaughter and consumption of animals.

It's not that we should exploit other forms of life for our own gain, it's that in order to gain, we must.

No we are most definitely not. A lion cannot survive if it does not eat meat. We can survive if we do not eat meat. But that is irrelevant to the point of, why is it ok to holocaust one species but not another? Would you be ok with humans creating a holocaust for dogs? Or how about if humans only created a holocaust for severely mentally disabled humans, in which we exploited their bodies for meat and other products? — chatterbears

Who do you mean by "we"? I know you don't mean all humans because as I've already established without contest, all humans living traditional lifestyles do need to consume meat, and second and third world countries rely on meat and animal products for their food security, so are you only talking about first world countries?

Why are you comparing raising farm animals to the holocaust? If we're being technical, the one advocating an animal holocaust is you. You could have taken the position that factory farming should not be permitted, and we would have agreed, but instead you had to take the position that to raise and then slaughter a farm animal, regardless of how well that animal was treated when it was alive, should not be permitted. By doing so, you've essentially made the statement that the life of any and every farm animal is not worth living, and you propose a final solution in the form of genocide.

It's funny you should mention dogs. You say "holocaust for dogs" but what you meant to say was "is it O.K for us to exploit dogs?", and the answer is yes, because we already do, and have done for thousands of years. But it's not entirely a one-sided relationship; we've used dogs for hunting and protection and companionship for so long that they have evolved into man's best friend. While they protect us from other beasts, we also protect them from injury, disease, starvation, and more. Would I be O.K with farming dogs for meat? It depends on the farm, but I would deem it foolish given how skinny they are.

Would I be O.K with farming severely mentally disable humans for meat? At the outset, I just want to say that this would never be efficient from a thermodynamic perspective (instead of feeding the human-livestock, just feed the human directly) but in some kind of fun-house reality where farming severely mentally disabled people is extremely profitable, I might not actually object.

If you recall, my position is that the justifiability of human meat consumption in general (and in individual cases) exists on a spectrum determined by the severity of need. If it was required for our survival that we farm severely mentally disabled human livestock, how could you or I then object? As our ability to satisfy our spectrum of needs without exploitation grows, so to do out moral obligations to refrain from exploitation, in those respects.

No matter how many false moral equivalences you draw between animal farming and {insert random atrocity here}, you'll not out-run the thermodynamic bill that must be paid if we are to continue existing.

If they have adequate land for animal agriculture, they should have adequate land for plant agriculture. It would be the same as me asking you, "Do you think it is moral for growing or developing countries to consume human flesh if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan?" — chatterbears

Ahh, see, that's something that someone who knows absolutely nothing about agriculture would say, and also perhaps someone who has not been reading my posts (not just in this thread).

Feed corn is not fit for direct human consumption; we cannot digest it. Feed corn grows on land that is too rough and infertile for vegetable and fruit crops, which are vegan staples. We could take all that feed corn and process it all into high fructose corn syrup, but that has almost no nutritional value so nobody would need to eat it. Furthermore, in developing countries, goats and other herd animals are typically grazed on pastures or areas with rough forage, which is the form of traditional cattle farming that is actually economical.

P.S Are you saying that human cannibalism is worse than non-human animal consumption?

Very lucid post, thanks.

What's interesting is our canines have almost disappeared. Carnivores usually have large canines.

Also, civilization began with cultivation of wheat, rice, barley, etc. (all plants) and not with livestock (animal) farming.

Are we evolving into vegans?

Eating animals in unethical because, as @Nils Loc said it's not necessary to eat meat. How do herbivores survive if meat is essential?

I guess we just don't care.

Ok. So to a certain extent people's personal view about the justice of humans' relationship and treatment towards animals is subjective and can simply be left as such. But I think where this question becomes important is in terms of government and economics. For example, the desire for an increase in productivity etc. from business could cause large corporations to perhaps exploit animals, by prioritizing their economic productivity. And nothing is stopping them if there are no governmental restraints and within the governmental restraints has to be an ethical principle and within the ethical principle whose fundamental question is What are humans in relation to animals?

For example, whether you should not eat meat is a matter of personal belief. But what constitutes animal abuse is an entirely different question, and more of a societal question in our post-industrial commercial world. I really think that the accidental confluence of these two issues in this conversation is making the main points hard to follow.

I actually told you multiple times, this is not what I am doing. You are incorrectly assuming I am trying to position myself as superior to somebody else. — chatterbears

Since I became vegan, many people have told me, "You think you're better than everybody else, sitting on your high horse." — chatterbears

Do you not understand the difference between what one person is trying to achieve, versus, what they are being perceived to try to achieve?

What I am trying to achieve: Bring awareness to the animal torture and slaughter industry, while explaining why we should not discriminate against them and treat them unfairly.

What people perceive me to do: Act morally superior.

You, along with many others, have incorrectly assessed my goal as one who is interested to showcase his moral superiority. If you want to just keep repeating this over and over, that's your mistake.

People could have said the same thing to martin luther king when he was fighting for equal rights of black people. "Martin just thinks he is better than everybody else, sitting on his high horse."

Look, I'm on your side, and just trying to help you out. You have activist disease. That's going to get in the way of you helping animals in an effective manner. Your friends were already telling you this before I found this thread.

Sorry, you are not Martin Luther King. You aren't some glorious historic figure that's going to change the world. You're just a well meaning guy who hasn't yet figured out how to help animals in an effective manner.

This is a philosophy forum.

This is what we do here.

We tear things apart...

... in the hopes of shedding some light.

It's not personal.

Your friends were already telling you this before I found this thread. — Jake

My friends have never told me this. People I don't know, have told me this. Such as people on this forum, or people I talk to on my live stream. You also fail to understand that majority of the people I talk to have never said this about me. It is usually the people on the defensive who feel I have "attacked" their character in some way, rather than understanding the arguments and logic I have put forward on the table.

Sorry, you are not Martin Luther King. You aren't some glorious historic figure that's going to change the world. You're just a well meaning guy who hasn't yet figured out how to help animals in an effective manner. — Jake

Yet me and Martin Luther King both have the same thing in common, which is standing up for the rights of the wrongfully discriminated. But more importantly, I want you to quote me in any discussion I have had with someone on this thread, in which I have conducted in a way that would portray me as someone who cares more about displaying moral superiority, rather than discussing my position and/or having a debate.

As a side note. I can count at least 10 people I have helped change. Half of which, started with drinking soy milk (my recommendation) instead of cow's milk. And talking to them over time, in a polite manner, has helped them realize the harms of the industry and they have lessened their animal consumption by a large margin. Some have completely went vegan because of our talks, while others have only became vegetarian and/or lessened their meat consumption. You can tell me my "methods" are ineffective, yet you are blind to how effective they actually are. All you want to do is claim things without providing evidence for it.

As I said already, I want you to quote me where I cared more about showing my moral superiority, rather than discussing the ethics.

I can, but I want to keep things simple first, and you haven't finished answering my question, because it's not clear if you agree that moral utterances can't be true or false unconditionally, in any sense. — Terrapin Station

Depends on how you define "true", but I will answer in two different ways.

True, meaning an objective fact about reality, then no.
True, meaning a correct statement in reference to an axiom, then yes.

As I said, math and logic both hold the same position in the realm of what can be true or false. Math can't be true or false, unless an axiom is put in place. Same with logic. Same with ethics.

Does this answer your question? And if so, please answer mine.

Here are your words again...

Since I became vegan, many people have told me, "You think you're better than everybody else, sitting on your high horse." — chatterbears

I've been a vegetarian since the early 1970s. Nobody is saying any of that to me.

Anyway, you're not interested in what might be the most effective method of persuasion. That's ok, you're entitled to that choice. This seems a good point for me to butt out, and leave you to learn on your own by beating your head against doing this the hard way. Maybe we can talk again someday when it finally dawns on you that what you want to do is not what works.

Here are your words again... — Jake

Quote me where I actually have acted in a way that displays a sole purpose of moral superiority. I didn't tell you to quote me saying that people have told me this. I want you to quote me ACTUALLY doing it. Can you do that, or are you just going to claim things without evidence?

And the reason you haven't gotten criticized for being vegetarian, is because you don't talk about the morality and ethics behind your decision making. I do. That's the difference.

That answers it well enough. On my view, there's no sense in which moral utterances can be true or false, correct or incorrect. So we disagree about that.

Logic and mathematics are different in that at their core, they're based on (though not exactly identical to) objective relations. Most of logic and mathematics is an extrapolation of how we think about those objective relations, but objective relations are the initial basis. That's not the case with morality/ethics.

Logic and mathematics are different in that at their core, they're based on (though not exactly identical to) objective relations. Most of logic and mathematics is an extrapolation of how we think about those objective relations, but objective relations are the initial basis. That's not the case with morality/ethics. — Terrapin Station

Can you explain this further, because I don't understand what you are referring to.

How is logic based on objective relations? What objective relations are you referring to?

How is logic based on objective relations? What objective relations are you referring to? — chatterbears

For example, the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.

Or the fact that if A obtains and B obtains, then it's not the case that neither A nor B obtain.