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. — VagabondSpectre
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
By my logic, slavery is not ethical. I pointed out one of the differences between slaughter/consumption of animals and rape/torture. — VagabondSpectre
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
First, ethical utterances are NOT true or false. — Terrapin Station
Why is this even relevant? — chatterbears
Do you agree that moral utterances are not true or false? — Terrapin Station
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? — Terrapin Station
If we are going to have a back n' forth, you should at least respond to my questions as well. — chatterbears
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Your friends were already telling you this before I found this thread. — Jake
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
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
Since I became vegan, many people have told me, "You think you're better than everybody else, sitting on your high horse." — chatterbears
Here are your words again... — Jake
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
How is logic based on objective relations? What objective relations are you referring to? — chatterbears
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.