I just don’t have the patience for this kind of thing. You have been told clearly by like, 5 people. You have been retold by those same people in even greater clarity. All the data as to why you are wrong on multiple fronts has been provided, you just don’t get it. You want quotes that are examples self righteous, so you can argue with them. Self reflect. Look at your own posts, why should I do all the work for you? Ill try to point you in the right direction, but Im done here (again). — DingoJones
look at the way you reacted to peoples reactions to your comparison of yourself to Martin Luthar King jr. Do not think about why you were correct in the comparison, think about why people reacted the way they did (I laughed out loud). — DingoJones
You seem to have the patience to criticize, but not to offer a solution and/or provide examples of the thing you claim is wrong. — chatterbears
I was making a comparison between what we are standing up for, which is injustice. — chatterbears
Here's how to back up your claims: Provide evidence. — chatterbears
Chatterbears nailed. — Bitter Crank
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. — VagabondSpectre
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. — VagabondSpectre
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. — VagabondSpectre
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) .....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... — VagabondSpectre
Right now, we are currently in a over-population crisis. For us to thrive, we would need to stop growing as rapidly as we have been. Killing humans off, to lessen the population, would contribute to the ability of humans to thrive. Would you therefore claim that, if something contributes to the ability of humans to thrive, therefore it is good for humans to put into action? Humans are the cause of so much pollution and massive contribution to climate change. Killing us off (to lessen the population) would actually be better for us in the long run, as well as help restore the health of the earth and our living conditions.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. — VagabondSpectre
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? — VagabondSpectre
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. — VagabondSpectre
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. — VagabondSpectre
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. — VagabondSpectre
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. — VagabondSpectre
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. — VagabondSpectre
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). — VagabondSpectre
I am not saying one is worse than the other, as they are both immoral. The only time they 'may' become morally acceptable is within a survival situation. But even then, I may still find it immoral to take the life of a human (or non-human animal), to fulfill your own selfish needs. As stated, it may be more understandable and justifiable, but I would still find it immoral on some level.P.S Are you saying that human cannibalism is worse than non-human animal consumption? — VagabondSpectre
Why can’t you apply the same rule of non-contradiction to ethics to form similar basis? I understand this would not resemble conventional ethics, — DingoJones
What you are referring to is either the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity. — chatterbears
So to be clear, would you be fine killing mentally disabled people for food, since they cannot reciprocate your behavior (insofar as that allows you both to cooperate) in a practical way? If your answer is no, then the ability to reciprocate the behavior is not the reason you value humans as higher. — chatterbears
So you have given me two justifications as of right now. 1st reciprocation of behavior. 2nd, intelligence level. As stated above with the reciprocation scenario, I will do the same with intelligence. Are you ok slaughtering humans who are of lower intelligence (such as severely mentally disabled people)? — chatterbears
Right now, we are currently in a over-population crisis. — chatterbears
Killing humans off, to lessen the population, would contribute to the ability of humans to thrive. — chatterbears
Would you therefore claim that, if something contributes to the ability of humans to thrive, therefore it is good for humans to put into action? — chatterbears
Do you have any research on this? The cheapest ingredients in the world are plant-based. Rice, beans, pasta, fruits, vegetables, etc... To say you have established this fact without contest, is incorrect. I know many countries do rely on animal products to survive, but would you say most countries? I don't think so. — chatterbears
Holocaust survivors have compared factory farming to the jewish holocaust. See here: https://youtu.be/f7dZv43A0g0 — chatterbears
I keep to my original question. Would you be ok with a holocaust for dogs? And since they are skinnier, maybe we would need a larger holocaust than our current one we have for other animals. Would you be fine with that? — chatterbears
o you care more about profit than the lives of sentient beings, just to be clear? Especially if it was your child or someone related to you. You'd be okay with giving the mentally-disabled agriculture industry your family member, so they could exploit, torture and kill them for profit? — chatterbears
In the same way that animal factory farming isn't required for our survival right now, severely mentally disabled human factory farming wouldn't be required for our survival. — chatterbears
You can call them false moral equivalences, but they aren't. — chatterbears
The thermodynamic bill will be there regardless of our action, but should we not choose the best action for ourselves and others around us? — chatterbears
I have been reading your posts, and whether or not I know enough about agriculture is irrelevant — chatterbears
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?" - You didn't address or answer this question. — chatterbears
I am not saying one is worse than the other, as they are both immoral. — chatterbears
he only time they 'may' become morally acceptable is within a survival situation. — chatterbears
What would it have to do with ethics at all? — Terrapin Station
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
...because it would be operating under the same “facts” (cannot be itself and not itself) that you yourself have called objective. Your turn. — DingoJones
The particular objective relation that a thing is itself, and can't be not itself at the same time, has nothing to do with ethics, though. Ethics is about the acceptability of interpersonal behavior. If there were objective relations that somehow amounted to whether any interpersonal behavior was acceptable or unacceptable (permissible, impermissible, obligatory, etc.) then sure, it could be similar, but there are no objective relations of that sort to base ethics on. — Terrapin Station
You are working backwards from your conclusions about ethics to dismiss the relevance of something thats foundational to almost any conclusions that can be drawn about almost anything. Starting with the simple, basic “fact” or rule or axiom (whatever you want to call it) that it doesnt make sense for something to be itself and not itself is the basis for a great many things. Im asking you to tell me why ethics must be excluded from the great many things that the “fact”, rule or axiom is applied to.
Its like you are using a rope to climb onto a rooftop. Ok, fair enough, but the versatility of a rope is such that you can also use it to swing from one rooftop to another, or tie someone up, or as a tightrope to get accross a pit...to which your response is “that doesnt make sense, ropes are for climbing onto rooftops” and im saying “yes they are but why couldnt they also be used to hang a tire swing from a tree branch?” — DingoJones
We eat meat so we should eat meat? — TheMadFool
I guess we can say that as of now it's necessary for us to eat meat; therefore, without a choice eating meat shouldn't be a moral issue. — TheMadFool
What about the future, for example if we can develop synthetic meat? This provides a more ethical option and at that point in time we should stop killing animals for meat. — TheMadFool
Another thing is the proportion of meat that should be in our diets. According to dietary recommendations meat should be, say, x% of our daily diet. Are we following these dietary recommendations or is our consumption in excess. If it is the latter then eating meat in excess would be immoral because we would be exceeding our daily meat recommendations. Right? — TheMadFool
But the two products don't have exactly the same taste. — S
No [one] has been able to prove that you can survive properly as a vegan. If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet[, then] where do you think [that that] would get them? — Sir2u
Another thing is the proportion of meat that should be in our diets. According to dietary recommendations meat should be, say, x% of our daily diet. Are we following these dietary recommendations or is our consumption in excess. If it is the latter then eating meat in excess would be immoral because we would be exceeding our daily meat recommendations. Right? — TheMadFool
It is not about the amount of meat we eat but the contents of the meat that we need and the body's ability to absorb them. Anything in excess is usually immoral, but who is going to figure out what each person needs. I had a girl friend a long time ago that would eat a whole giant pizza almost every day as a snack, usually late at night. She never put on any extra weight because she burned so much energy at work and in sports. Her twin brother would look at a slice once a week and get fatter.
Now those fat slobs that sit around and do nothing but eat would probably still get fat on a vegetarian diet and still be immoral. — Sir2u
Wrong. That something is against dietary recommendations does not mean that it is immoral. — S
Why?
If it's necessary and, hence, recommended for me to eat 300 gm of meat everyday then I have to to stay survive. That means eating more than 300 gm of meat in a day would be a choice I have. Since opting to eat more than is necessary for survival would entail the killing of more animals it would be immoral for me to do that as the killings were not necessary.
I find this reasoning sound. We don't say lions are immoral for they kill only to survive. However, the sport of hunting is immoral because it isn't necessary for survival. — TheMadFool
Already explained. — DingoJones
Your argument relies on the assumption that your premise positing a necessity is true. — S
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.