Well, let me ask you:
Imagine four people A, B, C and D
1. A had no choice (it was necessary) in killing C
2. B had a choice not to kill D but did so anyway
What is your moral evaluation of persons A and B? — TheMadFool
I think I know where your going with this, now. It is my understanding that humans are considered animals by biologists. We are animals at the top of the food chain. Thus, it is not immoral to eat animals, however much. — Noah Te Stroete
What about eating as many insects as one desires? Do insects count? — Noah Te Stroete
Insects are a special kind of living things. They are animals, too. — Noah Te Stroete
I granted you that eating too much beef may be immoral due to climate change, for instance, but where do you draw the line with animals and by what standard is it a matter of morality? — Noah Te Stroete
Furthermore, let’s say you eat an entire Cornish game hen in a day, but abstain from meat for the majority of the week. Is that immoral? — Noah Te Stroete
So, you base morality on your personal feelings? Because that’s what it sounds like. — Noah Te Stroete
By your standard of basing the morality of eating cows and chickens on your “feelings”, then there are no objective moral truths and we are all justified in basing our own basis for morality on how we feel. What’s the point of this thread then. I don’t give a fuck about tasty chickens. They’re food. — Noah Te Stroete
Furthermore, dogs and cats are companion animals. They are not food. But, based on your reasoning the Chinese are justified in eating dogs. — Noah Te Stroete
Chickens we’re domesticated for food. So were cows, but I would make the argument that eating too much beef is immoral and that belief is justified due to the ill effects on the environment from raising too much cattle. I think this is true because it corresponds to actual states of affairs in reality. Therefore, it is a necessary moral truth that I have knowledge of. — Noah Te Stroete
That’s not an argument. — Noah Te Stroete
By your standard of basing the morality of eating cows and chickens on your “feelings”, then there are no objective moral truths and we are all justified in basing our own morality on how we feel. What’s the point of this thread then? I don’t give a fuck about tasty chickens. They’re food. — Noah Te Stroete
Based on your standard, some Chinese don’t share your “feelings” about dogs. It is not a non sequitur. It follows from your definition of morality. — Noah Te Stroete
This belief is justified in that raising too much cattle is bad for the environment. It is further justified in that it is a leading cause of climate change. — Noah Te Stroete
You were the one who claimed that your moral reasons were based on your “feelings”. Why should your personal feelings count more than others’? — Noah Te Stroete
So, human life has no intrinsic value to you? It’s just a matter of how a particular person happens to feel about humans? — Noah Te Stroete
I hold the belief that eating too much beef is wrong. This belief is justified in that raising too much cattle is bad for the environment. It is further justified in that it is a leading cause of climate change. If these justified reasons happen to correspond to actual states of affairs in reality (are you denying this?), then I have knowledge of an objective moral truth. — Noah Te Stroete
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.