Humans are the first animals known to have what we call morals. — TheMadFool
Morality has, ironically, evolved in the apex predator on Earth - humans — TheMadFool
They are not relevant to it because veganism is not a philosophy. It is a practice, and different people adopt the practice for different reasons - concern for animal suffering, concern about killing animals, their own health, environmental concerns, their own digestion, economics (it's cheaper), fashion.I don't see how their actions are relevant to a discussion on Veganism as a philosophy. — Isaac
To complain that practising veganism does not logically entail, for instance, living with a tiny carbon footprint (although there is a correlation) is to make a category error. — andrewk
Why is free speech good in your opinion? — TheMadFool
Out of 1000 rapes, 994 perps walk free. — NKBJ
So what if there's two eye witnesses? Or three? Or one hundred? — NKBJ
It is inherently illogical for a deity to exist. — NKBJ
That's because zero is not attainable in those other items. There's no reason why an inability to reach 'perfection' in one dimension should prevent someone from striving for it in a dimension in which it is practically attainable.when vegans address these other aspects, reduction is the solution they adopt there. — Isaac
Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. — andrewk
If we were to follow your prescription, we would be stopped from putting our ideals into practice - that's the point of the proverb. By the standard you seem to be promoting, we would never do anything to help anyone unless we could be sure that it was the maximum possible good we could do for everyone. Apparently there's no point giving a starving man a meal unless we immediately sell everything we own and distribute it amongst all the starving people on the Earth.And never let proverbs stop one from putting one's ideals into practice. — Tzeentch
Answer mine first, which pre-dates yours, and is related to it:Meanwhile, why don't you answer my question? — Tzeentch
If you weren't saying that then point were you trying to make in this post?Are you now saying that your position is that if one doesn't do one of those things (some ludicrous, some that have no impact at all) then there is no point in doing anything to reduce suffering? — andrewk
In order to get an answer, you'll first need to explain what it means. How does who justify what?how do you justify it — Tzeentch
Are you now saying that your position is that if one doesn't do one of those things (some ludicrous, some that have no impact at all) then there is no point in doing anything to reduce suffering? — andrewk
If you weren't saying that then point were you trying to make in this post? — andrewk
One doesn't have to justify something for which there is no reasonable alternative. If one is born into such a society, the best one can do is minimise unnecessary consumption. — andrewk
In order to get an answer, you'll first need to explain what it means. How does who justify what? — andrewk
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.