Behind a thin veil of careful wording it is becoming apparent that there exists a sense of moral superiority in some of these people with regards to their veganism. — Tzeentch
Unless one is perfectly dedicated to the reduction of suffering, it is hopelessly hypocritical to judge the moral fibre of others. — Tzeentch
Any moral claim obviously falls under the tacit restriction: ought implies can. — NKBJ
Abandoning thousand year old practices because a few scientists have done some maths is ridiculous. — Isaac
I suggest you read them more carefully. Some refer to the meat industry - irrelevant to somebody who only eats what they kill. Another says veganism is an easy choice - clearly that is not aimed at hunter gatherers, for whom it would mean death. One talks about 'our morals' and hence can only be referring to people with the same moral framework as themself. The last one says that being vegan avoids engaging in a bad act. If you interpret that as meaning that not being vegan always means you are engaging in a bad act, you are committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.I don't read anything in those quotes that even hints at the idea that these pronouncements only apply to a particular subsection of society, do you? — Isaac
Some refer to the meat industry - irrelevant to somebody who only eats what they kill. — andrewk
Another says veganism is an easy choice - clearly that is not aimed at hunter gatherers, for whom it would mean death. — andrewk
One talks about 'our morals' and hence can only be referring to people with the same moral framework as themself. — andrewk
The last one says that being vegan avoids engaging in a bad act. If you interpret that as meaning that not being vegan always means you are engaging in a bad act, you are committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. — andrewk
You've now replied by arguing against or criticising the quotes, which completely misses the point. — andrewk
If you have purchased or consumed any of those products, you must be against human rights. Right? — chatterbears
Statement 1 is only correct if we replace 'Vegans' by 'Some vegans'. — andrewk
However I can see no reason why anybody should believe either 2 or 3. — andrewk
If you have an argument against what those two individuals have said then your argument is with them, and there's no point in taking it up with me. What I do not accept is your blanket statements about vegans.It's blindingly obvious from both the language used ('murder', 'torture', 'bad', 'stubborn omnis'...) and the sustained campaign, that people like NKBJ and Chatterbears think that non-vegans (with the exception of those who have to eat meat for survival) are committing a moral wrong. — Isaac
I often find myself in that position. Probably because my most strongly held philosophical position is anti-dogmatism - recognising that it is very difficult to be certain about anything, and that most dogmatic claims are unsupportable. That includes claims that vegans are inconsistent in the rationale underlying their practices (as opposed to the more specific claim that a certain argument made by a particular vegan is inconsistent, or doesn't stand up to scrutiny, which has a better chance of being supportable).you're just playing burden-of-proof tennis with me — Isaac
Yes, I think otherwise. There are plenty of other moral claims an ethical vegan can make. For instance they might say that it is immoral to eat a product the consumption of which leads to a net increase in animal suffering. That would exclude hunter gatherers and also people who eat cleanly-killed game. It could even exclude meat production in the manner advocated and exemplified by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. The moral claim that is made depends on the vegan.I'm claiming that those vegans who make a moral claim must, by definition, be making a moral claim that it is bad to eat meat or use animal products unless absolutely necessary for immediate survival. If you think there's a reason to think otherwise, perhaps you could actually state it — Isaac
No, it isn't. A moral relativist is as capable of making a moral claim to another person as a moral absolutist is. If they share the same moral axioms (which seems to be the case here, as most participants in this thread appear to be approaching it from a utilitarian base), then it's a disagreement about what strategy maximises compliance with the axioms - ie an argument over implementation.Given that they think other people can have committed moral wrongs on the basis of their morality, they must be moral realists, that's just the definition of the term. — Isaac
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.