Where do you get the idea that I am worried about "salvation" or "enlightenment"? — Artemis

Just a hunch. You seemed to be talking about immorality as something we can eliminate vs a subjective opinion. Being perfectly moral sounds like enlightenment or salvation ideas to me. It seems nonsensical from a non-mystical viewpoint...similar to recent threads where people are trying to eliminate belief.

I would argue that intellectual enlightenment is the path to vegetarianism — Artemis

Wait, if 'enlightenment' is a real thing there could be no more 'end goal' right? So it would not be a path to something else. Am I thinking too buddhist? Is there another concept of personal enlightenment I should be looking into?

If you really are a consequentialist and only care about the suffering of animals, — Artemis

That is why I said "MORE of a consequentialist" not 100% consequentialist.

Again, nobody here said someone was an awful person for eating meat. — Artemis

TheMadFool was calling himself an awful person for eating meat...can you stop projecting my projections :razz:

You have to draw the line somewhere, no matter how black and white you think that is, because otherwise you're on route to justifying the Holocaust and slavery. — Artemis

Huh? Black and white? My argument? It is arguing that it is all grey areas more than anything. You are the one trying to "draw lines". Please highlight any argument I ever present that you view as justification for the holocaust and slavery. Am I wrong to assume it is obvious that meat eating is not as bad as slavery or the holocaust?

Being perfectly moral sounds like enlightenment or salvation ideas to me. — ZhouBoTong

Nobody is talking about being "perfect."

Is there another concept of personal enlightenment I should be looking into? — ZhouBoTong

Yes, and I already pointed that out. Ever heard of the Age of Enlightenment? Has nothing to do with Buddhists.

TheMadFool was calling himself an awful person for eating meat...can you stop projecting my projection — ZhouBoTong

But I wasn't. So talk to the right person about that quibble.

Am I wrong to assume it is obvious that meat eating is not as bad as slavery or the holocaust? — ZhouBoTong

See this sort of contradicts your other statement suggesting morality is a "subjective opinion." What is it now? Is the Holocaust actually bad or is that just your "opinion"?

Here's the real problem with moral relativism (the idea that morality is just "opinions"), it's too egocentric. It worries too much about me and my opinion. It tends to ignore the whole problem: there are actual beings suffering. That's objectively true. The cow being torn away from her baby doesn't give a hoot about my "opinion." The turkey who's legs are literally breaking under her unnatural weight doesn't care about my "opinion." The hen getting her beak cut off while she is alive and aware doesn't care about my "opinion."

Ever heard of the Age of Enlightenment? — Artemis

In the age of Enlightenment, "enlightenment" is no more than humanism right? The idea that humans can use their brains to solve problems? I can see how some of the times you used it, this version of enlightenment could be applied. But that type of enlightenment is not some destination to be reached, which was strongly implied through much of our discussion on the subject.

See this sort of contradicts your other statement suggesting morality is a "subjective opinion." What is it now? Is the Holocaust actually bad or is that just your "opinion"? — Artemis

It is my opinion. It also happens to be the opinion of MOST people. But "objective" morality doesn't really make sense. What makes it objective? Don't like half of all philosophy people view morality as largely subjective? I am not saying I am right, but it doesn't seem that outlandish?

Here's the real problem with moral relativism (the idea that morality is just "opinions") — Artemis

I would put a rather LARGE gap between "all morals are subjective" and "moral relativism". Moral relativism pushes the idea that I CANNOT judge another person's morals because it is all just relative to their situation. On the other hand, I feel comfortable judging other people's morals (at least to some extent) based on my subjective opinion (which may be based on certain objective facts). I think one can be a moral subjectivist without being a moral relativist (@Terrapin Station, does that seem right to you? Artemis, I included Terrapin because he seems to be the ultimate subjectivist around here, so if he disagrees, I should - but might not, haha - accept I am wrong on subjectivism vs relativism).

But that type of enlightenment is not some destination to be reached, which was strongly implied through much of our discussion on the subject. — ZhouBoTong

Strongly implied by whom? Not me. I've consistently said it's a means and not an end.

But "objective" morality doesn't really make sense. What makes it objective? Don't like half of all philosophy people view morality as largely subjective? I am not saying I am right, but it doesn't seem that outlandish? — ZhouBoTong

I don't think "half of all philosophy people" (whatever that means? us here? academics? anyone who's ever had a deep thought?) view morality as subjective. But I haven't seen a poll either way. However, it's immaterial because it's an ad populum. People believing X doesn't make X true.

Moral relativism pushes the idea that I CANNOT judge another person's morals because it is all just relative to their situation. On the other hand, I feel comfortable judging other people's morals (at least to some extent) based on my subjective opinion (which may be based on certain objective facts). — ZhouBoTong

Moral relativism is an umbrella term that covers subjectively, culturally, historically, class-specifically, and all the other kinds of relativist views of morality. Most commonly people are referring to the first two.

However, if, as you say, you think a subjectivist could judge someone else for their actions, I don't see on what basis. I think at most you could be sort of aesthetically turned off by those actions, but your own metaethical position maintains that there is no objective morality and therefore that there is no objective standard to which to hold the other person, and you can't really hold another person to your personal subjective standard.

It doesn't matter what kind of relativism or subjectivism you're talking about, my critique remains thereof.
It's all focusing way too much on you, and not giving hardly any attention to the person/s being harmed.

To the to be murdered cow, to the molested child, to the beaten woman, to the tortured slave it really doesn't matter what your "subjective opinion" is. They would just prefer you get around somehow, someway to leaving them the heck alone.

In a few words, if possible, could you describe why it is valid to call the atrocities against animals "unethical", instead of calling them "unkind"?

What element in ethics do the tortures breach? I am equally as abhored by these events as you are, but why call them unethical, instead of unkind?

What is the very point in ethics that you feel the unkind actions go against?

Please give me some answers, because I am confused. I see no problem with ethics, but huge problems of unkind behaviour.

I am puzzled as to why you think acting with kindness and acting ethically in this case are distinct things.

Unkind is a weasel word, for quite a few reasons. I'll focus on one for now: it covers both neutral and mean actions. If I'm minding my own business and, say, just enjoying my yard for a few minutes, I'm not being kind to anyone in particular, but I'm not being mean either. If I'm in my yard and find a kitten and start stabbing it with a pitchfork, I'm just being downright nasty and thus unkind.

I think unkindness and unethical form a Venn diagram. Most unethical things are unkind and most unkind things are unethical. As petrichor points out, in the case of torture. Unless you have some superrogatory moral reason to be unkind, unkindness is (probably always) unethical.

Like it's unkind to lie, but it's more important to save the Jews in your attic and therefore you should lie to the Nazis when they come knocking.

Is eating meat morally permissible? Why or why not?

Do advances in slaughterhouses by individuals such as Temple Grandin make it less ethically problematic, if it even is problematic to begin with? — darthbarracuda

We need to rethink the entire relationship between meat and humans who consume them.

Proponents of veganism point to the ethical transgression of killing another life that is, if really thought about, unnecessary. To the extent that I am aware meat is just a convenient source of protein. Meat protein is in forms easier for our bodies to absorb and utilize. Ergo, eating meat is an indefensible position because we can always get our proteins from other sources like plants.

Perhaps being exposed as a victimizer - killing and eating helpless animals - is not enough to convince some who, in this context, either think there's no immorality in consuming meat or simply don't care.

For such people I'd like to offer a different kind of argument. It's a bit twisted like a Night Shyamalan movie but may be suited for those who aren't convinced by the usual veganism arguments against meat consumption. I'll offer two such arguments below:

1. Everyone knows about parasites - protozoan and worms. Some of these parasites have a life-cycle that spans more than one organism e.g. the tapeworm (pig-human). It could be that our taste for meat originates in and is perpetuated by parasites that are lodged in our bodies only so that their life-cycle can be completed. I have no proof of this but I'll post a video on how parasites may alter behavior and non-vegetarians can decide whether or not they're zombies, just their to serve as hosts for a hitherto undiscovered parasite.

2. Evolutionarily speaking, animals that are consumed seem to be successful. Cows, sheep, pigs are not, quite oddly, on the endangered species list. It appears that humans are a means to the survival of their species. This is a win-win situation so may actually convince non-vegetarianism but do you want to be used in this way, like a sex-toy if you really think?

However, don't forget the parasite that is the ultimate winner in this game. Humans lose because they become immoral. The cows, sheep, pigs and other animals lose because they live miserable lives. It's the as yet undiscovered parasite that has both its hosts in prime condition.

So, non-vegetarians need to really think, if not satisfied with being called victimizers, will they avoid meat if they knew they were the victims?

Either way, it seems to expose a moral failure in humans in general, not only non-vegetarians.

Please note; I am a non-vegetarian.