So, sticking to meat-eating - well, 'I' did not create the meat industry or kill the animals whose meat is now on sale to me in shops. And I did not actively cultivate an appetite for meat. So, it is not my fault that animals are being reared and systematically killed for their meat. — Bartricks
As to your dig that I'm "dug in".... Well, let's just say it's interesting psychologically when two parties won't budge on their positions, but one party thinks the not-budging only makes the other person seem stubborn. — Artemis
doctrine of double effect and discussed ad nauseam in philosophy journals - is confused and has no moral relevance? — Bartricks
Just to be clear - your position is that doing X knowing that Y will be a consequence is the same as intended Y? — Bartricks
but if you actually read the literature yourself — Artemis
Why do you think I have not read the literature? I think you haven't. — Bartricks
For instance, above I drew attention to a way of drawing the distinction - a consequence of an action is foreseen rather than intended when the agent could, in principle, hope that it not obtain. — Bartricks
You didn't answer it. Owned. — Bartricks
What are you? 12? — Artemis
Not your fault at all. But you can take actions to improve the well being of others. Are you obligated to?
Isn't that exactly the type of moral questions that people will simply have subjective opinions about? — ZhouBoTong
I often feel the same way. I guess some stubbornness is warranted since you're otherwise just like a flag waving wherever the wind blows you. But complaining about the same steadfastness in other people is what makes little sense. — Artemis
I do not know what a subjective opinion is (aren't all opinions subjective, in that they are made of subjective states?). — Bartricks
but that seems beside the point, for there remains a fact of the matter about what we have obligations to do — Bartricks
I agree that by boycotting meat one could make a difference - but then by staying hooked-up to Mat I could make a difference, but I do not seem to be obliged to hook up to Mat, especially given that Mat's situation is not my responsibility. Likewise, if it isn't my fault the meat industry exists, and isn't my fault if others take my desire for meat as inspiration to go and kill an animal so as to sell its meat to me, then I think I probably don't have an obligation to forego buying it.
I mean, imagine my enemy makes Mat ill in a way that would require me to give up all sweet products for life else Mat will die. Am I obliged to forego all sweet products for life so as to avert Mat's death? Surely not. Something about me has inspired my enemy to place Mat in a position where he needs me to change my diet in order to live, but that does not make me 'morally' responsible for Mat's position and so doesn't seem to generate any obligation for me to forego sweet products for life. — Bartricks
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.