If we conclude that it's OK for the lion to kill the gazelle because it doesn't know right from wrong, then, in order to be consistent, we must also conclude that it's OK for the mentally disabled person to kill whomever they wish because they don't know right from wrong. — Pseudonym

A couple of things:
The lion and the disabled person are both not morally culpable on the basis of lacking the ability to think about morality. But the lion has the added factor of being excused on the grounds of necessity--he or she must eat the gazelle or die. The disabled person is not in the same position.
Saying that someone is not morally culpable for an action is not the same as saying the outcome of that action is desirable or "okay." An infant is not morally responsible for, say, destroying its parent's property (smashing china, or soiling the carpet, for instance), but we still intervene to prevent the undesirable outcome. Similarly we ought to prevent the mentally disabled person from killing others, as that would be an undesirable, and unnecessary outcome.
You might ask whether that would lead to the conclusion that we ought to intervene on the gazelle's behalf. The problem there is that the ecosystem relies on the balance of all of these animals behaving in just the ways they do, and if we intervene, it could lead to widespread disaster. We would be causing more death and suffering than we averted.
This might lead you to ask about the overpopulation of deer and the necessity for humans to hunt. Note that if this were true, we'd still have to get rid of all factory farms, and only a tiny percentage of the population would be able to eat meat on a very rare occasion. But it's also not true, because there are numerous avenues we can explore for population control that have been widely ignored so far.

:lol: :rofl:
Now you're just not even trying.

Balance is one thing. I like balance where it makes sense.
A relativist I am not, nor pretend to be. Relativism is insipid nonsense for the most part.
It also is basically diametrically opposed to pragmatism, by the bye.

That's rich coming from the person driven to split us into two categories: pragmatic (those who agree with you), and not pragmatic (those who don't).

Your entire insistence on calling us black and white thinkers who base arguments on belief is therefore, inherently, a bad case of projection on your part.

Dual.
American culture can at times be insane, but I guess being half American inculcates me against being driven insane by it. :joke:

This argument is just going in circles. We're obviously not going to find a way to agree. Doesn't make sense to continue arguing this particular point anymore.

I'm not explaining this basic concept to you anymore. At this point, you either get it, or you don't.

You haven't explained how I can be morally responsible for another person's behaviour. — Michael

I have. Repeatedly. And this is the last time I'm going to bother repeating it: aiding and abetting.

You should learn what an appeal to the masses actually is. It's more than merely using the term "small minority" in a discussion. — Sapientia

Um... That's exactly what it is. You're trying to bolster your argument by repeatedly stating it's a minority position. As if it mattered.

Excuses for avoiding properly addressing what I've raised. — Sapientia

I have the feeling you would only consider agreeing with you "properly addressing." As such, this is getting tedious.

It's sensible if you accept that people are free agents and that some other free agent is the direct cause of the immoral act. I'm not morally responsible for what other free agents choose to do, especially when I do not compel or solicit them — Michael

Free agentry only makes them also responsible. It doesn't absolve you.

small minority. — Sapientia

Ad populum.

Excuses for what? I'm not excusing anything. That would imply I was trying to justify something immoral. At most, if we hypothesized that you were right, my arguments are fallacious somehow. But you haven't been able to prove that's the case.

Do you have an argument to back up this claim? — Michael

I have been. You haven't really presented a good counter argument though besides essentially saying "no it isn't."
It's really nonsensical to say you could knowingly be contributing to something immoral, while having the choice not to, and say that doesn't involve you morally.

Not all kinds of responsibility entail moral responsibility. I want to know if indirect and partial (causal) responsibility entails moral responsibility. — Michael

Yes, it does. Causing, partially or otherwise, an immoral act entails moral responsibility, partial or otherwise.

What is the pragmatic reason for killing mental defectives in your scenario? — apokrisis

So all I need is a self-serving reason to justify an immoral act?
So, I guess then I can steal food as long as I'm going to eat it.

Is indirect, partial responsibility sufficient to be held morally accountable? — Michael

Partial responsibility means still responsible, yes.

I live there currently. I'm a dual citizen.

It's Marx's 200th birthday. Marx was born in Trier, Germany, which is where the statue was sent, and China likes Marx.

As a German citizen I can attest to the fact that Marx is not a four letter word in Europe the way it is in America. Not saying we all love him. But it's not the knee-jerk rejection of anything to do with him and his ideas that you get in the states.

And that's fundamentally what this entire debate has come down to. It's no longer an argument about who has the best reasons for the ideal moral stance. Instead it's become an exercise for finding any excuses necessary to justify existing lifestyles, lest we have too much pesky radicalism. Better to invent spurious reasons to justify the current state of the world than contemplate any meaningful change to improve our lives. Casual centrism reigns supreme. All the beautiful normative ideals have devolved into the brutal descriptive reality: humans have power over animals, so we can do with them as we please. Might makes right.

What a glorious philosophy! — Uber

:cheer: :100: :ok:

You seem to just be assuming certain things — Sapientia

That's what one does in a discussion about anything not meta. You have to assume certain things.

They seem to just be a way of making your opinion sound more authoritative than it actually is. — Sapientia

All rights theorists are just self-important? Good to know. :rofl:

Even if that were the case, I've been arguing about suffering and the capacity to suffer. And I think that argument applies even if I am not a rights theorist.

aren't recognised in law — Sapientia

Laws can be immoral or not cover all things they should, obviously

I doubt you can, but you can try. And. yes, if you could, I would.

This is a metaethical discussion. You may want to start a new thread.

Again, it's not recent...

It might be wrong to steal a sandwich from a supermarket, but do I really care? No, not really. I would probably do so tomorrow if I felt like it and thought that I could get away with it. — Sapientia

So we should just do away with morality completely because some people are jerks?

I hear millennials by and large wear shoes and brush their teeth... is that also generational then?

If it were the case that meat were necessary, would you condone its consumption? If yes, what do you consider to be baseline necessity? — jastopher

"Ought implies can," so, yes.

Baseline necessity would be something that otherwise would seriously impact your health or life.

Please don't start telling me that abstaining from meat hurts your health, because the science has shown that it doesn't. And anecdotes don't count.

However, if I were on a lifeboat or deserted island with a chicken, I guess I would eventually eat it.

I'm glad you're having fun. But you're still wrong.
A generation liking something that's been around for millennia does not make it generational.

is not generally considered — Sapientia

That's just how it is for many people, and that's just how it will continue to be for quite some time yet, I predict. I don't forsee a 'veggie revolution' on the horizon. Your views represent a minority. — Sapientia

You can make your case until the cows come home, but at the end of the day me likes meat. :yum: — Sapientia

None of these are philosophical or logical arguments for your case. Do I really need to point out to you that the number of people committing an immoral act has no impact on the morality thereof? Or that the time we spend doing something wrong doesn't make it less wrong? Or that your personal tastes are not remotely interesting in this discussion?

This is a forum for philosophical discussions. We're discussing the theory of animal rights, not trying to start a movement. And, might I add, you are voluntarily participating. No one forced you to. If you are no longer interested in the argument, or have realized that you are too close-minded about the subject to care any longer about the philosophy behind it, perhaps you ought to leave the discussion.

If you are interested in continuing the discussion thoughtfully, here is my answer to the one claim you made which is actually pertinent to our conversation:

Any suffering which might be involved would be necessary for meat production. — Sapientia

Yes, but the meat production itself is not necessary.

A recent uptick in popularity doesn't make it generational... Like I said, history is rife with it.

To the degree it said focus on a feeling, it was trying to limit rounded debate on the issue. It was simply an attempt to convert. — apokrisis

Those are two different statements. The latter does not follow from the former. Faulty logic (if that were the case here, which it is not) does not equal an attempt to convert, and it even more certainly doesn't equal an attempt to convert someone to a cult.

One reason is that I’m interested in how every generation finds its passionate social causes. — apokrisis

The idea of avoiding harm to other animals has been around since at least Pythagoras. India has a long history of vegetarianism since around 600BCE. The modern Western vegetarian movement has been around since the 1800's... it's not a "generational" thing.

Yours is a terrible analogy. — Michael

Seems that way to you only because you seem to be resisting understanding the basics of causality.

But let's say you're right about not being directly responsible for the animal's death by buying meat (which I still disagree, with, but I'm willing to hypothesis), then aiding and abetting an immoral act is still immoral. Supporting, helping, promoting, enabling....whatever lingo you want to use, in relation to an immoral act, it is all also immoral.

It puts the ball in your court and calls into question what exactly it is about humans which causes many of us to unthinkingly assume that they're untouchable, that it would be out of the question under any circumstance. — Sapientia

There is nothing inherently untouchable about what is "human." But that's the one of the points I've been trying to get across. Belonging to a group means nothing on it's own.
The untouchability of a disabled person shows us that intelligence is not the reason we avoid causing suffering--we avoid causing suffering on the basis of the ability to suffer. Since disabled people can suffer, it is wrong for me to cause it. Since cats can suffer, it is wrong for me to cause it. Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong.

That is, what ought to be rejected is not God's existence or non-existence, but the very question itself, which asks a question about a non-sense, not unlike - perhaps exactly like - the question of weather or not square circles exist: a question not worth answering on account of the nonsensicality of its very subject. God is like that. A mistake of grammar. — StreetlightX

I agree. Like professing a belief or non-belief in a pink invisible unicorn would make no sense either.

It's merely useful terminology in a society where religion/spirituality are so widespread.

But veganism IS cult-like. It is one thing to talk about the pragmatic health or environmental benefits. It is another to want to take over the world with an absolutist moral prescription. — apokrisis

Cult : "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object."

That's not veganism.
You can claim that vegans and animal rights advocates are misguided philosophically in some way. But claiming that those who live according to a moral system they have tried to establish through logic and empathy is cult-like is just fallacious, even if you do think they are wrong.
Not only is it fallacious, it's also just a cheap ploy so as not to have to seriously consider their arguments.

Someone who aids and abets the killing of an animal is responsible for aiding and abetting the killing of an animal, not for the killing of an animal. — Michael

That's like saying someone who shoots another person is only responsible for pulling a trigger, and is not responsible for his or her death.
Actions have consequences. Your aiding and abetting leads to the death of animals. You know that your money will be used in this fashion. Therefore, you are co-responsible for it. The fact that there is a step between these two things doesn't remove the causality.

He can't even clearly communicate his position without pointing to something I said or something I implied (when I clearly didn't imply it). — chatterbears

Seems to be a trend when this topic is brought up.

My argument has been that - pragmatically - all foundations are dichotomous. Any complex system is founded on a dialectical balance. — apokrisis

How do you come to that conclusion?

So like me, you would prefer our beliefs to be founded on reason and evidence. — apokrisis

I would.

Chatterbears's position asks us to just accept our subjectively revealed beliefs as if they were objective moral absolutes. — apokrisis

I haven't seen that. I've mainly seen him defending beliefs with reason and evidence and therefore arriving at sound moral conclusions.

Why can't I believe that eating meat is just part of who I am as a sentient being — apokrisis

You can believe you are a pink unicorn too if you want. Doesn't make it true.

Who said anything about justifying it? — Michael

Justify means "to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right." Since you are trying argue that buying/eating meat is okay, you are justifying it.

I'm never responsible for what other free agents choose to do. — Michael

You can be. It's called "aiding and abetting." Paying someone for an immoral act falls in that category.

You can compare states of affairs comparing being born and having good/bad experiences and not being born and not having any good/bad experiences, or even have an actual person to be deprived thereof. Of course, this is done retrospectively, but it is comparing them nonetheless.

What you meant to argue I think was that, it is some sort of logical error to talk about non-existent people. — schopenhauer1

I'll quote for you from a piece that I read recently by philosopher Jeff McMahan (just ignore the part about carnism and apply it to human procreation for the sake of our argument, please):

“The claim that benign carnivorism would not be worse for the animals that it would cause to exist is, strictly speaking, trivially true, while the claim that it would be better for them is necessarily false. This is because ‘worse’ and ‘better’ are comparative terms, and one element in each implied comparison is never existing at all.

Consider the claim that it is not worse for an animal to be caused to exist. This is not a substantive claim. It is instead true as a matter of logic, since it is incoherent to suppose that an animal’s being caused to exist could be worse for it. Because ‘worse for’ is comparative, the claim that it is worse for an individual to be caused to exist implies that it would have been better for that individual not to have been caused to exist–that is, never to have existed at all. But there cannot be anyone for whom it is better never to exist.

Similarly, to say that it is better for an animal to be caused to exist implies that it would have been worse for that same animal never to have existed. But again, there cannot be anyone for whom it is worse never to exist. In one clear and relevant sense, there are no individuals who never exist.”
(Here's the link: https://philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Eating_Animals_the_Nice_Way.pdf)