Terrapin believes he can call axioms 'objective facts' when it comes to logic. But when an axiom is held within ethics, he calls it preference. This is the core issue we had many posts ago, in which I told him he was contradicting himself.

Axioms are not derived from preference in one area, while being 'objective facts' in another area. Axioms are statements that are taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. Do you agree with this? Because Terrapin seems to think axioms can be based on preference (in ethics), as well as objective facts (in logic). When in fact, they are just statements that are self-evidently true and act as a foundation for that specific area of discourse.

Still waiting for you to shut up about yourself and shift your focus to serving animals. — Jake

You made the claim that I am more focused with displaying my moral superiority, rather than focusing on the animals. I asked you to back up this claim by providing me with evidence of me doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. You have yet to provide this evidence, and continue to repeat the same thing like a robot. I think discourse between us is finished, as I no longer see a point in responding to you. Next time if you're going to make a claim about someone's character or their intentions, it's probably best to actually back up that claim with something other than your inaccurate opinion.

Still waiting for you to quote me. You told me my sole intent is to display moral superiority. Please quote me talking to someone on here, where it seemed to be my sole intent.

I'm not sure how to make sense out of someone thinking that's it's not an objective relation that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time, for example. — Terrapin Station

Because it is not? The law of noncontradiction is an axiom one needs to accept before proceeding into the terrain of logic. Once you accept that axiom, then you can affirm that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. That isn't an objective fact, it is a statement about an axiom that was put in place.

We don't agree on some very core notions--whether moral claims can be true/false in any sense whatsoever, and whether logic/mathematics has any grounding in objective relations. The problem isn't that I'm not familiar with 101-level material. — Terrapin Station

The first move you make from that isn't to assume that I must not be familiar with rudimentary material. — Terrapin Station

Could it not be the case that you may know about this 'rudimentary' material, but don't fully understand it? Or maybe you thought you understood it but have some misconception of it that needs to be cleared up?

You're being ridiculously patronizing. — Terrapin Station

You are perceiving me to be as such, but I have no ill will toward you. I also am not intending to talk down upon you in some patronizing way. It's sometimes hard to perceive someone's tone via text, but I can confirm that it is not my intention. I am genuinely stating that I believe you are incorrect, and I think it is due to you not knowing enough about this subject. You seem to be incorrectly conflating statements that relate to axioms, as objective facts. This is an error, and I've tried to explain it multiple times. Hence why I suggested you to look up more information for yourself.

So, we disagree on this. — Terrapin Station

Did you read anything else I wrote to you? This isn't about a disagreement. You are incorrect in labeling something as an objective fact, when it is not. I'd suggest you read a bit more on axioms and how they relate to principles within logic, math and ethics.

For example, the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.

Or the fact that if A obtains and B obtains, then it's not the case that neither A nor B obtain. — Terrapin Station

You are referring to the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity. Both of these laws are AXIOMS that one must accept before moving forward.

Those are not "objective facts", but are instead, statements that rely upon the axioms they derive from. It seems you may not fully understand how axioms work, but I'll send a link that may be able to help you a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Scroll down to "Alleged impossibility of its proof or denial". Which starts with:

"As is true of all axioms of logic, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, in order to verify or falsify the laws of logic one must resort to logic as a weapon, an act which would essentially be self-defeating"

As I stated before, there are no "objective facts" or "truth" in logic or ethics. You seem to be a bit confused here.

Logic and mathematics are different in that at their core, they're based on (though not exactly identical to) objective relations. Most of logic and mathematics is an extrapolation of how we think about those objective relations, but objective relations are the initial basis. That's not the case with morality/ethics. — Terrapin Station

Can you explain this further, because I don't understand what you are referring to.

How is logic based on objective relations? What objective relations are you referring to?

Here are your words again... — Jake

Quote me where I actually have acted in a way that displays a sole purpose of moral superiority. I didn't tell you to quote me saying that people have told me this. I want you to quote me ACTUALLY doing it. Can you do that, or are you just going to claim things without evidence?

And the reason you haven't gotten criticized for being vegetarian, is because you don't talk about the morality and ethics behind your decision making. I do. That's the difference.

I can, but I want to keep things simple first, and you haven't finished answering my question, because it's not clear if you agree that moral utterances can't be true or false unconditionally, in any sense. — Terrapin Station

Depends on how you define "true", but I will answer in two different ways.

True, meaning an objective fact about reality, then no.
True, meaning a correct statement in reference to an axiom, then yes.

As I said, math and logic both hold the same position in the realm of what can be true or false. Math can't be true or false, unless an axiom is put in place. Same with logic. Same with ethics.

Does this answer your question? And if so, please answer mine.

Your friends were already telling you this before I found this thread. — Jake

My friends have never told me this. People I don't know, have told me this. Such as people on this forum, or people I talk to on my live stream. You also fail to understand that majority of the people I talk to have never said this about me. It is usually the people on the defensive who feel I have "attacked" their character in some way, rather than understanding the arguments and logic I have put forward on the table.

Sorry, you are not Martin Luther King. You aren't some glorious historic figure that's going to change the world. You're just a well meaning guy who hasn't yet figured out how to help animals in an effective manner. — Jake

Yet me and Martin Luther King both have the same thing in common, which is standing up for the rights of the wrongfully discriminated. But more importantly, I want you to quote me in any discussion I have had with someone on this thread, in which I have conducted in a way that would portray me as someone who cares more about displaying moral superiority, rather than discussing my position and/or having a debate.

As a side note. I can count at least 10 people I have helped change. Half of which, started with drinking soy milk (my recommendation) instead of cow's milk. And talking to them over time, in a polite manner, has helped them realize the harms of the industry and they have lessened their animal consumption by a large margin. Some have completely went vegan because of our talks, while others have only became vegetarian and/or lessened their meat consumption. You can tell me my "methods" are ineffective, yet you are blind to how effective they actually are. All you want to do is claim things without providing evidence for it.

As I said already, I want you to quote me where I cared more about showing my moral superiority, rather than discussing the ethics.

Do you not understand the difference between what one person is trying to achieve, versus, what they are being perceived to try to achieve?

What I am trying to achieve: Bring awareness to the animal torture and slaughter industry, while explaining why we should not discriminate against them and treat them unfairly.

What people perceive me to do: Act morally superior.

You, along with many others, have incorrectly assessed my goal as one who is interested to showcase his moral superiority. If you want to just keep repeating this over and over, that's your mistake.

People could have said the same thing to martin luther king when he was fighting for equal rights of black people. "Martin just thinks he is better than everybody else, sitting on his high horse."

There is some sense in which you would say that moral utterances can be true or false? — Terrapin Station

If we are going to have a back n' forth, you should at least respond to my questions as well.

So to ask my question again, here it is. In the same way that moral utterances are not true or false, would you agree that the same could be said for logic and math? Meaning, logic utterances are not true or false.

Yes, it depends on whether person is actually right or not and we tell that by the merits of how they reached thier conclusion. — DingoJones

Definitely agree here.

Do you agree that moral utterances are not true or false? — Terrapin Station

In some objective sense outside of a mind? I would agree. But the same is true for logic and math as well. Do you agree?

This may help you.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

An axiom is a concept in logic. It is a statement which is accepted without question, and which has no proof. The axiom is be used as the premise or starting point for further reasoning or arguments, usually in logic or in mathematics.

Moral axioms follow the same logic. They are self-evidently true, as you cannot "prove" them to be true or false. They are used as the premise or starting point for further reasoning or arguments, similar to logic or math.

Do we agree on this?

First, ethical utterances are NOT true or false. — Terrapin Station

Why is this even relevant? You have stated that axioms are both based on preference and NOT based on preference. This seems to be a contradiction, in which you would need to clear up. Can you clear this up?

Are you stating that a moral axiom is not a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true? You seem to think that self-evidently true is different from true/false, correct?

Now please make the argument as to why the comparison to what other people are believing or doing is important. Are you running for political office? Do you seek to join the priesthood? — Jake

I don't really understand your question/point?

People notice when other people are much more confident in their positions than they should be even if they cannot articulate exactly why. This is the high horse, FEELING you are morally superior when you are NOT. — DingoJones

Agreed, but it works the other way as well. Person A may assume Person B is on their high horse, when in fact Person B is justified in doing so. Person A may not fully understand a moral position, and therefore should abstain from judgement on Person B's character.

What I keep suggesting to you, and what you keep ignoring, is that my sense is that you are interested in moral judgment primarily because it allows you to position yourself as being superior to somebody else. That's ok, no problem, I'm just suggesting that this self serving agenda might be made clear, and not be confused with an animal serving agenda. — Jake

I actually told you multiple times, this is not what I am doing. You are incorrectly assuming I am trying to position myself as superior to somebody else.

If this forum existed 200 years ago, I would be saying the same thing about slave owners. I would tell people that they should not own slaves, because humans should be free from slavery, torture and death. I am telling people the same thing here in regards to animals. You keep perceiving my words as my attempt to act superior, which is absurdly false.

There's no replacement for slave owners, as there is no replacement for child molesters. I don't and should not need to offer a replacement to slave owners in order to convince them that their current actions are immoral. My focus would still be for the slaves to be free, just as my focus is for the animals to be free from torture and slaughter.

If the focus of your efforts was serving animals, you'd see that offering a non-animal alternative to meat that meat eaters would find acceptable is going to be more effective than waving our finger of morally superior judgment in their faces. — Jake

This is the 2nd or 3rd time you have ignored my analogy completely. And I will type it again.

As I have pointed out with my child molester analogy, do you think it is better to point out what is wrong about the actions committed by the child molester? Or should we give the child molester a replacement (robot life like child)?

Allow me to rephrase: the slaughter of animals has enabled and continues to enable humans to thrive, and contributes to the security of human existence. Slaughter can be "useful" because it serves human needs (need humans thrive?), and those needs are generally of very high importance. — VagabondSpectre

Why are you putting "higher importance" on the needs of humans, but not on the needs of non-human animals (such as pigs, goats, sheep, cows, chickens, etc...)? Surely there is some property in which you are making a distinction between humans and non-human animals. What is that distinction, in which allows humans to live free from torture and/or slaughter, but not non-human animals?

For instance, factory farming is neither economical nor beneficial to humans, but traditional farming is in fact economical, and does in many ways contribute to human food security and dietary health. — VagabondSpectre

This goes against scientific peer reviewed studies on many levels. You can do the research yourself, but I will link a few articles below.

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/
- https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets
- https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179

By my logic, slavery is not ethical. I pointed out one of the differences between slaughter/consumption of animals and rape/torture. — VagabondSpectre

No you didn't, unless I missed it. Was it, the slaughter of animals allows humans to thrive? Why should we thrive off the suffering/torture/slaughter of another species? Because we have the power to do so?

With the lion analogy, we're comparing similar acts done for similar reasons (the killing and consumption of animals as a means of sustenance and means to thrive), and while it's absolutely necessary for lions to eat meat to survive, individual humans and human groups exist on a spectrum of varying need regarding the exploitation of animals. — VagabondSpectre

No we are most definitely not. A lion cannot survive if it does not eat meat. We can survive if we do not eat meat. But that is irrelevant to the point of, why is it ok to holocaust one species but not another? Would you be ok with humans creating a holocaust for dogs? Or how about if humans only created a holocaust for severely mentally disabled humans, in which we exploited their bodies for meat and other products?

Do you think it's moral for growing or developing countries to consume meat if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan? — VagabondSpectre

If they have adequate land for animal agriculture, they should have adequate land for plant agriculture. It would be the same as me asking you, "Do you think it is moral for growing or developing countries to consume human flesh if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan?"

You seemed to have quoted the only non-important part of everything I said to you. Let's back up a bit before you get more side-tracked.

You: "You do NOT have to accept the axioms as true--at least not in any "extra-systemic" way--in order to play the games in question. You're just operating with them as givens."

Me: "Similarly, you can do the same with ethics. To put it in your terms, you do NOT have to accept the axioms as true, but you are operating with them as givens."

You: "Finally, something seeming self-evidently true to someone isn't at all about their preferences. They might very well prefer that things were otherwise. They might prefer to believe something else. Or maybe they have no preference about it."

Me: "Ok, so accepting axioms as a "given" is not about their preferences? Could I not say the same about metaethics? I have no preference about accepting the self-evidently true axiom of maximizing the well-being and rights of sentient creatures. I just accept this as a given. [Therefore, my ethics are not based on personal preference.]"

I want you to address these points first. I can number them if need be.

1. You said axioms are a given. Does this mean metaethical moral axioms can also be a given?
2. You said someone who finds something self-evidently true (an axiom) isn't about their preferences. Could you not say the same thing about metaethics?

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Before this, you said that all ethical views/stances, are based on preference. But then you said that accepting an axiom is not a preference. Well, there are axioms within metaethics, so you need to explain why some axioms are not based on preference, while others are based on preference.

And just to be clear. It is my view that ALL axioms are based on preference, whether that is math, logic, philosophy, etc... You seem to hold the view that some axioms are based on preference (such as metaethics), while others are not.

Rape and torture not withstanding, "slaughter" serves useful purposes. Explain to me why the lion killing the gazelle is not abhorrent? — VagabondSpectre

Not going to address anything beyond this until you address this point. Are you saying that anything which serves a useful purpose is morally permissible. Slavery has a useful purpose to the slave owner. Therefore, by your logic, slavery is morally permissible, correct?

You do NOT have to accept the axioms as true--at least not in any "extra-systemic" way--in order to play the games in question. You're just operating with them as givens. It's just like you do not need to accept that it's true--outside of the context of the game, at least--that there is or was a Colonel Mustard to play Clue. — Terrapin Station

Similarly, you can do the same with ethics. To put it in your terms, you do NOT have to accept the axioms as true, but you are operating with them as givens.

Law of noncontradiction = A given
Maximizing the rights and well-being of sentient creatures = A given

Finally, something seeming self-evidently true to someone isn't at all about their preferences. They might very well prefer that things were otherwise. They might prefer to believe something else. Or maybe they have no preference about it. — Terrapin Station

Ok, so accepting axioms as a "given" is not about their preferences? Could I not say the same about ethics?

"I have no preference about accepting the self-evidently true axiom of maximizing the well-being and rights of sentient creatures. I just accept this as a given." [Therefore, my ethics are not based on personal preference.]

Where is anyone "essentially" saying that? Can you give an example maybe? I want to just address this first, because I see this as a highly controversial claim. — Terrapin Station

Then correct me if I am wrong, but it seemed like this is what you were implying. This is what the line of reasoning seemed to be.

I stated: Many systems have axioms, including logic. Such as the law of noncontradiction. You have to accept these axioms as self-evidently true, before you can move forward. The only way to accept something as self-evidently true, is what you personally prefer.

You said: Accepting the law of noncontradiction as true isn't about personal preference, it is about conceivability.

I then asked: Why should one value conceivability?

Molestation and the consumption of animals. You're not equivocating the definition of words, you're equivocating the moral implications of two unrelated actions. (establishing/portraying one as abhorrent by associating/liking it to another which is universally agreed to be abhorrent, when they are not in fact similar. — VagabondSpectre

Few problems here.

1. Explain why molestation is abhorrent but the contriubtion to animal rape, torture and slaughter is not.

2. Just because something is universally agreed upon, does not make it true/correct. At one point, slavery was universally agreed upon, but did that mean it was the right thing to do?

3. The two actions are related. Both actions (molestation & animal torture/slaughter) are causing pain and suffering to a sentient being. If you want to say that an animal's pain is worth nothing compared to a human's pain, you need to explain why. Many of the world's pet owners (who have dogs) would already disagree with you, btw.

We never hold an infant or a mentally disabled person accountable for their actions in the same respect we would hold you and I accountable. Similarly, we wouldn't hold a wild animal accountable who does not have the ability to self-reflect and evaluate their actions. Plus, wild animals eat other animals out of necessity, because they are forced to for their own survival. We kill animals for pleasure, not survival. — chatterbears

But we still need to correct the actions of children, and if a lion is like an innocent child who doesn't know better, does that give it the right to ravage innocent ruminants? We could put a stop to the endless suffering of these animals by exterminating lions, and why not? Just because lions exist, they should be permitted to terrorize and consume their prey for all time? — VagabondSpectre

More problems.

1. We correct the actions of children because they grow up and learn more about self-reflection and how their actions affect other people. Lions never have this type of learning development. Lions are essentially 2-year olds that never grow up.

2. The fact that you focus on lions so much, shows me that you are not grasping these concepts about why something is immoral, and what types of animals have moral agency. Lions have little to no moral agency, similar to an infant. Therefore, we do not hold them accountable for the harms they cause other creatures. If a 1-year old hits another 1-year old in the face, are you going to exterminate that 1-year old?

The existence of a prey animal who is about to be killed depends on the extermination of the predator who is about to kill it, so what's the harm in killing the lion to save the lamb? Are their lives unequal? If lions became more and more successful, driving other animals to extinction, should we intervene then? In other words, are lions aloud to exploit other animals in order to expand and thrive as a species? If so, I see no reason why humans cannot be permitted to do so, to some degree. — VagabondSpectre

Again, you are comparing the morality of lions to humans. And if lions can do it, humans should be permitted to do so, to some degree, correct?

Back to my original statement, which you completely dodged. If a lion commits infanticide, should humans be permitted to commit infanticide as well, to some degree?

This is another false moral equivalence. Infanticide is not the same as hunting wild animals (what lions and some humans do) and what I consider to be the ethical raising of farm animals (again, NOT factory farming). — VagabondSpectre

I never said infanticide is the same as hunting wild animals. But you don't get to cherry pick what lions do in order to justify your moral actions. If you want to claim, "Lions can kill other animals, therefore humans should be permitted to do so as well", you cannot stop at that one action. If you want to justify your actions on the basis of lion behavior, you need to be willing to accept other lion behavior.

Well, let's make the closest comparisons we can: — VagabondSpectre

Your last few paragraphs were the result of buying into propaganda and the lack of research on your part. If you want to actually know what happens in animal agriculture, watch the youtube video I linked in the original post of this thread. Or just google "Dominion 2018" and watch it.

Outside of making value judgments we're doing other sorts of things. — Terrapin Station

Other things, like spelling conventions, are just that--conventions, and we follow them for the sake of understandability. — Terrapin Station

It's important to understand the distinction between making value judgments and doing other sorts of things. "Right" seems to be a sort of value judgment in your examples, although I wouldn't guess that the sense of "right" being employed is the same in each example, and unless we're saying something pretty weird, we're not talking about a moral sense of "right." — Terrapin Station

Whether you want to say understandability, conceivability, or livability, doesn't matter. These are still things you need to value before you can say they are useful or important to follow. That's the point. In the case of language, you point to understandability, but I could ask you, why should one value understandability? This would then come down to personal feeling. In the case of logic, you point to conceivability, but I could ask you, why should one value conceivability? This would then come down to personal feeling. Same with morality. You have asked me, why should one value the well being of sentient creatures? This would then come down to personal feeling.

Re your examples, I'd need to clarify how you're using "right." Presumably you're not using "right" in a moral sense, are you? If you're using it in a normative sense--"One should do this because . . . (whatever the reason(s) would be)" then that's ultimately going to come down to preferences, which are "feelings" in the sense we're talking about. — Terrapin Station

"Right" is the 'ought'. What one 'ought' to value as correct/right/etc... Essentially what you just said, which is "one should do this because." - In the case of noncontradiction, you are essentially saying, "One should do this because it is conceivable." - You haven't escaped the problem of feelings or preference. As I asked in the response above this one, why should one value conceivability? Also, your definition of conceivable may differ from mine, and I may not include the law of noncontradiction in what I view as conceivable. Therefore, you cannot tell me I am wrong/incorrect if I do not adopt the law of noncontradiction in the same way you do. Correct?

That's not anything about feelings/preferenes. It's about conceivability, which is different. — Terrapin Station

You're making an error here. You need to address the axiom put in place, which is the law of noncontradiction. Can you prove that following the law of noncontradiction is nothing other than personal preference? You say, "it's not personal preference, it's conceivability." - Could I not just use the same line of reasoning about morality? I can say, it's not about personal preference, it's about maximizing well-being. You would then say, "Why should one value maximizing well-being?". In which my reply would be, "Why should one value conceivability?"

Re that, I definitely agree with it. But we don't agree on whether it's morally permissible to eat animals, especially because for me, that functions as a moral foundation. We can't go a "level down" to see if we agree on what "it's morally permissible/impermissible to eat animals" is based on in my case, because it's not based on some other moral stance (and remember that only moral stances imply other moral stances. Something that's not a moral stance can't imply a moral stance). — Terrapin Station

I don't see how that would function as a moral foundation... You can down a level, and here's how.

Level 3: It is immoral to eat animals.
Level 2: It is morally right to maximize the well-being and rights of sentient beings.
Level 1: I feel that one should value the well-being and rights of sentient beings.

And just to be clear, these "rules" I am referring to at the base of the systems, are called Axioms. You cannot "prove" an axiom is right, correct or true. An Axiom is something you need to accept to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

I think I established that in a previous post, but just wanted to be clear.

I think I mostly agree with what you are saying, but maybe I didn't ask my question properly initially.

For moral questions, you seem to say that all moral perspectives/stances/etc... are based on "feeling". Would you say the same thing about health, logic, English language, math, etc...?

In the same way that desiring a healthy body is subjective (based on feeling), making moral assessments about one's interaction with the world is also subjective (based on feeling). Maybe we should temporarily toss the word "subjective" out, as it seems to be causing minor confusion.

What I want to know is, do you think most of these things are "based on feeling" at their foundation? As we explained in metaethics, it is based on feeling at it's core. Same goes for health, logic, language, math, etc.... correct?

English: There's a rule in English that states, "I before E except after C". There's no way you can "prove" this is true/correct/right, other than saying you "feel" it is right to follow this rule.

Ethics: There could be a rule in an ethical system that states, "Maximize the well being of sentient creatures." There's no way you can "prove" this is true/correct/right, other than saying you "feel" it is right to follow this rule.

Logic: In classical logic, there is a rule called the law of non contradiction. There's no way you can "prove" this is true/correct/right, other than saying you "feel" it is right to follow this rule.

Math: A prime number is a whole number greater than 1 whose only factors are 1 and itself. There's no way you can "prove" this is true/correct/right, other than saying you "feel" it is right to follow this rule.

I think you get my point. You can use this type of thinking for pretty much everything we can know or understand. That, at the base of each area, it becomes about what you "feel" is the right thing to do. But as I have pointed out before, despite the core foundation being subjective (based on feeling), you can still make objective assessments based on the subjective criteria you agree upon. And in this instance, I am defining subjective as (based on personal opinion or preference), and I am defining objective as (not based on personal opinion or preference). Here's how that would work.

(subjective foundation) Based on personal feeling: I believe it is best to base morality on the law.
(objective assessment) Not based on personal feeling: Action X was immoral because it did not abide by the law.

Once you lay down the foundation, you can then make objective assessments based on that criteria. Meaning, it doesn't matter how someone feels that day, or if they prefer something else that morning compared to the day before, because if they base their actions on what the law says, we can assess their actions from an objective standpoint, and state that they are committing an immoral action based on the criteria of "not abiding by the law".

You can use this same line of reasoning with health, English, logic, math, etc... Would you agree?

This is mostly to Terrapin, since Dingo thinks he is cool by announcing he doesn't have the patience to "educate" someone on ethics in a philosophy forum.

Terrapin - Do you believe everything we know about anything (health, math, logic, ethics, etc...) is all subjective?

MetaHealth: I feel it is right to base your health on scientific knowledge. (subjective)
Normative Health: What is healthy is what is scientifically beneficial to the body.
Applied Health: It is bad to smoke because it is not beneficial to the body.

My point is. At the base level, of ALL knowledge and ALL systems, you are going to have an axiom. Which is essentially an unjustified assumption at the base of your system. We all have axioms for ethics, health, logic, etc....You cannot prove logic is true. At the base of logic, you have foundational assumptions, such as the law of non-contradiction. You can't "prove" this law is true in some objective way. You have to accept it as an axiom.

Back to the original point. From what Terrapin is suggesting, everything we know about anything, is completely subjective, and nobody works off an objective criteria. Even within science. Because if you keep asking "why" and get down to the root level of any foundation, the answer will always be "because I feel this is right". But once we get past the 'meta' of any topic, whether that is ethics or logic, we have to establish what the objective(normative) goal is.

A way to counter my wrongful assumption would be to prove that wagging our fingers in people's faces and accusing them of moral crimes is the most effective way to convert them to vegetarianism. My complaint is only that I don't see that as a very effective tactic. — Jake

And as I have pointed out with my child molester analogy, do you think it is better to point out what is wrong about the actions committed by the child molester? Or should we give the child molester a replacement (robot life like child)?

I am pointing out what is wrong with our actions in regards to animal slaughter. You think it is more "tactical" to offer a replacement, rather than talk about the ethics behind it.

There's a severe ethical fallacy there; equivocation. — VagabondSpectre

Can you tell me exactly which word(s) I am equivocating here?

Human consumption (and killing) of animals exists on ranges of necessary to sport and humane to sadistic; moral to immoral. The molestation of children is never necessary or humane or moral. — VagabondSpectre

If you want to make a broad view of "the molestation of children is never necessary", I can pull a hypothetical out to disprove your statement. Imagine a scenario where a person has a gun to 3 of your family members, and tells you that he will kill all 3 of your family members unless you molest a child, would you not say it is then a "necessary" action to do so in order to save the lives of 3 people? You may come back and say, "This is a rare situation that will most likely never happen." - Well, let's put you on the flip side. Grains, rice, pasta, beans, corn, lentils, fruits, vegetables, avocado, mushrooms, bread, soy milk, almond milk, etc... These are all options available to you, and some of the poorest countries in the world have an abundance of some of these foods (in many countries, meat is more expensive than grains). Similar to the stance you claimed for the molestation of children, killing animals is never necessary or humane or moral. The times you will be stranded alone in a dessert or forest, is a rare situation that will most likely never happen (just as the gun to your head scenario). But if you ever did encounter that situation, to kill an animal for your survival (or the survival of others), would be necessary.

You should be more specific about the practices you decry when making these kinds of comparisons. If killing and eating an animal is broadly akin to molestation, you should therefore support the eradication (or total incarceration) of lions and other predators who can only exist in the numbers that they do by inflicting pain and suffering on herbivores. If humans are wrong to thrive at the expense of other species, surely other apex predators are wrong as well, and even though they don't know better, we can still prevent them from doing more harm by taking action against them. — VagabondSpectre

I've already debunked this point with you before. We never hold an infant or a mentally disabled person accountable for their actions in the same respect we would hold you and I accountable. Similarly, we wouldn't hold a wild animal accountable who does not have the ability to self-reflect and evaluate their actions. Plus, wild animals eat other animals out of necessity, because they are forced to for their own survival. We kill animals for pleasure, not survival.

I suspect that whatever justification you employ to allow lions to continue hunting gazelles can also be used to justify the consumption of animals by humans, at least to some extent. — VagabondSpectre

Lions also commit infanticide. If I commit infanticide tomorrow, and you called me out for it, could I respond to you in the same way you have responded to me. "But lions do it, so why can't I?"

You must believe the lives of wild animals are worth living (hence your objection to our taking of them) but in reality the lives of wild animals are often filled with much greater hardship and suffering than the lives of some farm animals. What's your argument against traditional farming suited for developing countries? — VagabondSpectre

Baseless assertions here. To claim that the lives of wild animals are worse than factory farmed animals, is absurd.

I'm interested in tactical arguments, you're interested in moral arguments. I'm interested in what might actually cause a person to stop killing animals. You're interested in positioning yourself as superior. We have different agendas.

Feel free to pursue your agenda, they're your posts to do with as you wish. — Jake

You can claim I am interested in positioning myself as superior, but that's your wrongful assumption.

Yes, you prefer to scold them, and position yourself as superior. My only complaint with this is that it doesn't really work that well, and tends to generate as much resistance as it does support. — Jake

Would you say the same thing if I scolded a child molester or rapist? I am superior to a rapist, and if had to create a post in a philosophy forum about how it is wrong to force yourself upon a woman and rape them, I would be saying the same things I am now in regards to animals.

You don't have to, agreed. But not being interested in a solution that would actually work illustrates that it's moralistic finger pointing that interests you, not animals. — Jake

I don't need to give a solution to child molesters, do I? Should we create child life like robots that imitate real children, and then allow child molesters to molest those robots instead, since no harm would be done to real children? This is the same thing you want me to provide meat eaters. A thing that imitates the current thing they get pleasure out of, right?

Again. If I tried talking to child molesters about how children should not be violated and are too young to consent, as well as can be easily taken advantage of. Would you just tell me, "You don't actually care about children, you need to give child molesters a solution!"

That's just ridiculous.

Im not sure why you fail to understand this considering you have admitted a subjective basis for morality already. His subjective basis is different than yours, and his measures are therefore different as well. — DingoJones

Having a subjective basis for morality is separate from how your normative ethics work. I can agree that at the metaethcal level, moral values are completely subjective. But going a level above that (normative and applied ethics), it doesn't become subjective. One can base their ethics on whatever the law dictates.

Metaethics: I feel it is right to base your morals on the law. (subjective)

Normative ethics: What is morally right is what is legal. What is morally wrong is what is illegal. (descriptive)

Applied ethics: It is wrong to steal, because it is illegal.

Could you give an example? — Terrapin Station

If you read above this, there's your example. As Dingo already mentioned, not everybody abides by their feelings in regards to what they describe as "wrong". One person may base an immoral action on whether or not it is an illegal action. Legality is separate from what the person feels, because their feelings do not make the law. Somebody separate from them, makes the law and dictates how the law works. At the metaethical level, yes, they are subjectively assessing the law as a good basis for what is right and wrong. But their normative and applied ethical stances, DO NOT hinge upon what they feel.

One day, the law could say. Gay Marriage is illegal. That person would now think gay marriage is immoral because it is illegal. The next day, Gay Marriage could become legal. That next day, the same person would now think gay marriage is moral, because it is now legal.

And as I have been trying to tell you for countless amounts of posts now, normative/applied ethics are separate from metaethics. But all you seem to understand and respond with is, "Everybody goes with their intuition and/or feelings when making moral decisions."

I'm sorry to say, but you're just completely wrong here. You either, do not fully understand the three tiers of ethics (meta/normative/applied), or you are being dishonest.

This is silly. But I understand your focus better now. You're not really interested in animals, but in ethics. Which your thread title does disclose, so the confusion was mine.

If you were interested in animals you'd get that fake meat products which aren't appealing to meat eaters are not advancing the cause of animal rights. — Jake

Why would you conclude that I am not interested in animals? By that logic, you should say I am not interested in humans as well, correct? I am interested in how we treat our species, as well as other species on this planet. Ethics involves how you interact with the world and the things around you.

I already know that fake meat products aren't appealing meat eaters, and my point in my last reply to you, was that it should not matter if we supply them with a "just as tasty" alternative. Which is why I gave an analogy.

Caring about animals doesn't mean I need to supply meat eaters with a replacement product that will mimic animal flesh. We first need people to get it out of their head, that animal flesh is what you are supposed to eat. It is NOT what you are supposed to eat, which is why our bodies do better on plant-based diets. If people actually understand that animals are living beings who also feel pain just as we do, along with the fact that we are actually more healthy when we do not consume them, you don't need a replacement product to establish an ethical point.

Yes, you will argue that the “feelings” are still the basis for the dedication to the principal in the first place, but that isnt the same thing as their feelings on each behaviour/morals. — DingoJones

This is the point I have been trying to address with Terrapin for a while now. He seems to be only addressing ethics from a meta perspective, without even acknowledging the normative or applied ethical realm, which is also very important and does in fact matter.

Of course. — Terrapin Station

Why would you support a rape victim?

"That's just the way he feels about interpersonal behavior." That's certainly true, but my feeling about it wouldn't be based on the rapist's feeling about it. My feeling about it is my own disposition, a factor of how my brain works, etc. — Terrapin Station

And what is your own disposition about rape?

Yeah, how I feel about the behavior in question. That's the mechanism that everyone uses, whether they realize/admit it or not. — Terrapin Station

You are again, going all the way down to the metaethical perspective. Yes, at the core of their belief, it is how they "feel" about it. But when they are putting normative and applied ethics into play, it is not a matter of how they "feel". Someone could base their actions on utilitarianism or consequentialism. This is separate from how they feel.

Level 2: I base my actions on consequentialism.
Level 1: I believe consequentialism is good.

You keep going down to the base level (level 1) when discussing these issues. I want to know what your Level 2 reasoning is. And if you say you don't have one, then maybe you need to read a bit more about ethics and the 3 tiers of an ethical system (metaethics, normative ethics, applied ethics)

Once again, if it's "because of reason A," reason A would have to itself be a moral stance, because moral stances are not derivable from anything that's not a moral stance. I wouldn't say that "rape is bad" is based on another, more foundational, moral stance for me.

Re "I feel it is wrong to cause harm to others," once again, I don't use any sort of overarching principle approach to ethics, and I certainly don't endorse any general proscriptions of "harm," because that's too broad/vague in my view. — Terrapin Station

You don't need an overarching principle to explain your normative ethical standpoint. It doesn't have to be a broad term such as consequentialism. But clearly you still have an idea in your head that governs your ability to discern right from wrong. And I want to know what that is, without you describing metaethics.

Maybe this question will clear up the rest of the discussion between you and I. Are you claiming that you do not hold any stance within normative or applied ethics? If so, then it seems clear that your ethical system is vastly incomplete.

Yes. Unfortunately, ethical/moral guidelines depend on the level of intelligence of the participants involved. What I mean is that, for slavery to come to an end, both parties (the slave owners and the slaves) had to realise what was wrong with their interactions. This is because, back then, just as now, there are those who readily accept the circumstances they're in without the proper forethought. This often results in people being okay with inequality, such that, there's appearance of harmony while the disharmony is masked in ignorance.

In the case of ignorance, ethics/morality should not be the foremost query, rather how the relevant information should be acquired. I think such is the case with the relation between humans and animals, or more specifically, the determination of the equality of animals. — BrianW

I assume you apply the same logic to mentally disabled people, who have the same intelligence level as animals. (depending on how far they are on the spectrum).

So what if a person is groomed to believe something, or indoctrinated. Women who claim they have choices in societies like the middle east, but more enlightened women know this is not the case. Do you apply the same logic to those people?