I think I got you confused with somebody else. I sometimes lose track of who I am talking to, as I didn't realize you were also Vegan.

Nonetheless, I still am not clear what you mean by harmony. So when you say, "between the interacting parties", you are referring to the slave and the slave owner, correct? Not, the slave owner and other slave owners.

Your ethics/morality seems to ignore the learning curve. We can learn to be better but, knowledge does not just magically appear nor does it instantly manifest as action. It takes time and effort, and human history is evidence of that. — BrianW

How are my ethics ignoring a learning curve? We are a selfish species who was worse in the past, but we are still bad in the present day.

Humans (collectively) are doing what they think is best for themselves. At some point in the future, perhaps near or distant (relative to different communities), the ethics/morality you're referring to will become ingrained in all of humanity. At the moment, it is not. At the moment, it is not the ethics/morality of all humans. — BrianW

.

You are, again, talking about other people. From this point on, can you please refrain from talking about human ethics as a society, or what other people think. I want to know what YOU (BrianW) think. So as a follow up question to this point, are you Vegan?

Right is that which causes harmony and wrong is that which causes disharmony. — BrianW

Follow up question. Harmony among the majority? Or harmony among everybody?

Example: Slavery caused harmony among the majority (white people). Does this mean slavery is right? If today in 2018, there was a culture out there that still practiced slavery, would you say it is "right" for that culture to do so, as long as it brings them harmony?

I would tell them my view. Telling someone a moral view doesn't give them that moral view. One can only have a moral view when one feels some way or other about behavior. Telling someone something doesn't make them feel the way that you feel. — Terrapin Station

"There's no such thing as right or wrong" isn't actually my view, though. My view is that right and wrong are ways that people feel about interpersonal behavior. There definitely are such things. There definitely are ways that people feel about interpersonal behavior, so I wouldn't deny that there are. — Terrapin Station

Again, how would you respond to your daughter/friend/family member who has just been raped. Would you be supportive? Or would you say "if he felt right in his action to rape you, that's just his interpersonal behaviors."

What I am trying to get at here, is you must have some sort of mechanism you use to differentiate a good action from a bad action. You may (or may not) believe rape is a bad action, because of Reason A. I want to know what that Reason A actually is. Is that Reason A something such as, "causing harm to others"?

No. But the metaethical facts I've been mentioning can't be just ignored when we're talking about ethics from any other angle. — Terrapin Station

I've never ignored those facts. Matter of fact, I actually acknowledged the fact that ethics are derived from a subjective perspective, at the metaethical level.

I explained earlier that I don't do ethics by any sort of overarching principle, because I think that's a bad idea that always leads to ridiculous stances (like antinatalism, for example). — Terrapin Station

I could say you have a ridiculous stance by refuses to take any stance at all in regards to having a normative perspective.

I didn't see you ask that. I don't believe that one can teach someone right and wrong. Right and wrong have to be a way that someone feels about behavior, and you can't teach someone (how) to feel. That doesn't mean that people aren't influenced, but just how they'll be influenced is unpredictable.

What I do is stress deliberative introspection, and stress that of course one's moral authenticity has to be balanced against the risks of bucking various societal norms. (For example, if one feels that it's morally permissible to commit murder, then one would need to balance acting in accord with that with the possible/probably social repercussions.) — Terrapin Station

So if your son/daughter/friend/relative/etc.... committed murder, and told you about it, you would just say, "Ok no problem. Just make sure you don't get caught because you may encounter social repercussions." - Or what if we changed it from murder to rape? If your son/daughter/friend/relative/etc... raped somebody else, and told you about it, you wouldn't tell them it was 'wrong' to do?

Lastly. What if your son/daughter/friend/relative/etc... got raped themselves, and told you about it. Would you tell them, "Well, there's no such thing as right or wrong. And if the person who raped you thought it was right to do so, they have their reasons for that."

The problem here is that products like that don't taste that good to meat eaters. I like them, you like them, but we're already vegetarians. — Jake

Doesn't matter. If I created an artificial vagina that men could buy to deter them from raping women, would you accept their reasoning if they told you, "But this artificial vagina doesn't feel like the real thing. Therefore, I will go back to raping women."

An immoral action is immoral, irrespective of their rationalization to continue the behavior. Taste, convenience, laziness, etc.... They are all really bad excuses to continue an immoral action. I bet slave owners used the same excuses before they finally decided to act like human beings with compassion and empathy.

Also, small correct. I am Vegan, not vegetarian. Big difference there, in regards to what you are actually supporting. Vegetarians still support the dairy industry, which is arguably the most cruel of them all.

It can also be as follows:

- Some humans should not be raped.
- Other humans could be raped.
- I rape black people.

Do you accept that as well?

Also, it seems you will not answer the rest of the questions I had for you. Maybe you can answer these.

How would you define ethics?
How would you define personal ethics?
How do you differentiate between right and wrong?

actually didn't say anything about that. In the post about laziness, in fact, I explicitly said, "Not for any ethical reasons."

For me, re metaethics, the only basis there is for morality, at least foundationally, is how someone feels about interpersonal behavior. It's not a good or bad basis. It's just factually the basis.

As I've said again and again, no non-moral stance, fact, etc. can imply any moral stance.

"Laziness" isn't a moral stance. Hence "laziness" can imply no moral stance — Terrapin Station

Is metaethics the only thing you understand about ethics? And I am not asking in a rude way, because I actually want to know. Do you understand there are different branches of ethics, such as normative ethics and applied ethics?

I've already agreed with you, that metaethics talk about the foundational beliefs for an ethical system, which is subjective. I am have been trying to talk to you for many posts now, about your normative ethics. I even asked you, how would you teach your kids right from wrong? (You still didn't answer that either).

Should I just stop asking you about your normative/applied ethics, so I don't waste my time anymore?

So the chief question here is whether man is essentially (ontologically/physically/other) superior to animals and only by acting according to his superiority could he be considered to not be committing injustice. — SapereAude

How would you answer that question for yourself?

Here is another question: Is killing a fly a killing? Has an injustice been committed where the flyswatter slays its prey? — SapereAude

The flyswatter is not a predator. It is a weapon/tool used by a predator (human). The human could let the fly live by allowing it to go outside. There may be a practical use in killing a fly or insect (such as a mosquito), because of some disease it may spread. At that point, it is about survival and not getting transferred some deadly disease or bacteria. But all of this is far removed from what we do to farm animals. Cows/chickens/pigs/turkeys, server no threat to us. They are gentle creatures who have done no wrong, yet we exploit, rape, torture and slaughter them by the billions every year.

What do you guys think of justice/injustice as operating beyond the human realm into the world of animals (and maybe plants?) — SapereAude

That's the point of this thread, aside from your plants comment. Plants don't have a nervous system, nor do they have pain receptors or a brain to process pain. Farm animals, can process pain, similar to us humans. Therefore, why would it be okay to kill an animal for food, but not a human?

The above shows that ethics/morality is determined by popular consensus within a particular sphere of interaction. This means that, in some places, cultures, governments, etc, it was ethical/moral to practice slavery while in others it was not. Remember, even in those african communities, there was a lot of discrimination and denial of certain rights and freedoms. Just because they were enslaved by others doesn't mean they were ideal humans in themselves.
If by being ethical/moral you are asking if certain actions are ideal (perfect), then no human activity or choices are ethical/moral. There are no ideal humans. — BrianW

You seem to be very confused here. Let's back track a bit...

You first said it is clear that humans are equal, and it is not the same for animals, hence the current inconsistencies. You then said the current justification for animal slaughter is utility, followed by saying "some animals are bred for food, some for companionship, some for work, etc..."

I then replied and told you, the same could be said about slaves. Some humans are bred into slavery (black people), some for companionship (white people), etc...

You then replied with, "morals/ethics are determined by popular consensus." - As I have said endless amounts of times on this thread, I don't care about what you think society believes about morality. I want to know what YOUR personal beliefs are, in regards to ethics/morals. I never said humans are perfect or ideal, but humans should have a consistent moral system. So here are a few questions.

1. Do you think eating animals is morally justified? Meaning: Do you think it is okay to eat animals?
2. If so, what reason do you use to justify that action?

I don't want an answer for society and how the world operates. I want to know what you personally believe.

Yet, even then when humans were relatively more ignorant compared to now, they still had edicts of ethics/morality. So, right now, is dominion over animals unethical? No. That's the way it is. I know it is not something others would approve but they don't get to decide ethics/morality for everyone else. — BrianW

So, it is your personal view that our dominion over animals is unethical? If so, why? It seems you are just following whatever the currently societal norm is, is this correct? Do you not think for yourself, and just blindly follow whatever society condones at the time? If you were in the time of slavery 200 years ago, would you have said it is not unethical to have dominion over black people, since that is what society dictates?

At best, the dominion over animals is unethical/immoral for those who believe animals deserve equal treatment to humans. This is because they have created their own sphere of interaction in which such dominion is unethical/immoral. However, other humans have other spheres of interaction in which such dominion is not. For them, even as they refine their treatment of animals according to certain values, they maintain their dominion. — BrianW

Again, you are answering for other humans. I want to know about your personal subjective beliefs. I don't care what other humans are doing. I am in this forum to talk to people directly, not to talk about other people.

So, do you think your rules of ethics/morals applies to everyone indiscriminately? Absolutely not.
You (or any other individual) don't get to determine ethics/morality for others. Every person determines their own ethics/morality or, at least, the sphere of interaction they belong to for the collective ethics/morality of a given group of humans (country, culture, religion, field of study, trend, etc). — BrianW

I never claimed that my rules of ethics apply to everyone. I agree, that every person determines their own ethical system, but it needs to be logically consistent. A person's ethical stance cannot be as follows:

- Humans should not be owned as property.
- I own black people as slaves.

There is a logical contradiction here, in which the person claims that humans should be treated with equality, yet he owns slaves. Irrespective of what my view on slavery is, this person is contradicting themselves within their own ethical framework.

So, this is the idea. Veganism is a logical extension of whatever ethical system you already have put in place. If your ethics are logically consistent, they will ultimately lead to Veganism. There are rare cases of people who will have logically consistent ethics, but instead of leading to Veganism, they lead to the dismantling of human rights in some form. So you only have two options: Veganism or Human Rights Degradation.

Let's actually talk about your morality. Why is it not unethical to exploit animals for food, clothing, entertainment, etc...?

Yes, but slavery is on another level. You might think otherwise, but you haven't convinced me otherwise, and I doubt you will be able to. — S

Slavery with humans is on another level than slavery with animals, why? Both humans and animals (cows/chickens/pigs) can experience pain. Both can suffer and have the will to live. Why are you okay with one being suffering but not another? Superiority? Speciesist?

Yes. But for me, neither slavery nor female suffrage poses the challenge that the consumption of animal products does. I'm not torn between wanting to keep slaves or prevent women to vote and feeling that it's kind of wrong. — S

Yet the people who did condone slavery a few hundred years ago, are using the same logic you are in regards to animal consumption. Animals (black people) are inferior. Animals (black people) aren't as intelligent. You'd reject this logic for humans, but accept this for animals. Why?

Yes. And...? I'm not one of those people, or at least I try not to be, unless you're including animals, in which case, yes, I treat other animals differently to humans, because they are different. I acknowledge that inconsistency is a problem, but, depending on the context and how it is judged, how big of a problem it's considered to be will vary. You think that it's a bigger problem than I do with regards to this topic. — S

Are you actually going to explain why animals should be treated differently to humans, in regards to not violating their will to live and torturing them? All you have said is, "they are different." - Well, that explains nothing. I could go up to a slave owner and ask, Why are you treating black people this way, but not white people? And he could use your response, "They are different."

No, that's an option in the hypothetical scenario. I told you that the person can't bring themselves to abandon their morals, and yet their morals are incompatible with living a lifestyle in which they'd be happy. Not living this lifestyle makes the person miserable, or at best feeling like they're stuck in a situation where they're left unfulfilled. — S

Yes, I know indoctrination is a real thing, which usually stems from religious teachings. It will take a lot of discussion and evaluating your ethics, but they won't be stuck.

Your response is rather like me telling you that you have to evaluate your moral system and allow it to align with the consumption of animal products. Everyone has their red lines, and in the thought experiment, this is one of them. — S

If you want to tell me why eating animal products is morally correct, I'd be happy to change my mind and re-align my ethics. So far, all you have said it, "Animals are different, therefore it is ok to enslave, torture, rape and kill them."

Maybe that's true, but you don't have enough of a basis to make that judgement if you're making it based on this one issue. If I lack empathy and focus on selfish desires, based solely on my views on this one topic, then that's no more true of me than of the average person. The average person is a meat eater, and is likely similarly conflicted, at least when they think about it. — S

Yes, I'd say majority of people lack empathy. We can't even treat each other with compassion, let alone another species (chickens/pigs/cows/etc...)

As you said, you like animals, but you also like the taste of animal flesh. Despite this being in conflict with your values, you will continue to do it anyways because you value convenience and pleasure over the life of another being. — chatterbears

It's not all about values. An urge isn't a value. A desire isn't a value. A craving isn't a value. An impulse isn't a value. A conditioned behaviour or a habit isn't a value. A persons ability to change their behaviour isn't a value. — S

You: I like animals, but I like the taste of their flesh.
Greg: I like humans, but I like the feeling of when I rape them.

I could then tell Greg, you say you like animals, but you also like the feeling of raping them. Despite this being in conflict with your values (liking humans), you will continue to do it anyways because you like the feeling. Therefore, you value "pleasure" over the rights and pain of a human being.

Every action you take, whether that is an urge, desire, craving or impulse, has a value to it within your mind. I desire dessert, but I am not going to eat dessert made from cow or human flesh, because I value the lives of cows and humans more than my desire to eat dessert. You, on the other hand, do not value an animal's life over your desire/impulse/pleasure...

And besides, nothing is set in stone. I think I could change. Especially since I can see things from your point of view and am not wholly unsympathetic towards that way of looking at things. But yeah, I haven't changed enough to stop consuming animal products since the last time we had this discussion a while back. If it was as easy as clicking your fingers, then I would probably become a vegan. But it ain't that easy. What might seem to be the most ethical thing to do isn't necessarily the best thing for a person to do. My happiness is important, and selflessness has its downsides. — S

Now you value your happiness over the suffering of an animal? As you said, it is important, meaning you value it. A lot of things make me happy, but let me put it to you this way.

Situation 1: It would make me happy to buy a new belt.
Option A: Buy a belt made of cow skin (leather)
Option B: Buy a belt made from plants

Situation 2: It would make me happy to eat in a convenient manner.
Option A: Buy food made from animal flesh.
Option B: Buy food made from plants.

If I have two options, why would I choose the option that causes the most harm. If one is essentially cruelty free, while the other option is directly linked to a torture and death, why would I not choose the cruelty free option?

People say veganism is too hard. But let me give you another example.

Situation 1: Animals are being enslaved, tortured, raped, forced to live in their own waste, and killed.
Situation 2: Humans are being enslaved, tortured, raped, forced to live in their own waste, and killed.

Right now we are in situation 1, in which you are saying becoming vegan is not easy, therefore it is morally justified in continuing to support the factory farming industries.

If we were in situation 2, would you still say the same thing? If I talked to you and say, there's a cruelty-free option, that doesn't contribute to the torture, rape and death of humans, would you not switch over to that option immediately? Or would you say, "If it was as easy as clicking your fingers, I would do it."

This comes back to the core point you still haven't answered. Why do you put a higher value on human rights than animal rights? And I am not referring to the right to vote or the right to drive. I am talking about the right to freedom and the right to life. The most basic rights we give humans because we know that they have the ability to suffer, and don't want to cause them unnecessary pain.

There will be a story on NPR tomorrow about meat products grown in a lab. It's real meat, but no animals involved. I'm guessing you know more about this that most of us, so I'd be interested in your understandings and opinion.

My very basic understanding, hopefully somewhat correct, is that they do in the lab just what an animal does, start with plant material, and turn it in to meat.

What do you know about this? — Jake

Not much, as it is still in the research & development stage. Right now, there are plant based "burgers" out there, such as Beyond Meat or The Impossible Burger. I eat The Impossible Burger regularly, and it tastes quite good.

Suppose a husband and wife have a child with Down's Syndrome whom they have always loved dearly are cared for in an exemplary manner.Is the dominion - in terms of the strict discipline and physical restraint, etc; - that these parents must often exercise over their DS child's behaviours on a day-to-day basis ( or even hour -to hour) unethical? — johnGould

No, because they are caring for the child who has special needs. This is the opposite of unethical. If our dominion over animals was anything remotely close to the parents dominion over their DS child, this discussion wouldn't exist. The fact is, we use our dominion over animals to exploit them, torture them, rape them, and slaughter them. Do any of those heinous acts exist within the parents of the DS child?

All humans are, presently, believed to have free-will as part of the equality package. This means that, unlike animals, humans get to determine their circumstances. — BrianW

That's irrelevant to the point. Years ago, black people were believed to NOT have free-will as part of the equality package. This meant that, LIKE animals, black people did NOT get to determine their circumstances.

Just because times have changed, doesn't change the problem. Instead of black people in slavery, it is now animals. Well, animals were slaves back then too, but I am referring to how you are constructing this point.

If you lived 200 years ago, you'd be saying this:

- All white people are, presently, believed to have free-will as part of the equality package. This means that, unlike black people, white people get to determine their circumstances.

Present day:

- All humans are, presently, believed to have free-will as part of the equality package. This means that, unlike animals, humans get to determine their circumstances.

All you did is replace black people with animals, yet the argument still fails. This still displays excessive discrimination against another set of living beings, whether black humans or animals, doesn't matter. The unjust treatment of people or living things, shouldn't exist and we should not support it.

While we have a tendency to govern animals by their utility, we are building momentum where we govern humans by choice. — BrianW

There is less utility in animal agriculture than there was in black slavery. Utilitarianism leads to Veganism, not away from it. Veganism benefits the world more than non-Veganism. Health, environment, and the animals themselves.

Would you say that there could be a difference between accepting someone else proposing something (y, say) as a justification (for x, say) and yourself feeling that that x is justifed by y? (I'm asking because I want to understand just what you're asking me--I can't really answer until I understand the idea you're getting at.)

At any rate, by the way, as I've expressed many times, NO non-moral stance can justify any moral stance.

In general, you keep bringing up "justification(s)," but I don't talk about justifications when it comes to morality, and I don't think it really makes a whole lot of sense to talk about them, except as another way of saying that someone has whatever moral stances they do. I see justifications as good reasons to believe that something is the case, but when we're talking about morality, we're not talking about anything that's the case. We're talking about ways that people feel. — Terrapin Station

You keep getting hung up on synthetics, when I have already explained to you before what I meant by "justification". For you, I will refrain from using any complex words, and instead just break the idea down. So let me rephrase the question multiple times.

- Would you accept "laziness" as a good reason to harm another human or animal?

- Do you believe that "laziness" is a good way to go about making moral decisions?

- Each of us engage into moral decision making. Do you think a person should make moral decisions on the basis of "laziness"?

For you, laziness is a good basis for moral decisions. Because you have stated, you commit actions due to laziness, regardless of if those actions cause harm to another living being. You wouldn't eat meat, including fish, if you had to kill and prepare it for yourself. But since you don't have to kill it or prepare it for yourself, you are okay eating it, which contributes to the killing (harm) of these living creatures.

Action potentials, yes. Plants have senses. Actually, they share genes with humans; mutated genes in deaf people mess up the hair cells in cochlea ; the same genes mutated in plants deforms their root hairs — Anthony

We also share genes with bacteria, but I wouldn't say that matters in the realm of moral actions. I asked if plants have a brain to process pain. To process pain, you need nerve endings and pain receptors, which plants do not have. Unless you want to provide me with some scientific data saying otherwise?

But as I already said before. By going Vegan, you are saving more plants as well.

All meat lovers should have to slaughter their own animal, if they continue to eat meat afterward, they're alright with me. — Anthony

All rape porn watchers should have to rape their own human, if they continue to watch rape porn afterward, they're alright with me. Very sound logic here...

Btw, factory farms are hideous and we likely agree if that's where you're coming from. Always take no more food than what you need. Mass production and industrialization are enormities. Surplus grain from cash cropping rots away in bunkers. Meat recalls. Diseases on factory farms leads to millions of animals' needless deaths with no food value, usually chickens. What a waste. There's a lot more going on than animal cruelty, here. We're all complicit in the market society. — Anthony

Yes, so would you agree that people who buy animal products are contributing to the cruelty? Meaning, they are largely responsible for what happens to these animals.

I don't think you did. Whether I am willing to ignore it or not does not explain what you mean by the "will to live". Also, your example is not symmetrical at all to mine. Whether Hitler was willing to kill Jews says nothing about whether, for example, those who find life in general immoral are able to ignore their own will to live. — Πετροκότσυφας

Will to live = Does not want to die.

Deer in the wild, flee from danger. A zebra runs away from a lion so it does not get eaten. It has a will to live. If I put a hot iron up to my dogs head, she will yelp in pain and try her best to get away from that iron. Every animal on this earth, has the will to live. AKA, they want to survive and avoid pain. Animals want to avoid suffering and pain, just as humans do.

That's because I'm not advocating a moral stance, I'm just trying to explore yours. Also, what the will to live is supposed to mean has not been answered, so I cannot answer either way. But, generally, my ethics is not essentialist, therefore the question does not make much sense to begin with. From within an essentialist ethics, the distinction (any distinction) drawn could simply be based upon self-interest. — Πετροκότσυφας

It seems to be a common theme that two-way discussions in a philosophy forum aren't valued. You only want to explore my moral stance, but not answer or acknowledge any questions or points in your direction?

Now that you know what "will to live" means, do you care about an animal's or human's will to live? If you care about one, but not the other, what distinction are you making to create that difference in separation?

Do humans have dominion over animals? Macro animals, maybe, but not necessarily animalcules. My hackles go up anytime it's assumed humans have dominion over anything other than themselves. Actually, I tried to access the OP linked video and was asked to sign into youtube. Plants could be considered sentient. Life eats life. Can't live off of air and saliva. — Anthony

You were asked to sign-in due to an age limitation, as YouTube wants to make sure you're old enough to watch that graphic material.

Do plants have a nervous system? Pain receptors? Nerve endings? A brain to process pain? As far as we know, they do not have any characteristic that would conclude an ability to feel and/or process pain. But even if you want to take the ridiculous stance of, "Plants have feelings too." - It takes 14 lbs of plants to create 1 lb of meat. By going Vegan, you are also contributing to less plant "deaths", since humans would not need to consume as many plants as animals would. Majority of the plants in the world are fed to farm animals. We could save those plants by ending animal agriculture.

To me personally, this isn't the interesting question because I already agree with your sentiments (though I did kill a roach today). To me the more interesting question is not moral but tactical, what is the most effective way to share this understanding? — Jake

What is the most effective way to share an understanding of how not to rape? Or how not to steal? Or how not to kill a child? It's quite simple. Recognize that another sentient life should be valued. But if you want to discriminate against that life, you can take whatever action you want, right?

The ironic part about the entire premise of veganism is, many people who reject it are the same ones who have been discriminated against themselves. Black people, who endured horrible things like slavery and constant discrimination even to this present day. They can recognize oppression within their own group, but cannot recognize it within another group, such as animals. In the same way a white man was brought up to believe that black men are inferior to him, humans (in general) were brought up to believe that animals are inferior to them.

I wouldn't eat meat, including fish, if I had to kill and prepare it for myself. Not for any ethical reasons. Just because I'm a lazy f---. I don't even like eating chicken, say, if it has bones, etc. So, for example, I don't like Kentucky Fried Chicken where you've got to eat around a bone. I don't like to have to do any work when I'm eating. I don't like eating shelled peanuts either. I like peanuts, but I'm not going to sit and take them out of the shell to eat them. I also don't like eating fruit unless it's already cut up/deseeded, etc.

So it's not a moral thing, I'm just hate having to do any work to prepare my food to eat. (I don't cook either, by the way. The most I'd do if I were on my own is throw something into the microwave.) — Terrapin Station

Would you accept "laziness" as a justification to harm another human or animal?

- I am lazy, therefore I own a human slave to do the hard work for me.

- I am lazy, therefore I will eat in a way that takes the least amount of effort, despite what harm it causes.

If your response is, "I wouldn't condone laziness if it harms a human, but I would condone it if it harms an animal." - What distinction, between animals and humans, are you making, in which the same action would justify doing it to animals, but not humans?

Some animals are bred for food, some for companionship, some for work, etc. — BrianW

And by the same "utility" standards, could I not justify slavery by saying "Some humans are bred into slavery (black people), some for companionship (white people), etc..."

If there's a utility in animal agriculture (which causes harm to the environment, our health and the animals themselves), then there should be a utility in owning humans as property (this only causes harm to the humans [slaves] themselves).

"Utility" isn't a justification for why one sentient being is valued over another. That fails on multiple levels.

The arguments work for humans because it's clear that we're equal. That is not the same for animals, hence the current inconsistencies. — BrianW

People can claim that we are equal, but majority of people don't even believe that about their own species. Why do you think so many people are against immigration in the US? They don't care about other people's struggles or what they have to go through. Or the fact that people's countries are so awful, that they need to flee from it and come to the US. Go back 100 years, women didn't have the right to vote. Go back even further, black people were owned as property. You really think it is "clear" that we are equal? We tell ourselves that, but it is far from the truth.

But even if it were the case, that humans only treat other humans well, but not other animals, why is that? They would have to provide a justification for why one sentient being is deserving of life, and another sentient being is not.

As for your point about inconsistency, even if you can tie me down on an inconsistency, people can continue their lives with that knowledge and yet remain fairly content. I may be one of those people for all you know. It's a matter of what your values and priorities are, what you can or can't live with. Sometimes it's not even really an option. What if I were gay, but being gay conflicted with my morals? If I couldn't bring myself to abandon my morals, then it could come down to a choice of being consistent and unhappy or inconsistent and happy. Which would you choose? In some respects, my life choices reflect a life motivated by pleasure seeking and contentment over and above the life of some sort of noble sage. And yet, in spite of all of this, I can still sleep at night. I'm not racked with guilt. I'm not burdened with regrets. I like animals, but then I also like the taste of meat. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — S

This is the core problem. This is how slavery existed for hundreds of years, because people were content with their inconsistency. It is how women didn't have the right to vote up until recently, because people were content with their inconsistencies. People feel ok discriminating against others, acknowledging their inconsistency on the basis for doing so, and continue to discriminate.

Also, if being gay conflicted with your morals, you'd have to evaluate your moral system and allow it to align with your beliefs, in which you would then be consistent AND happy. Anybody who is gay that is conflicted, has been brought up religious. Where the bible believers have ingrained the value of "being gay is wrong" into you. You would then have to evaluate why being gay is wrong according to religious teachings. Is it based on authority? (follow whatever the bible says?) In that case, you'd have to also condone slavery, genocide, misogyny, etc... But once you figure out that the way you feel about your sexual preference is not immoral, but instead, the teachings you were given from a biblical perspective are the actual problem, you can live a life without the need to worry. Especially when looking at the science, since homosexuality occurs in nature in many other species of animal.

Also, you seem like a person who lacks empathy and focuses on selfish desires. Which is not surprising, because a vast majority of people are like that. As you said, you like animals, but you also like the taste of animal flesh. Despite this being in conflict with your values, you will continue to do it anyways because you value convenience and pleasure over the life of another being. A slave owner could justify his actions by saying something very similar. "I like humans, but then I also like the convenience of owning slaves.

For example, how would you convince christians that it is wrong to kill animals for food when their religious teachings contrast that? — BrianW

Quite simple. Religious people are the easiest targets for ethical inconsistency. The bible condones slavery, yet they don't think slavery is morally acceptable. They will then tell you, "slavery was condoned back then, not for today's era." - I can follow up and say, how do you know eating animals was condoned back then, but also for today's era, yet slavery is not?

Religious people pick and choose which verses they should abide by, in which the core concept of "follow the bible" becomes completely contradictory.They will follow the 10-commandments, which are in the old testament. Yet when you point out another law in the old testament, such as killing homosexuals, they will say, "I don't follow that law because that was the old testament." - But when you point out their inconsistent ethics, they are stuck, and try their best to rationalize their illogical stance.

You didn't explain what the "will to live" is though. Nor if it can be ignored (by those who think that life is immoral, for example). — Πετροκότσυφας

I already answered this. I told you, depending on what your moral system dictates, you can ignore it if you want to. If you don't care about an animals will to live, then don't. Hitler didn't care about the Jew's will to live, but I wouldn't say he had a logically consistent moral system.

You also failed to answer my questions to you in my last reply to you. Do you care about a human's will to live? Or do you not care about an animal's will to live? If you care about one, but not the other, what distinction are you making to create that difference in separation?

For someone to change their behavior, they have to believe their current behavior is incorrect or wrong. I want to know if you actually believe that supporting the animal agriculture industry (buying animal products) is wrong. If you do not think it is wrong, why would we even discuss further than that?

I am not trying to give you a lecture. I am trying to understand what you personally believe. I don't care what society currently believes, because I already know about that. I am in this forum to talk to people directly, not people who speak for society as a whole. I want to know your personal views. Because if your views are inconsistent and do not line up with your actions, that's the first step. How could I lecture you, when I don't even know what your actual views are. And even if I did, I would continue to ask questions. A lecture does not involve this much questioning and back n' forth. I am here to have a discussion, not inject a sermon.

Okay, so you've clarified. Now you just need to explain why torture would be necessary as a means to the end. My suspicion is that it isn't necessary in that respect, and in fact you know that it isn't necessary in that respect, but as it's a thing that happens in some places, you use torture as part of your argument in order to bolster it, even though it's actually quite misleading to do that. The truth is, if I want dog skin shoes, I could just shoot a Bingo in the head and turn him into a lovely pair of loafers, without needing to subject him to waterboarding or lock him in a room with Justin Bieber playing on repeat. — S

Torture isn't necessary, but that is what we do within the factory farming business. These animals are tortured before they are killed. But even in a slightly better scenario, where an animal is not torture, but is still killed against its own will, that is still the main issue. Torture is just icing on the cake of injustice.

Do you think it is morally good to kill an innocent being that does not want to die?

Then we're at cross purposes. I know exactly what you asked, and I told you my opinion that what you or I think doesn't really matter compared to the bigger picture, which I believe is better addressed with the kind of questions I put to you. — S

And you still haven't answered. I'll try asking one last time, Is pleasure and convenience is worth the death of innocent sentient beings?

We are in a philosophy forum, where answering questions seems to be the least valued concept within it. Very odd...

I've already given you my personal views. As to society, is there individual/personal equality? Equality is for the collective whole. What does it matter if I'm the most compassionate/cruel being within a society of people contrary to myself? It's not just about being right as an individual, it's about helping others develop the capacity to be right. — BrianW

You actually have not given me your personal views, at all. You have vaguely described them, followed by explaining what societies think and social norms. You have yet to provide me with something of your own personal perspective, regarding how you differentiate a good action from a bad action. Unless you are trying to tell me, you just follow along with whatever society is accepting of at the time? So if you were living 200 years ago, I presume you would be accepting of slavery and might even own slaves yourself? You wouldn't be part of the civil rights movement, or the women's march for their right to vote?

It does matter if you are more compassionate than the society you live in, because every person counts. The type of thinking that stops progress of a society, is the one you seem to be adopting. "Why should I enact change when society is overwhelmingly against my views?" - The more and more people who stop purchasing animal products, the less and less these products will be created and sold. Same goes for slavery and women's rights. The more people who stand up for the victims, the more likely it will be to succeed as a movement. Black people were the victims of slavery. Women were the victims of discrimination and had the inability to vote. Animals are the victims of torture and slaughter. What you believe and how you act, do matter. If you stop contributing to the animal agriculture industry, that's one less animal that has to die.

Your opinions are decent but society isn't waiting for an individual to make decisions for them. Animals will have equality when the enough of the individuals in the society are capable of perceiving them as equals. So, the question becomes, "how do we develop that capacity in others?" — BrianW

Apparently you seem to be doing the opposite. You let society make decisions for you as the individual. You conform to the social norm. You aren't Vegan because society is overwhelmingly omnivorous. Right?

As investigations into the nature of animals advance, we realise more and more how much they are like humans in terms of social needs and capacities. In this way, we learn that we can give them more consideration in terms of compassion, comfort, discipline/training, etc. This is why domestic animals which are primarily kept for companionship get the first taste of decent treatment. Because of their proximity to humans, their nature is more readily evident than that of others. Unfortunately, as a human collective, we're still slow to progress and not even one sincere man's appeal for expedition will change that. — BrianW

You keep saying how selfish we are, but do you apply those beliefs into your own actions? Are planning on become Vegan, since it seems to me that you think it would be selfish not to, correct?

You don't get to choose what to base morality on. That's the subjectivist error again - see my answer to Terrapin above. — Herg

Although you seem to be advocating for Veganism, and I am on your side on that point, I also will recognize that morality is completely subjective at its core. The baseline axiom of any moral system is subjective.

For example. Let's have a mini-back n' forth here. You seem to be basing your moral actions on whether or not a being can suffer, is this correct? If so, you have put value into actions that avoid causing suffering. I would then ask you, why do you value actions that avoid causing suffering? You would then probably say, "because suffering is bad." - In which I would ask, why is suffering bad? You would then have to finally acknowledge, suffering is bad because it is bad. Or you may say, suffering is bad, because it causes pain. But then I would go one level deeper, and ask why causing pain is bad. You would then have to give your subjective axiom.

That is the point I'm trying to make. The laws we enact are dependent upon our interaction but not on some fundamental equality for all animals. We decide according to what suits us and that makes it just as selfish and inconsiderate as can be. I am yet to see comprehensive impartial efforts for animal justice. — BrianW

And do you think this is how it should be? That we should base laws on our interaction instead of equality? This is what slave owners thought a few hundred years ago. They based their laws on interactions with black people, and not on some fundamental equality for all humans.

You, again, keep answering for society. Answer for yourself. Do you believe that laws should be based on equality, fairness and justness? If so, should we extend animal cruelty laws to other animals (such as pigs), and not just dogs or cats?

That's up to you and how you want to create your own moral system. If you don't care about a person's will to live, you don't need to care about that. I personally do care about animals and humans, and their will to live. And I will do my best to not limit their freedom to express their will to live, such as enslaving black people or enslaving animals for leather and food products that we don't need.

But from what you are saying, you don't care about a human's will to live? Or do you not care about an animal's will to live? If you care about one, but not the other, what distinction are you making to create that difference in separation?

What is it necessary for and why is it necessary? — Πετροκότσυφας

Survival, because both sentient beings have a will to live.

Instead of wanting humans to stop mistreating animals, you should want them to learn what mistreatment is and why it is. This means the information should be given in such a way that it is acceptable. In that way, they act out of knowledge not coercion.

Currently, it is too early for humans to cease mistreating animals completely. But, considerable efforts have been exerted to diminish the cruelty that has been realised as such. So, it stands to reason that there will come a time, in the future, when all such mistreatment will be a thing of the past. As it stands, presently, there isn't enough justification for it. So the best we can have is some people being vegans while the rest persist with the carnivorism. — BrianW

The vast majority of humans already know what mistreatment is. We have put up laws against animal cruelty, especially regarding dogs or cats. There's a massive sense of cognitive dissonance here, where you can understand why a dog needs love and affection, but not why a pig would need the same thing.

Slavery was a "current" thing a few hundred years ago. And imagine a person like me, being opposed to slavery. And telling you that we should not mistreat people, just because of their skin color. And you would respond and tell me, "when all such mistreatment will be a thing of the past. As it stands, presently, there isn't enough justification for it. So the best we can have is some people being against slavery while the rest persist with the slave ownership."

All I'm saying is, before you label people as ethical/moral or unethical/immoral, you might want to take a moment and understand them first. If not, you might find you're the immoral one for degrading humans to the level of animals and for denying them a source of nutrition which is rightfully theirs. — BrianW

You still have not expressed what your own views are, and I am not sure why. You are just explaining what societies have thought throughout our history, and how they operate. I am still waiting for you to tell me how you determine a bad action from a good action. Not how society determines that. I want to know how YOU (personally) determine that.

Also, cannibals can kill a human against their will, and claim that is a source of nutrition that is rightfully theirs. Would you grant cannibals the same right as you are granting meat eaters?

These questions ought to be put into an appropriate context. If there was a mass demand for turning cats, dogs, and severely mentally disabled humans into produce for consumption, as there is for the animal produce already on the market, then who knows what we'd find acceptable enough to put up with? But that's another reality, a hypothetical reality. It's a counterfactual. So it's difficult to judge.

If chickens were a man's best friend and dog burgers tasted good...

If pigs could fly...

Who knows? But, minimally, I predict that if things were different, then we'd probably view things differently. — S

Hypothetical scenarios are brought to the table to display an inconsistency or contradiction within one's moral view. And again, you still did not answer my question, so I will ask again.

If there was a demand for turning cats, dogs and severe mentally disabled humans into produce, would you find that morally right? This isn't too far off from what the Nazi's did to Jews, or what slavery did to black people. The point is, unjust discrimination against a group of people or animals.

Firstly, why would it be necessary to torture the dog? And secondly, if it was the same thing happening in each scenario, then there would be torture in the second scenario as there was in the first, but, for some reason, you left that out of the second scenario. So no, on the face of it, it's not the same thing. (Did you just forget to mention it the second time around or did you leave it out intentionally?). — S

That's the point I am making. It is not necessary to torture or kill a dog, just as it is not necessary to torture or kill a pig. Also, I did said both scenarios have torture within them. Did you not read?

Scenario 1: I torture and kill the dog. (animal slaughter house workers)
Scenario 2: I pay somebody else to torture and kill the dog. (consumers who pay the animal slaughter house workers to do their dirty work)

But to answer your question, judging by our actions, we, for the most part, think that it is. (Again, as you probably already know). In a sense, it doesn't really matter what you or I think about the morality of it. There'll be mixed views, and it'll fill pages of discussion with a back-and-forth exchange of views consisting of those in favour and those against, because it's just one of those hot topics, like abortion, but it won't be as productive as focusing on what is, in my opinion, a better question: what, realistically, can be done about that? What actions, with the greatest chance of success, do you propose in order to rectify this situation? — S

I didn't ask about what 'we' as a society think about it. I am ask you directly. It seems many people on this thread do not want to answer for themselves, but instead answer on behalf of the society/world they live in. I want to know if pleasure and convenience is worth the torture and death of innocent sentient beings? (From your personal perspective)

Once you have some foundational stance (which can be one of many), you can reason from there--so, for example, if it's a foundational stance for you that "one shouldn't nonconsensually initiate violence" it would likely follow for you that "one shouldn't murder," but the foundational stance can't be anything other than a way that you feel. — Terrapin Station

What is your foundational stance? I understand you are describing how people operate within the moral sphere, but I want to know where you derive your moral foundation from.

In what way?

(I mean, is it clearly defined harmful activity or is it relative harm. Most of what I've seen is, to a large part, relative harm from the point of view of the difference between a human and an animal. This is because animals may not have the same rights, knowledge and awareness as humans. However, if one considered animals to be equal to humans, then, I agree that farming industries do harm animals.) — BrianW

Watch the Documentary (Dominion) I linked in my original post of this thread, and you will see how harmful it actually is.

And from what you are saying, is it ok to torture/kill something, just because it doesn't have the same rights / knowledge / awareness as a human? How about a dog/cat? How about the severely mentally disabled human who has the same awareness and knowledge as a cow?

Also, there's the question of whether someone would be ok to suffer a particular influence. If not, then it would be immoral to cause others to suffer through such. Though, this depends on equality. For example, stealing. There's previous precedence that makes stealing a unanimous no no. Also, personally, I'm against it due to the negative effects it has. And, since I would not like to be stolen from, I think it would be wrong to steal from others. — BrianW

I still don't understand what mechanism you use to determine a good action from a bad action?

Only with respect to relative opinions. Rape is unanimously frowned upon, therefore, it's determined as unethical/immoral by everyone. — BrianW

At one point, Slavery was NOT frowned up on, and it was determined as morally acceptable by everyone. Is the societal norm how you determine what is immoral? 100 years ago, homosexuality was unanimously frowned upon, and it was determined as unethical/immoral by everyone. But nowadays, people are changing their view, and many people were wrong in their ethical assessment.

So, you ended up harming a wild animal in self-defense, when you didn't need to be there in the first place. In reality, the animal was in self-defense, since you were invading its natural habitat, despite the fact that more wilderness had already been taken up, so that we can build the city, which more or less makes our visiting to the wilderness unnecessary for matters of survival. Yet you say it was necessary (thus moral, I presume). — Πετροκότσυφας

Technically, every place on earth has wild life within it. But since humans have built over natural habitats of other species, the wildlife has become minimal, such as squirrels and birds.

But I can give a better/different example. A person who lives in a forest area, where their backyard is the actual forest. If they walk outside their house, they may encounter a bear or jaguar of some sort. They are both in their own habitat. You may say, "the human built a house over the bears habitat, so it's the humans fault." - You have to look at it from an evolutionary perspective. Even when we were living in the trees, hundreds of thousands of years ago, humans and bears were still sharing the same area of land. But instead of using living in trees near a bear, we are now living in houses near a bear. So when that person walks out of their house in the forest, and they encounter a bear, both (the human and the bear) are going to be in self-defense mode. Obviously, I would want the human to take the least damaging action as possible, in which the bear is not severely harmed. I think some people use horns or pepper spray to deter animals such as bears, rather than just shooting it.

But back to my original point. This is the type of 'necessary harm' a human would be deploying to another sentient being. It would be necessary to cause the bear harm, just as it would be necessary for the bear to cause the human harm. Both are acting out of survival, not pleasure or convenience.

Cities, even towns and villages, are necessary for our pleasure and convenience, not survival. And they were possible only through agriculture, which you appear to reject. Your whole argumentation takes us back to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle (where animals are exploited too). — Πετροκότσυφας

My argumentation allows for people to recognize the harm their actions are causing other life. It is impossible to eliminate all suffering throughout the globe, but we should reduce the amount of suffering as much as we can.

Also, I am not against all types of agriculture. As plant agriculture is much less damaging than animal agriculture. You can keep trying to reduce my position all the way back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but I am not advocating for that. I am advocating for a moral consideration of other animals that we torture and slaughter needlessly.

Either way, there are more fundamental problems than the ones I pointed out above. So, to get to the bottom of it, your view is such that it can't allow survival to function as the basis of morality, even though this is what it tries to do. You can't use survival that way because there's nothing necessary about survival. Ultimately, it can only be deemed as necessary on the grounds that you try to deny. The necessity of survival rests on the view that survival is the natural way things are. That's the way it is folks, we must survive, it's natural for us to want to survive (and maybe harm and exploit other life-forms in the process of surviving). In fact, every appeal to necessity, for things that are otherwise physically possible, leads to that. If you appeal to necessity, you open the door to the naturalistic fallacy you accuse others of. If you don't appeal to necessity, there's nothing necessary about survival. So, there's a contradiction here. — Πετροκότσυφας

My moral axiom is not survival, and it definitely is not about what is natural. If you want my fundamental base axioms, they are rights and well-being. My metaethical stance is to maximize the rights and well-being of sentient creatures. I've never said, what is naturally is what is right. Nor have I stated, what is unnecessary is what is wrong. I also have not stated, what is not needed to survive, is morally wrong. An example. Music is not necessary for my survival, but I wouldn't call somebody immoral for listening to it. The "unnecessary" part comes into play, when those "unnecessary" actions cause harm to sentient beings. Listening to music doesn't cause harm. Eating animal products causes harm. Although both of those actions (listening to music and eating animal products) are not necessary for our survival, only one of those actions is known to cause torture and death to sentient life. Which comes back to my moral axiom, which is to maximize the rights and well-being of sentient life.

Aside from that, what I believe is completely irrelevant. Because most people I argue with, already have a moral system in place. They already have some axioms in place, along with normative principles (such as utilitarianism). 99% of these systems include the push for human rights. Veganism is a logical extension of human rights, and you cannot believe in human rights without extending that animals, unless create a contradiction within your moral system. And for the very small percentage who do not have a contradiction within their moral system, their systems will lead to absurdities. Such as, it is better to exist in torture than to not exist at all.

You can get out of this contradiction if, for example, you let survival function as an axiom. But, if it's an axiom, you must change your mode of arguing. Before you judge others based on it, you must first convince them to adopt it. And if they don't share a foundationalist conception of ethics, you must first convince them to adopt such a conception before you convince them to adopt survival as the foundation from which moral inferences will be derived. — Πετροκότσυφας

As I explained above, survival is not my axiom. The terms survival and unnecessary only come into play when they are causing harm to other life on this planet. As I said, I can initiate actions (such as playing music) that are unnecessary for my survival, but I wouldn't say those actions are immoral. They become immoral when they cause harm.

My ethics/morality is derived partly from previous precedence and partly from my own analysis. The idea that killing animals for food is unethical has no long-standing precedence in most of the world. In fact, it's quite the opposite. And, where there's precedence, it is expressed primarily through religious/spiritual dictates instead of some kind of empiricism (like we now have knowing that animals express emotions and they can suffer).
On the flip-side, there are long-standing traditions based on ideas such as humans are decidedly superior to animals, or that animals exist to serve humans, etc. In terms of empiricism, the superiority of humans over animals is obvious. Also, concerning suffering from fear of death, a lot of progress has been made to alleviate that. — BrianW

Hehe. I originally said, "If we forget about other people for now, may I ask you this. What is your basis for ethical/moral decisions? Meaning, how do you differentiate a good action from a bad action?".

The main sentence being, "If we forget about other people for now." - You then explained how the rest of the world perceives morality, instead of explaining your own position. I understand that you derive your moral stances on previous precedence and your own analysis, but I wanted specifics.

As I told Terrapin, how would you teach your children to assess a good action from a bad action? Or my original question, how do you differentiate a good action from a bad action? What specific thought process do you use to make that determination.

As to suffering due to inhumane conditions, it has not yet been established whether animals have the capacity to realise an unexperienced alternate lifestyle over which they could yearn for. Once animals are fed regularly, are sheltered well enough and have the company, especially, of their kind, it is difficult to prove substantially that they are in any further need, the lack of which, results in suffering.
Therefore, I think it would be unfair to suppose an ethical/moral superiority over those who act different from me when it is not based on any absolute system of qualification. — BrianW

We could raise a human in isolation, in which that human knows no differently. We could force that human to live in its own waste, while confined to a 4x4 cell block. We could forcefully artificially inseminate that human (rape) without their consent. Would you then justify these actions by saying, once this human is fed regularly, sheltered well enough and has company of its own kind, it is difficult to prove substantially that they are in any further need? If your response is going to be, "A human understands suffering to a greater degree than a pig, so it would be immoral to treat a human the same way." - I could get around that by making the human we raise in isolation, a mentally retarded human. And the mentally retarded human would be of the same consciousness of a pig, and had same communication skills. Is it ok now?

For example, personally, I think all animals should be under partial or complete domestication. This means that, even wild animals should be regulated through family planning methods until their numbers are greatly reduced and manageable. Also, we should tag all animals (if possible) so that we know where and how they are at all times for the sake of regulating their activities, like in times of natural crises or to protect them from human activities that may harm them. — BrianW

Factory farming industries harm animals. Is factory farming something you would want to protect animals from, since that qualifies as a human activity that harms animals.

However, all that is my opinion. It can be compassionate, intelligent, or any other positive adjective but cannot be superior to others' opinions, unless relatively. And, I can't argue that relative ethics/morality must hold for others because that would be plain wrong. — BrianW

You don't think one moral stance can be superior to another? Let me ask you this:

- Jack thinks rape is morally good.
- Peter thinks rape is morally bad.

Are you saying that Jack and Peter both have moral opinions of equal value, in regards to rape?

On the bright side, through persistence and insistence, it is possible to turn around the current status quo and possibly have a future where humans are more caring of animals. Current trends already show an increase in plant-based diets, which I fully support. — BrianW

Agreed.