We are in agreement, I think your stance is consistent.

↪DingoJones I see what you are driving at. So if we are to use pain and suffering as our moral benchmark, some organisms may be excluded from consideration. For example, if we are confident that wheat doesn't feel pain, we have no need to concern ourselves with any moral duty to any particular wheat plant (we might however, on a different basis, have some concerns about a wider ethical concern relating to the growing of wheat as a commodity). Similarly, the same should apply to any animal that does not experience pain (if we are sufficiently confident that an oyster for example isn't likely to suffer any more than a stalk of wheat). — Graeme M

Yes, as you say you see what Im getting at. I think we might disagree about what levels of pain and suffering matters though...i wouldnt say you couldn't eat anything that feels any pain or suffering. I would say it depends on how and what capacity the animal has for pain, suffering and/or consciousness compared to humans. (Presumably there are attributes to human suffering that make it wrong that we would want to see present in the animal we shouldn't eat (ethically speaking, and with suffering as our metric).

This seems to point in the right direction. Broadly then we could see an endorsement for vegan ethics in regard to animal farming - that is, those animals which can feel pain and suffer would be those we'd owe the greater duty to. Wouldn't the typical farmed animal fall within that scope? And as I mentioned earlier, we have some reasonably sound empirical grounds for excluding insects from that duty which would free us from particular concerns about insects as individuals. That would mean we can happily eat insects and kill them in crop farming (with the same caveat as earlier - for example, a broader ethical duty to insects as species and members of the ecosystem). — Graeme M

Well I wouldnt qualify the capacity for pain and suffering alone. I think it needs to be an experience of suffering/pain of a certain kind, a kind that fits the same criteria for why pain and suffering is wrong to inflict on humans.
Aside from that consideration, yes I think ethics (with preventing suffering as the moral metric) would demand we be more careful about what animals we eat.

Just as an aside, is there a particular objection to folk seeking the higher moral ground? I'm not sure I'd advocate for chasing the lower moral ground!! — Graeme M

No, my issue is with claiming the moral high ground when you dont actually have it. (And by “you” i mean people in general, not you personally).
Plus, and again not directed at you personally, claiming the moral high ground is far too often the cry of the self righteous.
Anyway, Im glad I was eventually able to articulate my view more clearly. You’ve given me food for thought so Im going to do some thinking on what youve said.

I would guess we have reached an impasse, as your responses seems scarce on substance to me as well.

This sounds very vague. What meats specifically? What vegetarians specifically? I've been finding it incredibly difficult to actually apply your criticisms. — InPitzotl

I feel like ive answered this...the meat that meets the thresholds of suffering being used to decide what's ok to eat and whats isnt. The vegetarians im referencing have been the ones that dont eat meat because it causes suffering to the animal providing the meat and ones that think hey have the moral high ground for not eating meat. (Two different references for two different points but those are the two types of vegetarians Ive referred too.

Well I wouldnt agree with that no, because I wouldnt use suffering as the metric.
If you do use suffering as a metric then I think there is a spectrum and not a simple meat or veggie dichotomy. To be consistent, I think rather than being measured by whether its an animal or a veggie you would have to measure whats ethical to eat by the mental capacities of each thing you consider eating. I dont think that all meat would be entirely excluded in that calculus, we would find some meats (maybe alot) that would be ok to eat. It would depend on what “ability to experience suffering” standards are being used but the calculus is the same regardless and thats why I dont think vegans or vegetarians have the moral high ground they think they do.

I'm curious, what metric would you propose? Mind you, the original discussion was in relation to vegetarianism, extended to veganism. Neither is essentially about animal rights as far as I know. — Graeme M

Yes, this would be shifting the discussion. Thats why im arguing from the same basis of using suffering as the metric, I recognise my own views on ethics/morality to be idiosyncratic and unless the discussion is about moral epistemology it probably wouldnt be helpful to insert my own views.
To answer your question, Im more of social contract theory guy and dint see much merit to principal based ethics or avoiding suffering as the basis for morals/ethics.

It's not an inconsistency unless one believes that beetles and cows are capable of equal amounts of suffering, or that their lives somehow matter equally much. You don't believe it, animal rights people don't believe it, so no one's being inconsistent. — zookeeper

I think this is pertinent to both of our discussions. I think that deciding bugs dont count is the same as deciding certain animals dont count. Graeme mentioned that he had empirical reasons, and I would agree there is probably some sort of spectrum to consciousness and levels of suffering. However, I dont think that all the animals vegans/animal rights folk believe shouldnt be eaten are going to be shown by science to have anything like the human ethics or suffering. I think some will, and based on suffering as a metric we shouldn't (ethically speaking) eat those animals. That would be consistent with the premiss of suffering as the metric.

So just to clarify: you personally value the lives and suffering of, say, a beetle and a cow equally (or, alternatively, that you believe a beetle and cow are equally capable of suffering)? That your ethical judgement if you see someone squash a cat with a bat is more or less the same as when you see someone squash a mosquito? — zookeeper

I was pointing out an inconsistency that arises from the vegan/animal rights premiss of reducing suffering. Reducing suffering is not my own basis of morality, nor a metric I would use to defend/attack animal rights.

My concern isnt to reduce suffering, thats the concern of vegans/animal rights folk. Im talking about in what way operating from that stance leads to inconsistency.
Anyway, once you decide insects arent to be included as suffering creatures you are making the same calculus as a meat eater, arbitrarily drawing the line at insects the way a meat eater might draw the line at dogs, or monkeys. Thats problematic for what I hope are obvious reasons.

You will need to offer some actual numbers to back up your claim that the loss of animals from the proportion of crops to replace meat is astronomical when compared to the number of animals we kill/catch each year. I agree that generally speaking, cattle grazing on open range is relatively harm free and can be ecologically preferable, but we aren't talking about the impact of ALL crops grown for food versus just range grazed cattle. See my comment above. — Graeme M

Well in your first post you excluded insects. I was including them in my measure of individual lives.

I understand, Im familiar with vegan arguments.

That doesn't make any sense. How does plant-eating cause more suffering than meat-eating? It causes some, obviously, but if you make an esoteric claim such that it causes more suffering or suffering to more individual creatures, then surely you have some kind of rationale for that. What is it? — zookeeper

I was referring to the amount of lives lost/suffering. Insects and rodents are more enumerate than farm animals. Insects and rodents can co-exist with animal farm fields. Thats not the case with crops, the insects and rodents are wiped out or displaced (and most die). So many many times more individual lives and suffering result from a crop field. Ergo, if we are measuring the suffering of individuals we see there are more individuals suffering from the footprint of the crops than the animal farming. By a landslide really.
Just because you don’t understand something doesnt mean it doesnt make sense. I dont mind clarifying, I simply thought you understood the huge numbers difference in individual lives. My mistake, hopefully its clear what I meant now.

He is not saying they were rights, he is saying they existed. The question is are they “rights”?
If we are talking about rights not granted by other men...I think I agree with what others about enforcement. Might makes rights. If you can take something you have the right to it. indeed thats the very reason for laws and rights. Your quote above expresses that nicely.

But practically no one ever suggests such a thing. The alternative to suffering of farmed animals is obviously not freeing them to starve in the wild, but not breeding them in the first place. That's a basic false dichotomy. — zookeeper

I was comparing the suffering experienced by farm animals to the suffering of animals in the wild. Thats not a dichotomy, its a comparison. Not breeding them in the first place is a fair point but doesnt address what to do with the ones that have been bred already.
Also, regardless of what we do with the current stock of farm animals doesnt change the fact that animals, anywhere, live harsh and short lives that end in various horrific deaths. Thats the point I was making. There is no significant ethical difference between the suffering of farm animals and the suffering of animals in general. It IS strange, as under your paradigm one should be out rescuing animals from the wild as well.

Sure, production of plants results in animals dying en masse. No one seriously thinks that's not the case. How or why would that eliminate the moral high ground? — zookeeper

Well isnt preventing suffering what grants the moral highground? Suffering isnt being prevented by not eating meat, in fact id say that it causes more suffering just by the sheer numbers of individual suffering (unless you want to claim those lives are less significant somehow, but again that is the exact same calculus a meat eater is making).

Also, you said “practically no one ever”...aren’t there organisations like PETA that rescue animals and release them back to the wild? Maybe Im assuming “rescue” to mean release to the wild, but Im sure i e heard of animals being rescued from factory farms and such.

Well it seems strange to save an animal from suffering by ensuring it will suffer. Frying pan or fire? And thats besides the fact that most animals cannot make an ethical social contract. Its protecting an animal from suffering and death by sending it off to..suffering and death. (Presumably the alternative to being a farm animal is living in the wild). That doesnt seem odd to you?
Take vegans and vegetarians. In order to grow the food they eat, animals still have to be slaughtered en masse. Those fields of fruits or veggies result in countless deaths and plenty of suffering from displacement and starvation. If you want to say rodents and insects dont count or count less, then you are making the exact same calculus a meat eater is making. The moral high ground held by vegans or vegetarians is an illusion.

No. By that definition I can’t see how drugs are “bad”. If I said drugs are bad I would also be saying medicine that has a physiological effect is bad. I dont see how anyone could reasonably say that.

I think of ethics as a social contract for the most part, so with animals their are obvious limits to what kind of social contract you can make with them. I think most ethics are beyond most animals and so its not going to be an ethical social contract.
Ive always found it strange when animal rights people talk about the suffering from farms and human consumption of meat. Do they not realise the suffering that exists in the natural world? Its a non-stop horror show of pain, suffering and death. Mothers eat their babies, predators eating prey alive, agonising poisons and neurotoxins that paralyse followed by being eaten alive, females killing mates after copulation...ever see a cat play with its prey? Its torture for fun, whenever they can. Rape, infanticide, homicide, torture...all par for the course. Horrific crimes by human standards and thats the point, by human standards. Ethics. Whatever animals got going on it aint ethics, so what kind of social contract can you make with them? Well they all seem to have a solid grasp on the food chain...
Having said that, science has shown a pretty wide spectrum of cognition in animals in the last decade or two. I think its pretty clear some animals are capable of an ethical social contract more advanced than us eating them. Although dolphins are an animal noted for it high or human like intelligence and I read rape is very common amongst dolphins so maybe ethics really are a uniquely human thing. Its hard to tell.

You cant have looked very hard. It was the first headline that came up from the BBC when I just did it.
Benkei made a good point, that the actual articles dint say what the headlines say, clickbait. I think thats true, I just think that those clickbait headlines are very damaging. Thats maybe more about the state of journalism, but I dont think that excuses it.

Well I dont have as cavalier an attitude about headlines that mislead like that as you do. I think its important not to do that, especially concerning Trump. As I said, it plays into his hands.

Im talking about a specific type of Trump critic, the ones that lie or distort what Trump says or does because its easy and no one will call them on it cuz its Trump. Not everyone who is anti-Trump does this, not even everyone who has TDS does this.
The most recent example is journalists who wrote that Trump told people to drink or inject bleach in that press conference and people did and its all Trumps fault. Thats just not true, what he actually did was make an idiotic, off the top of his head comment about a potential treatment. He displayed ignorance, but anyone who heard that and thought it was a good idea to inject or drink bleach is an idiot and its not Trumps fault.
On the other side, im sure you can think of your own examples of Fox news or Republican politicians lying and distorting for Trumps benefit. The “inject bleach” example above works on this end too. Any Fox reporter or right wing personality that repeated the “it was sarcasm” excuse (and believes it) is not thinking clearly. TDS...
Trump is the divider in chief, and people on the left play right into his hands when they compare him to Hitler or bend over backwards to interpret anything he says or does in the worst possible way. Then he has fake news to point to when he wants to distract or obscure the actual terrible things he says and does.

You don't see how evidence would support your views or argument, seriously? — praxis

No, I said I dont think an example would make it any more clear. I think it would muddy the waters in fact, as ive also already explained.

You're not arguing about Trump's character. You're arguing about the character of others in relation to TDS in some way that is unclear to me. If you have no interest in making it clearer to me that's your choice. — praxis

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt here. So you are specifically talking about this bit, just for clarities sake:

“They have a particular taste for abusing an easy target, like a bully who picks on the unpopular kid so he can satisfy his weak character while still maintaining social favour with the other kids.
— DingoJones“

?

Dont see how an example would be any more clear. I think you want an example so you can argue about the example instead of what im actually talking about. You want to argue about Trumps character. If thats the case, just say so. It will be a short discussion.

One of the three discussions I started on this forum was about TDS. I think it's simply a method to invalidate any criticism of Trump, in the minds of his supporters. I don't recall it ever being applied to an individual. I suppose that's because if it were applied to an instance of it then an actual criticism would need to be taken into consideration. — praxis

We’ve has that discussion already. Led nowhere.

Were you aiming at a fictitious person then? — praxis

Already explained. You must have missed it. (Not that I believe this is an honest question.)

Ok, understood. Its always more clear to explain what point youre making with quotations rather than just posting the quotes, especially considering you were speaking to my analogy rather than the point the analogy was meant to illustrate. Whats salient about my analogy isnt the bullying but rather the weakness of character required to act poorly ( bullying, lies, slander) towards an easy target.
Anyway, I never claimed anything about bullying, nor did I claim Trump was being bullied. Obviously you are not going to find any reasoning for claims I didnt make.
Also, I cant help but see you seem to be taking the “weak character” comment personally. Is that what you actually want to discuss? Whether or not I think you have weak character? I wasnt aiming that at anyone in particular, i was referencing a type of person not targeting any individual as being that type of person.

Lol, well I wouldn't say youre out of your element Donny. I used pronouns rather than names so I can see how it could be read that way.

Well no one could sensibly say Trump doesn't throw out childish insults, but I was specifically talking about something else and don’t see the relevance of your comment.
You don’t need to bring up the things Trump says and does anytime someone mentions some other bad act. We get it, eeeeeveryone gets it.

I think you’ve misunderstood that statement. I meant that TDS has people relegating Trump to the person no longer worthy of respect or fairness, that they view Trump as evil and therefore a guilt free punching bag. What does it matter if you arent fair or respectful to pure evil? Its like when you call someone Hitler (which some people think is a fair comparison to Trump, which it isnt.) and then justify poor or terrible treatment of that person because you’ve equated them with ine of the best examples of evil in history.
If you are talking about me saying “the weak of character”, yes that was directed commentary for certain people. Not everyone who criticises Trump is weak of character, but of those who criticise Trump some of them do so using the above justification and those specific people are showing weak character imo. They have a particular taste for abusing an easy target, like a bully who picks on the unpopular kid so he can satisfy his weak character while still maintaining social favour with the other kids.
So hopefully that clarifies what I meant.
Also, what am I claiming to take a stand against in your view?

What is it that you are referencing? What is “Trump Mania”, and why do you think I have a touch of it (at least)?

As long as there is new knowledge there will be new thoughts, so only by knowing all things would we start to run out of new thoughts. If its even possible to know all things, I would guess are pretty far off at this point and the foreseeable future.

Its about ethical choices sure, but not all choices are ethical unless you have some differing idea about ethics, hence asking you to define morality.
Im just curious about the original statement I responded to.

I dont follow how there being an alternative makes domething moral. How would you define morality?

Well it depends on where exactly the choice is being made I guess. I had in mind things beyond ones sphere of control, things like hunger or adversity that you get no decision about but of course you have decisions once you encounter the adversity. To me there are needs, wants, and things that matter outside the purview of morality, but your comment made me think you might have a different view, where morality can be connected to anything that matters.
So...how is what matters a moral choice?

Ya, it was the first thing I ran out of.
How is what matters a moral choice? Some things that matter aren’t even a choice at all.

Well he isnt pointing out your flawed grammar, rather your flawed logic.
It is contradictory for you to say nothing matters, then claim one thing (consciousness) matters more than another thing (eating chips).
How exactly is something not important and more important at the same time?

Ill defend him on certain things, the truth is more important to me than hating Trump. If you mean in general..ya I think Nos is the only one.

Defend Trump on what?

Im not familiar enough with the cases to talk about legal exoneration but it does seem hypocritical to treat the cases differently in this context. If you think one should or should not be dismissed, then you should think the other should or shouldn't be dismissed as well. If you think the accusation factors into job qualification for one, then you should think it for both. Whatever moral judgements made should be made for both etc etc.

I dont see why it should be treated any differently than any other criminal accusation. I recognise there are differences in crimes and unique damages from sex crimes but I do not think any of those justify special exception to legal procedure. Then again, its not the courts of law that so easily discard due process, its the court of public opinion. Thats where social pressure can result in job loss, destroyed reputation, financial ruin...things like “believe all women”. The fuck I will. I dont believe anybody all the time. Human beings are treacherous, dangerous animals.
Sorry, feeling a bit ranty I guess. None of that is meant towards you.

That consideration would apply to both sides, many dems are ignoring Bidens sexual misconduct and focusing on Trumps. Biden being the creep/sexual misconduct type is more believable based on what ive seen and heard to be honest.

Ah. I see, youre a moron. No, you have no thesis and made no argument. You made two references, failed to connect them and then stated a conclusion with nothing to support it. Now you’re getting pissy with me, when its you who have failed on every level. I can forgive stupid, but not aggressive stupidity. Good day to you sir.