• Sapientia
    5.5k
    So, lemme try and get this straight, as Petrichor has written 13, 617 words, none of that was "indicative of evangelism," but as soon as he posted a couple of pictures, he ought to be taken out back and shot for evangelism? Please, Sappy, I think it is you who needs to leave along with your hurt butt. Your "point" the last page is pathetic and vacuous, give it a rest.Buxtebuddha

    I will help you get it straight, because I'm generous like that:

    The part that was indicative of behaviour associated with evangelism was indicative of behaviour associated with evangelism for the reasons I've made clear, and the rest of the content, including most of those 13,617 words you bring up, are not relevant to this point.

    Furthermore, as I've now made explicit, this point in relation to evangelism is secondary. So you're choosing to focus on a secondary point, and, moreover, you're addressing it in your usual manner which utilises ridiculous exaggeration, flippancy, and unnecessary personal commentary.
  • Andrew4Handel
    469


    The first of these images of the pigs in wire cages has been used on the internet in a misleading way. This was a picture from China and the pigs were temporally in those cages awaiting transport to market.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pig-cage-photo/

    Personally pictures of animals never move me in they way pictures of humans suffering do. But I think animal welfare can be improved with in the framework of meat eating.
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    Nice work. "Temporary cages used for the transportation of pigs gets me so mad!". It's funny too, as you can tell that, in that moment, they don't give a damn and are in no distress whatsoever.
  • NKBJ
    300
    My way of countering your red herrings is to disregard them.Sapientia

    You cannot call my arguments red herrings if you haven't read them--either you lied previously, or you are committing an argumentum abusi fallacia (falsely calling something a fallacy, which would be the case if you just toss the fallacy's name out there without knowing it to be true).

    No one anywhere on the planet, in modern times, has kept a cow for the duration if its natural lifespan? There's not a single exception? Yeah right. That would be extremely unlikely. So, why should I believe that?Sapientia

    If you actually let a cow live it's entire natural lifespan, then you can't have killed it. If humans just let cows live and die according to their own biological timeline and then feel the need to pick the flesh of off their rotting corpses, I suppose I see no ethical problem in that (although, at this point in my life, I have serious aesthetic objections).

    Even if a cow were to be raised humanely and treated nicely up until a day before it's natural death, it would still be wrong to then kill it. Just like you cannot kill the elderly lady next door a day before her natural demise. To do so is murder. Murder is not defined by how nice you were before death, or how long they could have lived after, or any of that: it's the intentional killing of another sentient and intelligent being who did nothing to deserve death and does not want death.

    Did I make that argument? No. So why are you asking me that?Sapientia

    Because that's where your entire argument is headed: you're arguing against veganism partially on the basis of some hypothetical scenario that is not only wrong, but also just doesn't happen in the real world. You're gonna have to find other arguments to justify your hamburger.
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    You cannot call my arguments red herrings if you haven't read them--either you lied previously, or you are committing an argumentum abusi fallacia (falsely calling something a fallacy, which would be the case if you just toss the fallacy's name out there without knowing it to be true).NKBJ

    You're not very good at following what I say. You suggest that I haven't read your argumentative points, or that I've said or implied that I haven't, but that isn't the case. On the contrary, obviously I have read some of them. I just stopped doing so after a certain point because they were not relevant to the points that I was making to you, and because I lost patience with trying to get you to stay on point.

    Even if a cow were to be raised humanely and treated nicely up until a day before it's natural death, it would still be wrong to then kill it. Just like you cannot kill the elderly lady next door a day before her natural demise. To do so is murder. Murder is not defined by how nice you were before death, or how long they could have lived after, or any of that: it's the intentional killing of another sentient and intelligent being who did nothing to deserve death and does not want death.NKBJ

    When you say that it doesn't want death, that's not the same as when you say that a human doesn't want death. There are different implications, or rather, there must be to make sense of what you're saying. What evidence is there that a cow can understand, contemplate or reflect on death? Or are you just speculating that it doesn't want death?

    Anyway, regardless of whether or not it's wrong, it's useful and has benefits. Maybe that's more important to some people.

    Because that's where your entire argument is headed: you're arguing against veganism partially on the basis of some hypothetical scenario that is not only wrong, but also just doesn't happen in the real world. You're gonna have to find other arguments to justify your hamburger.NKBJ

    No, my argument was not attempting to justify the treatment of the other 999,999 - which is, word for word, what you actually said, rather than what you're now saying.

    My argument just pointed out an exception, which does indeed happen in the real world, given the likelihood of it. I thought that you had conceded that point, as you appeared to accept that the likelihood of it being otherwise would be extremely remote, and you haven't given me any reason to rethink this likelihood.

    And I'm not trying to justify my eating of hamburgers. If you listened more, and characterised less, then you might have picked up on that. It is what it is, right or wrong, and I accept that. Either way, my behaviour remains more or less the same.
  • Andrew4Handel
    469
    I don't think we should disregard our nature.
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    I don't think we should disregard our nature.Andrew4Handel

    That's a sweeping statement, don't you think?
  • NKBJ
    300
    I just stopped doing so after a certain point because they were not relevant to the points that I was making to you, and because I lost patience with trying to get you to stay on point.Sapientia

    Eh, you know what? Since you self-admittedly just ignore the arguments you don't like, and since you're also admitting to not actually being interested in the truth:
    It is what it isSapientia
    , I'm quite sure there is no longer a point to our conversation.
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    I'm quite sure there is no longer a point to our conversation.NKBJ

    It's worse than that, it's counterproductive, because you demonstrate time and again that you either can't accurately follow what I'm saying, or you're purposefully misrepresenting it.

    So yes, let's end it.
  • Andrew4Handel
    469


    In relation to what? I was just making a general point in relation to my opening post concerning how close to nature a behaviour is.
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    In relation to what?Andrew4Handel

    In relation to the statement you made.

    I was just making a general point in relation to my opening post concerning how close to nature a behaviour is.Andrew4Handel

    And I'm replying that it isn't something which warrants such a generalisation. Nature can be a poor standard on which to judge how we should behave. I can think of some counterexamples.
  • Andrew4Handel
    469


    I said we shouldn't disregard our nature. Disregard means ignore or place little weight on.

    Meaning we should take into consideration what we actually are like as biological and psychological creatures. That doesn't mean we should copy the behaviour of nature.

    It means we should not give a false picture of ourselves on which to base a morality etc.
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    I said we shouldn't disregard our nature. Disregard means ignore or place little weight on.

    Meaning we should take into consideration what we actually are like as biological and psychological creatures. That doesn't mean we should copy the behaviour of nature.

    It means we should not give a false picture of ourselves on which to base a morality etc.
    Andrew4Handel

    Okay, sure. But that's all rather meaningless on its own, without going into specifics about how it should guide our behaviour and why. That we're omnivorous is a poor argument for eating meat. In fact, pointing out that something is natural is generally a poor argument in ethics, cf. the naturalistic fallacy heretofore mentioned by others.
  • Andrew4Handel
    469

    I don't think we need arguments to justify our behaviour. Does any other animal provide arguments to justify their behaviour.

    Anyhow I did not specify any behaviour here because I am making a more general point which could be called biological realism if you like.

    But I have mentioned homosexuality before. I don't think it is possible to change someones sexuality so I think it is futile and harmful to try.

    As I also said before some behaviours or traits are like this were the more ingrained they are the less they make coherent moral objects.

    I am a moral nihilist because I don't see any moral rules anywhere and if a moral property is not found in nature where else could it be found?
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    I am not a moral nihilist, although I can relate to the stance to some extent, as I think some of my comments indicate. I am not a moral nihilist, because I think that it necessarily involves a type of contradiction where the things that you say, think, feel and do betray your true stance, which you can try to resist or consciously deny, but to little effect. There's often a kind of fake biting of the bullet involved that I cannot do, on principle. If you think that behaving in a certain way would be futile and harmful, then why would you approve or recommend it? And if, after consideration, you wouldn't approve or recommend it, then you're basically taking an ethical stance, and shouldn't deceive yourself to the contrary.
  • Andrew4Handel
    469
    And if, after consideration, you don't approve or recommend it, then you're basically taking an ethical stance.Sapientia

    You can take an ethical or moral stance on anything without it revealing an underlying moral truth.

    There is only so much intuition could tell us. I have things I don't like but not strong moral intuitions. Also moral intuitions or feelings lead to quite different conclusions.
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    So you're taking a moral stance, and you have reasons, but you just deny what moral realists and other moral anti-realists assert about what that entails? In a sense, it's a difference that makes no difference. That's meta-ethics. My main interest is with your moral stance and your reasons behind it. And, with regards to that, I don't think that, "It's natural", is a good enough reason. Why would it be?
  • Andrew4Handel
    469


    I would say I had preferences rather than a moral stance. I don't think moral ideas can be non natural because that stance is meaningless.

    I am not sure what moral stance you are attributing to me.
  • NKBJ
    300
    Has a plant ever voluntary walked into your most merely for your pleasure?Andrew4Handel

    Point taken--that wasn't a very precisely worded example on my part. But I hope you can still get the gist of what I was saying: cows don't want to be hurt, and that includes being killed.

    Nothing has a choice about whether it dies or not because that is inevitable.Andrew4Handel

    True enough. But how does that justify killing someone?

    We have to exploit nature to survive. As a depressed nihilist I know what it is like to be unhappy with the state of life an nature. It certainly is not Disneyland.Andrew4Handel

    I'm not sure that it's true that we have to exploit nature to survive--it's one way to survive temporarily, but clearly that's now backfiring on us. We DO have to live in symbiosis with nature, but I'm not convinced that means living off of the flesh of other sentient and intelligent beings.

    If Dante had known about Disneyland, it would have been one of his levels of hell. :joke:

    It is unfortunate but dead animals are part of the cycle of life and part of most organism nutrition.Andrew4Handel

    True enough. But that doesn't justify killing either. The worms can just as well munch away at a carcass after it has lived it's full life.

    Isn't a "depressed nihilist" a pessimist? And many of your arguments seem more pessimistic than nihilistic, honestly.
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    I would say I had preferences rather than a moral stance.Andrew4Handel

    Okay, but that's just semantics, it seems. I can say that I have a furry friend rather than a cat, but we'd still be talking about the same thing.

    I don't think moral ideas can be non natural because that stance is meaningless.Andrew4Handel

    What? I'm not sure what you mean by that or its presumed relevance to what we were talking about. My point was that using, "It's natural", as an ethical justification - or, "reason", to use your terminology - is not a good argument. Do you have a reply which directly addresses that? Or, if the above reply is supposed to address that indirectly, can you connect the dots?

    I am not sure what moral stance you are attributing to me.Andrew4Handel

    The moral stance that I'm attributing to you is that eating meat is acceptable because of X, Y, and Z, despite the objections, of which you're aware, and which you have considered and rejected.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.