Well, let me ask you:

Imagine four people A, B, C and D

1. A had no choice (it was necessary) in killing C

2. B had a choice not to kill D but did so anyway

What is your moral evaluation of persons A and B? — TheMadFool

What do you expect to achieve from this? The first scenario isn't representative of the context of this discussion, where eating meat isn't a simple necessity or necessary to survive, so my evaluation of the first scenario is irrelevant. And my evaluation of the second scenario is that it could be wrong, but not necessarily so, and that there's not enough information to make any further judgement.

Please instead try to justify your premise, if you accept it to be true.

I think I know where your going with this, now. It is my understanding that humans are considered animals by biologists. We are animals at the top of the food chain. Thus, it is not immoral to eat animals, however much. — Noah Te Stroete

But that doesn't follow. We are indeed animals, and we are indeed at the top of the food chain, but we are also unique among animals, so it's irrational to simply lump us in with the rest without proper consideration of the differences. That's a hasty generalisation.

What about eating as many insects as one desires? Do insects count? But perhaps you’re right when it comes to beef, for example.

What about eating as many insects as one desires? Do insects count? — Noah Te Stroete

What are you talking about? I don't understand these questions or why you're asking me them. Are you mistaking me for someone who has asserted that it's immoral to eat any kind of living thing?

I was just pointing out an error in your reasoning.

Insects are a special kind of living things. They are animals, too.

Insects are a special kind of living things. They are animals, too. — Noah Te Stroete

Are you trolling? I haven't denied that. What's your point, please?

I granted you that eating too much beef may be immoral due to climate change, for instance, but where do you draw the line with animals and by what standard is it a matter of morality?

Furthermore, let’s say you eat an entire Cornish game hen in a day but abstain from meat for the majority of the week. Is that immoral?

I granted you that eating too much beef may be immoral due to climate change, for instance, but where do you draw the line with animals and by what standard is it a matter of morality? — Noah Te Stroete

Well, since you initially asked me about insects, if you really want to know, I generally don't give a flying fuck. I've had a bit of a fly problem at home of late, and I have zero qualms about swatting them.

I definitely draw the line at killing humans for consumption, I'm repulsed by the thought of killing dogs and cats for consumption, and I'm not exactly over the moon about the fact that cows and chickens are killed for consumption either, but I'm a meat eater nevertheless.

You asked me by what standard it is a matter of morality, but I can barely comprehend how it could not be. I can comprehend someone sticking their head in the sand, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a matter of morality. Maybe for you it isn't, but I care about cows and chickens in a way that I don't about insects, based on both the set of qualities of cows and chickens - which are different to those of insects and of people - and my feelings about them, so for me, it's a matter of morality.

So, you base morality on your personal feelings? Because that’s what it sounds like.

Furthermore, let’s say you eat an entire Cornish game hen in a day, but abstain from meat for the majority of the week. Is that immoral? — Noah Te Stroete

Let's say you ask me a question that makes sense in relation to my position.

So, you base morality on your personal feelings? Because that’s what it sounds like. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, of course I do. That's essential in my assessment.

By your standard of basing the morality of eating cows and chickens on your “feelings”, then there are no objective moral truths and we are all justified in basing our own morality on how we feel. What’s the point of this thread then? I don’t give a fuck about tasty chickens. They’re food.

Furthermore, dogs and cats are companion animals. They are not food. But, based on your reasoning the Chinese are justified in eating dogs.

By your standard of basing the morality of eating cows and chickens on your “feelings”, then there are no objective moral truths and we are all justified in basing our own basis for morality on how we feel. What’s the point of this thread then. I don’t give a fuck about tasty chickens. They’re food. — Noah Te Stroete

That's funny. An objective standard isn't necessary. Even if one were discovered, it wouldn't suddenly cause everyone to abandon their moral judgements. For argument's sake, if it were discovered that rape is moral, would you change your judgement accordingly? Would you go around raping people?

The purpose of this discussion is to share opinions, put forward arguments, scrutinise what others have said, and so on. In the context of ethics, above all other branches of philosophy, emotions matter, and they can be appealed to, unless you're a robot.

If you don't give a fuck, good for you. I know why I'm here, but as for you, you tell me.

Furthermore, dogs and cats are companion animals. They are not food. But, based on your reasoning the Chinese are justified in eating dogs. — Noah Te Stroete

No, that's a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow from my reasoning, and it suggests to me that, with regards to my ethical stance, you are equipped with the kind of arguments directed against it that one would expect from a novice.

Chickens were domesticated for food. So were cows, but I would make the argument that eating too much beef is immoral and that belief is justified due to the ill effects on the environment from raising too much cattle. I think this is true because it corresponds to actual states of affairs in reality. Therefore, it is a necessary moral truth that I have knowledge of.

Based on your standard, some Chinese don’t share your “feelings” about dogs and they are justified in eating them. It is not a non sequitur. It follows from your definition of morality.

Chickens we’re domesticated for food. So were cows, but I would make the argument that eating too much beef is immoral and that belief is justified due to the ill effects on the environment from raising too much cattle. I think this is true because it corresponds to actual states of affairs in reality. Therefore, it is a necessary moral truth that I have knowledge of. — Noah Te Stroete

I find the moral objection to eating too much beef for environmental reasons much more persuasive than these arguments about health. But to call it a necessary moral truth is laughable.

To say it is laughable is not an argument. I presented a justified true belief (knowledge). Address my premises. I am open to being persuaded.

That’s not an argument. — Noah Te Stroete

What's the problem? You didn't provide one to begin with, so I don't need to provide one in response. The burden remains with you. You can't just declare it a necessary moral truth by fiat. That's not how this works. And it doesn't follow from what you said beforehand. You can't find a moral property in a field of cattle. It's just a field of cattle, and you're projecting the rest.

By your standard of basing the morality of eating cows and chickens on your “feelings”, then there are no objective moral truths and we are all justified in basing our own morality on how we feel. What’s the point of this thread then? I don’t give a fuck about tasty chickens. They’re food. — Noah Te Stroete

Everyone bases their morality on their feelings, whether they realize this or not. Because there's nothing else to base it on. Either you feel that such and such is acceptable behavior or you do not.

Re "justified," I wouldn't say that's a relevant issue, as I was trying to explain to chatterbears earlier. Justification is pertinent to whether we have good reasons to believe that p over not-p, which is pertinent to claims that are true or false, not issues where we're talking about you feeling one way versus another.

Re the point of the thread, chatterbears seems to believe that in some sense it's true that people should have moral views that amount to it being wrong to kill animals for food. If he believes that, I think he's mistaken. Moral stances are not true or false in any sense.

But aside from that, he may just want to try to persuade some others to feel that it's wrong to kill animals for food. Obviously our moral feelings are about ways we interact (that's what morality is--views about interpersonal behavior), and we want things to be as our preferences have it. So we do what we can to make the world more in line with our preferences, including trying to persuade others to feel similar to us.

I hold the belief that eating too much beef is wrong. This belief is justified in that raising too much cattle is bad for the environment. It is further justified in that it is a leading cause of climate change. If these justified reasons happen to correspond to actual states of affairs in reality (are you denying this?), then I have knowledge of an objective moral truth.

Based on your standard, some Chinese don’t share your “feelings” about dogs. It is not a non sequitur. It follows from your definition of morality. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, go on then. Put together your argument including any missing premises and I'll tell you where you're going wrong.

My standard isn't that it's acceptable for anyone who doesn't share my feelings about dogs to do whatever they want to them. You're starting from faulty assumptions that you seem to be plucking out of thin air.

This belief is justified in that raising too much cattle is bad for the environment. It is further justified in that it is a leading cause of climate change. — Noah Te Stroete

The effect that raising a lot of cattle under particular conditions has on the environment would be factual.

Whether that's bad or good or neutral or whatever is a matter of someone's preferences.

You were the one who claimed that your moral reasons were based on your “feelings”. Why should your personal feelings count more than others’?

So, human life has no intrinsic value to you? It’s just a matter of how a particular person happens to feel about humans?

You were the one who claimed that your moral reasons were based on your “feelings”. Why should your personal feelings count more than others’? — Noah Te Stroete

Part of what it means to have preferences is that you'd rather that things were a particular way. You prefer that to alternatives. So you do what you can to make things that way. Otherwise we'd not be talking about very strong preferences, if we're talking about preferences at all.

So, human life has no intrinsic value to you? It’s just a matter of how a particular person happens to feel about humans? — Noah Te Stroete

Nothing has intrinsic value period. That's an ontological fact. Valuing is something that individuals do.

I didn't give my opinion above. I simply said that whether something is good or bad or neutral is a matter of how any given individual feels about it.

I hold the belief that eating too much beef is wrong. This belief is justified in that raising too much cattle is bad for the environment. It is further justified in that it is a leading cause of climate change. If these justified reasons happen to correspond to actual states of affairs in reality (are you denying this?), then I have knowledge of an objective moral truth. — Noah Te Stroete

I'm not denying any facts or objective state of affairs. There are no moral properties there though. That's in your head. The beliefs pertaining to facts or objective state of affairs correspond. Your judgement about morality doesn't.