What makes you think that you can reasonably break up my conditions and assess each of them in isolation? That's not how I answered the question. If all of those conditions were met, then I would have no qualms. — Sapientia
Since, if your gut feeling is wrong, and it seems more likely than not that it is, the consequences are so dire. — NKBJ
and it seems more likely than not that it is
I guess what I don't understand then is how you can claim to be okay with doing something you can't really defend.
I have. But you haven't shown that there is a significant difference that would make killing animals acceptable. — NKBJ
If you're talking about humans in general deserving certain treatment on the grounds of a specific trait, all humans have to have that trait. — NKBJ
So, if I have a handicapped person who is permanently intellectually at the level or below that of a pig or chicken or cow, does that mean I can cause that person pain or kill him/her? — NKBJ
At least you're trying to be consistent, even if I think you might just be biting the bullet here!
However, what if we tweaked the above scenario just one iota and said a human who was in every regard like a chicken except that he/she looked like a human?
(Also, I'm curious, why does it matter to you how others have treated this human?) — NKBJ
If someone thinks that it's okay to eat chicken, and not to eat human, but perhaps can't quite put their finger on why exactly that is, then I think that it will be intuitively compelling for such a person to conclude, after giving this thought experiment some consideration, that it's okay to eat humans under the right circumstances, namely that they're practically a chicken in all but name. — Sapientia
This is the main problem here. It is like saying, "If someone thinks that it's okay to enslave black people, and not to enslave white people, but perhaps can't quite put their finger on why exactly that is, then I think that it will be intuitively compelling for such a person to conclude, after giving this thought experiment some consideration, that it's okay to enslave white people under the right circumstances, namely that they're practically a black person in all but name."
This is an absurd position to hold. Whether you substitute slavery with eating a living being, is irrelevant. If you cannot put your finger on why you are justifying one action but not another, you're position on ethics is unreasonable, incoherent and borderline sociopathic. — chatterbears
What are the distinct set of circumstances? A slave owner could point to a set of circumstances, as well as have others that can relate and indentify with the slave owner’s position.No, I don't think so, because I can point to a distinct set of circumstances, and others can relate to and identify with my position. — Sapientia
It depends on what your moral foundation is based upon. And if you have no foundation you can point to, then you are basically incapable of discerning right from wrong. Because I base my morality on improving the well-being of sentient beings. If it was possible for me to save a baby from a burning house, without putting myself at great risk, it would be wrong for me to not save the baby, because I would be allowing the baby to have a diminished well-being. If my goal is to improve/consider the well-being of sentient beings, saving the baby would be in my framework.I can know that there's something wrong about standing by doing nothing whilst a house begins to burn with a baby trapped inside, even if I wasn't able to put my finger on it. — Sapientia
Empathy, compassion and consistency are not necessary. But if you do care about those three things, and hold true to them, Veganism logically follows. — chatterbears
But even without empathy or compassion for other animals, consistency would STILL lead to Veganism. Because you cannot justify your actions in one context, while rejecting them in another. — chatterbears
Otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself and hold two opposing views simultaneously. — chatterbears
I never claimed that I hold to the position of moral absolutes, nor do I think this is the case. Because there are cases, such as self-defense, where killing something is justified. Therefore, this is an obvious case where "killing is always wrong" does not apply. — chatterbears
Humans believe eating animals is OK based on difference of intelligence level.
Humans believe eating mentally handicapped humans is OK based on difference of intelligence level.
Aliens believe eating humans is OK based on difference of intelligence level. — chatterbears
I can lead people to Veganism from their OWN subjective personal ethics. — chatterbears
Why would self-defence ever be morally justified? What is the general idea you were after there? How is eating meat not a legitimate form of "self-defence" against the perils of being a starving meat-eater? — apokrisis
Exceptions of the situation are justification, not the justification itself. When deploying a justification to use as a basis for committing a moral action, that justification has no exceptions. — chatterbears
Right now, we have access to plant-based foods. Nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, beans, rice, pasta, etc... And changing your diet is not that difficult, as it just takes a small amount of research. And in doing so, you would be avoiding contributing to the pain and suffering caused by animal agriculture. — chatterbears
There is a moral situation #1 (wrong to kill). And a moral justification #2 (wrong to kill because of hair color). These are two separate things. — chatterbears
You claim I am using logic tricks, similar to that of cults and religions, yet you aren't pointing to anything tangible. And to prove my point to you, we could start from the beginning. — chatterbears
If you use a reason to justify your action of eating meat, you would need to deploy that same justification in another context for you to be consistent in your ethics. — chatterbears
So to be consistent, would you then say it is OK to eat a severely autistic human, because they are less intelligent? — chatterbears
Do you regard the efficient use of environmental resources as an urgent issue? I'm not sure about that myself, but if one were to think so, then there is some research available to show that lactovegetarian diets are more environmentally sustainable than the typical US model of a meat eating diet. Not dug into the statistical details, so the studies may be flawed, but supposing they are true, and supposing one valued frugality in the use of environmental resources, that might provide non-subjective grounds for moving towards (lacto)vegetarianism.So I can imagine not eating meat....But I'm not sure it is one of the most urgent matters facing humankind.
How so? Is there some reason to believe that it's wrong to eat animals? — Michael
There's nothing wrong with eating an animal per se. It's killing or harming an animal that's wrong. — NKBJ
And it's the same reasons I have for not kicking my cat or my dog. It's so obviously true that my dog suffers if I hurt her, and that her suffering is akin to my suffering, that I know hurting her is wrong. — NKBJ
And, to be honest, most meat eaters don't defend the idea of harming or killing animals when it comes to cats, dogs, dolphins, chimpanzees, etc.
I don't recall anyone saying it here, but I am reminded of how ironic it is when people think vegans are crazy or ridiculous, when all we're saying is "don't eat the cows, just eat a veggie burger" and omnis say things like "in order to justify my cow burger, it's okay to eat a human burger."
And some humans are not conscious to the same degree as other humans - therefore the degree of consciousness should not be a measuring stick for deciding who lives and who dies. — Harry Hindu
Yes. I was waiting for that one. But what's your point? We don't factory farm humans. They wouldn't taste as good. — Sapientia
The point was there in the post. You just cherry-picked the post in making your reply. I said that the degree of consciousness should not be a measuring stick for determining what lives or dies.
"Tasting good" is subjective. Human meat could be designed to taste like anything. — Harry Hindu
That is what I said to you. READ.No, that's not what you said to me. That might have been what you meant to suggest, but I wanted to be clear, which is why I asked you what your point was. — Sapientia
I think you have a more serious problem of not being able to read and address others' posts appropriately. Nothing I said was hypothetical.The degree of consciousness should be factored into consideration with regard to appropriate treatment, and that is my point.
And I don't really care about whacky hypotheticals. Why should I? — Sapientia
Then I don't understand the point of this thread. Is it "wrong"/"bad" to eat animals?But we, as humans, have a higher capacity for moral value and therefore have an obligation to use it to create less harm and less pain. Although a lion may not understand what is being done to them in a "good" or "bad" sense, they know that pain is something they want to avoid. And we share that same trait with them, as humans want to avoid pain as well. Whether you call it "good" or "bad" is irrelevant. — chatterbears
Me eating meat doesn't kill or harm animals. Me buying meat doesn't kill or harm animals, either directly or indirectly (given that my individual contribution isn't sufficient enough to have an affect on the amount of harm done or number of animals killed). — Michael
We've already established that there's nothing wrong with eating a cow burger. Your issue has been with killing and harming animals. So, presumably, eating a cow that has died naturally is morally acceptable? But then what of eating a human that has died naturally? Many people might say that that would be unacceptable. — Michael
Do you regard the efficient use of environmental resources as an urgent issue? I — MetaphysicsNow
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.