(November 29, 2017 at 4:47 am)Alexmahone Wrote: I'm an atheist and a non-vegetarian but I can clearly see that raising and slaughtering animals for food is immoral.

Your confidence in your opinion of the morals of the matter is decidedly misplaced. You're welcome to have an opinion, but representing it as an objective fact is stupid. I'm a meat eater and proud of it. In my opinion, morals, the human science of right and wrong, only applies to actions which affect other humans. To suggest that there is something immoral by causing suffering in non-human animals is in my opinion a mistaken understanding of morality. It might be argued that there is some moral significance to eliminating gratuitous suffering of food animals, but that, if so, would be a secondary matter. As far as I can see, the only practical implication it has is in helping us preserve an image of ourselves which is invested in being an animal samaritan, and possible ecological repercussions. Beyond that, fuck 'em; they're food.

(November 29, 2017 at 7:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 29, 2017 at 4:47 am)Alexmahone Wrote: I'm an atheist and a non-vegetarian but I can clearly see that raising and slaughtering animals for food is immoral.

Your confidence in your opinion of the morals of the matter is decidedly misplaced. You're welcome to have an opinion, but representing it as an objective fact is stupid. I'm a meat eater and proud of it. In my opinion, morals, the human science of right and wrong, only applies to actions which affect other humans. To suggest that there is something immoral by causing suffering in non-human animals is in my opinion a mistaken understanding of morality. It might be argued that there is some moral significance to eliminating gratuitous suffering of food animals, but that, if so, would be a secondary matter. As far as I can see, the only practical implication it has is in helping us preserve an image of ourselves which is invested in being an animal samaritan, and possible ecological repercussions. Beyond that, fuck 'em; they're food.

To clarify, you don't think torturing/abusing animals is immoral?

(November 29, 2017 at 7:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 29, 2017 at 7:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Your confidence in your opinion of the morals of the matter is decidedly misplaced.  You're welcome to have an opinion, but representing it as an objective fact is stupid.  I'm a meat eater and proud of it.  In my opinion, morals, the human science of right and wrong, only applies to actions which affect other humans.  To suggest that there is something immoral by causing suffering in non-human animals  is in my opinion a mistaken understanding of morality.  It might be argued that there is some moral significance to eliminating gratuitous suffering of food animals, but that, if so, would be a secondary matter.  As far as I can see, the only practical implication it has is in helping us preserve an image of ourselves which is invested in being an animal samaritan, and possible ecological repercussions.  Beyond that, fuck 'em; they're food.

To clarify, you don't think torturing/abusing animals is immoral?

It's not in and of itself immoral, no, but it does have consequences for our behavior toward other humans which can't be ignored. A species which encourages cruelty toward other species ends up promoting that behavior towards its own. Depending upon what one considers the basis of morals, that may or may not make it a moral concern. As I believe the purpose of morals is to promote the flourishing of our kind as a social species, this kind of moral overspill is morally significant. So torturing animals is not immoral as an act in and of itself, but encouraging and promoting animal cruelty does have peri-moral significance. I don't really care if little Johnny tortures the neighbor's cat, in so far as it is a concern solely about the neighbor's cat; I care about what it says about little Johnny. In addition, we may as a species be interested in promoting behaviors which are not in and of themselves moral concerns. For example, being a civic minded citizen isn't necessarily a moral obligation in and of itself, but we may nonetheless desire to promote it for non-moral reasons.

-and what he might do when the cat no longer satisfies.

Is dispatching and eating Bambi's mom immoral?

(November 29, 2017 at 7:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 29, 2017 at 7:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To clarify, you don't think torturing/abusing animals is immoral?

It's not in and of itself immoral, no, but it does have consequences for our behavior toward other humans which can't be ignored. A species which encourages cruelty toward other species ends up promoting that behavior towards its own. Depending upon what one considers the basis of morals, that may or may not make it a moral concern. As I believe the purpose of morals is to promote the flourishing of our kind as a social species, this kind of moral overspill is morally significant. So torturing animals is not immoral as an act in and of itself, but encouraging and promoting animal cruelty does have peri-moral significance. I don't really care if little Johnny tortures the neighbor's cat, in so far as it is a concern solely about the neighbor's cat; I care about what it says about little Johnny. In addition, we may as a species be interested in promoting behaviors which are not in and of themselves moral concerns. For example, being a civic minded citizen isn't necessarily a moral obligation in and of itself, but we may nonetheless desire to promote it for non-moral reasons.

It goes without saying, as I'm sure you know, that I disagree lol. I think morality extends out to having a certain level of respect for the animals, and even plants, too.

(November 29, 2017 at 9:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I think morality extends out to having a certain level of respect for the animals, and even plants, too.

Even I wouldn't take it that far. Plants are not sentient i.e. they cannot feel.

(November 29, 2017 at 7:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 29, 2017 at 7:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To clarify, you don't think torturing/abusing animals is immoral?

It's not in and of itself immoral, no, but it does have consequences for our behavior toward other humans which can't be ignored.  A species which encourages cruelty toward other species ends up promoting that behavior towards its own.  Depending upon what one considers the basis of morals, that may or may not make it a moral concern.  As I believe the purpose of morals is to promote the flourishing of our kind as a social species, this kind of moral overspill is morally significant.  So torturing animals is not immoral as an act in and of itself, but encouraging and promoting animal cruelty does have peri-moral significance.  I don't really care if little Johnny tortures the neighbor's cat, in so far as it is a concern solely about the neighbor's cat;  I care about what it says about little Johnny.  In addition, we may as a species be interested in promoting behaviors which are not in and of themselves moral concerns.  For example, being a civic minded citizen isn't necessarily a moral obligation in and of itself, but we may nonetheless desire to promote it for non-moral reasons.

Soooo...you're not a pet owner then?  I hope...?  😛

Dafuq? xtians worship hanged people on a cross/tree/whatever. They hold their alleged savior in a similar light. Why not string up a scapegoat? How far away is that from eating a tasty slice of cow?

(November 29, 2017 at 8:26 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Is dispatching and eating Bambi's mom immoral?

Immoral?  No, she would be delicious.