(February 20, 2014 at 5:54 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: If you want to eat meat, eat meat. If you don't want to eat meat, don't eat meat.

Don't eat meat if you don't want to, and don't deny yourself meat if you do want it.

Why is this so fucking difficult for some people? I've been a vegetarian for over 22 years now, and I don't get this stick some veggies have up their arse about what other people eat. Is it because you really really want to eat meat and the only way you can justify depriving yourself of what you want is to pretend that eating meat is some nasty evil thing that nobody should ever do, ever?

Head nail. Nail head. Hammer.

(February 20, 2014 at 5:54 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: If you want to eat meat, eat meat. If you don't want to eat meat, don't eat meat.

Don't eat meat if you don't want to, and don't deny yourself meat if you do want it.

Why is this so fucking difficult for some people? I've been a vegetarian for over 22 years now, and I don't get this stick some veggies have up their arse about what other people eat. Is it because you really really want to eat meat and the only way you can justify depriving yourself of what you want is to pretend that eating meat is some nasty evil thing that nobody should ever do, ever?

All fanatics are the same, dear.

(February 20, 2014 at 6:07 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Species? But why not just stop at gender? Or race?

Because evolution works at the species level, and I believe moral judgement is an evolved psychological mechanism which serves to increase the survivability of the species. Therefore it makes no sense to apply it at either a finer or greater granularity, except insofar as there are indirect consequences for species survival from doing so.

The rest of your argument was nothing more than an appeal to the slippery slope, and is thus a non sequitur.

And again you've yet to give a reason for your moral claim. That the "trend" has been to extend protection to an ever wider net is an appeal to tradition, and is thus another non sequitur.

The only thing approaching a moral claim is that we should correct inequity if we see it. That's an implied claim that the lives of food animals have equal worth to our own (inequality/inequity); and that's just a bare assertion.

(February 20, 2014 at 6:53 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(February 20, 2014 at 6:07 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Species? But why not just stop at gender? Or race?

Because evolution works at the species level, and I believe moral judgement is an evolved psychological mechanism which serves to increase the survivability of the species. Therefore it makes no sense to apply it at either a finer or greater granularity, except insofar as there are indirect consequences for species survival from doing so.

All our motivated behaviors are evolved, or at least are rooted in our evolution, and in a civilized society, few of them contribute to our genetic survival. Men, for example, have the desire to have sex with as many women as possible; nobody would argue that misogyny is for this reason a good basis for a moral system. Sure, you could spin some speculative Butterfly Effect chain where you imagine that things considered moral will really have an effect on our species' survival. But you'd be hard-pressed to establish any factual basis for this, since there are 7 billion of us fuckers currently swarming all over the planet.

Quote:The rest of your argument was nothing more than an appeal to the slippery slope, and is thus a non sequitur.

Debatey words are not an argument, either, especially when used wrongly. There's no appeal to a slippery slope here-- I'm not arguing that moral positions on meat-eating have any consequence on other kinds of morality. Neither is there a progressive value increment, since I'm not arguing that humans are intrinsically more valuable than people-- that's your argument, not mine. As for non-sequitur, you imply with this that there is some chain of rational arguments that CAN arrive at a moral position (i.e. be sequitur). There's no such thing. Value choices are arbitrary. I just happen to think that choosing the non-suffering of animals over deliberately-inflicted suffering a clear winner. Unless there is some mechanism of justice involved, then why would I want to knowingly contribute to the suffering of another being? As far as I know, cows have not violated our rights in any meaningful way, and have therefore not earned the misfortune of suffering at our hands. "Yummy" is not a very good moral argument.

Quote:And again you've yet to give a reason for your moral claim. That the "trend" has been to extend protection to an ever wider net is an appeal to tradition, and is thus another non sequitur.

The reason is that animals suffer, and that the willingness to accept limitations on one's own behavior to prevent suffering in others is one of the most sensible bases for a moral system. This is my reason: that it is wrong to knowingly inflict suffering on those who do not inflict suffering on you.

Quote:The only thing approaching a moral claim is that we should correct inequity if we see it. That's an implied claim that the lives of food animals have equal worth to our own (inequality/inequity); and that's just a bare assertion.

So is the assertion that a black man is equal in value to a white man, or that a woman is equal in value to a man. Lacking any objective measure of value, we are left with subjective measures, and those in power ususally end up defining values for the rest. I'd define the condition of being subject to an arbitrary value system, without being able to challenge or refute those value assignments, as the fundament of injustice. You are now safely entrenched in a position of power, and so the plight of those less at your mercy is an irrelevant detail. But as a woman, can you really not feel any sympathy for those who are still at the mercy of those whom they have never harmed?

(February 20, 2014 at 11:07 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 20, 2014 at 6:53 pm)rasetsu Wrote: And again you've yet to give a reason for your moral claim. That the "trend" has been to extend protection to an ever wider net is an appeal to tradition, and is thus another non sequitur.

The reason is that animals suffer, and that the willingness to accept limitations on one's own behavior to prevent suffering in others is one of the most sensible bases for a moral system. This is my reason: that it is wrong to knowingly inflict suffering on those who do not inflict suffering on you.

Why? Why is it wrong to inflict suffering on food animals? You haven't given a reason, you've just declared it so. And the generality of the formulation you've given makes all forms of punishment essentially immoral, as well as a host of other absurd consequences.

Reasoning from evolutionary psychology makes it within our self-interest to ignore the suffering of animals. I say self-interest is a more reasonable foundation for ethics than your bald declaration.

But since you're the one, in this context, claiming that the suffering of animals should have moral value, it's your burden to demonstrate this.

You haven't even come close. All you've done is declare, "Animal suffering. Oog. Icky. Me not like, therefore bad." You're a non-cognitivist's dream.

(February 21, 2014 at 12:01 am)rasetsu Wrote:

(February 20, 2014 at 11:07 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The reason is that animals suffer, and that the willingness to accept limitations on one's own behavior to prevent suffering in others is one of the most sensible bases for a moral system. This is my reason: that it is wrong to knowingly inflict suffering on those who do not inflict suffering on you.

Why? Why is it wrong to inflict suffering on food animals? You haven't given a reason, you've just declared it so.

It's not intrinsically wrong to do anything. But there are many things we choose not to accept, for emotional or other reasons. This is the foundation of morality. I believe that unnecessary suffering is bad, and that inflicting it on others is wrong-- not because there is some objective code which makes it so, but because I dislike my own suffering, and see no sufficient reason to inflict it on others.

You will keep stating your value choice. I will keep stating mine; in the end, mine amounts to a challenge to the status quo world view, which vegetarians see as unnecessarily barbaric, but meat-eaters see as sensible and natural. I believe the status quo is gradually changing in favor of vegetarianism-- but we will see, I suppose.

Quote:And the generality of the formulation you've given makes all forms of punishment essentially immoral, as well as a host of other absurd consequences.

Punishment IS immoral, if someone has done nothing to merit it.

Quote:Reasoning from evolutionary psychology makes it within our self-interest to ignore the suffering of animals. I say self-interest is a more reasonable foundation for ethics than your bald declaration.

Yes, this might-makes-right interpretation of evolution-based morality has been used since Darwin. But slave-owners and pimps act in self-interest, too. Whether something benefits them is beside the point; morally speaking, the issue is whether they have a RIGHT to obtain this benefit at the cost of the well-being of others. I believe they do not.

Quote:But since you're the one, in this context, claiming that the suffering of animals should have moral value, it's your burden to demonstrate this.

It's not a burden. It's a statement of values, which (I believe) we've already accepted are arbitrary. I believe a value which seeks to eliminate or reduce harm-- ANY kind of harm-- is intrinsically better than a value which justifies harm for one's self-benefit.

Quote:You haven't even come close. All you've done is declare, "Animal suffering. Oog. Icky. Me not like, therefore bad." You're a non-cognitivist's dream.

"Nigger" suffering. Oog. Icky. Woman suffering. Oog. Icky. "Homo" suffering. Oog. Icky.

I'm not sure why you think an emotional reaction to the horrors of seeing suffering inflicted on others isn't sufficient reason for people to take a position against the causes of those horrors. Many of the changes to moral thinking have been emotional responses to unpleasant circumstances. This is not a symptom of the weakness of logic, but a testament to the strength of human compassion.

(February 21, 2014 at 12:43 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 21, 2014 at 12:01 am)rasetsu Wrote: You haven't even come close. All you've done is declare, "Animal suffering. Oog. Icky. Me not like, therefore bad." You're a non-cognitivist's dream.

"Nigger" suffering. Oog. Icky. Woman suffering. Oog. Icky. "Homo" suffering. Oog. Icky.

I'm not sure why you think an emotional reaction to the horrors of seeing suffering inflicted on others isn't sufficient reason for them to take a position against the causes of those horrors. Many of the changes to moral thinking have been emotional responses to unpleasant circumstances. This is not a symptom of the weakness of logic, but a testament to the strength of human compassion.

If owning slaves violates my self-interest as a human being, I have a legitimate reason for wanting to stop it. All you've done is state a preference, which you immediately started adding exceptions and qualifications to (re: punishment). That way lies causistry and a lousy foundation for ethics. That way lies a "might makes right" argument as well, in that you want your preferences to prevail over mine; but you've given no legitimate justification for why they should. If I'm right, and suffering of women and blacks is actually against your self-interest, and suffering of chicken, worms, and bacteria only indirectly relevant, you're essentially cutting your nose off to spite your face, and that's irrational. Are you going to argue against the rationality of self-interest? I think that's a value we share. We don't share your value. I can justify my stand with appeal to your values, you can't justify your stand with appeal to my values. What happened to your concerns for equity here? Oop! Guess we'll add some more exceptions. Suffering only counts when it concerns the suffering of people who base their ethics on empathy and suffering; if I disagree with you, and you put a cows interest ahead of mine and that of my progeny, well, that's okay, because that's your preference. Really? That doesn't sound like anything more than a gerrymandering of the moral landscape according to anything but personal preference, and I think that's a useless ethical standpoint. But realize, in the end, you've justified with appeal to self-interest as well, you just think a world with as little suffering in it as possible is of more value to you than the success of our species. I don't. And I don't think you really do either.

If you don;t want to fuck children THEN JUST DON'T

If you don;t want to beat someone up for being Gay THEN JUST DON'T


If you don;t want to murder someone for being an Atheist THEN JUST DON'T