Veganism

[The Grand Nudger]

That precipice exists. That ground below it exists. If you wish to argue that objectivism is false, go on with your bad self.

I was highlighting how the criticism you offered about a moral proposition - that killing is immoral- implicitly assumed moral realism was true, not that I had any interest in proving moral realism false.  The facts of a killing, say it being in self defense, do not matter in subjectivist or relativist metaethics, because morality isn't about the facts of a killing in either of those understandings.  It's about the facts of a killer or their society.  

Right, so the judgement that eating chickens is right or wrong depends on where you stand in the hierarchy of chicken priesthood, which is a very long-winded and suboptimally entertaining way of admitting that morality is not objective.

OFC it's not objective in an explicitly subjectivist or relativist formulation?  The point of me going on semi-tangents about this stuff is to try and reduce the sorts of confusion about metaethical terminology that lead to some genuinely and profoundly misunderstood back and forths on the subject.  In a subjectivist or relativist understanding, that fact that killing is immoral is and need only be certified by the fact that you or your society believe it to be so.  There doesn't need to be anything about killing..specifically, and certainly not any individual example of killing with other also non-operative facts.  Likewise, when no fact of killing a chicken matters to the moral conclusion, only the fact that you did kill a chicken matters, that's a strong indication that you're not dealing with anything objective.  There's a phenomenon where all types of moral statements or understandings employ realist or pseudo-realist language to explain themselves - so it helps to be able to tell the difference in principle even if, ultimately, we do not believe there to be a difference in fact.  

"Should" is you sneaking in moral imperatives into this discussion when you know that you cannot defend morality objectively. It doesn't mean the imperative is right or wrong. It means that you hope it is not noticed.

Moral realism is incredibly easy to defend and the majority position of academia.  It may be false, still, ofc.

Remove any human experience or judgement, and then -- only then -- point to anything in the universe that makes a moral statement about eating other life-forms. Oh, that's right, you can't. That's because morality is not objective. It is a human construct and perforce varies with the individual in question.

Math, science, and logic in general also fail this test, which doesn't sound like a test of anything that moral realism claims in the first place.  

When I was in college, I had a history professor whose favorite quote was "History is a fable, agreed-upon". When it comes to objective morality, that truism is equally valid. That is because both history and morality are human pursuits colored by human understandings that are subject to human biases and perspectives.

Or, you could point to where in the universe moral precepts are scientifically demonstrated. Protip: you can't.

I can, but I suspect that if I did you'd tell me that's not what you were looking for - and I'm certain it isn't.  This is the domain of behavioral psychology and anthropology, at the very least - that's assuming there's nothing to them beyond our thoughts about them.   We'd have to rope in evolutionary biology there as an underlying explanation, and not just in us, but in other animals who also behave as though they have a moral sense, and ultimately why those behaviors persist in breeding populations, and what laws of the universe underpin both the existence of systems that can apprehend these relationships and whatever relationship those apprehensions have to objective facts.  

Ultimately, though, I agree with you.  Even if moral statements do purport to report facts, and even if it were possible to accurately report those facts - moral realisms claim, we're still people.  We make mistakes.  You asked me earlier how I could say that the argument from harm and ecological damage was unconvincing.  That's how.  I think that it is very often the case that a person concerned about those things has done (or had done for them) an inaccurate accouting of precisely those things.  Both in and of themselves, but also in comparison to ethical omnivory, for example.  

I do think that if our only choices were between veganism and the absolute worst management practices possible ethical veganism would be normatively compelling.  I think that's what alot of people compelled by those arguments have in mind, too.  If we add ethical omnivory as a third choice I believe that to be superior - in the animal and ecological harm metrics, to veganism.  If there is no such thing as ethical omnivory, even if the practices described did lead to a reduction in animal harm and a reduction in ecological harm....then it's clear that we aren't talking about either thing and the argument is entirely disingenuous. An example, as above, of an argument employing realist language to emotivist or subjectivist or relativist ends.