Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[bennyboy]

"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.

You don't need a violation of your self-interest. You just need to want not to bring harm to someone who hasn't earned the harm. Now, what if you COULD show that slavery was in the interest of the oppressor? Would it then be moral? I do not accept this view of determining what is right or wrong.

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.p/quote]
Punishment isn't an exception. I had already said that since animals hadn't harmed us, they did not merit harm from us. And I say the same thing about people who don't deserve punishment.

[quote]
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.

Slavery has clearly been in SOMEONE'S interest at many times in history. So has neglecting or abusing women. But this is not a basis for a moral system.

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.

This is not a symmetrical argument. It's not the ability of a cow to survive vs. your family's ability to survive. It's the ability of a cow to survive vs. your family's disappointment at not getting a juicy steak dinner.

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.

You are asking a rhetorical "really?" in response to the strawman you just set up. That might help you fuel your rhetorical rage, but it has nothing to do with a dicsussion of ethics.

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 think the next Big Mac is crucial to our survival of our species, I'd argue you overestimate the importance of meat, and underestimate the ability of people to survive. In this very thread, we've looked at some numbers and shown there's no evidence that being vegetarian would hurt either individuals or our species as a whole. This "us or them" idea is a false dilemma.