Veganism

[Angrboda]

You're assuming that it is some property of humans besides being human that forms the moral basis.  What if it isn't?

Being human could be the property that makes it okay to eat animals but not okay to eat humans.

Then we get problems like what counts as being human? If it is having human DNA, for instance, then what if there was a creature very like a human but with different DNA, would it be okay to eat them? Etc. What if you found out that your mother didn't have human DNA, would it then be okay for somebody to eat her? Etc.

This is ruled out as a problem by Liebniz's first law.

[Disagreeable]

Apparently I have a much older thread from 2024, that is also about veganism. Whoops.

Well I guess starting a new thread about veganism is better than necroposting.

[Disagreeable]

Being human could be the property that makes it okay to eat animals but not okay to eat humans.

Then we get problems like what counts as being human? If it is having human DNA, for instance, then what if there was a creature very like a human but with different DNA, would it be okay to eat them? Etc. What if you found out that your mother didn't have human DNA, would it then be okay for somebody to eat her? Etc.

This is ruled out as a problem by Liebniz's first law.

Well either having human DNA counts as being a human or it doesn't. If it does then we could get a creature very similar to a human but not with human DNA that we might want to still count as human. I don't see how the law of identity gets around this issue at all.

Would a neanderthal count as a human? And if so, how close to our species does a creature have to be in order to count as human?

[Angrboda]

This is ruled out as a problem by Liebniz's first law.

Well either having human DNA counts as being a human or it doesn't. If it does then we could get a creature very similar to a human but not with human DNA that we might want to still count as human. I don't see how the law of identity gets around this issue at all.

You apparently don't understand Liebniz's law. Not my problem. "Counting as human" isn't being human. What if anything does it mean to count as human, objectively speaking?

[Disagreeable]

Well either having human DNA counts as being a human or it doesn't. If it does then we could get a creature very similar to a human but not with human DNA that we might want to still count as human. I don't see how the law of identity gets around this issue at all.

You apparently don't understand Liebniz's law.  Not my problem.

I don't think that you're explaining yourself very well. Where is the violation of the law of identity? And isn't Leibniz's first law the same thing as the law of identity?

[Disagreeable]

 "Counting as human" isn't being human.

In that case you yourself seem to not understand the law of identity LMFAO.

[Angrboda]

 "Counting as human" isn't being human.

In that case you yourself seem to not understand the law of identity LMFAO.

If you're arguing that things that aren't identical should in some sense be "counted" as identical, then you're abandoning Liebniz's law to speak incoherently.

[Disagreeable]

In that case you yourself seem to not understand the law of identity LMFAO.

If you're arguing that things that aren't identical should in some sense be "counted" as identical, then you're abandoning Liebniz's law to speak incoherently.

I'm not saying that things that aren't identical could still be counted as identical. I'm asking where the line is. As I asked, what counts as being human? You're yet to answer that, but you seem to think that I'm the one with a problem.

[Disagreeable]

 What if anything does it mean to count as human, objectively speaking?

That was my question.

[Disagreeable]

If we define a human one way and then turn out to be unhappy with that definition, that doesn't necessarily mean that we've violated the law of identity somehow, it could just mean that our initial definition of a human turns out to be unsatisfactory.

When the word "atom" initially meant something definitionally unsplittable that doesn't mean that when the definition was changed into something that we in fact do split that we somehow violated the law of identity. We just altered our definition.