Veganism

[Disagreeable]

So is morality objective or subjective?

Yes.

Assuming that this means that you're saying that morality is both objective and subjective: In what way, then, is it objective and in what way is it subjective?

[Paleophyte]

Yes.

Assuming that this means that you're saying that morality is both objective and subjective: In what way, then, is it objective and in what way is it subjective?

That isn't what I was saying. You're trying to establish the existence of a middle ground that can't exist.

[The Valkyrie]

Wait.

Are we saying it's wrong to eat people??

Since when?

[Fireball]

Wait.

Are we saying it's wrong to eat people??

Since when?

Right? I've eaten women several times...

[Angrboda]

Wait.

Are we saying it's wrong to eat people??

Since when?

“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
― William James

[Disagreeable]

Assuming that this means that you're saying that morality is both objective and subjective: In what way, then, is it objective and in what way is it subjective?

That isn't what I was saying. You're trying to establish the existence of a middle ground that can't exist.

Weirdly, it seems to me that you are the one offering a middle ground because you seem to be talking about something that is neither descriptive nor normative, or neither fully objective nor fully subjective, whereas I'm asking which is it, or if it's both then in which sense is it each.

I'll stop pressing you though as I don't think that I'm going to understand what you're saying. I can't comprehend what it means for something to be neither normative nor descriptive.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As such, I'd hold that the conditional basis of the taboo ought not be essential humanity, but some other quality or set of qualities. I'd include intelligence, self-awareness, capacity for empathy, though I'm sure there are other qualities I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Thanks for answering the original question!

Is being human still one of the required properties? Because, if not, then what if there was a human without these properties?

I wouldn't eat a human no matter their disabilities, so I guess being human is a hard pass for me. Mind you, that's entirely subjective and so not useful to your discussion. The varied reasons people resort to cannibalism speak to the moral relativism of the question. The raw hunger of a shipwreck survivor, the cultural norm of eating your enemies to garner their strength, those have different moral weights to me, but who am I? I just know what I wouldn't like to do.

[Paleophyte]

That isn't what I was saying. You're trying to establish the existence of a middle ground that can't exist.

Weirdly, it seems to me that you are the one offering a middle ground because you seem to be talking about something that is neither descriptive nor normative, or neither fully objective nor fully subjective, whereas I'm asking which is it, or if it's both then in which sense is it each.

I'll stop pressing you though as I don't think that I'm going to understand what you're saying. I can't comprehend what it means for something to be neither normative nor descriptive.

I can't be held responsible for your seemings. The "fact" describes our understanding of how the world is. The word "normative" describes our opinion of how the world ought to be. "Normative facts" are much like dry water, a lovely abuse of language and thinking.

[Fake Messiah]

I think you are mixing/confusing morals with laws. Morals are not laws, so if you break a moral code usually doesn't mean that you'll face some particularly harsh punishment like prison or a fine, but just that you will let down some close people.

Nah I'm only talking about moral permissibility, not legal permissibility. I'm asking if when slavery is morally permitted is that interchangeable with it being morally permissible?

You are confusing. Some people see eating animals as moral, while others as immoral, and there is no objective way to prove who is right. On the other hand, while vegans see carnivores as immoral, there are no repercussions for their immoral behavior because it's not against the law.

Now, you could make a very good case on, for example, why not to eat meat, but it's only a case, not some sort of law of the universe.

[The Valkyrie]

Wait.

Are we saying it's wrong to eat people??

Since when?

Right? I've eaten women several times...

Just don't eat vegans.

They taste of tofu!