User Controls
We are all responsible for the global holocaust
-
2017-04-05 at 5:48 AM UTC
-
2017-04-05 at 5:48 AM UTCThe issue is that there are negative consequences to farm animals existing. Both ecological and ethical (they suffer). It would be better if they didn't exist, and it's within our power to rectify that situation.
-
2017-04-05 at 5:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo Elaborate then. It's not that I don't care about society, it's just that I care about myself and my interests more.
Elaborate on what? If you think everyone but you has an ethical duty to society then ok, you have a shitty ethics that I can scarcely fathom a rational defense of. You can try if you want, but the fact remains that no one really cares about the judgment of the guy who thinks he alone stands above moral law. -
2017-04-05 at 5:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Elaborate on what? If you think everyone but you has an ethical duty to society then ok, you have a shitty ethics that I can scarcely fathom a rational defense of. You can try if you want, but the fact remains that no one really cares about the judgment of the guy who thinks he alone stands above moral law.
What gives you the authority to say my ethics are shitty? Also, what moral law? That's an absurdly ambiguous term. -
2017-04-05 at 5:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo What gives you the authority to say my ethics are shitty?
I don't have that authority, the metric would seem to be wether or not you can rationally defend your position.Also, what moral law? That's an absurdly ambiguous term.
You said "It's not that I don't care about society", implying you do care about society. From context I assume "I care about society" means "there are things we ought to do for the benefit of society". If that's not the case and you were just talking about your subjective opinion of society then your post was stupid and not relevant to what we're talking about (normative claims). If it is the case then you seem to thing there exists some moral law, that is the body of duties we owe to society, but that you aren't bound by it since you consider your personal interests of greater significance than the interests of the society you're embedded in. -
2017-04-05 at 6:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I don't have that authority, the metric would seem to be wether or not you can rationally defend your position.
My ability to defend a position is not indicative of its value or correctness, although I see your point.
Originally posted by Lanny You said "It's not that I don't care about society", implying you do care about society. From context I assume "I care about society" means "there are things we ought to do for the benefit of society". If that's not the case and you were just talking about your subjective opinion of society then your post was stupid and not relevant to what we're talking about (normative claims). If it is the case then you seem to thing there exists some moral law, that is the body of duties we owe to society, but that you aren't bound by it since you consider your personal interests of greater significance than the interests of the society you're embedded in.
I care about society in the sense that I enjoy the benefits I receive from it (no, not welfare), and would like them to continue. Talk of a moral imperative is irrelevant. -
2017-04-05 at 6:12 AM UTCConsequentialism is about moral imperatives though.
-
2017-04-05 at 6:14 AM UTC
-
2017-04-05 at 6:18 AM UTCConsequentialism:
Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences.
Normative:In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality.
-
2017-04-05 at 6:22 AM UTCThanks. In that case, I change my answer to SECTION 1.1.1, and invoke religion as an explanation.
-
2017-04-05 at 6:26 AM UTCFair enough, although it's pretty hard to make a convincing case for the truth of some particular article of received religious wisdom on the subject of ethics.
-
2017-04-05 at 6:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Fair enough, although it's pretty hard to make a convincing case for the truth of some particular article of received religious wisdom on the subject of ethics.
Not really. For the animal example, we're supposed to take care of all the creatures on the earth and whatnot, but they're still below us and we're totally allowed to eat them. Thus, farm meat and enjoy your bacon. Simple. -
2017-04-05 at 6:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo Not really. For the animal example, we're supposed to take care of all the creatures on the earth and whatnot, but they're still below us and we're totally allowed to eat them. Thus, farm meat and enjoy your bacon. Simple.
The issue is getting to the "you're supposed to take care of animals" or "animals are below us" statements in the first place. Like you can point to some canonical text but you first have to make a case that this text accurately relates moral truths to start with. -
2017-04-05 at 6:56 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-04-05 at 7:05 AM UTCmeat-fruit seems pretty dope, if a little gay
-
2017-04-05 at 7:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The issue is getting to the "you're supposed to take care of animals" or "animals are below us" statements in the first place. Like you can point to some canonical text but you first have to make a case that this text accurately relates moral truths to start with.
Well, that's kinda the point of religion. Christians see the Bible as the book that defines moral truths. People who disagree aren't Christians. -
2017-04-05 at 9:11 AM UTCbillions of farm animals only exist because they've been bred for food. they get to live secure from wild animals, they even get health care and are well fed. what would happen to them if the whole human race stopped eating meat tomorrow? nobody would go to the expense of looking after them anymore. they would be unable to survive i the wild. they would succumb to starvation, disease and predators. the horrors of that would far outweigh the slaughter house.
also, how would you then propose to feed the world? there are millions already starving, we cant grow enough crops now. take away the fertilizers obtained from farm animal waste and we would be growing considerably less. the current system works on natures balance. you think you can tip those scales so severely and still everything will weigh up? -
2017-04-05 at 10:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra it's actually possible. Not 'beef' of course, but plants could potentially be engineered to produce fruit with a similar nutritional value
goddamnit didn't realise I wasn't on the last page
Genetic engineering is the future:
Post last edited by Open Your Mind at 2017-04-05T10:40:50.488651+00:00 -
2017-04-05 at 11:27 AM UTCI didn't read almost any post in this thread beside the OP. I'm just here to weigh in my thoughts on the subject, because I have given it a lot of consideration.
The eating of meat has been essential in getting the human race to where it is right now. It is natural to eat meat. And despite being "unnatural", modern agriculture is fundamentally positive at the moment; we want to take care of our kind before we take care of some fuckwit cows and chickens.
But as a species that aspires to be something more and to progress, it is inarguable that the endgame should be to eliminate factory farming as it currently exists. It feels like morality from a god's-eye-view ultimately resolves into one simple point: minimize suffering.
The human species has technologically progressed to the point where we honestly do not need to eat meat. And at this point, the methane production from modern cattle farming has reached absolutely retarded levels, so we should probably be scaling back for our own good too. So the argument that essentially remains is "fuck you, I like meat". Well I do too. But I think that discussions like these are what will end up changing opinions from "I like meat" to "I like meat, but this is fucked up". If you have a shred of empathy and humanity, an actual visit to a cattle farming operation can be pretty moving.
The treatment of animals in these plants is absolutely appalling. But why should that matter, right? They're just stupid animals. I used to be pretty fucking callous about "food" animals myself.
But if you spend some time with some cows and chickens and stuff, it quickly hits you how very alive these animals are... they feel affection and love, and happiness, and depression​.
And they feel fear.
I personally slaughter almost every animal I eat. And when you push the cow over and begin to saw open its jugular, you see it; the terror, the mortal anguish in its eyes as it realises that it is going to die. And with its last breaths, it struggles like no one you have seen struggling before. And then despairs, for it knows that it is struggling in vain, as the life leaves its eyes.
Anyone with some humanity that at some point, we will have to stop it.
Animal rights will be the next great civil rights frontier, I can almost guarantee that.
Side note: Until you can feel that, and kill an animal with your own two hands, and stomach that fear and anguish and pain before you eat your meat, you don't really deserve to eat meat. People have become too far removed from their food. Every animal I eat is raised ethically, personally selected by me, and I slaughter it by hand (and a knife) before letting my butcher handle the rest. It really puts me into contact with exactly what I'm doing.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-04-05 at 11:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist billions of farm animals only exist because they've been bred for food. they get to live secure from wild animals, they even get health care and are well fed. what would happen to them if the whole human race stopped eating meat tomorrow? nobody would go to the expense of looking after them anymore. they would be unable to survive i the wild. they would succumb to starvation, disease and predators. the horrors of that would far outweigh the slaughter house.
Animals in factory farms do not leave comfortable lives. The argument that their lives in the wild would be even more terrifying is just ignorant; we are not talking about the wild vs factory farming. Farm animals are pretty much miserable since the day they're born. We are generating this misery for food that isn't even necessary. Which brings me to your next point:also, how would you then propose to feed the world? there are millions already starving, we cant grow enough crops now. take away the fertilizers obtained from farm animal waste and we would be growing considerably less. the current system works on natures balance. you think you can tip those scales so severely and still everything will weigh up?
First, anyone who can currently afford to eat meat on a regular basis, would not go hungry without meat. That very notion does not hold up to 5 seconds if thought.
Secondly, efficient (re)distribution of resources would be a start; the planet already produces more than enough food to feed every single human being like a king. Literally no mouth has to go hungry right now, if we could figure out how to redistribute and not waste food. The amount of food wasted by the United States alone can literally end hunger worldwide. Of course 100% efficiency is unrealistic, but the idea that we cannot grow enough crops is preposterous.
Finally, synthetic fertilisers, genetically modified crops etc can all contribute greatly in the fight against hunger. We don't need cow shit to grow crops. And we don't need miserable cows to feed those who are hungry. Of course whatever veggie bullshit we can feed them won't be as delicious as a real beef steak but it would be good enough to actually solve the problem at a basic level.
