User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-08 at 9:40 PM UTC
-
2018-03-08 at 9:49 PM UTCWhat about other prededatory animals? Is it ok for me to kill a tiger and eat it?
-
2018-03-08 at 9:51 PM UTCIn my conception of moral agency, no. Tigers have inherent value, just as much as any other creature.
-
2018-03-08 at 9:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus Soy doesn't have any established connection to femininity etc.
of course it doesnt. neither does bisphenol-a.
now stfu and go chew on a polycarbonate bottle while you read the FDA report that was full-jedikiked back in the mid-2000's.
while youre at it read real scientific studies on the effects of glysophate on fauna. yes, fauna as in what you are, you fucking handsome and well tanned individual.
not only does the naturally occurring estrogenic compounds in soy affect your femininity but the glysophate that the mass-farmers spray all over the shit as its growing contributes to your sexy voice and sashay of your sloppy little ass. -
2018-03-08 at 9:51 PM UTC
-
2018-03-08 at 9:53 PM UTC
-
2018-03-08 at 9:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by RisiR † What if it attacks you and I save you. Can we feast on the loser? The tiger.
I'll assume there was no choice except to kill the attacking tiger. Personally, I don't see anything inherently wrong with eating something that you couldn't avoid killing for practical reasons. But, then again, my theory of animal rights extends moral agency to nonhumans, so we arrive at a strange question: suppose a human attacks you, leaving you no choice but to kill them in the interest of your own safety - would you eat them afterward? -
2018-03-08 at 10:03 PM UTCNo, I wouldn't but that's a taste thing not a moral one.
-
2018-03-08 at 10:05 PM UTC
-
2018-03-08 at 10:10 PM UTCWe could but I'm fine with eating animals instead of humans. No reason to argue.
-
2018-03-08 at 10:10 PM UTCZanick, I want to cut past a lot of these issues and ask you: what's your position on self defence in general?
-
2018-03-08 at 10:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus Zanick, I want to cut past a lot of these issues and ask you: what's your position on self defence in general?
I think it's acceptable - not desirable - and that there are ways to find equitable solutions for both parties even if one is primarily concerned with killing the other. In the event that it really can't be helped (i.e. you're not on a safari with your hunting rifle when you happen to be charged by a hyena you were seeking), then it should be done as humanely as can be managed with priority given to your own safety. I hope that clarifies my position. I may not log on for a couple of hours, but please let me know if I've left anything unanswered. -
2018-03-08 at 10:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I think it's acceptable - not desirable - and that there are ways to find equitable solutions for both parties even if one is primarily concerned with killing the other. In the event that it really can't be helped (i.e. you're not on a safari with your hunting rifle when you happen to be charged by a hyena you were seeking), then it should be done as humanely as can be managed with priority given to your own safety. I hope that clarifies my position. I may not log on for a couple of hours, but please let me know if I've left anything unanswered.
Seems good. Please elaborate on this view when you come back (like why you hold that view) -
2018-03-08 at 10:43 PM UTC
-
2018-03-08 at 10:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick But, then again, my theory of animal rights extends moral agency to nonhumans
?
Moral agency is the ability to make moral decisions.
Creatures dumber than humans will be too dumb to understand your moral system, and creatures smarter than humans will be too smart to fall for it. -
2018-03-08 at 11:22 PM UTC
-
2018-03-09 at 12:18 AM UTC
-
2018-03-09 at 12:36 AM UTC
-
2018-03-09 at 2:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus Seems good. Please elaborate on this view when you come back (like why you hold that view)
It's kind of a nuanced position, I admit. Referring to one example of my belief in practice, I would cite the martial training of Buddhist monks in the Zen tradition. They won't kill animals or eat them, but they are prepared to defend their lives against invaders and predators alike. You could say that my ethics would take radical nonviolence as axiomatic.
If I were to frame it in terms of the categorical imperative, I would say that to harm another being is intolerable unless it is determined to harm you and you cannot escape confrontation. I hope that clarifies things. He may have died a virgin, but Kant was a damn innovative moral theorist.
Originally posted by Issue313 ?
Moral agency is the ability to make moral decisions.
Creatures dumber than humans will be too dumb to understand your moral system, and creatures smarter than humans will be too smart to fall for it.
Some philosophers hold the position that we must extend the status of moral agency to animals. The deontological argument given by Tom Regan is one prominent example. His is essentially a modification of Kantian ethics, wherein he not only redirects the meaning of the phrase from requiring the capacity for moral decisionmaking to ultimately include any being, human or nonhuman, which is what he terms the subject-of-a-life; and he also provides a fairly substantial criticism of Singer's utilitarianism in the same publication. In summary, his view is that, if it lives and can be said to have an interest in living, it should be regarded as possessing inherent, unquantifiable value.
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Morals are an individual choice not a group decision.
That's one view on what constitutes morality, but you should know there are dozens of others and yours isn't very popular among them. Furthermore, I don't think you have a literate understanding of ethical justification, which is why I suggest you stop replying to my posts in this thread - it's a waste of your time, and, more importantly, mine. I don't require everyone I talk with about philosophy to have a formal education in the discipline, but in your case, I don't think you've actually read a book since you were in grade school.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-09 at 2:27 AM UTC
