User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-09 at 2:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick 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.
So would Zanick be prepared to defend his monastery and his country against invaders?
Even if they were brown?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.
Why didn't the monks just run away?
That's the moral thing to do, right?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.
Moral worth =/= agency. -
2018-03-09 at 2:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick 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.
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.
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.
fuck that bullshit. some things just need to be made dead. anyone that thinks otherwise is living in a delusion.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-09 at 3:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 So would Zanick be prepared to defend his monastery and his country against invaders?
Even if they were brown?
No, I would run. I can join a new monastery and move to a new country because I don't think there's anything to be gained by dying in either of them. I generally don't think country or private property is worth dying or killing for. If my life were in danger, I would have to defend myself to the best of my (admittedly limited) abilities.Why didn't the monks just run away?
That's the moral thing to do, right?
There have been several times in history that Buddhist monks have found cause for violence. In some ways, this was a last resort, either because they could not escape government oppression with their faith intact or could not escape to a safe location. I consider this to be in service to a greater good and indicative of an abandonment of self, which is characteristic of some themes in their belief and therefore it is understandable how some could bring themselves to use lethal force. Other occasions deemed to merit killing on the part of monks have been a product of nationalism, and other occasions still saw them substituted for a normal military response.Moral worth =/= agency.
Do infants and the severely retarded possess moral agency? They often lack the capacity for moral judgments. Or would you lump newborns and idiots in with the animals you eat? -
2018-03-09 at 3:20 AM UTC
-
2018-03-09 at 3:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick No, I would run. I can join a new monastery and move to a new country because I don't think there's anything to be gained by dying in either of them. I generally don't think country or private property is worth dying or killing for. If my life were in danger, I would have to defend myself to the best of my (admittedly limited) abilities.
There have been several times in history that Buddhist monks have found cause for violence. In some ways, this was a last resort, either because they could not escape government oppression with their faith intact. I consider this to be in service to a greater good and indicative of an abandonment of self, which is characteristic of some themes in their belief and therefore it is understandable how some could bring themselves to use lethal force. Other occasions deemed to merit killing on the part of monks have been a product of nationalism, and other occasions still saw them substituted for a normal military response.
Do infants and the severely retarded possess moral agency? They often lack the capacity for moral judgments. Or would you lump newborns and idiots in with the animals you eat?
you havent been paying attention to those buddah-ists over there that are fucking up all kinds of shit recently.
what do you call an animal that wont defend itself?
lunch.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-09 at 3:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock you havent been paying attention to those buddah-ists over there that are fucking up all kinds of shit recently.
what do you call an animal that wont defend itself?
lunch.
I'm well aware that you subscribe to a hierarchy of beings according to their capability to murder other beings, but you haven't actually produced something to justify it for those of us who aren't convinced. -
2018-03-09 at 3:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I'm well aware that you subscribe to a hierarchy of beings according to their capability to murder other beings, but you haven't actually produced something to justify it for those of us who aren't convinced.
thats one of those concepts if you dont grasp it from the get-go you may as well just resign yourself to the 'lunch' category -
2018-03-09 at 3:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick 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.
Fair enough. I was trying to peg you on the spectrum of chaotic evil to absolute nonviolence.
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.
For me, I respect people with consistent moral systems way more than people who simply agree with my moral ends. You need to be able to build up to them, or your morals are shit. In this thread, I find your moral system to be pretty morally consistent so... Kudos! -
2018-03-09 at 3:08 PM UTC
-
2018-03-09 at 3:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock you havent been paying attention to those buddah-ists over there that are fucking up all kinds of shit recently.
what do you call an animal that wont defend itself?
lunch.
The likes of Zanick aren't peaceful. They'll talk about how they'll lie down and die rather than fight one minute, then the next they're straining at the leash to murder Russians cos some jedi told them that Russians were homophobic.
Also Zanick please read this and stop misusing words:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agencyThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-09 at 3:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 The likes of Zanick aren't peaceful. They'll talk about how they'll lie down and die rather than fight one minute, then the next they're straining at the leash to murder Russians cos some jedi told them that Russians were homophobic.
Nah, I think homophobes should live long lives and then die naturally, having failed to suppress homosexuality.Also Zanick please read this and stop misusing words:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency
Maybe when you provide a convincing counterpoint to my suggestion that babies and the mentally retarded lack moral agency, I'll stop believing that animals do. -
2018-03-09 at 3:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Nah, I think homophobes should live long lives and then die naturally, having failed to suppress homosexuality.
People like you are cattle for the powerful.Maybe when you provide a convincing counterpoint to my suggestion that babies and the mentally retarded lack moral agency, I'll stop believing that animals do.
Have you ever thought that maybe you are not as smart as you think you are? -
2018-03-09 at 3:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 People like you are cattle for the powerful.
The people I meet who attach themselves to this kind of ideology are not the sort of people who would make good cattle herders. If "people like me" are ever completely dominated, the rest of you will be eating one another within the span of a generation.Have you ever thought that maybe you are not as smart as you think you are?
I've wondered it often. I think most reasonably intelligent people do. Most people whose opinions matter to me tell me that I'm smarter than I think, though, and I think we should all try to listen to the people in our lives who encourage us.
You still haven't given a reason why animals lack moral agency whereas infants and the mentally retarded are considered to have it. If you can't demonstrate why some beings which lack moral judgment can be said to have moral agency and why other beings who lack it cannot, then you have no business telling me where the term rightly belongs. -
2018-03-09 at 3:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick You still haven't given a reason why animals lack moral agency whereas infants and the mentally retarded are considered to have it. If you can't demonstrate why some beings which lack moral judgment can be said to have moral agency and why other beings who lack it cannot, then you have no business telling me where the term rightly belongs.
Stupid and self righteous.
Dangerous combination.
Would you look up Moral Agency?
FFS. -
2018-03-09 at 3:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 Would you look up Moral Agency?
FFS.
Yes, I have a basic understanding of what constitutes moral agency. I'm trying to persuade you that it doesn't work the way you think it does. You've granted moral agency to all humans, and revoked it from all (or most) animals - correct? The problem with this is that there are humans who lack rationality, one of the alleged requirements for moral agency, and animals who demonstrate other qualities that ought to be considered in establishing agency, namely the aversion to suffering. My argument is that, unless you have some special trick up your sleeve which makes humans that are otherwise incapable of moral judgment neatly fit under the umbrella of moral agency, I think it's you who has to do a little bit more work on the concept. -
2018-03-09 at 4 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Yes, I have a basic understanding of what constitutes moral agency. I'm trying to persuade you that it doesn't work the way you think it does. You've granted moral agency to all humans, and revoked it from all (or most) animals - correct? The problem with this is that there are humans who lack rationality, one of the alleged requirements for moral agency, and animals who demonstrate other qualities that ought to be considered in establishing agency, namely the aversion to suffering. My argument is that, unless you have some special trick up your sleeve which makes humans that are otherwise incapable of moral judgment neatly fit under the umbrella of moral agency, I think it's you who has to do a little bit more work on the concept.
you mean like giving animals the same rights that humans have -
2018-03-09 at 4 PM UTCMorality is just something people made up to feel better about themselves, and I don't believe in any of it.
But you do, so explain how babies and retards have moral agency :D -
2018-03-09 at 4:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 Morality is just something people made up to feel better about themselves, and I don't believe in any of it.
But you do, so explain how babies and retards have moral agency :D
dogs, rational doggs dont bite their masters. ever.
while playing with each other, juvenile cats and dogs will play fight with each other but never actually bite or claw each other as hard as they could.
its like they somehow know whats right and wrong, that it isnt right to bite for no reason.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-09 at 8:57 PM UTCMoral philosophy is all sophistry and intellectual masturbation. The entire field is a spook. I don't have an obligation to do anything, except that which benefits myself.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-09 at 9:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader dogs, rational doggs dont bite their masters. ever.
while playing with each other, juvenile cats and dogs will play fight with each other but never actually bite or claw each other as hard as they could.
its like they somehow know whats right and wrong, that it isnt right to bite for no reason.
Where does a "rational" animal begin and end? I'd say it's even worse than humans: animals are one bad event away from going rogue. They have no intellectual capacity compared to a person, their reasoning is one level deep.
