User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-22 at 3:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick A lot of people have this attitude toward lobsters and crabs - that, if you eliminate their nervous system from the equation prior to boiling them, you aren't actually doing harm. The problem is that most people don't know how lobsters' nervous systems work, and they are actually inflicting a slow and extremely painful death.
thats why seafood restaurants around my area imported VXes direct from the good koreans. -
2018-03-22 at 3:33 AM UTCIf I haven't been clear to readers and debaters, my position mirrors that of ethical philosopher Tom Regan, who offers an alternative to the typical utilitarian arguments we see in the domain of animal rights. He asserts that we must abolish animal testing and vivisection, dissolve animal agriculture, and eliminate commercial hunting and trapping.
In philosophy, this approach to ethics is deontological because it answers the question of how to determine the morality of an action by considering the inherent moral value of said action, rather than evaluating the action by its consequences. See Kant's categorical imperative to learn more.
The crux of my argument rests on the problem of moral agency. I am in agreement with Regan that it should be extended to include animals. For one example of why our current formulation of moral agency is totally gay: you might think that although your dog can’t assemble a desk or sign a piece of paper, it would still be cruel to beat him. Well, at present, that dog has the bare minimum of legal protection, and even that can't really stop you because it's on your property and you paid for it.
Most philosophers agree that you ought to be capable of rationality to qualify as a moral agent, so that you can purposefully sign the proverbial social contract—a highly convenient threshold for moral consideration, given that we are a highly intelligent apex predator with opposable thumbs and industrialized slaughterhouses—granting moral status and all the inalienable protections we've come to expect in an egalitarian society.
Especially confounding is the contradiction in this requirement: babies, irrational humans and the profoundly disabled are signed on to this policy by default, all clearly lacking the criteria, whereas nonhumans are excluded from any such protection. So what is the qualifier for moral agency, if not rationality? All you really need to do is be born human. It’s brazen speciesism, the final prejudice of mankind which can never be corrected by its victims. There is no excuse for this crime. It’s no different in principle from our failure to represent blacks in politics or women in the workplace.
We shouldn’t kill things that specifically don’t want to be killed, nor should we inflict pain deliberately upon those who respond to painful stimuli. They aren’t here to be our resources, and they don’t deserve to be killed and eaten only because we can do it to them when we want to. They’re suffering, and it’s time they were recognized as possessing inherent rights, just like us, because they obviously need them. -
2018-03-22 at 3:41 AM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 3:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick We shouldn’t kill things that specifically don’t want to be killed,
i dont think theres a single species of plants that grows and plain simple asking to be killed.
i totally agrees with you and think that it should also be expanded to include plants. everytime i see a bigg tree being cut down it feels me with rage and anger.
everyday billion tons of thousand year old trees are being cut down in my island and for what ???
IKEA ???? -
2018-03-22 at 3:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader i dont think theres a single species of plants that grows and plain simple asking to be killed.
i totally agrees with you and think that it should also be expanded to include plants. everytime i see a bigg tree being cut down it feels me with rage and anger.
everyday billion tons of thousand year old trees are being cut down in my island and for what ???
IKEA ????
You missed a highly productive conversation I had with Obbe about this very topic. I don't think they fit for consideration as moral agents, but there's a whole thread about how they respond to various stimuli that has a lot more information about it than we do in here. -
2018-03-22 at 3:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick You missed a highly productive conversation I had with Obbe about this very topic. I don't think they fit for consideration as moral agents, but there's a whole thread about how they respond to various stimuli that has a lot more information about it than we do in here.
1 - i dont thing youve used the term ''moral agency'' in the senses it was concocted.
2 - i was going by your own mantra that '' no single species would want to grow and asked to be killed'' thing.
3 - it seems liek what you considers to be qualified as the thing you call ''moral agent'' is subjective, and subject to your whims and fancies. -
2018-03-22 at 4:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader 1 - i dont thing youve used the term ''moral agency'' in the senses it was concocted.
Issue313 accused me of the same, and it's understandable given the standard definition. If you visit the first link I gave for the term, you'll find that I'm arguing explicitly that its use should be altered.2 - i was going by your own mantra that '' no single species would want to grow and asked to be killed'' thing.
Animals feel victimized by us, even though they cannot legally request protection. Plants can't even formulate the question.3 - it seems liek what you considers to be qualified as the thing you call ''moral agent'' is subjective, and subject to your whims and fancies.
Funnily enough, I made the exact same claim. If our criteria for moral agency aren't universally exhibited by those who meet it, it stands to reason that the criteria require adjustment. -
2018-03-22 at 4:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Issue313 accused me of the same, and it's understandable given the standard definition. If you visit the first link I gave for the term, you'll find that I'm arguing explicitly that its use should be altered.
dont fight the dicktionaries. an ''agency'' is a provider, not a providee.Animals feel victimized by us, even though they cannot legally request protection. Plants can't even formulate the question.
1- are you saying that animals are able to formulate the question ???
2- and neither can unborn fetuses and living retardsFunnily enough, I made the exact same claim. If our criteria for moral agency aren't universally exhibited by those who meet it, it stands to reason that the criteria require adjustment.
the question has always been on whose part tho.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-22 at 4:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader dont fight the dicktionaries. an ''agency'' is a provider, not a providee.
1- are you saying that animals are able to formulate the question ???
2- and neither can unborn fetuses and living retards
the question has always been on whose part tho.
HAHAHA Benny you are fucking, literally my favourite posterThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-22 at 4:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader dont fight the dicktionaries. an ''agency'' is a provider, not a providee.
Moral agency is a philosophical concept, a status given to entities which sign the social contract. I argue that it fails to consider all moral agents, and that they should be recognized and protected in spite of this shortcoming.1- are you saying that animals are able to formulate the question ???
2- and neither can unborn fetuses and living retards
My point exactly. Animals react to painful stimuli with suffering, which is observable. They shouldn't need to ask us not to harm them when we know very well that slaughterhouses are now kept away from our residences for a reason. Plants, on the other hand, haven't expressed anything of the sort. Find me a plant that objects to my eating it. You probably can't, and for many of them, it's even a method of achieving fertilization.
Unborn fetuses and the severely retarded are examples I gave of humans who are granted moral agency, despite not being able to grasp the concept. Moral philosophers have agreed, for the most part, that you must be able to intentionally sign the social contract and exhibit rationality to be eligible for moral agency. If you're not able to understand that there is a social contract, or even identify things as right and wrong, then you aren't a moral agent. That should mean that babies, fetuses, and severely retarded people are similarly excluded, but they're given a pass. There is no explanation for this admission other than speciesism.the question has always been on whose part tho.
No, not really. You could say that convention would favor the side I'm attacking. There's no need for a standoff, I know I'm in the minority when I claim that you should reevaluate your position, and I'd like to think I've demonstrated that believing myself to be correct doesn't relieve me of the burden of proof. -
2018-03-22 at 4:36 AM UTCZanick, you know I love you buddy but Benny ended it.
I've thought down the pathways of the argument. And this is a downhill battle. He will defeat you. -
2018-03-22 at 4:38 AM UTCNo way man, I have plenty of fight in me and he's just getting started.
-
2018-03-22 at 4:38 AM UTCWell, you could take the argument and run its course, and help me prove whether I'm actually smart when I'm high, or merely delusional.
And if you prove me wrong, I will be happy that my friend changed my mind, and crushed that smug chink. -
2018-03-22 at 4:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus Zanick, you know I love you buddy but Benny ended it.
I've thought down the pathways of the argument. And this is a downhill battle. He will defeat you.
You realize why I can't take this statement at face value, don't you?
I'm also very high, toward the end of my session actually. I don't know if it makes me smart, but I like to send sensitive work/school emails when I'm stoned just to see if I can. Are you? -
2018-03-22 at 4:56 AM UTCA postmodernist might suggest that our self-described moral superiority to animals is driven by a narcissistic urge to differentiate humanity from the animal kingdom which bore us, not unlike the project of monotheism.
WAS THAT ONE OF YOUR HIGH PREDICTIONS? I WILL GO KEVIN SPACEY ON YOUR TAINT. -
2018-03-22 at 4:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Find me a plant that objects to my eating it. You probably can't,
mimosa pudica.
it closes once it feels you mollesting it like how little girl would close her once they notice you looking at their panties.
but not to water droplets hitting them.
just becos you cant hear them scream no doesnt meant that they dont.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-22 at 4:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick You realize why I can't take this statement at face value, don't you?
I'm also very high, toward the end of my session actually. I don't know if it makes me smart, but I like to send sensitive work/school emails when I'm stoned just to see if I can. Are you?
I will toss you into the pit. And in the pit you will fight, with the scorpions and the snakes and the bees and the blowfish and the frogs and the rats and the mosquitoes and the dogs, till you are seeping with the bile and rage of a thousand battles fought in a blink, injected into you, the last scorpion. And then I will crush you and let your fluids run, like ink, into my well, and write with you a work of great beauty. -
2018-03-22 at 5:05 AM UTCZanuck, he is really, really smart. He is smarter than you. He has won, it's over. He writes like a moron because you slowly backslide into a corner and don't realize it. It's happening. He's digesting you slowly, like a snake.
-
2018-03-22 at 5:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader mimosa pudica.
it closes once it feels you mollesting it like how little girl would close her once they notice you looking at their panties.
but not to water droplets hitting them.
That's fascinating, but are you suggesting that movement in plants is indicative of emotion? That would be an absurd leap, considering that the physical process is well understood and doesn't require what we'd consider 'feelings'.just becos you cant hear them scream no doesnt meant that they dont.
If there's one valuable grain of knowledge that would be preserved from our millennia of animal vivisection, it's how to observe every conceivable pain response. Plants don't appear to. -
2018-03-22 at 5:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick That's fascinating, but are you suggesting that movement in plants is indicative of emotion? That would be an absurd leap, considering that the physical process is well understood and doesn't require what we'd consider 'feelings'.
I'll throw the next punch:
So the only difference is that our way of expressing a response to our environment isn't understood? Where's your positive evidence that our feelings when we are threatened are categorically different than the response of the plant?
