User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-23 at 8:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus Interesting. Let's say there is a jellyfish in your pool and the only safe way to remove it is to kill it.
(I promise, there's only one more question after this before I get to the point).
What do I think is ethical? Stop chlorinating and convert my pool into a jellyfish aquarium until it dies of natural causes. I'm not sure how it got there, but I'm not going to kill it.
What would actually happen is that I would scour the internet until I come up with a safe way to relocate it before attempting to, because I know they're delicate creatures and I don't want my ignorance to be its demise. -
2018-03-23 at 8:34 PM UTCOh, and what are the unsafe ways of removing it in this thought experiment? I'd like to explore those.
-
2018-03-23 at 8:35 PM UTCWear it on your head like a hat and cruise on down to the beach like a baller with your new jellyfish budThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-23 at 8:36 PM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 8:38 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-23 at 8:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Wear it on your head like a hat and cruise on down to the beach like a baller with your new jellyfish bud
No, NEVER. I hate hats that look like animals. Not for moral reasons, they just look stupid and I want to strangle the people who wear them.
Originally posted by Fox Paws Grabbing it with your bare hands and flinging it over the fence
That's true, but I was fishing for dangerous ideas that also keep my new guest alive. -
2018-03-23 at 10:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Erm, I wish I'd waited a minute before hitting "submit" now. As I said in the above post, ants demonstrate self-preservation and they have a social hierarchy, both of which are pretty good indicators that they care about their own lives and their communities. I can't personally verify whether they feel pain, but I don't really need to in order to decide that they probably don't want to be killed, and as I've stated, an animal's interest in its own life is one reasonable way to assign moral agency.
It could be argued that plants also have an interest in their own continued existence, or that creatures like ants are thoughtless automatons who don't have any interests at all and simply driven by their own biological processes. Either way I don't really think it matters, what we consider to be a "moral act" or which organisms to have "moral agency" appears to be relative.
Originally posted by Zanick If you inferred from his argument from ecology the position that we should reduce the human population and preserve animal agriculture as-is, I don't think I can provide anything to convince you of my own.
I don't like the way animals are treated in industrial farms and I do think that should change. I don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat, and I do think there are too many humans on this planet. If there is nothing you can provide to convince me that I have a moral obligation to stop eating meat I conclude that no such obligation exists and that morality is relative. -
2018-03-23 at 10:34 PM UTCI can't believe that you people have kept this shitty thread alive.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-23 at 10:35 PM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 10:40 PM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 10:45 PM UTCI just spent the last hour or so reading the entirety of it save for a handful of jill-posts.
Good stuff imo. Many laughs. Fair and convincing points from both sides.
Have there been studies done to show how our ecological systems would change if we as a global population discontinued meat and animal consumption nearly altogether?
Wouldnt there be some rapid overpopulation of all sorts of shit like parades of chickens and deer filling the streets and yards? -
2018-03-23 at 11:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker I can't believe that you people have kept this shitty thread alive.
Originally posted by Fox Paws Some people feel very strongly about the poor widdle annee-malls
I can't believe your response to seeing a thread you don't like is to post about your feelings in it instead of ignoring it or unsubscribing.
Originally posted by mmQ Wouldnt there be some rapid overpopulation of all sorts of shit like parades of chickens and deer filling the streets and yards?
Most of the bouvine/chicken population in the world is a direct product of commercial farming. I imagine cows would actually go extinct pretty quickly if no one bred and raised them. I've seen the argument made that we've managed to kill off most of the natural predators of deer in North America so without hunting they'd go through cyclic overpopulation/starvation periods. I'm a little skeptical of this since people who advance that argument tend to by hobbyist hunters but it could be true. People who are vegetarians on ethical consequentialist grounds typically look at it as a less important case. Maybe intervention in the form of regulated hunting is justified, maybe not, but in terms of number of animals and degree of suffering induced commercial meat production of cows and chickens totally eclipses the issue of hunting. -
2018-03-23 at 11:57 PM UTCI posted some on topic stuff earlier as well.
-
2018-03-24 at 12:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Most of the bouvine/chicken population in the world is a direct product of commercial farming. I imagine cows would actually go extinct pretty quickly if no one bred and raised them. I've seen the argument made that we've managed to kill off most of the natural predators of deer in North America so without hunting they'd go through cyclic overpopulation/starvation periods. I'm a little skeptical of this since people who advance that argument tend to by hobbyist hunters but it could be true. People who are vegetarians on ethical consequentialist grounds typically look at it as a less important case. Maybe intervention in the form of regulated hunting is justified, maybe not, but in terms of number of animals and degree of suffering induced commercial meat production of cows and chickens totally eclipses the issue of hunting.
Yeah, the argument from ecology is at best a secondary concern for a lot of ethical vegetarians. Like you, I have my reservations about the kinds of people who typically argue that overpopulation is a real threat, but at the same time I think it's a possibility that the deontological argument (Regan's in particular) fails to address. I'm sure there's some modification of the typical moral claim to be had which accounts for practical barriers post-abolition, but I think most animal activists position are so starved for legislative success, they suffer from tunnel-vision. -
2018-03-24 at 12:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe It could be argued that plants also have an interest in their own continued existence, or that creatures like ants are thoughtless automatons who don't have any interests at all and simply driven by their own biological processes. Either way I don't really think it matters, what we consider to be a "moral act" or which organisms to have "moral agency" appears to be relative.
Erm, no, moral agency isn't a relative thing at the moment, it's exclusive, and that's what I'm on about. I think animals should be moral agents, and there are a few tough cases in their kingdom that are difficult to evaluate. Ants might be said to be one of them, but I'm satisfied with my assessment of a number of indicative behaviors (which they share with other organisms that I consider moral agents) that they do care about their lives. You haven't met any burden of proof with plants, however; you've only suggested that it's possible. If you want to keep pushing the claim that plants might satisfy my modified criteria for moral agency, you need to make a case for them.I don't like the way animals are treated in industrial farms and I do think that should change. I don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat, and I do think there are too many humans on this planet. If there is nothing you can provide to convince me that I have a moral obligation to stop eating meat I conclude that no such obligation exists and that morality is relative.
We can start on common ground: what is specifically your objection to large-scale animal agriculture, at the moment? -
2018-03-24 at 12:57 AM UTC
-
2018-03-24 at 2:36 AM UTC
-
2018-03-24 at 3:31 AM UTC
-
2018-03-24 at 3:32 AM UTC
-
2018-03-24 at 5:22 AM UTC
