User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-04-04 at 6:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader irrelevant who am i. the thing is that here, im free to torture and animal anyway i please before the slaughter and theres not a single gott damm rules against it.
you should see the aquarium where they keep the catfishes.
lol, this entire thread and the mille posts in it is based on your phalse dillema.
this entire is it moral to meat or not to meat is a pha fucking lse dilemma.
pha fucking lse.
why should we you and not you us ???
The title can't be a false dilemma because it doesn't present you with an option. I think this is your way of giving up: becoming increasingly incoherent until I wonder whether I was crazy for ever believing you had an argument at all. -
2018-04-04 at 6:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Right, morality is relative. Noted. One more question, though: do you hurt animals is your free time? Do you hurt them for your job? What would you say is good about hurting animals, aside from providing meat?
I'm glad you see that morality is relative and that therefore none of us share your moral obligations. No I don't hurt animals. I already told you what I think about industrial farming. Animals probably do get injured due to the nature of my work. -
2018-04-04 at 6:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick The title can't be a false dilemma because it doesn't present you with an option. I think this is your way of giving up: becoming increasingly incoherent until I wonder whether I was crazy for ever believing you had an argument at all.
what are you talking about ???
morality is optional.
are you attempting to be incoherent ??? -
2018-04-04 at 6:15 PM UTCSo we can agree, then, that hurting animals is not a good in-and-of-itself? Surely, we can also agree that it is not a desirable product of human activity?
Originally posted by Obbe I'm glad you see that morality is relative and that therefore none of us share your moral obligations. No I don't hurt animals. I already told you what I think about industrial farming. Animals probably do get injured due to the nature of my work.
I've offered you several arguments from my position and rephrased them at your request, so might I ask that you do the same for me? -
2018-04-04 at 6:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I've offered you several arguments from my position and rephrased them at your request, so might I ask that you do the same for me?
You want me to tell you the same thing phrased in a different way? What??
This is just getting ridiculous Zanick. Since you have accepted that morality is relative and that we do not share a moral obligation to stop eating meat I am fine with just not posting in this thread anymore. -
2018-04-04 at 6:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe You want me to tell you the same thing phrased in a different way? What??
This is just getting ridiculous Zanick. Since you have accepted that morality is relative and that we do not share a moral obligation to stop eating meat I am fine with just not posting in this thread anymore.
Shocking, right? You'll remember though that you've had me give the same arguments over again more than a dozen times in this thread. I don't think it's unreasonable that you write me a couple lines regarding your feelings on factory farming despite your having done so in one other place.
I wasn't actually accepting that morality is relative, I was agreeing to conduct the debate on familiar ground for you and prove that it's still wrong even within your relativistic framework, but if you're content with where we are, I would encourage you to leave. -
2018-04-04 at 6:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Shocking, right? You'll remember though that you've had me give the same arguments over again more than a dozen times in this thread. I don't think it's unreasonable that you write me a couple lines regarding your feelings on factory farming despite your having done so in one other place.
I wasn't actually accepting that morality is relative, I was agreeing to conduct the debate on familiar ground for you and prove that it's still wrong even within your relativistic framework, but if you're content with where we are, I would encourage you to leave.
You don't have to keep giving me the same argument phrased in different ways. Just give me an argument that works. You will not be able to do that because morality is relative. Demonstrate otherwise. I'll wait until you do. -
2018-04-04 at 6:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe You don't have to keep giving me the same argument phrased in different ways. Just give me an argument that works. You will not be able to do that because morality is relative. Demonstrate otherwise. I'll wait until you do.
I'm trying to demonstrate it, but you're dodging my questions. We've agreed that harming animals for its own sake is immoral: can we furthermore agree that it's not desirable even as a byproduct of our human activity? -
2018-04-04 at 8:10 PM UTCbump
-
2018-04-04 at 8:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I'm trying to demonstrate it, but you're dodging my questions. We've agreed that harming animals for its own sake is immoral: can we furthermore agree that it's not desirable even as a byproduct of our human activity?
I don't agree with that. I eat meat and I dont think its wrong that an animal died. When we build a new building and animals have their natural habitats destroyed and they have to find new homes or get killed in the process, I don't think it's wrong. I feel bad for these animals but I don't think I'm a bad person. When I see mice that died from chewing through wires or birds that died by falling into street lights, I don't feel like I did anything wrong at all. It's just stuff happening. Whether this stuff is right or wrong is an opinion, not a fact. -
2018-04-04 at 9:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't agree with that. I eat meat and I dont think its wrong that an animal died. When we build a new building and animals have their natural habitats destroyed and they have to find new homes or get killed in the process, I don't think it's wrong. I feel bad for these animals but I don't think I'm a bad person. When I see mice that died from chewing through wires or birds that died by falling into street lights, I don't feel like I did anything wrong at all. It's just stuff happening. Whether this stuff is right or wrong is an opinion, not a fact.
That's exactly what I was asking, thank you. We've established that you think hurting animals because we enjoy it is wrong, and additionally, you feel bad for animals who die inadvertently as a result of human activities. So, why not sympathize with animals who are being purposefully killed with inhumane methods, and who suffer greatly because of it? Why does the fact that you get a burger out of it make it permissible? -
2018-04-04 at 9:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick That's exactly what I was asking, thank you. We've established that you think hurting animals because we enjoy it is wrong, and additionally, you feel bad for animals who die inadvertently as a result of human activities. So, why not sympathize with animals who are being purposefully killed with inhumane methods, and who suffer greatly because of it? Why does the fact that you get a burger out of it make it permissible?
I already told you how I feel about factory farms. I said I felt bad for those animals. But that doesn't mean anyone has a moral obligation to stop eating meat. I think the conditions in those farms could be better, I feel bad for those animals, but I don't think anyone has a moral obligation to do anything about it at all. -
2018-04-04 at 9:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I already told you how I feel about factory farms. I said I felt bad for those animals. But that doesn't mean anyone has a moral obligation to stop eating meat. I think the conditions in those farms could be better, I feel bad for those animals, but I don't think anyone has a moral obligation to do anything about it at all.
Supply and demand: If you don't agree with how a business is conducting themselves, stop buying from them. It's one of the few political choices you can make in this country as a private citizen. There is historical precedence for Americans to boycott the meat industry: when horrible conditions for animals and laborors, along with a thoroughly corrupt meat grading process, were exposed in Chicago's meatpacking district early in the 20th century, citizens and government alike converged to institute reform. Had we not, the consequences would have been a disaster on each of those fronts. It is not only your obligation to demand change, but it is also your privilege as a consumer. -
2018-04-04 at 9:50 PM UTCJust calm down. I'm going to settle this once and for all.
Tonight. -
2018-04-04 at 10:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Supply and demand: If you don't agree with how a business is conducting themselves, stop buying from them. It's one of the few political choices you can make in this country as a private citizen. There is historical precedence for Americans to boycott the meat industry: when horrible conditions for animals and laborors, along with a thoroughly corrupt meat grading process, were exposed in Chicago's meatpacking district early in the 20th century, citizens and government alike converged to institute reform. Had we not, the consequences would have been a disaster on each of those fronts. It is not only your obligation to demand change, but it is also your privilege as a consumer.
No such obligation exists. There are lots of things we may not like about the world but we have no obligation to do anything about any of them. Do you think murder is wrong? Why not make a thread about how we have a moral obligation to prevent murders? I don't know why but I believe it is because you prefer to talk about this subject. If you saw someone murdering people, I don't know if you would try to prevent it from happening or if you would run or hide or how you would react, but you wouldn't have any moral obligation to do anything at all, even if you think murder is wrong. Some people might prefer to not eat meat, but nobody has an obligation to not eat meat. -
2018-04-04 at 10:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe No such obligation exists. There are lots of things we may not like about the world but we have no obligation to do anything about any of them. Do you think murder is wrong? Why not make a thread about how we have a moral obligation to prevent murders? I don't know why but I believe it is because you prefer to talk about this subject. If you saw someone murdering people, I don't know if you would try to prevent it from happening or if you would run or hide or how you would react, but you wouldn't have any moral obligation to do anything at all, even if you think murder is wrong. Some people might prefer to not eat meat, but nobody has an obligation to not eat meat.
That's exactly wrong. I haven't made a thread about stopping murders because murder is illegal pretty much everywhere. If you want there to be a thread about stopping murder between humans, you're welcome to make a thread about it. I don't think you'll find many people who want to debate you on that subject, however. I won't discuss it at length in here because it would be off-topic, just like those pages on the subject of plants.
Just by living in a commonwealth full of people who don't want to be murdered, you are tacitly agreeing to help them prevent murders. Most of the time, this obligation is mediated through your tax dollars, which pay law enforcement to apprehend the killers and judges to sentence them. But if you see a murder or know of one, you are obligated to provide your statement, legally and ethically. That you consider this optional from a moral standpoint is very worrisome.
So yes, murder is wrong, and you do have to stop it. I don't expect you to jump in front of the bullet, but if you make a 911 call and make yourself available for questioning, you'll have done your job. Unless you'd like to investigate the different kinds of murder you might ignore, I think you should let this point go. -
2018-04-04 at 10:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick That's exactly wrong. I haven't made a thread about stopping murders because murder is illegal pretty much everywhere. If you want there to be a thread about stopping murder between humans, you're welcome to make a thread about it. I don't think you'll find many people who want to debate you on that subject, however. I won't discuss it at length in here because it would be off-topic, just like those pages on the subject of plants.
Just by living in a commonwealth full of people who don't want to be murdered, you are tacitly agreeing to help them prevent murders. Most of the time, this obligation is mediated through your tax dollars, which pay law enforcement to apprehend the killers and judges to sentence them. But if you see a murder or know of one, you are obligated to provide your statement, legally and ethically. That you consider this optional from a moral standpoint is very worrisome.
So yes, murder is wrong, and you do have to stop it. I don't expect you to jump in front of the bullet, but if you make a 911 call and make yourself available for questioning, you'll have done your job. Unless you'd like to investigate the different kinds of murder you might ignore, I think you should let this point go.
No, there is no moral obligation. People are not morally obligated to do anything. Some people prefer to live life a certain way, but they have no moral obligation to. -
2018-04-04 at 10:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe No, there is no moral obligation. People are not morally obligated to do anything. Some people prefer to live life a certain way, but they have no moral obligation to.
You could dispose of the entire discipline of ethics with such an argument. I don't believe that is your intention, though.
I think that you're arguing in bad faith. You don't like that my thread became successful and yours didn't. That's why you grafted the discussion about plants here, and that's why you're trying to drown us in circular logic crafted specifically to stifle discussion. I'd appreciate if this passive-aggressive behavior would stop. I never did anything to you, I just happened to make a thread that took off and now I'm trying to maintain it. It's really not so different from yours, in that regard. -
2018-04-04 at 11:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe No, there is no moral obligation. People are not morally obligated to do anything. Some people prefer to live life a certain way, but they have no moral obligation to.
Originally posted by Zanick You could dispose of the entire discipline of ethics with such an argument.
Originally posted by Zanick I think you should let this point go.
-
2018-04-04 at 11:10 PM UTCYes, believe it or not, it's difficult arguing ethics with someone who expects you to pull an ethic out of a hat.
