User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-07 at 1:45 AM UTCnext off topic bullshit post gets an all expenses paid week long vacation to anywhere but here. Who wants it?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-07 at 1:46 AM UTC
-
2018-06-07 at 1:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Posting what you had for dinner isn't really a discussion of the ethics of eating meat, but you'll notice that wasn't what I deleted. It was half page of penis jokes and non sequitur posts.
Originally posted by Lanny next off topic bullshit post gets an all expenses paid week long vacation to anywhere but here. Who wants it?
youre only emphasizing my point that youre a HIPPOcritical unterbottom bitch. everything i posted was HOLEly on topic and CUMpletely relevant to not only the thread TITle but in accordance with the post for which the reply was replied.
restore the post i made, shitbag. it was completely relevant and clearly on topic. that...and youre the FUCKing reTURD that thinks its funny to make word enhancements into fag-dick jokes.
COCKodile
alliGAYtor
masturbated
almost dead
^ thats all you and your retard word-enhancement, dipSHIT. all relevant and on topic since COCKodiles and alliGAYtors are both harvestable meat products and almost dead is relevant to their harvesting, especially when they masturbate while being hunted.
you dont have the mental capacity to determine what a non-sequitur is regardless of its CUNTtent.
now stfu and go ban yourself for being a reTURD, reTURD.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-07 at 3:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Human children below a certain age aren't able to observe laws or respect a social contract either. Do you think they're also excluded from moral consideration as well?
I don't view a person as a vertical slice at one point in time. A human child can and will eventually grow to respect a social contract. An animal will not.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-07 at 4:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain I don't view a person as a vertical slice at one point in time. A human child can and will eventually grow to respect a social contract. An animal will not.
So would you say that it's the potential to respect a social contract that makes a thing morally considerable? Or do you propose some kind of non-temporal essence of persons (souls?) that confers moral considerability ? Or something else? -
2018-06-07 at 5:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny So would you say that it's the potential to respect a social contract that makes a thing morally considerable? Or do you propose some kind of non-temporal essence of persons (souls?) that confers moral considerability ? Or something else?
In a way.
Essentially, my morality is essentially Golden Rule operated under the veil of ignorance. For example, I would not want someone to have killed me as a kid, so I don't do it to
If
- the universe is deterministic
- time is a dimension
- the evolution of the system we call our universe (aka motion) is essentially based on our change in position along that t-axis, which appears to be the independent variable in this case.
By this logic I am lead to believe that all the past and future states of this system "exist". We simply happen to be reading the states that correspond to one point along that axis.
From this, I come to conclude that you either are or are not worthy of moral consideration, there is no question of becoming it.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-07 at 5:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Essentially, my morality is essentially Golden Rule operated under the veil of ignorance. For example, I would not want someone to have killed me as a kid, so I don't do it to
Well that gives us contents for a moral theory, but what we were discussing recently is scope, i.e. moral considerability. You wouldn't want someone to kill and eat you for their enjoyment right now, so if you find this justifiable in the case of say cattle, then there's some other criterion for deciding if a thing's desires or interests are morally relevant.If
- the universe is deterministic
- time is a dimension
- the evolution of the system we call our universe (aka motion) is essentially based on our change in position along that t-axis, which appears to be the independent variable in this case.
By this logic I am lead to believe that all the past and future states of this system "exist". We simply happen to be reading the states that correspond to one point along that axis.
From this, I come to conclude that you either are or are not worthy of moral consideration, there is no question of becoming it.
Those seem like some significant assumptions but ok, let's grant them. So are you saying a child's moral considerability stems from the fact that they will, at some point in a deterministic future, participate in a social contract? -
2018-06-07 at 6:07 AM UTCWe're seriously starting this fucking thread again?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-07 at 6:07 AM UTC
-
2018-06-07 at 11:02 AM UTCI was going to write a longer response to Lanny but I'm going to make things a lot simpler:
Originally posted by Lanny Well that gives us contents for a moral theory, but what we were discussing recently is scope, i.e. moral considerability. You wouldn't want someone to kill and eat you for their enjoyment right now, so if you find this justifiable in the case of say cattle, then there's some other criterion for deciding if a thing's desires or interests are morally relevant.
Those seem like some significant assumptions but ok, let's grant them. So are you saying a child's moral considerability stems from the fact that they will, at some point in a deterministic future, participate in a social contract?
Sure, let's call it potential to participate in the social contract -
2018-06-07 at 5:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain I was going to write a longer response to Lanny but I'm going to make things a lot simpler:
Sure, let's call it potential to participate in the social contract
OK, so let's suppose Joe Psychopath happens upon a healthy looking child who's like, IDK, 4 or 5 or something. An age before they can appreciate the idea of a social contract. Joe tortures the child inflicting a lot of pain a maiming them for life. Joe goes on his way thinking he's done a good job of ruining or significantly degrading the child's life.
But there's a twist: unbeknownst to anyone, the child has a rare heart condition that's going to cause him to die in a few months or years. The universe is, per your assumption, deterministic meaning the child will die inevitably. The child's person also never extends forwards far enough to participate in a social contract and thus never had potential to do so.
In such a case, under your model, we seem committed to say Joe Psychopath did nothing wrong as the temporally extended child is not morally considerable. Now of course we can't say he was justified in torturing the child as he had no way to know that the child was not morally considerable, but we would seem to have to say he serendipitously avoided doing wrong by harming a morally irrelevant being. -
2018-06-07 at 6:02 PM UTCBoth the child and animal can feel pain regardless of whether or not they will be able to honor a future agreement so the potential to enter into a social contract should really not be considered a valid argument.
-
2018-06-07 at 6:11 PM UTCMorality is relative, nobody has any obligation to adopt another's personal preferences, and I'm thinking about going so far to say that morality is irrelevant, what is "best" for us must be determined by something other than "morality".
-
2018-06-07 at 6:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by ohfralala Both the child and animal can feel pain regardless of whether or not they will be able to honor a future agreement so the potential to enter into a social contract should really not be considered a valid argument.
I totally agree, I think the ability to feel pain is enough for a thing to be morally considerable, thus killing animals in order to eat them isn't morally justifiable. I just brought up the child case because flaco was arguing for a social contract approach to moral considerability. -
2018-06-07 at 6:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Morality is relative
That's a claim but I don't think you've made much of a case for it. While Captain and I disagree on what makes a thing morally considerably I imagine we'd agree that morality is not relative. Both ability to participate in a social contract and ability to feel pain are objective qualities, and we clearly feel like the argument that follows from those objective facts and ends in moral obligations is sound, so just proclaiming that morality is relative isn't very convincing. -
2018-06-07 at 6:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Posting what you had for dinner isn't really a discussion of the ethics[/] of eating meat,
ethics ??? i thot this thread was about the MORALITY, or the lack of it while consuming meats.
none say anything about ethics, now go bann yourself for posting, and attempting to derail this thread into a thread about ethics of eating meat.
oh, on topic related :
all living things, big or small, plant or animals, are sentient beings.A video posted on the Chinese social media site Weibo showed the small crustacean struggling out of a bowl of piping hot spicy soup.
But the creature realised one of its claws was slowing its escape and without any hesitation used its other claw to slice it off and wriggle free.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/crayfish-cuts-claw-escape-being-12642053
with some semblance of intelligence.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-07 at 6:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny That's a claim but I don't think you've made much of a case for it. While Captain and I disagree on what makes a thing morally considerably I imagine we'd agree that morality is not relative. Both ability to participate in a social contract and ability to feel pain are objective qualities, and we clearly feel like the argument that follows from those objective facts and ends in moral obligations is sound, so just proclaiming that morality is relative isn't very convincing.
If morality wasn't relative we wouldn't need to argue about what is and isn't moral because everyone would already agree. -
2018-06-07 at 6:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Morality is relative, nobody has any obligation to adopt another's personal preferences, and I'm thinking about going so far to say that morality is irrelevant, what is "best" for us must be determined by something other than "morality".
I agree with morality being relative. What factor (or factors), then, would you use to determine what is best for us? Would you only consider necessary variables for survival with zero regard for emotional needs/facets.
And at that point would you say meat is absolutely necessary for survival? -
2018-06-07 at 6:41 PM UTC
-
2018-06-07 at 6:42 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
