User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-22 at 10:50 PM UTCAnyone clear yet on when we stop eating altogether? Since we can’t eat anything without harming it etcThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-22 at 10:55 PM UTCYou can't harm fruit, because it is just a product of the living organism.
-
2018-06-22 at 10:58 PM UTCIf I cut my arm off will you eat it? It won’t be harmful unattached
-
2018-06-22 at 11:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kinks If I cut my arm off will you eat it? It won’t be harmful unattached
Not the same, because a tree doesn't feel any discomfort or pain when relieved of its fruit. Leaves are also a product of the tree, and are rich in vitamins and all sorts of healthy and beneficial substances. Fungus and moss and such could also be considered a product, and not an actual living organism. Many plants can also be relieved of their vegetables and the plant itself replanted. -
2018-06-22 at 11:20 PM UTCI feel the trees hurt when I trip over their roots.
-
2018-06-22 at 11:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe No, the hypothetical situation was that these lifeforms were capable of experiencing "well being" and "suffering". I never mentioned anything about these lifeforms being more morally considerable than us. However you did state that if these lifeforms were found to be capable of an equal "depth of feeling" as animals, that you would feel obligated to die rather than eat them. Doesn't that mean you would consider these lifeforms to be more morally considerable than your own self, so much so that you would give your own life for the sake of their lives?
The situation you proposed was that plants were morally considerable, you didn't say how morally considerable. I addressed the situation where they were morally considerable but only a little (we would be justified in eating them) and where they were very morally considerable (we wouldn't be justified in eating them). So yes, there is a hypothetical scenario where I think plants are more morally considerable than people and that scenario is "imagine if plants were more morally considerable than people". I don't think this is anywhere close to being a reality.That seems strange to me. I also don't believe it. I do believe that if you were starving you would eat these hypothetical lifeforms, and I believe you would eat meat if you were starving, too. If you were starving and all that was available was murdered chickens I do believe you would eat those chickens, morality be damned.
Wether or not you think I'm capable of acting according to my values doesn't really change the moral fact of the situation. Also like I said before, because I think animals are less morally considerable than humans I think we're wholly justified in killing lower animals if it saves a human life. I just don't think we're justified in killing animals to satisfy our preference for meat.I guess not. I don't think it would really matter at all. If a superior being came to Earth to experiment on us and didn't care about how immoral we thought the experiment was, it wouldn't matter how immoral we thought it was, it would happen no matter what we thought. And as far as we know, maybe the alien is experimenting on us for reasons that would excuse any perceived immorality if only we could comprehend it!
So anyway, why do you believe it would be absolutely wrong because some humans believe it would be wrong?
I don't believe it would be absolutely wrong because some humans believe it would be wrong. You've framed the situation like I think morality follows from opinion, but it doesn't. Things are wrong or right or morally neutral as a matter of fact, to deny this is to misunderstand what the meaning of "ought" is. Now you can take the position known as "moral error theory" and argue that there are no morally right or wrong acts (i.e. every act is morally neutral) but you can't hold that an act is right from one perspective and wrong from another.
This is the same reason it's possible to do wrong without knowing it (e.g. in harming beings you don't recognize as being capable of suffering). The moral status of the action has nothing to do with what you know or think about the moral status of the action, it's a fact and like all facts it's possible to be wrong about it. -
2018-06-22 at 11:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kinks I feel the trees hurt when I trip over their roots.
When you consider how a plant "feels", it's best to first look at the capabilities and components of the organism. It may very well be that the organism is incapable of "feeling' at all. Some might, others might not. It all depends on their exact makeup. -
2018-06-23 at 12:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader isnt this how the world had, has always been ???
morality has always been dictated by the strong.
No, because you are a retard and believe "the strong" is a thing. It's not. There is no person on this planet who would feel safe if it was legal to kill them because they relinquished their right to life to take yours. Specially not since the invention of firearms. The "strong" can choose not to obey that morality, but they would have no justification for safeguarding their own rights. -
2018-06-23 at 6:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain No, because you are a retard and believe "the strong" is a thing. It's not. There is no person on this planet who would feel safe if it was legal to kill them because they relinquished their right to life to take yours. Specially not since the invention of firearms. The "strong" can choose not to obey that morality, but they would have no justification for safeguarding their own rights.
you havent spoke to those good iraqis who had lived under ISIS ...
have you. -
2018-06-24 at 11:36 AM UTC
-
2018-06-24 at 1:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader you havent spoke to those good iraqis who had lived under ISIS …
have you.
You mean those guys who've accepted that they'll be killed if someone stronger gets their hands on them?
Morality belonging to "the strong" doesn't contradict or challenge my view. In fact, it aids my moral system. But unfortunately, it is not true. -
2018-06-24 at 1:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The situation you proposed was that plants were morally considerable, you didn't say how morally considerable. I addressed the situation where they were morally considerable but only a little (we would be justified in eating them) and where they were very morally considerable (we wouldn't be justified in eating them). So yes, there is a hypothetical scenario where I think plants are more morally considerable than people and that scenario is "imagine if plants were more morally considerable than people". I don't think this is anywhere close to being a reality.
Wether or not you think I'm capable of acting according to my values doesn't really change the moral fact of the situation. Also like I said before, because I think animals are less morally considerable than humans I think we're wholly justified in killing lower animals if it saves a human life. I just don't think we're justified in killing animals to satisfy our preference for meat.
I don't believe it would be absolutely wrong because some humans believe it would be wrong. You've framed the situation like I think morality follows from opinion, but it doesn't. Things are wrong or right or morally neutral as a matter of fact, to deny this is to misunderstand what the meaning of "ought" is. Now you can take the position known as "moral error theory" and argue that there are no morally right or wrong acts (i.e. every act is morally neutral) but you can't hold that an act is right from one perspective and wrong from another.
This is the same reason it's possible to do wrong without knowing it (e.g. in harming beings you don't recognize as being capable of suffering). The moral status of the action has nothing to do with what you know or think about the moral status of the action, it's a fact and like all facts it's possible to be wrong about it.
Just switch to categorical imperativism like me. -
2018-06-24 at 4:29 PM UTC
-
2018-06-24 at 4:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain You mean those guys who've accepted that they'll be killed if someone stronger gets their hands on them?
Morality belonging to "the strong" doesn't contradict or challenge my view. In fact, it aids my moral system. But unfortunately, it is not true.
i think were not on the same page about what is and is not ''morality''.
can you ... for the benefit of the thread, define what is and is not ''morality'' here ??? -
2018-06-24 at 4:33 PM UTCJFC you idiots have taken entirely too long to figure this shit out
-
2018-06-24 at 4:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader i think were not on the same page about what is and is not ''morality''.
can you … for the benefit of the thread, define what is and is not ''morality'' here ???
Simply that I have no justification for doing anything to anyone else that I would not permit someone else to do to me, and I expect everyone to try to act in their own best interest, whatever that means to them.
If you follow this capitalist line of logic forward, (absolute freedoms cancel each other out), it provides the greatest "expected value" of freedom to express your own self interest in any form, if we give up "state of nature" freedoms like the freedom to kill someone else.
"The strong" (just for the sake of argument) can choose to do something to another, if they choose to accept that anyone else would also be justified in doing the same to them. But pragmatically, even "the strong" probably wouldn't like to walk around excommunicated from their right to life, so they are free game for murder.
If you can accept that then OK, but you better be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you are fine with that, then I don't see you as a personally immoral person, but it wouldn't be immoral to kill you either, principally because you relinquished your right to life and practically because you would threaten everyone else's right to life by existing, so I expect you'd get slaughtered pretty fast. -
2018-06-24 at 4:59 PM UTCWe're exactly on the same page, except I know that "the strong" isn't a thing.
-
2018-06-24 at 5:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain We're exactly on the same page, except I know that "the strong" isn't a thing.
no, i dont think we are.
anyway, do you know whay the japanese POWs had no respect for their american and russian captors ???
yeass, like north korea, china was divided into two between russians and americans post WW2. -
2018-06-25 at 2:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The situation you proposed was that plants were morally considerable, you didn't say how morally considerable. I addressed the situation where they were morally considerable but only a little (we would be justified in eating them) and where they were very morally considerable (we wouldn't be justified in eating them). So yes, there is a hypothetical scenario where I think plants are more morally considerable than people and that scenario is "imagine if plants were more morally considerable than people". I don't think this is anywhere close to being a reality.
Wether or not you think I'm capable of acting according to my values doesn't really change the moral fact of the situation. Also like I said before, because I think animals are less morally considerable than humans I think we're wholly justified in killing lower animals if it saves a human life. I just don't think we're justified in killing animals to satisfy our preference for meat.
I don't believe it would be absolutely wrong because some humans believe it would be wrong. You've framed the situation like I think morality follows from opinion, but it doesn't. Things are wrong or right or morally neutral as a matter of fact, to deny this is to misunderstand what the meaning of "ought" is. Now you can take the position known as "moral error theory" and argue that there are no morally right or wrong acts (i.e. every act is morally neutral) but you can't hold that an act is right from one perspective and wrong from another.
This is the same reason it's possible to do wrong without knowing it (e.g. in harming beings you don't recognize as being capable of suffering). The moral status of the action has nothing to do with what you know or think about the moral status of the action, it's a fact and like all facts it's possible to be wrong about it.
Morality is not a fact, morality is relative. Acts that are right from one perspective are wrong from another perspective. I don't understand how you could possibly believe something could be objectively right or wrong. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that morality is absolute and not relative? -
2018-06-25 at 5:54 PM UTCIt's not even an issue of morality, it's an issue of right and wrong. When something is wrong, it inevitably doesn't meet with success. When something is right, it inevitably meets with success. For example, if you build a table wrong, it will inevitably collapse. If you build the table right, it will last for years. When humanity does not live in harmony with nature, it is wrong, and bound to fail at some point.
