User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-09-17 at 5 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Goals is a fuzzy word.
Script is better. Just as a drive belt is scripted to run until it breaks or is interupted (which are also scripted events), people and other living things are probably scripted according to their genes.
I am also beginning to think that free will may not exist, and that our thoughts and feelings are simply played out according to our genetic/physical composition.
We analyze everything, and everything we do is an analysis. How you react to something is an analysis based on your life experiences, your composition, and the moment in spacetime you are in. Given those exact parameters, I believe it is likely that a person will react to a given thing the exact same way every time if such a thing could be recreated. This line of thinking leads me to believe that it is unlikely that we have free will.
I may start calling this theory the "Only analysis" theory.
So this is starting to sound a lot like the determinism/free will issue which is pretty much orthogonal to moral positions. You can find moral realists, relativists, and nihilists who hold just about any possible stance on issues of determinism or free will.Why?
What is special about humans that gives them the ability to throw disregard to other species at whimsy? Why treat any other species with any respect if it admissable to brutalize some other species?
I feel like this point as been addressed several times now. There are varied reasons that we don't extend moral considerably universally. Two common reasons (although perhaps mutually exclusive) you'll find already given in this very thread is that moral considerably relies on the intellectual faculties required to enter into a social contract, which is something many forms of life lack (the deontological view). The other is that moral considerably requires hedonic faculty, the ability to feel pain or pleasure, which seems to be lacking. You might make the argument another poster made above that plants or perhaps all lifeforms do possess this quality, but that's a matter of empirical research we have to undertake. If you accept this criterion for moral considerably think evidence does not point to plants having this quality, then it's wholly reasonable to exclude plants from moral consideration.
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny no ? then i;l concede i have no idea what your saying when you said this:
"Firstly "intelligence" is not a term with a uniform definition. Many you'll find are vacuous and apply so broadly as to include clearly emotionally and experientially inert objects. One of my favorite definitions hinges on having "knowledge" which seems to substitute the problem of assigning a good definition to the word "intelligence" to the much larger project of defining knowledge."
I was saying that "intelligence" is not a well defined term. I made reference to a common definition of intelligence which includes the notion of knowledge as part of it, but this is incidental.i thought the moral status of something that is 'less immoral' isnt the same as something that is 'very immoral'. the magnitude of immorality doesnt change moral status ?
I never claimed that "the magnitude of immorality doesnt change moral status ?". I said that a thing being morally wrong or not is the contingent on the existence or absence of different, potentially greater, moral wrongs.
-
2018-09-17 at 11:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
I haven't confused one for the other, not accused anyone of doing the same. Maybe you want to reread my post.
It does not.
Yes, that is kind of the meaning of "lesser" and "greater", I said that the existence of a particular wrong in the world doesn't inherently change the moral status of another wrong, not that all wrongs are equally severe.
Why even bother brining it up if it doesn't matter?
Maybe you'd like to present that evidence for use to examine then.
"Feel" is an imprecise word. If you mean they can respond to the stimulus of touch then yes, they can "feel" in that sense quite obviously. But you'll notice I didn't use the unqualified term "feel", and specifically pointed to "hedonic capacity" as a sufficient criterion for moral capacity. You'd have to demonstrate that plants "feel" in the same sense that we "feel" when we experience pain or emotional states to show an issue with my position.
Again, "goals" is a fuzzy word. We might say a drive belt has the "goal" of communicating force between gears but few, if anyone, believes that drive belts have a moral status beyond "inert".
It's perfectly to take a stance that does not mandate the satisfaction of all preferences, or the preferences of all things e.g. many deontologists believe we have a number moral duties but our duties don't extend to non-human animals or that satisfaction of the preference to continue living is not something we have a duty to respect in all cases.
My dick is 12" long and destroyed your mom's pussy last night. I'm coming for your sissy little vag tonight bitch boy.
Look, Jill has an understudy. -
2018-09-17 at 1:25 PM UTCRead the account of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's encounter with King Nebuchadnezzar.
-
2018-09-17 at 1:31 PM UTC@ Lanny
not all of them do this but plant eaters want meat eaters to feel bad or feel a moral obligation to not eat animals.
scientific evidence shows that plants really do feel and not just responding to touch but plants show intelligence. they remember and learn from their experiences. what scientists are finding is astonishing.
however animals eat plants and humans eat plants and animals.
some plant seeds spread by animals after passing through an animal. It's just one way plants spread.
some plants wither if the fruit isn't picked or something of that nature. I'm not sure how it goes but there is a process something like that.
plants are on the bottom of the food chain when it comes to plants,animals,and humans.
the whole process tends to work towards plant,animal,and human survival.
humans have the teeth and the digestive system to eat both.
I think it's a process designed by nature.
it's harsh to say that plant eaters just want to justify eating plants to criticize meat eaters because I think if plant eaters knew which plants were which they probably wouldn't eat those plants.
they'd do the research rather then just ignore the scientific findings that plants really do feel if it really mattered to them. -
2018-09-17 at 1:40 PM UTC@ Lanny
also
I do agree that the process of how animals are treated (turkeys for example) is cruel. they keep them penned up their whole lives then send them of to be slaughtered. I think much can be changed about how they're treated but I don't agree that man wasn't supposed to eat meat. -
2018-09-17 at 1:49 PM UTCBefore the Great Flood, no one ate meat. They only began eating meat after the Flood, because all vegetation on the ground had been wiped out.
-
2018-09-17 at 2:02 PM UTCI barely eat meat these days but I eat a shitload of fish. WHAT ABOUT FISH AND INSECTS?
-
2018-09-17 at 2:15 PM UTCAs you get older, your body begins to naturally reject the taste for meat. You'll still eat it, but you won't care for it nearly so much. That's your body and its systems beginning to break down.
-
2018-09-17 at 3:59 PM UTCI'm 28.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-17 at 4:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by playingindirt not all of them do this but plant eaters want meat eaters to feel bad or feel a moral obligation to not eat animals.
Speaking for myself, I would like you not to eat meat. How you feel about the matter isn't particularly important.
scientific evidence shows that plants really do feel and not just responding to touch but plants show intelligence. they remember and learn from their experiences. what scientists are finding is astonishing.
Well where is your evidence? I posted previously about how your natgeo clip doesn't really make your point. Is there other "scientific evidence" you're referring to? Would you care to present it and explain how it supports the claim you're trying to make?humans have the teeth and the digestive system to eat both.
I think it's a process designed by nature.
This says nothing about the moral status of eating meat.
it's harsh to say that plant eaters just want to justify eating plants to criticize meat eaters because I think if plant eaters knew which plants were which they probably wouldn't eat those plants.
they'd do the research rather then just ignore the scientific findings that plants really do feel if it really mattered to them.
I could just as easily replace "plant" with "animal" here and have an indictment of your intellectual honesty. What you think the motivations of vegetarians and vegans is, is pretty much irrelevant. If you have "scientific evidence" then let's discuss it, but there's no point accusing me of "ignoring scientific evidence" if you're not willing to engage on the legitimacy of said evidence.
Originally posted by playingindirt also
I do agree that the process of how animals are treated (turkeys for example) is cruel. they keep them penned up their whole lives then send them of to be slaughtered. I think much can be changed about how they're treated but I don't agree that man wasn't supposed to eat meat.
Well that's good. I'm skeptical that there's any way to produce an animal for slaughter that isn't cruel to some degree, but at very least we can agree that farming practices like allowing animals to graze in some sibilance of their natural environment is far better than battery farming operations.
Originally posted by RisiR † I barely eat meat these days but I eat a shitload of fish. WHAT ABOUT FISH AND INSECTS?
It depends on who you ask. I think Zanick would say both are morally considerable. I'm a little doubtful that insects have the neurological sophistication to support pleasure or suffering, and I've heard people make the same claim about fish, but I can't pretend to be familiar with the relevant biological findings on these animals and avoid eating them since I can't really say I'm sure on the matter. What do you think abut fish and insects?
-
2018-09-17 at 4:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I was saying that "intelligence" is not a well defined term. I made reference to a common definition of intelligence which includes the notion of knowledge as part of it, but this is incidental.
and i was saying that it shouldnt, and should never by people who actually knew what intelligence and knowledge are.I never claimed that "the magnitude of immorality doesnt change moral status ?". I said that a thing being morally wrong or not is the contingent on the existence or absence of different, potentially greater, moral wrongs.
somebody please, i need help here. can anyone be kind enough to explain to me what lannys saying cause tbh i have no idea whats he saying. -
2018-09-17 at 4:29 PM UTCoh my god are you fucks still jabbering on about this shit?
. -
2018-09-17 at 4:45 PM UTC@ Lanny
If it really made any difference to you one way or the other you would do the research to find out what scientific evidence there is instead expecting me to do the research for you. writing it off as some crack pot tree hugger hippy notion without doing through research is what people do when they really don't want to know. -
2018-09-17 at 5:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny and i was saying that it shouldnt, and should never by people who actually knew what intelligence and knowledge are.
I don't think you really know what intelligence and knowledge are.
Originally posted by playingindirt If it really made any difference to you one way or the other you would do the research to find out what scientific evidence there is instead expecting me to do the research for you. writing it off as some crack pot tree hugger hippy notion without doing through research is what people do when they really don't want to know.
Well I have done some reading on the matter. At least in more depth of reading than a national geographic video. I've found the evidence wanting. I could as easily say "if it really mattered then you'd evaluate your evidence with a more critical eye than your have".
The point is if you want to make some kind of assertion about what the evidence does or doesn't say, as you have repeatedly in this thread, then the onus is on you to present what "scientific evidence" you're appealing to.
-
2018-09-17 at 5:23 PM UTC
-
2018-09-17 at 5:25 PM UTCYou don't really need to justify what you eat to anyone.
-
2018-09-17 at 6:27 PM UTC
-
2018-09-17 at 6:41 PM UTC
-
2018-09-17 at 9:51 PM UTCNobody has any obligation to eat or to not eat meat. Morality is not objective. None of this really matters.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-17 at 9:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA256
I feel like this point as been addressed several times now. There are varied reasons that we don't extend moral considerably universally. Two common reasons (although perhaps mutually exclusive) you'll find already given in this very thread is that moral considerably relies on the intellectual faculties required to enter into a social contract, which is something many forms of life lack (the deontological view). The other is that moral considerably requires hedonic faculty, the ability to feel pain or pleasure, which seems to be lacking. You might make the argument another poster made above that plants or perhaps all lifeforms do possess this quality, but that's a matter of empirical research we have to undertake. If you accept this criterion for moral considerably think evidence does not point to plants having this quality, then it's wholly reasonable to exclude plants from moral consideration.
Morality relies on arbitrary criterion, such as living things needing to clearly possess intelligence in order to be worthy of moral consideration. Therefor, two people can both be morally consistent yet disagree on the moral imperative of a given subject.
To say that nobody should eat meat because it is morally wrong requires everyone to follow the same arbitrary set of rules, even if they reject the premises of those rules. They would then be forced to do something that they have concluded is morally irrelevant or bad.
If one believes that plants are worthy of moral consideration because they are alive (life being the criteon), then that person is morally consistent. If they thruste their moral rules, which you have not accepted, onto you, whom shall decide whose moral rules are the correcter?
Moral rules are based on sentiment, not empirical evidence. Therefor, they are irrational. I don't accept the premise of irrationality.
However, given the set of moral rules you have imposed upon yourself, your moral position on this issue is consistent.
Originally posted by Lanny moral considerably relies on the intellectual faculties required to enter into a social contract
Why?
