User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-11-20 at 3:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I agree with you, but was hoping for more concrete reasoning than that. Is there a way to determine if a life is objectively worth living or is that subjective?
I believe there is, in some abstract sense, and objective measure of the quality of a life, and a sufficiency criterion for what constitutes a life worth living. But I have no idea how to go about finding the objective measure of the quality of a life. I think there is an objective answer to the question, like I think it's an objective fact that an living 100 years and experiencing nothing but suffering in that time is worse than living for 100 years and having a fulfilling, personally meaningful life. That's kind of built into the meaning of "fulfilling" and "suffering". That doesn't mean I can say former is worth negative 990 utils and the latter positive 46 utils or something, or that I look at any given life and make a final call and say "that's a life worth living", just that there do seem to be objective cases. -
2018-11-21 at 12:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I have a strong utilitarian position on abortion: the further along a fetus is, the more pleasure I derive from its painful termination. The grief of would-be mothers and angels weeping in Heaven cannot compare to my enjoyment of late-term abortions, so reason demands that we encourage them.
Lets do a late term abortion on you.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-11-21 at 12:57 AM UTC
-
2018-11-21 at 12:02 PM UTC
-
2018-11-22 at 2:06 AM UTC
-
2018-11-22 at 6:47 AM UTC
-
2018-11-24 at 9:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny It does lead to the conclusion that there are some scenarios where abortion can't be justified but, unlike many utilitarians I've talked to, that's never really bothered me.
I don't care if it doesn't bother you. I don't care if eating meat doesn't bother you.
I care as to whether you think it's okay to pick and choose when the rules of your system of morality are applied, and when they are ignored, and why you think it is or isn't okay to ignore them. "It doesn't bother me" is not an acceptable reason to me. -
2018-11-24 at 10:09 PM UTCMeat is a good idea to only have a few days of sleep and I am perfectly sure that I am not black or white or anything like that out there is no fix for me to really go out of the way to make it work for you and feel for me that you should take antibiotics and make sure that you are a special type of person who can understand common sense about hot dangly bits and pieces of the world is skewed and you can get a ticket for less than 1000 minutes of the time and I want you to know that I am not going to be moving to the hospital right now if you are born somewhere else in the same area that you are literally dying to know about you celebrating the 4th or the first day of the month that you are going through the holidays and will be responding to your favorite book of the year and you're still getting dope hookups from crackheads and wandering the streets in the middle of the Pacific and I hope you can get a license by end of the night wins and then you can fuck off the highway and get a good deal on your car insurance coverage online car insurance coverage online car insurance coverage online car insurance coverage online car insurance coverage online car insurance coverage online car insurance coverage online
-
2018-11-24 at 10:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano I don't care if it doesn't bother you. I don't care if eating meat doesn't bother you.
I care as to whether you think it's okay to pick and choose when the rules of your system of morality are applied, and when they are ignored, and why you think it is or isn't okay to ignore them. "It doesn't bother me" is not an acceptable reason to me.
I think you really missed the point of my post and took that quote well out of context. I was quite clear that being able to suffer or feel pleasure is what I hold to confer moral considerably. I don't think it's ever "okay" to ignore a true moral principle. I didn't argue we should "look the other way" in the case of abortion, I gave you a moral justification for abortion. Then I softened my position by saying I don't think abortion is always permissible, which is what you quoted.
The fact that you selected that line to quote, and since you're presumably anti-abortion, it makes me think you actually took the exact opposite meaning. I'm saying that sometimes we can't justify abortion, I would think that's a statement you'd agree with. -
2018-11-25 at 1:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I think you really missed the point of my post
YesThe fact that you selected that line to quote, and since you're presumably anti-abortion, it makes me think you actually took the exact opposite meaning. I'm saying that sometimes we can't justify abortion, I would think that's a statement you'd agree with.
Abortion is totally killing a human, even if it is just killing a zygote.
That being said, I think killing zygote/fetus is acceptable.
Basically, it doesn't really affect anyone else besides momma and perhaps papa, and nobody else cares. Momma votes no, and zygus obviously doesn't get a vote.
The vote is 1 to zero, and since zygus is semi-parasitic in the first place and can cause damage to momma's bod, it is an understandable perception that Zygus is inherently offensive in some ways.
But yeah, no, it's killing a human. There's no getting around that.
Killing a fetus after halftime is in pretty bad taste as well, how much fucking time do you need to make up your mind, and like, if you're that close to the end, why would you let yourself blow up and carry that shit for so many months and throw away all that work? That shit is retarded. -
2018-11-25 at 7:19 AM UTCBiologically it's not as clear cut as "zygotes are humans", many things we wouldn't consider moral agents in a million years contain as much human DNA and are as "alive" as a zygote is. E.g. every skin cell in your body has as much generic material in it as the initial stages of a fetus, but we don't consider it ending a human life when we scrape ourselves killing many such cells.
But it's not even really an issue either way. I can grant you that zygotes are "humans" and abortion is "killing a human", this still does not make abortion categorically impermissible to the utilitarian. "Never kill a human under any circumstances" is at no point a utilitarian moral principle. To deem abortion ethical poses no issue of inconsistency nor involves "ignoring" some moral principle. -
2018-11-25 at 11:53 AM UTC
-
2018-11-25 at 12:40 PM UTCI don't like snarky Zanick. I like earnest Zanick.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-11-25 at 6:40 PM UTC
-
2018-11-26 at 5:32 AM UTC
-
2018-11-26 at 12:52 PM UTC
-
2018-12-20 at 12:20 PM UTC
-
2018-12-20 at 12:23 PM UTC*pulls chair*
*grabs popcorn* -
2018-12-20 at 2:37 PM UTC
-
2018-12-20 at 3:47 PM UTCWanted to address this oldpost to shift the thread into an interesting direction.
Originally posted by The Self Taught Man Serious question, how do you guys feel about the morality of eating something like this:
(start at 1:13)
(start at 1:13 bitch)
Never saw a moral problem but such a being wouldn't really come into existence through evolution, as I can t really see how this or any proto-urge like this would be a reproductive advantage.
You might be able to engineer such a being, but the morality of that is a little more murky and we can talk about that.
I'm imagining something that can generate good food intelligently, though.
Imagine if there was a smooth monkey that, when scared, shits out tasty protein cubes that taste like its own meat, but better and more nutritious.
The creature's survival to reproduction would rely on its ability to satisfy its predator. This being would spend most of its time consuming lots of calories so it could sustain itself as well as it's predator. This high caloric requirement could wipe it out, but it could also lead to the development of intelligence, as the most optimized and adaptable foragers would get the most success.
After millennia of being fed protein cubes by smart monkeys, it turns out that he predators have completely forgotten that they ever hunted the monkeys, and now see them as their generous providers. At some point in this process, the two species started cooperating closely, so as to leverage the talents of each, in the form of agriculture. Now the smooth monkeys are fed in excess and this means that they automatically generate food for the preds. Resources must be managed and crates must be moved around. Monkeys and press are trained for new jobs. There are boss monkeys and preds because some are just better leaders. Hierarchies form. They live together in abundance, and engage in politics. They have societies. They must ensure the monkeys must never cut off the food supply. Alternative means of protein cube synthesis are created.
And Bismillah, there is peace on Protein Earth.
