User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-01-27 at 9:13 PM UTCThis is my jam. subbed.
-
2019-01-27 at 9:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Good for whom?
Perhaps it is good for fred, but not good for someone with less money in the case of an insulin shortage. Which is a true threat given how expensive it is.
This is exactly what I was telling you in the post I quoted. Good is contingent upon circumstance, there are some situations where injecting insulin is good, some where it is bad. But which situation is which is more that a mere matter of opinion.The former would imply that actions are universally good or bad, and the latter would imply that actions may be only referentially good or bad (but not necessarily in every case).
Again, you still haven't told us what you think "referential" means, I haven't argued that morality is or isn't "referential" because I have no idea what you mean by it. -
2019-01-27 at 9:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny This is exactly what I was telling you in the post I quoted. Good is contingent upon circumstance, there are some situations where injecting insulin is good, some where it is bad. But which situation is which is more that a mere matter of opinion.
In a circumstance is an action "good" as in good for everyone and the entire universe absolutely, or can it be good for just one or more people and simultaneously be a "bad" action for other people or other parts of the universe? -
2019-01-27 at 10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Again, you still haven't told us what you think "referential" means, I haven't argued that morality is or isn't "referential" because I have no idea what you mean by it.
An action can be good or bad to/for a specific person, but it is not inherently or universally a good or bad action.
In other words,
Universal: This action is good. Full stop.
Referential: This action is good to me/you/elmo.
It is good or bad in reference to your personal opinion of what is "good" or "bad".
Do you believe morality is objective (universal) or subjective (referential) -
2019-01-27 at 10:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano In a circumstance is an action "good" as in good for everyone and the entire universe absolutely, or can it be good for just one or more people and simultaneously be a "bad" action for other people or other parts of the universe?
The utilitarian answer is "good" means "net positive utility for the body of morally considerable beings". So like of course sometimes actions help one person or group at the expense of others, a utilitarian says the action is morally permissible if more people are helped to a greater degree than are hurt. -
2019-01-27 at 10:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The utilitarian answer is "good" means "net positive utility for the body of morally considerable beings". So like of course sometimes actions help one person or group at the expense of others, a utilitarian says the action is morally permissible if more people are helped to a greater degree than are hurt.
Do utilitarians have more moral authority than other groups? Is their opinion more correct? A moral relativist might say what is "good" is not necessarily an action that helps more people than it hurts. -
2019-01-27 at 11:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Do utilitarians have more moral authority than other groups? Is their opinion more correct? A moral relativist might say what is "good" is not necessarily an action that helps more people than it hurts.
To answer that question we'd need to get into the subject of metaethics and to do that we'd need a shared understanding of what terms like "moral obligation" mean. -
2019-01-27 at 11:04 PM UTCTechnically, wouldn't it take a consideration of folks who wetr both moral and knew how their particular morality effected them?
-
2019-01-27 at 11:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny To answer that question we'd need to get into the subject of metaethics and to do that we'd need a shared understanding of what terms like "moral obligation" mean.
Actually we can answer that question through the realization that goodness and badness are not objective properties of the world but are imagined values assigned to the world by people who imagine things are good or bad. In light of this realization we can say that what is good is not inherently an action that helps more people than it hurts. -
2019-01-28 at 6:07 AM UTCAlso
Pain is not bad, and plessure is not good. Pleasure has no meaning without pain as reference.
Both are important experiences. -
2019-01-28 at 6:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Actually we can answer that question through the realization that goodness and badness are not objective properties of the world but are imagined values assigned to the world by people who imagine things are good or bad. In light of this realization we can say that what is good is not inherently an action that helps more people than it hurts.
Actually we can answer that through the realization that everything I said is right, and everything you said is wrong.
See what I did there?
Originally posted by DietPiano Also
Pain is not bad, and plessure is not good. Pleasure has no meaning without pain as reference.
Both are important experiences.
That doesn't really seem to be relevant to anything I said. -
2019-01-28 at 8 AM UTCI'm totally on board with the theory that good and bad and it's gradations thereof, are all subjective with no absolute quality to either. When you get into the implications and the logical conclusions thereof, that's where you run into a problem. The logical conclusion to not killing shit we didn't need to, is populations might fall out of equilibrium, and there'd be some chaos until shit stabilized. The logical conclusion of judging that another sentient life form is unworthy of your consideration, and subject to destruction for your foodstuffs...that gets a bit more weird.
Idk I still eat meat, but I acknowledge that not doing that is something to strive for. If I were hunting and killing my own food, I'd almost feel better about it. But the cold, uncalculated judgement that has to be present in cases of factory farming and meat production....it causes a fuckton of cognitive dissonance. And usually that's a red flag. In any other context we'd think it monstrous. (And we do- i.e. Yulin, etc)
/pedantic douchery -
2019-01-28 at 11:03 AM UTC
-
2019-01-28 at 11:07 AM UTCthat's like... the point
-
2019-01-28 at 11:22 AM UTCI thought you have been attempting to make that case but I guess you're really just wasting time.
-
2019-01-28 at 11:24 AM UTC[semantics]
-
2019-01-28 at 12:10 PM UTC
-
2019-01-28 at 12:42 PM UTC
-
2019-01-28 at 3:46 PM UTC
-
2019-01-28 at 3:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe In the future there will be a "cure" for evil. Someone like Lanny will decide what behaviors are unacceptable and through a combination of genetic modifications, psychological manipulation and fixed medication, human beings will be incapable of "acting out".
I mean I sort of get it. Killing something- while natural- falls a bit outside of subjectivity though. If killing things is okay, why is it sometimes not okay (legally). Why do most people have a gut reaction to seeing something die?
