User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-12-31 at 6:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny These are questions that need to be addressed empirically, I'm not committed to an answer one way or another and am willing to change my position based on new evidence. As best I can tell bee hives probably don't have hedonic faculties, although they do have some very interesting emergent behaviors so I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Bees don't seem to really possess the required faculties to ask questions like "is it morally permissible to sting such and such". I think most humans have the intellectual capacity to engage in moral reasoning, and most do at least sometimes, although I suppose I can imagine people so strongly conditioned by a program of religious indoctrination that they can at least partially be excused for their conduct that follows from that.
No. Firstly this isn't really a "shitlib" phenomenon. Second you can think it's not OK to strike your child without letting them wreak havoc in restaurants, it turns out there's more ways to make a child behave in socially acceptable ways than inflicting physical pain on them. Lastly, and this is the only point that's actually relevant to the topic, it's wholly possible to say something isn't at fault but still take "punitive" action against it. We don't ascribe moral agency to earthquakes, but we still construct buildings to withstand them. Likewise I don't think a child has full moral agency, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should be above punishment or that we shouldn't do what we can to mitigate their undesirable behavior. They're just not morally accountable for their actions.
You don't have to be a moral realist to understand what is meant by the term "moral obligation" in the title of this thread.
No, but I think I would need to be a moral realist to agree with what you mean by that term. -
2018-12-31 at 6:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Loing There is no objective reason to deliver pizza, but on the basis of the fact that we do deliver pizza, we can come to factual conclusions on all sorts of aspects of reality.
Our desires are literally empirical data about the world, and we can model them in terms of how they interact. You can do this however you want. Categorical imperative, social contract, game theory… But if you can accept the data and the premises, you cannot reject the conclusions. To not grasp this is just a basic failure of understanding. It's literally no different than any hard science endeavour either, at its most basic level. That's how we can see an 8% neutron excess on a graph and make a strong claim about finding a fundamental particle of the universe.
And you can build from axioms that would apply to any normal, able bodied, mentally sound agent, from their perspective.
For example, the basic right to life. If someone wants to keep doing things at all, they want to stay alive. We can take that as an axiom, and draw conclusions based on that in a wheelchair variety of different models.
No there's no inherent meaning to it. That is not a thing. But it has meaning to us, the same way anything else does.
I don't believe I ever disputed that. -
2018-12-31 at 6:14 PM UTCLamny is a cock gobbler who doesn't know what to do with it and we have a lot of middle ground
-
2019-01-01 at 12:05 AM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 12:35 AM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 12:52 AM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 1:04 AM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 1:14 AM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 1:26 AM UTCTo summarize: I take issue with claims like "what is right(moral facts) is a matter of opinion" which you seem to champion here. This is a misunderstanding of what is meant by "right" or "moral facts". You can understand what is meant by the term without holding there are any true moral facts. By analogy, somebody might say "facts about phlogiston are a matter of opinion" and this would be a similar misunderstanding. Presumably we agree that there is no true positive fact as to the color of phlogiston, since it doesn't exist, but we can pretty easily say there is a truth value to statements like "phlogiston is green" or "phlogiston exists".
I don't ask that you agree that any particular moral fact is true, but there is no point trying to justify a particular moral fact (i.e. that we that shouldn't eat meat) if you refuse to acknowledge what the term "moral fact" signifies in any such justification. -
2019-01-01 at 1:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny To summarize: I take issue with claims like "what is right(moral facts) is a matter of opinion" which you seem to champion here. This is a misunderstanding of what is meant by "right" or "moral facts". You can understand what is meant by the term without holding there are any true moral facts. By analogy, somebody might say "facts about phlogiston are a matter of opinion" and this would be a similar misunderstanding. Presumably we agree that there is no true positive fact as to the color of phlogiston, since it doesn't exist, but we can pretty easily say there is a truth value to statements like "phlogiston is green" or "phlogiston exists".
I don't ask that you agree that any particular moral fact is true, but there is no point trying to justify a particular moral fact (i.e. that we that shouldn't eat meat) if you refuse to acknowledge what the term "moral fact" signifies in any such justification.
So you argue that you have thought your way into acquiring an obligation that you would not have had you not considered the question.
In other words you must suffer due to your intellect. -
2019-01-01 at 2:27 AM UTCIt's called a hypothetical it ain't fucking complicated.
-
2019-01-01 at 2:30 AM UTCThis entire thread has been about sucking dick all along and you’ve all argued it for 2331 posts
-
2019-01-01 at 2:30 AM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 2:34 AM UTCNo. I am going to stand here and let it enjoy the night breeze.
-
2019-01-01 at 3:38 AM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 3:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I don't ask that you agree that any particular moral fact is true, but there is no point trying to justify a particular moral fact (i.e. that we that shouldn't eat meat) if you refuse to acknowledge what the term "moral fact" signifies in any such justification.
it seems to me like what yoir reffering to is more like a moral hypothesis, and if your ignorant enough, you can call it a moral theory.
but it is still lightyears away from beimg a moral fact.
this is a fact. -
2019-01-01 at 3:50 AM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 3:51 AM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 3:54 AM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 5:24 AM UTC
