User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-01-30 at 10:42 AM UTCThe entire American meat market structure would be destroyed...though i think lanny may be canadian so he may not care idk
-
2019-01-30 at 11:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny If you thought people looking at objective data and coming to different conclusions is what damns morality then you'd also think the natural sciences and mathematics were simply imaginary. In fact it's difficult to imagine any sort of human pursuit where people don't draw different conclusions from the same data. This has never been a major obstacle in developing human understanding of the world.
I don't believe this damns morality, it just shows us morals are personal preferences. When people come to different conclusions about the goodness or badness of the exact same objective data that tells us more about their preferences than it does about the objective data. In fact, I don't believe what people imagine about the goodness or badness of objective data tells us anything about the objective data at all. How do you believe people can discover the true goodness or badness of objective data? -
2019-01-30 at 11:24 AM UTCSome scientists think we have reason to believe plants posses intelligence and can communicate and can feel pain.
-
2019-02-01 at 4:45 AM UTCWhat is utility depends on the interpretation of the individual, and since everyone has a unique interpretation of such a thing, it is pointless, da.ngerous, irrational, and irresponsible to insist that there is such a thing as utility with an inherent moral feature, as what is utility is subjective to each person and their opinions. There is no inherent utility. There is only utility in reference to each person's subjective interpretation of what utility is. There are no moral truths.
Originally posted by Lanny Why do you think that?
There is no quality evidence that anyone does. Why do you think that pleasure is inherently good and pain is inherently bad? -
2019-02-01 at 4:46 AM UTC.
-
2019-02-01 at 4:47 AM UTClanny, do you think yeasts are capable of experiencing suffering ?
-
2019-02-01 at 4:53 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock ripped off lanny the trannys granny panties to give him a whammy in his faggy saggy fanny then made him say 'spankkk me daddy' and gave him to a nappy picaninny to be his lackey of course they are…if you had to live in his vagina, youd know the meaning of suffering.
i always wonder if vagina yeasts can be fermented into beers and other alcoholated beverages. -
2019-02-01 at 4:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock ripped off lanny the trannys granny panties to give him a whammy in his faggy saggy fanny then made him say 'spankkk me daddy' and gave him to a nappy picaninny to be his lackey yes…it has been done. other types too…toes, armpits, etc
there are some sick fucks out there.
mmm, cunt beer. -
2019-02-01 at 5:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock ripped off lanny the trannys granny panties to give him a whammy in his faggy saggy fanny then made him say 'spankkk me daddy' and gave him to a nappy picaninny to be his lackey thats pretty much how they make a lot of different types of cheeses: extracting bacteria from the various orifices and cavities of different animals.
thanks. i didnt know that. -
2019-02-01 at 7:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER This is probably just a high idea- but Lanny…say someone were able to engineer chickens to grow to essentially what they are now, only they wouldnt have brains, and theyd be immobile. Basically a mammalian sea sponge with feathers. Would you feel morally justified in killing and eating it then? Does your understanding hinge on the experience of pain, or the end of life or….? idk.
Consider this my retarded contribution for the sake of discussion.
Yeah, I think there have been efforts to produce beef pretty much like this, generating meat tissue from harvested cells without ever producing an animal with a nervous system. I think that's perfectly acceptable since there doesn't seem to be anything suffering involved.
Originally posted by Obbe I don't believe this damns morality, it just shows us morals are personal preferences. When people come to different conclusions about the goodness or badness of the exact same objective data that tells us more about their preferences than it does about the objective data.
People come to different conclusions about subjects in the natural sciences from looking at the exact same objective data.
Originally posted by DietPiano What is utility depends on the interpretation of the individual
No. People may have different opinions on the subject of "what is utility", just as people have different opinions on questions like "what is the shape of the earth?" but that doesn't mean the shape of the earth is a mere matter of interpretation.There is no quality evidence that anyone does.
Wouldn't that be reason to be agnostic on the subject until evidence arises as opposed to being convinced that no one has nor can find moral knowledge? -
2019-02-01 at 11:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny People come to different conclusions about subjects in the natural sciences from looking at the exact same objective data.
Do you think the differences in their conclusions tells us more about objective data or more about their personal preferences?
How do you believe people can discover the true goodness or badness of objective data? -
2019-02-01 at 12:24 PM UTCMorality doesn't wrap its head around eating meat, or NOT!
-
2019-02-01 at 2:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny No. People may have different opinions on the subject of "what is utility", just as people have different opinions on questions like "what is the shape of the earth?" but that doesn't mean the shape of the earth is a mere matter of interpretation.
Wouldn't that be reason to be agnostic on the subject until evidence arises as opposed to being convinced that no one has nor can find moral knowledge?
*Moral Utility
Yes. Yes, of course I don't KNOW that nobody has better evidence than I have witnessed, or that nobody has divine evidence, but since I have not witnessed or read about any quality or divine evidence, and nobody else has presented me quality or divine evidence, I assume until proven otherwise that there is none. Yes, agnosticism.
Present your/someone else's counterevidence. -
2019-02-01 at 10:55 PM UTCMoral 'anything' is at the onus of the claimant.
-
2019-02-01 at 11:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Do you think the differences in their conclusions tells us more about objective data or more about their personal preferences?
I think it tells us that we can still know or have good reason to believe things even in the absence of universal consensus.
Originally posted by DietPiano Yes. Yes, of course I don't KNOW that nobody has better evidence than I have witnessed, or that nobody has divine evidence, but since I have not witnessed or read about any quality or divine evidence, and nobody else has presented me quality or divine evidence, I assume until proven otherwise that there is none. Yes, agnosticism.
Present your/someone else's counterevidence.
"counterevidence" would imply you presented any evidence to start with, and "I haven't seen anything" isn't.
But putting that aside, since you would at least seem to acknowledge the possibility of evidence of moral propositions there's this common motivational argument for utilitarian ethics that theorists don't take terribly seriously but I've always thought was pretty compelling. It's basically that nearly everyone, insofar as they are able and rational, acts on the premise that personally experiencing utility is good. That's just the simple observation that we'll choose good tasting food over bad tasting food, we'll try to avoid pain, sometimes we'll suffer short term for a longer term payout. Nearly everyone accepts that, barring unwanted side effects (e.g. the injury of loved ones, breaking of a promise), we are justified in acting in our own interests, of maximizing personal utility.
Most of us also acknowledge an objective world, and that we're not particularly privileged over other members of our species, and that other humans, at least, have minds that aren't too unlike our own. If we're justified in acting in our personal interests, then so are others. It doesn't seem like two people can both be justified in bringing about contrary ends, like this just seems inherent in the notion of justification, bringing about a state of affairs can't be both justified and unjustified at once. So by acknowledging our own claim to utility, which we nearly all do implicitly*, and in absence of some reason why your claim to utility is privileged (no one seriously argues they're the only valid subject of moral consideration), it seems like all claims to utility are equal and given none is privileged over another only their degree can be considered in questions of "what is justified".
So again, this is a "motivational" argument, not really the tightest sort of metaethics you're going to run into, it's not the categorical imperative where you have a strictly logical argument from first principles elaborated in all these different formulations where you need a secondary source to know what the hell's going on, but I think it's at least a good jumping off point to seeing why people entertain the idea of an objective ethics seriously.
* you can reject this line of thinking by claiming that you seek personal utility without justification, but I think this isn't a very convincing position just on the psychological level -
2019-02-02 at 12:50 AM UTCThere is no "moral guidebook" each person has their own version of what is morally correct and incorrectThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-02-02 at 1:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I think it tells us that we can still know or have good reason to believe things even in the absence of universal consensus.
This is just your wormy way of admitting that while we can believe things are good or bad, we do not know if there is a "universal" goodness or badness. -
2019-02-02 at 1:46 AM UTC
-
2019-02-02 at 1:54 AM UTC
-
2019-02-02 at 2:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny if i hurt you when your just 8 years old, then the pain is bad.
however if i hurt you after your 18 (assuming that your werent a slut), then the pain is good.
you see the difference here ?
No cuz it doesnt always work that way. Thats a very broad based theory in an individualistic world
