User Controls
We are all responsible for the global holocaust
-
2017-04-05 at 4:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny There's no reason we need to assume the natural behavior of animals is moral nor that the same moral standards apply to us as apply to lower animals. A bear doesn't appear to have the cognitive faculties necessary to make moral decisions. Likewise we don't hold certain classes of the mentally ill or children fully morally responsible for the outcomes of their actions, but this doesn't reduce our obligation to these classes of people.
i'm saying we use animals as food. if we switched positions and homo sapiens wasn't apex predator, we'd have the same sort of massacre for our species. species are inherently competitive, not there to coexist, that's how evolution works. every animal besides the few domesticated ones would objectify us the same way we objectify them, if they had the mental capacity to do so. like, Bill Krozby has a dog brain. that isnt relevant but it is. -
2017-04-05 at 4:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by o_o (s p l o o) i'm saying we use animals as food. if we switched positions and homo sapiens wasn't apex predator, we'd have the same sort of massacre for our species.
That's probably true. What about it do you think poses a problem for the position that farming animals for food is morally wrong though? We're not producing huge numbers of animal lives filled with extreme suffering as retribution for what tigers and bears and shit did to our ancestors or what they'd do to us if we weren't the most successful species on the planet.species are inherently competitive, not there to coexist, that's how evolution works.
Firstly the "is" of historical evolution has little to do with the "ought" of a normative claim like "subjecting huge numbers of animals to intense life-long suffering is wrong" and secondly it's simply not true that evolution by natural selection hasn't produced symbiotic inter-species relationships. -
2017-04-05 at 4:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny That's probably true. What about it do you think poses a problem for the position that farming animals for food is morally wrong though? We're not producing huge numbers of animal lives filled with extreme suffering as retribution for what tigers and bears and shit did to our ancestors or what they'd do to us if we weren't the most successful species on the planet.
Firstly the "is" of historical evolution has little to do with the "ought" of a normative claim like "subjecting huge numbers of animals to intense life-long suffering is wrong" and secondly it's simply not true that evolution by natural selection hasn't produced symbiotic inter-species relationships.
A. "morally wrong" can mean "realistic" and "morally right" can mean "ineffective". Nature is emotionless, empathy is a mostly human construct, eating animals is just the order of things in the animal kingdom. We are omnivores, we eat meat. To think we're above primal urges is a bit of self-delusion.
B. We're harvesting useless creatures for valuable resources. We have primal urges but we also have abstract reasoning. For whatever will lead Earth to it's final state efficiently with technological singularity, cows and chickens are going to be used as energy, not as individuals. Whatever consciousness they have obviously isn't very relevant to anything besides themselves. the main way these animals are able to contribute to the ecosystem is by eating them. -
2017-04-05 at 5:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by o_o (s p l o o) A. "morally wrong" can mean "realistic" and "morally right" can mean "ineffective".
Anything can mean anything I suppose but it seems pretty obvious from context that the way I mean "morally wrong" is as a normative statement rather than a synonym for "realistic". Incidentally this is how most english speakers use the word.Nature is emotionless, empathy is a mostly human construct, eating animals is just the order of things in the animal kingdom.
You'll notice at no point has anyone here claimed that eating animals is not the natural behavior of many other animals, nor has anyone said anything about nature being emotional.We are omnivores, we eat meat. To think we're above primal urges is a bit of self-delusion.
We possess the biological faculties to eat meat but this seems to say nothing about its status as morally correct. No one has claimed to be above "primal urges" but it seems reasonable that natural behavior can be curbed by culture or the intellect seeing as the vast majority of our behaviors are "unnatural" in some sense.B. We're harvesting useless creatures for valuable resources.
We're creating a lot of creatures that have no need to exist at all. Cows probably wouldn't even still be an extant species if we didn't inflate their population way beyond what is sustainable. Meat production is a tremendously ineffective strategy for feeding human beings.
This is secondary though, wether or not it's an efficient use of resources, we're creating a lot of suffering for minimal hedonic payoff and it's on these grounds I consider meat production wrong. There are other reasons, one given above, not sure what Zanick's are but in any case it's not like we just find the animals we turn into meat naturally occurring in the world. A modern cattle farm is no more a natural phenomenon than, say, a gas chamber designed for the execution of humans.Whatever consciousness they have obviously isn't very relevant to anything besides themselves. the main way these animals are able to contribute to the ecosystem is by eating them.
You say "obviously" but it's clearly quite a controversial point. Specifically I plainly reject it and it would seem to be the core issue for many on wether or not eating animals is acceptable. -
2017-04-05 at 5:06 AM UTCHow is this such a long thread?
We raise animals, then we slaughter and eat them. Mmm, tastes good. Case closed. wtf guysThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-04-05 at 5:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo How is this such a long thread?
We raise animals, then we slaughter and eat them. Mmm, tastes good. Case closed. wtf guys
START HERE
Do you think there are true normative statements? If yes, go to section 1. If no, turn to section 2
SECTION 1
Do you subscribe to a consequentialist ethical framework? If yes, go to section 1.1, if no, go to section 1.2
SECTION 1.1
Do you think human suffering is inherently wrong? If yes, go to section 1.1.1, if no, go to section 1.1.2
SECTION 1.1.1
You now have to explain why human suffering matters but the suffering of other animals doesn't. You're pretty much fucked
SECTION 1.1.2
Meat production is environmentally harmful, unless you're an human-specific anti-natalist whatever you consider good is probably harmed by modern animal farming.
SECTION 1.2
ur dumb and ur opinion doesn't matter. You probably couldn't explain the categorial imperative anyway.
SECTION 2
You're probably lying, and if you're not your an edgy lil bitch and no one cares about your dumb opinions (that you probably don't actually hold). -
2017-04-05 at 5:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Anything can mean anything I suppose but it seems pretty obvious from context that the way I mean "morally wrong" is as a normative statement rather than a synonym for "realistic". Incidentally this is how most english speakers use the word.
You'll notice at no point has anyone here claimed that eating animals is not the natural behavior of many other animals, nor has anyone said anything about nature being emotional.
We possess the biological faculties to eat meat but this seems to say nothing about its status as morally correct. No one has claimed to be above "primal urges" but it seems reasonable that natural behavior can be curbed by culture or the intellect seeing as the vast majority of our behaviors are "unnatural" in some sense.
We're creating a lot of creatures that have no need to exist at all. Cows probably wouldn't even still be an extant species if we didn't inflate their population way beyond what is sustainable. Meat production is a tremendously ineffective strategy for feeding human beings.
This is secondary though, wether or not it's an efficient use of resources, we're creating a lot of suffering for minimal hedonic payoff and it's on these grounds I consider meat production wrong. There are other reasons, one given above, not sure what Zanick's are but in any case it's not like we just find the animals we turn into meat naturally occurring in the world. A modern cattle farm is no more a natural phenomenon than, say, a gas chamber designed for the execution of humans.
You say "obviously" but it's clearly quite a controversial point. Specifically I plainly reject it and it would seem to be the core issue for many on wether or not eating animals is acceptable.
1. why is normative """"good""""? what purpose does it serve?
2. i was describing the state of the world we live in
3. what's the point? what does preventing an animal's suffering do? what purpose does it serve?
4. "minimal hedonic payoff", maximum. how does an animal's suffering translate to our hedonic payoff? what purpose does it serve? and i guess spearing them is more ethical to you
5. what does a cow's consciousness do? what purpose does it serve?
this feels like metaphysics cancer. you're misattributing the values we have in society to creatures completely disconnected and thoroughly unaware of this network. -
2017-04-05 at 5:23 AM UTCI made it to SECTION 1.1.2, where you fail to explain why I should care about the environment. Other people might suffer/die because we screw some things up with meat production. So? IDGAF, they're standing in the way of my preferred lifestyle.
-
2017-04-05 at 5:24 AM UTC
-
2017-04-05 at 5:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by o_o (s p l o o) 1. why is normative """"good""""
2. i was describing the state of the world we live in
3. what's the point? what does preventing an animal's suffering do?
4. "minimal hedonic payoff", maximum. how does an animal's suffering translate to our hedonic payoff? and i guess spearing them is more ethical to you
5. what does a cow's consciousness do?
this feels like metaphysics cancer. you're misattributing the values we have in society to creatures completely disconnected and thoroughly unaware of this network.
1. Because that's what normative means. Note "normative" here does not mean "normal" or "typical"
2. I noticed, when someone says "eating meat is wrong" they are not describing the state the world is in, they're saying something about the way the world ought to be.
3. It reduces the net suffering of things with hedonic capacity in the world (which I argue is synonymous with "morally considerable things")
4. The payoff is we get to eat meat, which is indeed pleasurable. It tastes good. It takes a lot more suffering on the part of the animal to produce the meat than we get from eating it however, so it's a net negative assuming we consider the suffering of lower animals to be morally considerable
5. A lot of the things ours does, many irrelevant, one critical thing it does is experience pain or pleasure, which human consciousness (as in the "experience" sense) also does.
I never said non-human animals hold any of the values we have as a society. I don't know why you keep thinking someone's arguing for these things they're not. -
2017-04-05 at 5:29 AM UTCDark energy gathers around killers of any spirit.
-
2017-04-05 at 5:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo I made it to SECTION 1.1.2, where you fail to explain why I should care about the environment. Other people might suffer/die because we screw some things up with meat production. So? IDGAF, they're standing in the way of my preferred lifestyle.
So you subscribe to a consequentialist ethical framework. You think there's some statement of the form "we ought to bring about X end" which is true. What is that end? Most answers require things like a breathable atmosphere. -
2017-04-05 at 5:31 AM UTC
-
2017-04-05 at 5:32 AM UTC
-
2017-04-05 at 5:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by o_o (s p l o o) my god….
ahkmah are you reading this
I was going to quote SEP but I thought it was a little dense, try this instead:In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative#Philosophy -
2017-04-05 at 5:40 AM UTCare you calling me dense >:( i'll kill your dead family
you made a normative statement i made a positive statement
farm animals are almost as useless as you. they serve no purpose besides to be harvested by superior humans like me.
1 > 0
how mad are you dad? i read books!
your whole argument can be dissected to a skeleton of "seeing animals get hurt maeks me sad so im going to delude myself into thinking i'm not supposed to eat animals 1like0prays" -
2017-04-05 at 5:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny So you subscribe to a consequentialist ethical framework. You think there's some statement of the form "we ought to bring about X end" which is true. What is that end? Most answers require things like a breathable atmosphere.
My statement looks like "I ought to bring about X end" where X really just means success and comfort for yours truly. Also, meat farming will not totally ruin the atmosphere, genius. Next you're going to tell me you believe in anthropogenic global warming. -
2017-04-05 at 5:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by o_o (s p l o o) are you calling me dense >:( i'll kill your dead family
... noyou made a normative statement i made a positive statement
I agree!farm animals are almost as useless as you. they serve no purpose besides to be harvested by superior humans like me.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I hold most farm animals just shouldn't exist in the first place.1 > 0
Cool story bro.your whole argument can be dissected to a skeleton of "seeing animals get hurt maeks me sad so im going to delude myself into thinking i'm not supposed to eat animals 1like0prays"
That's like, not even close to my argument. -
2017-04-05 at 5:46 AM UTC
-
2017-04-05 at 5:47 AM UTC
