Attaching a system of mortality to a diet is just religion
… what? I’m sorry, but this simply doesn’t make sense at all. By this logic what is wrong with cannibalism? Attaching a system of morality to that diet would just be a religion right? And I’m sure eating human meat has all kinds of nutrients.
I’m not a moral realist. So I don’t believe in moral facts I.e. that murder is ‘wrong’ or being charitable is ‘right’
It’s kid stuff (IMO) to believe in mystical rights and wrongs of the universe. The universe does not care one iota that you cease to exist tomorrow or if all humans were to become extinct (IMO).
If you disagree please point me to the source of your morals, how do you know what’s right and what’s wrong?
Who here is claiming that there are moral facts? Of course morals are constructs of human culture, but that doesn’t make them less important. Morals are essentially what we have learned to be important rules for good, healthy societies. Humans who abide by the idea that it is “wrong” to kill another human are far more compatible in a community than ones who do not. These concepts have developed over a very long time, which is why we tend to “know” when things are wrong (eg feel bad, guilty conscious, etc). One of these “rules” is that needlessly inflicting pain on intelligent animals is wrong. Similarly, causing unnecessary damage to the environment is wrong. The context of climate change is quite new, but the principle is the same.
Obviously the observer decides for themselves what they think is needed. I didn’t think it would be controversial to observe that people tend to dislike/have an aversion to hurting intelligent animals for no reason.
Not everyone necessarily feels this, but many people do. Enough for us as a society to largely ban/shun things like dog fights, bull fights, circus animals, animal torture videos, etc
The experiences of animals are real and matter. Their suffering is identical in nature to your own. Your moral perspective demands that you deny or ignore these facts. If you can deny that an animal’s experience has any value, you can do the same to a human.
I didn’t say they had the same value. I said they had value. Consuming them for hedonistic pleasure is only ethically consistent with the view that animals have effectively zero or even negative intrinsic value.
Being cruel and violent to innocent creatures requires that you learn to suspend your empathy. Being cruel and violent to innocent creatures EVERY SINGLE DAY requires that you main your empathy, to actually injure yourself and impair your ability to be empathetic AT ALL.
To respond to your apparent non sequitur, I value compassion and empathy. Don’t you?
I can deny the importance of human experience (the heat death of the universe will erase all traces of our existence and impact) without wanting to kill humans right now.
How did you conclude the experiences of animals matter?
How do you know animals are having experiences?
How do you know human experiences matter?
I don’t claim to have any answers to the above but I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to these questions other than ‘I just believe it is so’ and if it boils down to my belief versus your belief I have to conclude that neither one of us actually has any idea.
I dont know why you call it your moral system, when your system apparently is that the earth is supreme, humans dont matter, therefore anything that happens is okay. Morals are a societal thing, if you dont care about society then what’s the point?
How do you apply this system to your own actions? Just anything goes cause it doesnt matter?
This is a bad faith argument, similar to saying “so you’ve never left a light on all day?” To someone protesting climate change.
The point of veganism (besides the environmental side) is that there is far too much unnecessary suffering caused to animals; complex and intelligent animals, because of the meat industry. Of course humans will probably always cause death and suffering to animals and even other humans, but accepting this and taking it as a reason for “why should I care at all then” is ridiculous.
I don’t think we are at the point where all of humanity can refrain from meat. Maybe most Americans but we should maybe collectively decide this is the goal before pursuing it.
Being incendiary is a strategy that only had small short term gains. Looking at th big picture more people need to understand the argument and it can’t be, “you should feel bad.” At least not until you’ve established the expectations and clear reasons why they exist outside of one’s own personal judgement.
Why can’t we?? Meat is a luxury product!! The only reason you can afford it at all is because I subsidize it so heavily with my taxes. It is made by refining cheap, safe, plentiful plant food using the bodies of animals to create a toxic, addictive, scarce luxury good. In that process, MOST OF THE NUTRIENTS ARE LOST. If we all stopped eating meat, we would have such an overabundance of food, we would have to stop farming more than half the land we are currently farming for plants.
Now tell me why YOU can’t stop being cruel and violent against the kindest, gentlest creatures on the planet? Because even if you can come up with a tortured hypothetical reason some unlikely hypothetical person can’t, if you can, then what you are doing is atrocity.
The whole taste argument completely ignores nutrition.
Why don’t you only eat potatoes? Do you derive taste pleasure from B12 supplements?
Attaching a system of morality to a diet is just religion.
I maintain that veganism is just halal/kosher for atheists/agnostics.
… what? I’m sorry, but this simply doesn’t make sense at all. By this logic what is wrong with cannibalism? Attaching a system of morality to that diet would just be a religion right? And I’m sure eating human meat has all kinds of nutrients.
Nothing is inherently wrong with cannibalism.
I’m not a moral realist. So I don’t believe in moral facts I.e. that murder is ‘wrong’ or being charitable is ‘right’
It’s kid stuff (IMO) to believe in mystical rights and wrongs of the universe. The universe does not care one iota that you cease to exist tomorrow or if all humans were to become extinct (IMO).
If you disagree please point me to the source of your morals, how do you know what’s right and what’s wrong?
Who here is claiming that there are moral facts? Of course morals are constructs of human culture, but that doesn’t make them less important. Morals are essentially what we have learned to be important rules for good, healthy societies. Humans who abide by the idea that it is “wrong” to kill another human are far more compatible in a community than ones who do not. These concepts have developed over a very long time, which is why we tend to “know” when things are wrong (eg feel bad, guilty conscious, etc). One of these “rules” is that needlessly inflicting pain on intelligent animals is wrong. Similarly, causing unnecessary damage to the environment is wrong. The context of climate change is quite new, but the principle is the same.
that is not universal
who gets to define need
Obviously the observer decides for themselves what they think is needed. I didn’t think it would be controversial to observe that people tend to dislike/have an aversion to hurting intelligent animals for no reason.
Not everyone necessarily feels this, but many people do. Enough for us as a society to largely ban/shun things like dog fights, bull fights, circus animals, animal torture videos, etc
The experiences of animals are real and matter. Their suffering is identical in nature to your own. Your moral perspective demands that you deny or ignore these facts. If you can deny that an animal’s experience has any value, you can do the same to a human.
values are subjective
And yours are inconsistent. Is there a problem with people pointing that out?
no one can value everything the same… of course they are inconsistent
I didn’t say they had the same value. I said they had value. Consuming them for hedonistic pleasure is only ethically consistent with the view that animals have effectively zero or even negative intrinsic value.
nothing has intrinsic value
All of your efforts at self-preservation seem to disagree.
Okay? So?
Being cruel and violent to innocent creatures requires that you learn to suspend your empathy. Being cruel and violent to innocent creatures EVERY SINGLE DAY requires that you main your empathy, to actually injure yourself and impair your ability to be empathetic AT ALL.
To respond to your apparent non sequitur, I value compassion and empathy. Don’t you?
everyone does…not everyone has a problem with eating animals.
I can deny the importance of human experience (the heat death of the universe will erase all traces of our existence and impact) without wanting to kill humans right now.
How did you conclude the experiences of animals matter?
How do you know animals are having experiences?
How do you know human experiences matter?
I don’t claim to have any answers to the above but I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to these questions other than ‘I just believe it is so’ and if it boils down to my belief versus your belief I have to conclude that neither one of us actually has any idea.
I dont know why you call it your moral system, when your system apparently is that the earth is supreme, humans dont matter, therefore anything that happens is okay. Morals are a societal thing, if you dont care about society then what’s the point?
How do you apply this system to your own actions? Just anything goes cause it doesnt matter?
I agree, morals are a societal thing and right now it’s perfectly socially acceptable to eat meat.
How I apply this to my own actions is by conforming to the made up rules of society because that seems to keep me alive.
If I lived in a vegan society and it was not socially acceptable to eat meat I likely wouldn’t.
So you’ve never killed a mosquito, right? Or a spider? Ants, perhaps?
This is a bad faith argument, similar to saying “so you’ve never left a light on all day?” To someone protesting climate change.
The point of veganism (besides the environmental side) is that there is far too much unnecessary suffering caused to animals; complex and intelligent animals, because of the meat industry. Of course humans will probably always cause death and suffering to animals and even other humans, but accepting this and taking it as a reason for “why should I care at all then” is ridiculous.
I don’t think we are at the point where all of humanity can refrain from meat. Maybe most Americans but we should maybe collectively decide this is the goal before pursuing it.
Being incendiary is a strategy that only had small short term gains. Looking at th big picture more people need to understand the argument and it can’t be, “you should feel bad.” At least not until you’ve established the expectations and clear reasons why they exist outside of one’s own personal judgement.
Why can’t we?? Meat is a luxury product!! The only reason you can afford it at all is because I subsidize it so heavily with my taxes. It is made by refining cheap, safe, plentiful plant food using the bodies of animals to create a toxic, addictive, scarce luxury good. In that process, MOST OF THE NUTRIENTS ARE LOST. If we all stopped eating meat, we would have such an overabundance of food, we would have to stop farming more than half the land we are currently farming for plants.
Now tell me why YOU can’t stop being cruel and violent against the kindest, gentlest creatures on the planet? Because even if you can come up with a tortured hypothetical reason some unlikely hypothetical person can’t, if you can, then what you are doing is atrocity.
Not that I was going to listen to you anyway, but the entire way you’re going about this just makes you look like a dick.
Also, accusing me of being cruel and violent for buying a slab of meat off the shelf is laughably stupid.