Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 925
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by ThomasHobbes » May 24th, 2018, 5:32 pm

Eduk wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 4:33 pm
All animals are deserving of compassion and all animals are not the same.
A bold and risible comment.

User avatar
chatterbears
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 6:14 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by chatterbears » May 24th, 2018, 6:32 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 4:53 am
The environment is being destroyed by wheat farming. Children are suffering mental deficiencies from too much carbohydrates; ADHD, autism, epilepsy. And adults are suffering an epidemic of coeliacs disease and diabetes. All of these ailments are cured or mitigated by moving to a highfat lowcarb diet. I advocate more grazing on the land which mimics the natural cycle of the carbon and nitrogen cycles, rather than dumping megatonnes of nitrates on to the land to which we have become dependant, as billions of hectares have lost their soil.
I can't even tell if you're serious anymore. Carbohydrates are causing autism, ADHD and epilepsy? The environment is being destroyed by wheat farming, but apparently not animal factory farming? I may just write you off as a troll at this point. Deliberately ignoring scientific consensus about the environmental impacts of factory farming, and then asserting that carbs causes autism without any scientific literature to back it up. But even if you did have evidence to support your claims, this is irrelevant to Veganism. You don't need to eat a lot of carbs on a Vegan diet, so your point is irrelevant.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 24th, 2018, 8:19 pm

chatterbears wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 4:15 pm
-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:51 pm
I am inconsistent in YOUR ethical argumentation, not in mine. You accepted Sam Harris's triple rule, but I am sorry, I don't. They are not universal absolute rules.
Huh? There's either consistent or inconsistent. There's no different types of consistency. You are either consistent or you are not. I guess I'll have to break it down for you.

If I ask a religious person, "Why do you think it is OK to kill homosexuals?" - And if their response is, "Because God is NOT okay with homosexuality." - This is where I would push for a consistency test and ask them, "Do you base your morality on the mind of God?" - If they say yes, which many of them do, I will then ask this, "If God was okay with rape, would you then be okay with your daughter or mother getting raped?" - If they say NO, then they are being inconsistent within their own ethical argumentation. I can structure it in a formula for you to better understand.

Religious person believes it is okay to kill homosexuals based on the mind of God.
Religious person believes it is NOT okay to rape based on the mind of God.

In this case, "the mind of God" is the justification being used for why an action is morally acceptable. But they simultaneously reject and accept that justification, based on the context. This creates an inconsistency, which causes their internal ethics to be contradictory. You cannot accept and reject an action based on the same justification.

So back to my question, and I'll frame it the same way.

You believe it is okay to eats animals based on they taste good
You believe it is NOT okay to eat pregnant mothers based on they taste good

Explain why you are inconsistent within YOUR OWN justifications.
-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:51 pm
My ethics does not involve the third point. Empathy is not an ethical issue, it is an emotional reaction, which I experience. Compassion is a learned emotional response, which I also learned. But they are compelling forces, not ethical rules. The first is an unconditional emotional reaction in most humans, the second is a condtioned reaction. But they are not ethical rules.
This is irrelevant. I am talking about consistency within your own subjective justifications.
-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:51 pm
As to consistency, that is also related to whom we feel compassion. To warm blooded animals we do, to vertebrates we ("we" being humans) do, but we don't feel compassion for invertebrates such as ants, amoebas and tape worms.
You still haven't explained why it is ok to eat animals based on the justification "It tastes good", but not eat humans based on the justification "It tastes good".
-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 3:51 pm
This is where Sam Harris's third rule breaks down. If we feel compelled to act universally to all animals, then do it, don't cherry pick it, and if you cherry pick which animals to be good to and which not to be good to, then allow me to make the choice for myself, much like you do make the choice for yourself.
Sam Harris doesn't have any rules. The moral trifecta for Veganism is something I came up with myself. You don't need to accept all 3 to become Vegan, but I was stating that is actually impossible to accept all 3 and NOT be Vegan. But that is irrelevant, because all you need is logical consistency within your own ethics, and that leads to Veganism (unless you're a sociopath who doesn't feel empathy for humans or animals).
Your are being lame, and illogical. I said I clearly don't share your views and I don't accept your definition or stance on ethics, be it your own or Sam Harris's. Yet you try to hold me to an ethics argument which is based on premises I think are false. Furthermore I stated that, and you STILL try to hold me to it. You are illogical and inconsistent in this expression of yours.

You also make the mistake of confusing emotions with ethics.

You are illogical and inconsistent with cherry-picking which animals to save and love, and which not to. You might as well say, "All animals are equal, except some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell, "Animal Farm".)

Your stance is that of a fanatic, and I can't argue with fanatics.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 24th, 2018, 8:27 pm

chatterbears wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 4:15 pm
You still haven't explained why it is ok to eat animals based on the justification "It tastes good", but not eat humans based on the justification "It tastes good".
I haven't been as lucky as you to have eaten human meat. Obviously you have, because you assert that human meat tastes good.

Pfuy.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 24th, 2018, 8:30 pm

Greta wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 5:29 pm

Why would you speak as if a fledgling industry is a finished product? It's ungrounded to believe that progress will completely stop in this area? Why would you assume that progress will stop in this area while all other etch projects continue apace?
You assume it will be cheaper. I assume it will cost more.

Only the future will be able to tell us.

Why do you paint as stupid and ignorant, when our assumptions of future prices are of equal value today? I admit they may be of unequal value once the future is reached, but your assumption is, and I beg your pardon, not superior to mine.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 24th, 2018, 8:42 pm

chatterbears wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 4:15 pm
Huh? There's either consistent or inconsistent. There's no different types of consistency. You are either consistent or you are not. I guess I'll have to break it down for you.
You mix apples with oranges. You claim consistency between compassion and empathy with universality of ETHICS; but compassion and empathy are emotions, not ethical considerations.

Your ethics argument breaks down here, you understand? You mix three concepts of different types, and for your proof they would only work if they were of the same type. But they are not.


If I ask a religious person, "Why do you think it is OK to kill homosexuals?" - And if their response is, "Because God is NOT okay with homosexuality." - This is where I would push for a consistency test and ask them, "Do you base your morality on the mind of God?" - If they say yes, which many of them do, I will then ask this, "If God was okay with rape, would you then be okay with your daughter or mother getting raped?" - If they say NO, then they are being inconsistent within their own ethical argumentation. I can structure it in a formula for you to better understand.


Religious person believes it is okay to kill homosexuals based on the mind of God.
Religious person believes it is NOT okay to rape based on the mind of God.

In this case, "the mind of God" is the justification being used for why an action is morally acceptable. But they simultaneously reject and accept that justification, based on the context. This creates an inconsistency, which causes their internal ethics to be contradictory. You cannot accept and reject an action based on the same justification.

So back to my question, and I'll frame it the same way.

1. You believe it is okay to eats animals based on they taste good
2. You believe it is NOT okay to eat pregnant mothers based on they taste good
2. is a false premise attributed to me. You know pregnant mothers taste good, but I don't. But you assume, falsely, that I know exactly the same things as you do.

I beg your pardon. I don't know what pregnant mothers taste like. Please tell us in more detail until we are all satisfied with you precise and exacting descriptions exactly what pregnant mothers taste like. You know, so you must have tried.


Explain why you are inconsistent within YOUR OWN justifications.



This is irrelevant. I am talking about consistency within your own subjective justifications.

There is no inconsistency within my own subjective justifications. It is an inconsistency with your by yourself stated cannibalistic experience.




Sam Harris doesn't have any rules. The moral trifecta for Veganism is something I came up with myself. You don't need to accept all 3 to become Vegan, but I was stating that is actually impossible to accept all 3 and NOT be Vegan. because you did not see that you are comparing and lumping together ethics with emotions. That has been shown to you, so now I am hopeful that you see the error in your reasoning. But that is irrelevant, because all you need is logical consistency within your own ethics, and that leads to Veganism (unless you're a sociopath who doesn't feel empathy for humans or animals). I am not a sociopath at all. I demand an apology.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 24th, 2018, 8:45 pm

In my earlier post in reply to Greta, I wrote "Why do you paint as stupid and ignorant," that ought to have been written, "Why do you paint me as stupid and ignorant,"

I regret the typo and apologize for any confusion it may have caused.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Alias
Posts: 2331
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by Alias » May 24th, 2018, 11:35 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 23rd, 2018, 5:32 pm
We are NOT evolved to cope with agriculture.
And yet we have overpopulated an entire planet since the introduction of agriculture - which, incidentally, includes the breeding a raising of domestic food animals. Hunting and gathering was healthier exercise than farming, but hunting-gathering peoples didn't or have as many offspring or produce so much technological advancement.
Some aspect of evolution must have favoured agriculture.

But circumstances change. Human life changes. Whatever worked 20,000 years ago doesn't work now - least of all hunting, since we now outgun, outrun and outnumber every possible prey. If we had to depend on that food source, we'd have about a week before it all ran out.
The range of choices changes, too, and with it, the ethics of decision-making.
The caveman option is closed.
The nomadic herder option is closed to the vast majority.
Our ethics now are based in a technological, urban, high population density, long-lived human reality.

"I want." or "I just like it." have never been persuasive moral arguments.
The questions that determine what kind of ethics work in the present will be:
What do I owe my fellow humans?
What do I owe the future of the planet?
What do I owe other life-forms?
What - if anything - do they owe me?

User avatar
chatterbears
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 6:14 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by chatterbears » May 24th, 2018, 11:42 pm

-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 8:42 pm
2. is a false premise attributed to me. You know pregnant mothers taste good, but I don't. But you assume, falsely, that I know exactly the same things as you do.
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. I never said I have tasted human flesh. I am asking whether or not you'd accept the same justification (because it tastes good) in other contexts. If you do not accept the same justification [that you have used] in other contexts, then you are being contradictory in your position. You are simultaneously accepting and rejecting two actions based on the same justification.

Again, I'll give you two scenarios. The first one will be held by you, and the second one will be held by some random person [we can call him 'John'].

1. You believe it is okay to eat animals based on they taste good
2. John believes it is okay to eat pregnant mothers based on they taste good

Do you accept both of these situations as morally acceptable? If not, you hold a contradictory position. As you accept the justification in #1, but reject the same justification in #2. Not sure how much more clear I have to make this.
-1- wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 8:42 pm
There is no inconsistency within my own subjective justifications. It is an inconsistency with your by yourself stated cannibalistic experience.
I am not a cannibal and I never stated I was. I am giving you a different context using your same justification. And if you reject the 2nd context, you would have a contradictory [inconsistent] position. This is how logic works.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 25th, 2018, 12:13 am

You implied you ate human flesh because you claimed knowledge that it tastes good.
chatterbears wrote:1. You believe it is okay to eat animals based on they taste good
2. John believes it is okay to eat pregnant mothers based on they taste good
Your logic fails again. I am not John. John is not me. Your logic fails. You are getting desperate in trying to stay in this argument, and you are making bigger and bigger blunders.
chatterbears wrote:I am not a cannibal and I never stated I was.

You implied that by claiming knowledge of how human meat tastes. That kind of knowledge can be obtained only by personal experience. I am sorry, but your example and thought experiments are falling apart like a snowflake in the deepest of summers.
chatterbears wrote:I am giving you a different context using your same justification. And if you reject the 2nd context, you would have a contradictory [inconsistent] position. This is how logic works.
Respectfully I submit that you haven't the faintest how logic works.

I base this observation on the following:

1. You equate automatic human emotional response which is not part of ethics, with ethics.
2. You attempt concluding some ethical truth on disparate behaviors of two people acting on disparate events under different circumstances. (Your so-called reasoning went like this: I like to eat animal meat and John likes the taste of pregnant mothers, therefore I am inconsistent. This, my friend, is not only not fallacious reasoning, it is completely void of reason.)
3. You claim to have certain factual knowledge, then you deny to have that knowledge. Talk about inconsistency.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
chatterbears
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 6:14 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by chatterbears » May 25th, 2018, 12:51 am

-1- wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 12:13 am
Your logic fails again. I am not John. John is not me. Your logic fails. You are getting desperate in trying to stay in this argument, and you are making bigger and bigger blunders.

Respectfully I submit that you haven't the faintest how logic works.

I base this observation on the following:

1. You equate automatic human emotional response which is not part of ethics, with ethics.
2. You attempt concluding some ethical truth on disparate behaviors of two people acting on disparate events under different circumstances. (Your so-called reasoning went like this: I like to eat animal meat and John likes the taste of pregnant mothers, therefore I am inconsistent. This, my friend, is not only not fallacious reasoning, it is completely void of reason.)
3. You claim to have certain factual knowledge, then you deny to have that knowledge. Talk about inconsistency.
Would you accept the justification "because it tastes good", for ANY other action that a person could take? Yes or no.

Eduk
Posts: 1789
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by Eduk » May 25th, 2018, 3:34 am

You can't demand that people answer you as you would wish chatterbears?

User avatar
chatterbears
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 6:14 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by chatterbears » May 25th, 2018, 4:35 am

Eduk wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 3:34 am
You can't demand that people answer you as you would wish chatterbears?
I am asking a simple question that he isn't understanding. It has nothing to do with answering how I wish.

Ethical consistency is how you justify your actions, and whether or not you'd accept the same reasoning in another context. It's a very simple concept.

Person A believes it is morally acceptable to eat animals, because Person A likes the taste of animals.

In this scenario, Person A is using 'taste' as a reason to justify his actions of eating animals. My follow up question to this is fairly simple. Would you accept this same reasoning [of 'taste'] for other people to use to justify their actions? If you answer yes, then you'd be consistent. But then you'd think it was morally acceptable for Person B to say, "I believe it is morally acceptable to eat humans, because I like the taste of humans." - In both scenarios [of A and B], the same justification is being used; which is 'taste'. Person A finds it morally acceptable to eat animals because it tastes good. Person B believes it is morally acceptable to eat humans because it tastes good.

The entire point of ethical consistency is to provide a valid and sound argument for your moral beliefs or actions. If you cannot be consistent, then your moral beliefs are essentially useless. At that point, you have no grounds to say what is or isn't moral, since you're willing to accept and reject the same justification in different contexts.

Alias
Posts: 2331
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by Alias » May 25th, 2018, 8:48 am

Chatterbears, you can't demand reason. They have it or they don't.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

Post by -1- » May 25th, 2018, 2:38 pm

chatterbears wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 12:51 am

Would you accept the justification "because it tastes good", for ANY other action that a person could take? Yes or no.
If you only think in black-and-white, if your only acceptable answers are yes or no, if to you the world is divided by a very definite line between YOU and THEM, then you are not cut out to be a philosopher.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Post Reply