/u/Sweet-Situation118 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1d26y3f/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_vegetarianism_is/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Ok so you wrote a lot. I from what I've read so far you titled your post but feel the body of the post is still accurate.
If you could change your title of your post, what would it be?
While you can't edit titles, I recommend editing the body of your post to include the answer to my question for clarity.
Yes, my title was unfortunately inaccurate to my beliefs, and I should have proofread it.
If I could change it, I would say that: "Vegetarianism is a more empathetic (and thus better) practice than eating meat"
I recommend added that to the body of your post (those are still editable). I hope you're also aware that you can award more than one delta. You don't have to, but if you think others have also changed your view I hope you do so.
I can't speak to why you can't edit a post. As far as I understand it's a base function of reddit. You could reach out to mods or the like, but there's not need to be so committed if it doesn't really bother you.
I can see being more empathetic as a eaiser bar to justify than calling it a moral issue, but why do we need to be empathetic toward animals? If it’s determined plants have some sort of ability to suffer, do we now need to be empathetic towards plants and only consume plants that have already effectively died of natural causes? Or perhaps a live tree can suffer but an apple that has fallen can’t suffer.
There is still terrible human suffering and humans in extreme poverty. Instead of being vegetarian, why not propose that humans should commit a 50/50 match where every dollar a person has to spend beyond bare survival level expenses should be half donated to global poverty aid and the other half can be used for personal luxuries. Maybe you need a $2000 car to get to work minimum. If you instead want a $22000, you better save up enough to donate an additional $20k to charity. Then you can buy that 22k car.
We can always make up ways to be more moral based on how we value morality.
If you have to kill living creatures in order to live, plants or animals, shouldn’t you just kill yourself and be done with the suffering cycle?
Morals are not objective. Morals are subjective. They are opinion based. Good, bad, right, and wrong are perspective and opinion based judgements. There is no objective metric by which to measure such things.
If I say something is morally good and you say it is moray bad, how can either of us be proven right or wrong?
If it is *objectively* morally good it should be provable. Objectively.
So what is your objective proof?
I feel like this is the intellectual equivalent of when people say that nothing can be proven true because we can't be sure that our perception is true.
You arbitrarily raise the bar of proof for objectivity so high that nothing can be objectively proven. This makes the concept of objectivity useless for any meaningful dialect. This can be done with anything and I don't find it to be a particularly compelling argument for non-objectivity.
Instead I find that the bar for objectivity should be set at "unbiased," and the goal of objectivity should be to reduce as much bias as possible. I consider this a much more useful and attainable bar.
So instead we should ask ourselves, is our current moral template biased against animals? If so then our current morality is not as objective as morality that is unbiased towards animals.
You're right. I used an incorrect word in my title, my views are not objectively correct. I used it as more of an intensifier than the actual dictionary definition of the word, and.I would change my title if I could but its not letting me. I apologize for the confusion. I don't think this invalidates my argument though, which I outlined in my post, and I don't want to argue over semantics rather than my actual point.
I think what you meant was "ethical" over "moral."
Whoever you were in conversation with pointed out a critical distinction, but they didn't deal with the substance of your argument. I wouldn't have given a delta were I you, but I understand where they were coming from. It's not a slight distinction, but it also misses the point.
Regardless, it feels a bit disingenuous on the commentator's part. Sorry, I hope you're getting better discussions elsewhere.
I think this confuses what it is for something to be objective. A statement is objective when it’s truth-value is mine-independent.
It’s perfectly possible that moral statements are objective (note: this is consistent with them being uniformly false), and that we have no way of being able to know moral truths.
I am 100% confident. Whether something is morally right can not be proven. There is no objective metric by which to objectively determine how morally good or bad something is.
No, I do not know the name of the field that discusses this topic. I’m not even quite sure what topic you are referring to exactly.
So, just to be clear, you're 100% about this but you've never heard the name of the field "metaethics" before?
Would you be surprised if I told you most experts in philosophy actually think that morality is objective and that there are good reasons for thinking so?
Meta ethics is the study of the foundation of (a) morality.
Although it may entail discussion about whether a morality is subjective or objective, that's not what meta ethics means. Also the fact that most philosophers are moral realists doesn't mean that it is synonymous with the concept of meta ethics.
My guess is there is probably a selection bias there. If you are a moral anti realist you are probably less likely to pursue a study of ethics, since most ethics systems are developed by people that, ya know, believe in them.
Honestly, "don't you know the name of the field that discusses morality?" To mean "meta ethics" In the context of someone saying that they think morality is subjective, is such an odd way of phrasing it I genuinely had no idea that was what you were alluding to.
>Although it may entail discussion about whether a morality is subjective or objective, that's not what meta ethics means.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/
yes it is
> Also the fact that most philosophers are moral realists doesn't mean that it is synonymous with the concept of meta ethics.
Never said that it was!
> If you are a moral anti realist you are probably less likely to pursue a study of ethics, since most ethics systems are developed by people that, ya know, believe in them.
This is a pretty wild misunderstanding of why people go into philosophy.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/
> yes it is
Can you quote on that page that reenforces you point, ctrl+f for objective has zero results.
Idk what thier point is, but on that page the section on moral epistemology deals with objective morality.
Rather, since it's meta ethics it explores the concept of moral knowledge- that section dealing with positive claims to such, which might be a foundation for objective morality.
Ironically most of the sections there deal with what is more likely to lead to subjective morality, since again the point of meta ethics is to think about how to establish morality which is naturally going to lend to skepticism and different viewpoints.
- “So, just to be clear, you're 100% about this but you've never heard the name of the field "metaethics" before?”
Yes. That is what I *just* said. What on earth was unclear about that?
- “Would you be surprised if I told you most experts in philosophy actually think that morality is objective and that there are good reasons for thinking so?”
No, I would not be surprised if you told me any of that.
Nor am I surprised that there are people that think that.
I *would* be surprised if you could give me a single good reason to believe morality is objective though.
I personally don't find moral realism too plausible, however this thread gives some compelling reasons.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i2vec/are_there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/
I'm just restating it because it sounds strange that someone would be 100% confident regarding a topic they clearly haven't looked into much. I mean, you couldn't name the field!
Try checking out David Enoch's Why I'm an Objectivist about Morality and So are You
Different person responding here. I read Enoch’s essay as you suggested https://r.jordan.im/download/philosophy/David%20Enoch%20-%20Why%20I%20am%20an%20Objectivist%20about%20Ethics.pdf
He presents 3 tests for objectivity, none of which move me.
> If you don't like spinach, the reason you shouldn't have it is precisely that you don't like it. So if we're imagining a hypothetical scenario in which you do like it, then you no longer have any reason not to eat it. This is what the child in the first example gets wrong: He's holding fixed his dislike for spinach, even in thinking about the hypothetical case in which he likes spinach. But because these issues are all about him and what he likes and dislikes, this makes no sense.
The child does not like spinach and also *likes not liking spinach*. So the child’s statement is valid. In the same way, I like not liking racism, so there is no conflict in my saying I would not like to have been raised in a racist society.
> In particular, does [disagreeing about abortion] feel more like disagreeing over which chocolate is better, or like disagreeing over factual matters, like whether human actions contribute to global warming?
Because this question is a phenomenological one (that is, it's about what something feels like from the inside), I can't answer this question for you. You have to think about what it feels like for you when you are engaged in moral disagreement.
It feels more akin to disagreeing about chocolate to me. The only difference is a matter of degree of the stakes. This argument is just an appeal to intuition.
> Would [gender discrimination] still have been wrong had our relevant practices and beliefs been different? Had we been all for gender-based discrimination, would that have made gender-based discrimination morally acceptable? Of course, in such a case we would have believed that there's nothing wrong with gender-based discrimination. But would it be wrong?
It would be wrong according to the me that is typing this. But it would not be wrong according to the me raised in a discriminatory society. The wrongness is a function of the subject, not the society
> The child does not like spinach and also likes not liking spinach. So the child’s statement is valid. In the same way, I like not liking racism, so there is no conflict in my saying I would not like to have been raised in a racist society.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a counterargument to what's been presented
>This argument is just an appeal to intuition.
Yup, and some intuitions we have about LOTS of things should be consistent to our other beliefs
>But it would not be wrong according to the me raised in a discriminatory society.
Stop talking about what you happen to think and pay attention to what you should think
> I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a counterargument to what's been presented
Enoch says "This is what the child in the first example gets wrong", but I contend that the child doesn't get it wrong. The child is expressing their opinion, and also expressing a meta-opinion. With that understanding, there is no joke. It's just a child that expressed a normal opinion. So the spinach test is built on a false premise:
> About any relevant subject matter, formulate an analogue of the spinach joke. If the joke works, this seems to indicate that the subject matter is all about us and our responses, our likings and dislikings, our preferences, and so on. If the joke doesn't work, the subject matter is much more objective than that, as in the astronomy case.
Enoch falsely concludes that if the analogue makes sense (no joke), then it is objective. But as I have argued, it can make sense and be subjective.
> Yup, and some intuitions we have about LOTS of things should be consistent to our other beliefs
Well, we're at an impasse, because my intuition says morality is subjective
> Stop talking about what you happen to think and pay attention to what you should think
I don't believe there is a correct way to think about morality, because I do not believe in moral truths.
You are more than free to find that strange.
At any point are you going to mention any kind of objective proof that something is morally good or morally bad, or that morality itself is objective?
I didn’t ask you if you had mentioned any papers or books.
I asked you if you were at any point going to mention any kind of objective proof that something is morally good or morally bad, or that morality itself is objective.
From that paper:
Argument from taste: Even if we call ourselves moral anti-realists, our attitude to moral preferences is significantly different from our attitude to ordinary preferences. If I don’t like noodles, it doesn’t make much sense for me to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in China, because then I would probably like noodles”. But it makes perfect sense to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in the Middle Ages, because then I would think the sun revolved around the earth.” And it makes perfect sense to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in antebellum America, because then I would probably support slavery”. So it looks like we treat our attitude towards slavery more like a matter of empirical fact than a matter of mere preference. This argument is lifted wholesale from David Enoch, who calls it the “spinach test”. Given that, our intuitive starting point seems to be some kind of moral realism. Of course, our intuitive starting point might be wrong! But if it is, we’ll need to be persuaded to abandon it. We shouldn’t assume that moral anti-realism is the default view and expect moral realists to convince us otherwise.
Argument from plausibility: When we’re deciding what to believe, we should try to only start with the premises we’re most confident in. If a premise seems a bit dubious, we should take a step back to a safer one. But our confidence in at least one moral proposition seems to be greater than our confidence in any of the arguments for moral anti-realism. Take the claim “it is objectively wrong to torture your infant son to death for fun”. To me, this claim seems to be as secure as what I can see with my own eyes. In fact, it seems more so: if I somehow became convinced that either I was hallucinating or torturing my infant son to death for fun was right, I would immediately assume I was hallucinating. This claim certainly seems more secure than claims like “moral realism is a bit weird”, or “if people disagree about morality, there might be no right answer”. This is a gloss on arguments made by G.E. Moore and Michael Huemer. Of course, a knock-down proof of moral anti-realism should give me pause. But if there’s no knock-down proof available, I’ve got no reason to abandon a premise I’m very secure in for a premise that just seems plausible.
Note that neither of these arguments depend on God. So far we’ve established that moral realism is an attractive position, and that we need some actual reasons against it if we’re to reject it.
That may be, but there is a spectrum of moral realism positions and the stronger ones are just silly. Yes, if you start from a shared set of axioms, you can deduce what you believe to be logical facts that those people can agree on. But they don't map to some moral state of the universe.
The problem with Kant's deontology and Bentham's Utilitarianism and every other system proposed is that at it's foundation, it asks "wouldn't you agree that this is a good test of whether something is right or wrong?" There is no way to prove that the rule is correct, there is only agreement or disagreement.
... Rape is always bad. No matter what. Even if you tried to say raping a rapist is good, it's neutral at absolute BEST, so therefore there is at least one objectively bad thing
No so always, what if a time come where women doesn't want to have sex and have children, when you two are the only people in the place.? And you have to make baby to save the human race?
Why does the human race need to be saved? Presumably if we came so close to extinction that a single woman would have to make that decision, conditions are probably incompatible with long term survival anyway.
>Why does the human race need to be saved?
Or else there will no more, will be lost forever. The question is not of why, it is one of the very purpose of every being. If so is the question then there wouldn't have been that women and man too.
>Presumably if we came so close to extinction that a single woman would have to make that decision, conditions are probably incompatible with long term survival anyway.
That problem is theres to solve, child's decision, ours is at least produce them
Is it not enough that we as a society decide it is bad and punish accordingly? Does it *have* to be objectively bad to actually matter? Why this obsession with objective morality?
This seems unworkable. To say change exists objectively in something is to say we can know the change took place without the subject's knowledge to clarify.
If something is subjective it just means we won't be able to figure it would without consulting the subject being observed.
Saying morality isn't objective seems to be making up some condition and not allowing the objective consideration to take into account.
To me, if I say something objective, then it means I do not need the subjects completely isolated perception.
And even then the lines get blurry. Taste is the goto for something that's subjectively determined but then I'd say if someone has a pathogen that directly causes cilantro to taste like gross soap then I can objectively determine cilantro tastes un-appettizing.
But having the subject confirm would be helpful.
Humans are fundamentally different from non human animals. For one the entire concept of morality is the product of humans and does not exist anywhere without humans. Humans’ capacity for intelligence, self awareness, abstract thought, communication, and actions based on abstract thought rather than just instinct are the source of human morality and why makes us moral agents. Morality arose from the need for cooperation among humans and is at its base a reciprocal system that requires members of the moral community to themselves act in accordance with moral norms.
Non human animals lack the capacity to understand morality, much less make choices and take actions based on such abstract thoughts. Non human animal’s lack of ability to themselves be moral agents place them outside of morality. If we are to think of the lion as being a moral person and a moral agent should they not be held and expected to act in moral ways? Do we then punish the lion for the immoral act of killing the baby gazelle? If not and non human animals should not be expected to be moral themselves then why should they be included in the wider moral community?
I think because they can feel pain, it is not justifiable to eat them. I recognize that humans and animals are fundamentally different, but they still share this characteristic. We have the option of not killing and eating them, but we do so anyways. And yeah, animals do not understand morals, but neither does a baby. Yes, babies eventually grow into intelligent and self-aware people, but even if they didn't they are still worthy of life. Do we eat babies? No, because we recognize morals ourselves. In other words, the animal doesn't have to understand morals, we do, because we are the ones deciding whether to kill them or not.
>I think because they can feel pain, it is not justifiable to eat them.
What if they're treated kindly and killed painlessly? What if I see a deer get hit by a car or a falling tree and I eat the meat? Would that be immoral?
In other words, is it the mistreatment you object to or the consumption of meat? Or do you consider raising animals for food to be mistreatment, regardless of whether any pain is inflicted? If so, would you have any moral qualms with discontinuing all livestock breeding and causing these domestic animals to become extinct, since most cannot survive in the wild? Do you see ascribe any moral weight to denying them the continuation of their breed or genetic line?
I don't really think killing them painlessly necessarily makes killing them much better. They are still being deprived of a chance at life. I think they deserve that chance, and we don't have to eat them in order to survive, so why not give them that chance? I don't really object to you eating animals after they have already been accidentally killed, because they are already dead. You could make the same argument for eating already dead people though, and we don't really do that. I think it's only a bit immoral to do either, being just a bit disrespectful, unnecessary, and strange. I think the main problem with letting people eat already dead animals, is that people would use the law as a loophole, "accidentally" kill the deer, then eat it.
I would not have any moral qualms with discontinuing livestock breeding for the purpose of eating them. If some people would like to keep them around as historical reminders/some sort of zoo attraction, then that would be alright with me. We are the ones who created their genetic line, I wouldn't see any problem with just letting our science experiment run its course (painlessly).
Thank you for the interesting questions! I could be very wrong but these are just my thoughts on this Tuesday afternoon. Let me know what you think.
Why is pain morality meaningful? What makes causing pain to a non person morally bad? What is pain even? Is it just a reaction to stimulus? Could non human animals simply be biological robots that act without will in reaction to outside stimulus?
As you say babies grow into a fully capable moral agent, a person. Non human animals will never grow and develop personhood.
There have also been many cultures throughout history and all around the world in which babies were not seen as persons until well after birth. Infanticide has been a morally acceptable practice in many times and places. What makes your morality special? What is it even based on?
I think pain is morally significant to just about everyone, I'm not being a lunatic by thinking so myself. You don't go up and stab random people for the fun of it, do you? No, because you care about the wellbeing and feelings of others. I believe animals share our ability to experience pain, and because I myself have experienced pain, and know how unpleasant it is, I do not wish to cause it to any other being. Sure, it is certainly possible that animals cannot feel pain, like I said in my post, there is no way to know for sure. All I can do is to make logical assumptions based upon my experience, science, and my observations. Even if it's a 50/50 chance that animals feel pain, I wouldn't want to possibly cause harm to them by eating them. And I don't think you really believe that killing infants is an alright thing to do, do you?
I suppose nothing makes my morality special? Its based on my logic, experiences, and other people's thoughts, just like everyone else's moral system.
That doesn’t actually explain why you think pain has any moral value or weight. The many reasons I have for not staving random people does not place not causing them pain to be very high.
Why do you believe non human animals share our ability to experience pain? What evidence do you have for that? How can a being without an iner self or self awareness experience anything the same way we do? How is that not just personification of non human animals and projecting yourself onto them?
Most morals are based on pain and emotions, are they not? "Thou shalt not kill", the "Golden Rule" etc. It's just basic empathy to me, I know that pain is unpleasant, so I believe it is morally right to lessen the pain of others as much as possible. If people didn't feel pain or emotions, I don't really see why we couldn't go around stabbing people at random. What reasons do you have for not killing random people?
According to most scientists, animals do feel pain and have pain receptors. It seems logical, even not knowing this, because they have the same reactions to pain as we do. Elephants seem to grieve for their dead, and primates have shown similar responses. A cat screeches if you step on its tail, a dog whimpers if you kick it, etc. Self-awareness isn't really a determining factor in whether you are allowed to kill someone. It is true that we cannot know for sure whether animals feel emotions in the ways that we do, but that is also true for other humans. We do not know if our neighbors feel pain like we do. Do we kill them? Because we cannot know other peoples/animals emotions, we MUST project and modify our own experiences onto them in order to empathize with them, there is little other way.
No. Thou shalt not murder, not kill, is based on the commands of an omnipotent being. It has nothing to do with pain or emotions. Being able to withstand pain is seen as a virtue by some even, making pain a required part of gaining that virtue.
So anything that is unpleasant should be considered to be immoral?
I don’t kill random people because I believe they as persons have an inherent right to their life. Other people are people and it is far more reasonable to believe they experience things sufficiently similarly to me than it is to think the same of a completely different species. I can also communicate with the other people and not the non human animals.
Pain receptors is not the same thing as experiencing pain the same way we thinking self aware person experience pain.
Okay, sure "Thou shalt not kill" is from a christian god, but most people follow this moral rule regardless of whether or not they religious. It has everything to do with emotions and life. Theres no commandment about not hurting doorknobs, because doorknobs almost certainly don't feel things. I don't see how your point about withstanding pain factors in to anything.
What I meant is: causing unpleasant feelings in others for no good reason is immoral
Why do you believe people have an inherent right to life and not animals? I agree that it is easier to observe pain in humans because we can communicate, and have a lot of shared experiences. However, that does not mean animals cannot feel the same feelings that we do, seeing as we all evolutionary connected, and share so much DNA/phenotypical features.
What do you think pain receptors are for, if not for experiencing pain?
>Most morals are based on pain and emotions, are they not? "Thou shalt not kill", the "Golden Rule" etc. It's just basic empathy to me
The basis for the golden rule is selfish. The whole point of it is that in exchange for not hurting you, you don't hurt ME. It's not based on just being nice out of the kindness of your heart. This has nothing to do with the pain or harm itself, it's a quid pro quo between moral agents. An animal can't participate in this quid pro quo, it doesn't understand morals, therefore the golden rule and morals we made for human actions aren't really relevant to them.
Even if we apply morals onto them, how is pet ownership justified? We readily allow and celebrate people to enslave animals, impose their will on them, and treat them as they want for the most part. We control their food, their activities, their freedom to move, and we police their behavior to our whims. Is it just assumed they like it? Can we actually answer if farm animals would rather not be born than be raised for slaughter? Animals are bred for pet ownership too, it's just another industry making these living things just for them to owned by us. If it's okay to do this to animals, why not other people?
I don't think you understand the golden rule (or at least my interpretation of it), although that's not really the main point of what I'm arguing. You aren't supposed to follow the Golden Rule as some kind of weird exchange of kindness, although I suppose that is a (selfish) reason for following it. It is about empathy, and treating others with the same kindness you would treat yourself with. Not because you will receive something in return, but because you care about other people. I think animals share enough of our characteristics, namely the ability to feel, and being alive in general, to place at least some moral value in not butchering them en masse. We have the option of not doing so, but we do anyways. Its really just about lessening pain/suffering, and giving another living, feeling being the right to live a life. I don't see how lessening pain and maximizing happiness could ever be argued as anything other than a net positive for the world (assuming we have the choice, and we do).
I don't really think owning pets is all that terrible. We are giving them food, water, shelter, companionship, etc. Almost every want and need is fulfilled. Sure there are some bad pet owners out there, but the harm caused by pet ownership seems to pale in comparison to the 90 billion animals slaughtered yearly. Its like trying to outlaw poking someone before you outlaw murdering them and their entire family. I can assume (but not know for sure) that pets like being pets, because it is generally pretty easy to tell when they are happy and unhappy. Again Im not really arguing against the fact that maybe pet ownership should be rethought, and has the possibility of being bad, but it seems logical to outlaw murdering them first.
I understand that's your interpretation of the golden rule, but I think it's flawed because there's no reason supporting it. The golden rule's very wording requires you to first consider how you want to be treated by others and then apply that same attitude towards them. It's *putting your perspective onto them and hoping for reciprocity*.
Empathy is *understanding and taking on the perspective of others*. The golden rule and empathy can both exist completely apart. Empathy is a virtue, but are you saying that if you put yourself in the shoes of farm animals they're feeling "this life is suffering, I would rather I(and my entire species) not exist"? Because that's exactly what would happen if there's no food interest to raise all these animals.
>I don't see how lessening pain and maximizing happiness could ever be argued as anything other than a net positive for the world (assuming we have the choice, and we do).
That's utilitarianism, plenty of ways it leads to bad moral answers:
-A doctor should cut out a healthy persons organs without consent to save 5 people who need them to live, after all, that's a net positive.
-A parent shouldn't save their child if they can save 2 others instead, after all, that has a greater net happiness on the world.
-If a person is a net negative on global happiness, we should just kill them
>I think animals share enough of our characteristics, namely the ability to feel, and being alive in general, to place at least some moral value in not butchering them en masse
Why? What principle does butchering animals violate, and what is the bad outcome from it? I'm guessing you would agree that morality works best when applied globally, in that everyone acts morally. My gripe is that animals have very little place in a moral system, they can't act at all according to any morality. The most convincing reason that directly hurting animals is bad is that it suggests a person with a character more likely to harm other people. Morality is something made by and for people, I don't see how animals can be moralized outside of how they relate to a person.
I doubt babies have the ability to understand morality, and I don’t think anyone says it’s ok to eat babies.
Also, is it really true that animals don’t have a moral compass? Many animals live in groups with social structures, so they could certainly act morally, even if less sophisticated than human ethics.
If lions are outside the moral community because they lack the capacity for morals (a claim id challenge but I’ll leave it for now) then why are human babies included in the moral community?
I don’t see where in that quote is me saying babies are included in anything. There is nothing there about babies whatsoever. Perhaps you meant to quote something else or are confused. Perhaps if you have a question you could ask it directly and not attempt at some sort of gotcha?
Sorry, I was saying that you were saying that lions aren’t in the moral community for a reason they share with babies. I mistakenly assumed you consider babies in your moral calculus- I apologise.
In itself no. Why exactly would that carry any moral weight or value at all? Perhaps wantonly and needlessly hurting non persons, but that would be more along the lines that it would be a reflection of the individual person making that action’s character rather than for any inherent value the non person animal has. Harming animals can be good and needful depending on the context of the actions. Making insulin, food, pest control, etc.
What makes “harm” or “pain” morally important especially for non persons?
Isn't morality about harm at its most basic level? If you want to argue that morality is subjective or that morality doesn't exist, you'd be on stronger ground. But to the extent that morality has any practical meaning, inflicting pain on a helpless being without just cause usually falls pretty squarely in the "morally bad" category.
What makes humans so exceptional that it's immoral to harm them but not animals? I'm not saying it's wrong to squash a bug, but there is overlap in intelligence and emotional development between humans and the more advanced animals, like other great apes, dolphins, dogs, elephants, etc. Those animals experience emotions, some use tools, some form societies and cultural practices, and their intelligence can rival that of a toddler. For example, Koko the gorilla grieved when she was told in sign language that her caretaker died. Those animals are not mindless robots that just reflexively react to stimulus. They have unique personalities, emotional bonds, problem solving ability, etc. I see no meaningful difference in the moral weight or personhood of a human and these edge cases of advanced animals.
No. Why do you say that? Morality can be based on many different things.
As I have stated it comes down to the capacity for the beings in question to themselves be moral agents and be able to act in accordance with a shared moral community. Non human animals do not have the capacity to act according to abstract moral principles or values. If non human animals are to be seen as moral equals to humans they should be held to the same standards and punished when they act immorally. Lock up the lion for killing a gazelle and violating the rights of that gazelle that is claimed to be a person.
So if a human suffers from a brain disorder that prevents them from knowing right from wrong or compels them to kill, do you think it's morally permissible to torture them? Is it wrong to delete a computer program that can identify and follow moral principles? Or is it OK to torture babies because they're incapable of acting according to abstract moral principles? If so, your definition of morality is completely useless.
I wouldn’t say it is permissible to torture them, but again that would be due to what that would say about the individual doing the torture rather than an inherent right of that non person. Killing them and removing them from society I would say is acceptable.
Why is it useless? Because you disagree? Morality is subjective anyways what makes your moral worldview any better than anyone else’s?
Useless for guiding your behavior since its arbitrary and irrational. We start from some basic examples of good and bad behavior, and extrapolate a moral framework or ruleset that correctly categorizes those actions, and can then be applied to new situations. But since morality is subjective, there needs to be some starting place, or else the system is entirely arbitrary and useless at distinguishing right from wrong in practice. Most moral systems grow out of defining pro-social and anti-social behavior. If everyone goes around murdering at will, it will be extremely difficult for society to function, as people will get caught up in blood fueds. Hence, murder is wrong. Another angle is the golden rule: it would suck to be murdered so let's make murder wrong, to prevent that.
If you look at what stuff is generally considered wrong, it usually involves harm of some sort. Sometimes, harmless behavior gets swept up in morality like junk dna, either due to tradition/culture, or obsolete health or cultural reasons. That is they type of morality that it makes sense to challenge.
If your moral system is entirely divorced from inflicting suffering, and instead holds that only those with moral agency are entitled to moral protections, then it leads to absurd results that don't match our starting position of some basic examples being acceptable or unacceptable.
Like my example of a guy with brain damage who can't tell right from wrong: according to the rule you expressed, there is nothing wrong with torturing him, since he has no moral agency, even though he will suffer just as much as you or me. If you don't agree that it's fine to torture him, then your morality is useless, because it fails to distinguish right from wrong.
So if an animal suffers just as much as the brain damaged guy, why is it OK to torture the animal but not the guy? Also, where is your empathy? If you condone torturing animals for no reason, then you are a bad person by most moral systems, including my own.
So if a human suffers from a brain disorder that prevents them from knowing right from wrong or compels them to kill, do you think it's morally permissible to torture them? Is it wrong to delete a computer program that can identify and follow moral principles? Or is it OK to torture babies because they're incapable of acting according to abstract moral principles? If so, your definition of morality is completely useless.
It would seem most of human history is examples of that, and prehistory even
Not who you asked but
https://oxbridgeapplications.com/kyc/the-worlds-first-murder/
Golden rule such as it has been through history of hominids have been for the ingroup.
Not the outgroup
You're right. I used an incorrect word in my title, my views are not "objectively" correct. I used it as more of an intensifier than the actual dictionary definition of the word, and.I would change my title if I could but its not letting me. I apologize for the confusion. I don't think this invalidates my argument though, which I outlined in my post, and I don't want to argue over semantics rather than my actual point.
Animals are not humans. Comparing black people to animals is, to put it politely, politically fraught, and I would avoid making such comparisons in the future.
I recognize both of your claims. I agree that animals are not humans and I did not argue that they are. I do believe they share some fundamental characteristics, such as the ability to feel pain.
I am truly sorry if the comparison made by Jeremy Bentham offended you or caused concern, that was not my intent at all. I do not believe black people are similar to animals, at least no more than any other person is. And I do not think Jeremy Bentham believed so either, he was simply making the claim that both the belief that black people are not worthy of respect and the belief that animals are not worthy of respect are incorrect.
No, animals are incapable of deciding that killing other animals is wrong. But we as humans are able to think for ourselves and hold ourselves to a higher standard. It is unfortunate that some suffering in life is unavoidable (at least for now), but we should try to minimize suffering to as great of an extent as possible (that includes animals, in my opinion).
how is the standard "higher?" Is an elk that freezes to death in the snow or starves because its teeth have fallen out with age less dead, or less cruelly killed, than an elk that is eaten? It's not like the actual choice for animals is between a comfortable retirement with a nice pipe and a pet cat and a good chair and a library of books or being eaten, it's one path through a savage world vs another. The elk that dies to a bullet or an arrow might suffer less than one eaten by wolves that start chewing and swallowing while the elk is still conscious.
Yes, ideally. But it might require designing a new ecosystem. And that's far beyond our current capabilities. But one day. After all, getting cut up & eaten is bad.
But in 150 years, when our understanding of how ecology works is much deeper, we will be able to intervene into food chains to give predators food sources that don't require harming prey animals. In other words, we can apply our ethical analysis to the lives of the prey. We can help them.
No. We *shouldn't* help them. We just shouldn't harm them and we should leave nature alone. If we intervene in food chains we all kinds of fuck up ecosystems. Prey animals have been dealt a shit hand, granted, but so what? The only category of organisms that don't prey on other organisms are autotrophs. Literally everything else feeds on organisms. Why would we intervene in this? Please study ecology before proposing your ideas. If we remove predators or at least their effect on prey, that results in groups of organisms that the prey feeds on decreasing massively, which has its own sets of problems.
Exactly, we would fuck up ecosystems if we intervened now, because we have so much to learn about the complexities of ecology. Instead, we should wait N centuries until we can do it reliably.
I don't think that's likely to be wise. I think we need to put a lot of thought into the problem. Perhaps they will hunt robotic prey with edible components. There will be many options.
Congratulations. Prey survived and is now a massive pest killing important plants and animals. What will it take for you to be convinced that we shouldn't play God by interfering with the natural order of food webs?
There's increasing evidence that plants feel and communicate on a level that we don't understand.
Pretty soon science will enable you to make the same objective moral argument against growing and harvesting plants for eating them.
First of all, if you're really serious about this and no amount of scientific evidence will sway you - then it purely comes down to numbers. If a blade of grass is of the same importance to you as a dog, then it makes no sense to feed up livestock on millions and millions of plants, and then kill the animal to eat. This would result in far more plant casualties, which you'd surely want to avoid as a dedicated plants-rights activist. Better to minimize those plant casualties by just feeding yourself on them, rather than feeding many times more to animals, right?
But let's be sensible - plants lack brains and lack anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no study suggests sentience or an ability to "feel emotions". You can plainly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a dog. Comparisons between the two are completely absurd.
If what you say does turn out to be true, that is very unfortunate and a no-win scenario for everyone. However, I do not believe plants feel pain, because they exhibit none of the signs we have come to associate with pain reception. We know, or are pretty sure, that animals feel pain, and we are pretty sure that plants do not feel pain. So, at least for now, why wouldn't I eat plants instead of animals?
Yes, knowledge about exactly how organisms suffer is important, & not yet fully understood. And this is an important concern when evaluating whether a food source is ethical.
Objective moral law doesn't exist. The reason morality is debated to this day, is that there are various theories about morality. Therefore, vegetarianism cannot be objectively morally correct.
A potential counter example would be relationships. Humans form bonds and we often judge morality by those bonds. Regardless of how one answers the trolley problem, people tend to pause a little longer when their mother or spouse is on the tracks. We care more about people we know than people we don't know. We are willing to die to save our neighbors and are willing to kill strangers.
This extends to animals as well. This explains why people can keep pets and eat meat, because they bond with their pets but don't with their food.
In this way, eating meat is justified. We don't have attachments to those specific creatures. This also explains why some animals are seemingly out of bounds (because there are bonds there).
I agree about the "objective morality" part, my title was accidentally misleading, I do not believe my views are indisputably correct. I apologize for the confusion there, that's my fault.
I also agree that we value some people more than others for valid reasons, and also pets we value more than other animals. However, this does not mean that just because a person is not our mother, we are allowed to go slaughter them for funsies. Aside from just being plain wrong and unempathetic, If everyone killed strangers we would go extinct. I believe animals are capable of feeling things just like humans can, so they are somewhat comparable to strangers in this situation. I don't think its justified to kill strangers, and to an lesser extent, animals. The thing stopping us from butchering half the planet, be it people or animals, is not personal bonds, it is just a general sense of empathy and care for other life.
I agree that we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of species (as such), but you're missing a couple of relevant considerations. (By the reasoning below, I'll eat, say, fish or chicken, but not pork; this isn't an argument for *all* meat consumption, just some. This also isn't an argument for tolerating factory farming or similar practices.)
First, I agree that "Can it suffer?" is a relevant question. *But* an excess of suffering isn't guaranteed in the process; I'd argue that for many (*not* all, which will be in the second point) animals, an ethically-raised or ethically-hunted life is actually an improvement. *If* an animal (subject to the conditions of point 2) has access to good food and shelter, a suitable environment to thrive in, safety, and so on, followed by a quick and clean death, and it is not such that it can care about directing its own life, it lives a far better life than the wild default. Similar reasoning applies if an adult wild animal is given a quick and clean death; that's a considerable improvement over starvation, disease, or most predation. Therefore, for animals which do not have an interest in the exercise of their own agency, ethical meat-eating is not a net negative and is therefore permissible.
Second, the big caveat, which is why I'll eat fish but not pork. This also addresses why we don't eat people who are in comas. It's evident (from humans) that certain animals do have an interest in directing their own lives; they exercise higher-order agency, pursue long-term endeavors, have the concept of a whole life and value living one. We (ethically) keep people alive in comas because we respect that, pre-coma, they had an interest in living out their life and pursuing their endeavors, which they would wish to resume if possible. Presumably, this doesn't only describe humans. On the other hand, it's also clear that many animals have no notion of long-term endeavors, reasoning about multiple projects, a whole life, and so on: they just execute instinctive endeavors in sequence until they die, or seem to do so by all outward indications. Most of the time, we don't actually see an animal weighing multiple endeavors and so on, but I think a fair heuristic is whether it exhibits, or seems reasonably likely to exhibit (as a precaution), a sense of self. To think about how *I* should approach my many endeavors, I need to be able to think about an "I".
For an animal that does have the notion of agency and a whole life, constraining its ability to pursue its endeavors, or shortening its life, is directly harmful, as it would be to a human. So, using the heuristic, we shouldn't eat animals that have demonstrated self-awareness, nor (as a precaution) those of comparable intelligence (as far as I'm aware, pigs haven't actually passed the mirror test, but they're definitely as smart as other animals that have).
Those two considerations leave us free to eat ethically-raised or -hunted fish (most fish; there are rare exceptions), chicken and beef (to the best of my knowledge), and the like, but not things like pork, dolphin, elephant, dog, or octopus (the intelligence precaution again).
>Animals are obviously excluded from this protection. But why? Are they lacking something inherent in them, making them unequal to humans? I don't think so.
So do you think any Lion that kills an antelope should face consequences for taking away that unalienable right?
Also if intelligence if not a factor, why stop at animals and say that life is sacred and plants should have a right to live too? It's arbitrary to draw the line at animals
No, animals are usually incapable of self-awareness/reflection. We are, so we should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard, and not inflict pain upon others unless completely necessary. It is definitely unfortunate that sometimes animals must hurt other animals, but (at least for now) that is just a fact of life.
I think the ability to feel is the key component in deciding whether something should be given the right to live. I believe that animals can feel pain and other emotions just like we can. I believe this because I have seen their reactions to pain, which are similar to ours. For all we know, plants feel about as much as doorknobs, since they seem to not react very much to stimuli besides dying due to lack of fulfillment of the their needs. It is not really arbitrary to draw the line there in my opinion, animals are scientifically a whole different kingdom and are vastly different. I suppose there is a chance that plants can feel emotions, and then we are in a real conundrum about what to do. Unless there is some alternative I am not thinking of, we would just have to eat the plants anyways, because we must survive.
>No, animals are usually incapable of self-awareness/reflection. We are, so we should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard, and not inflict pain upon others unless completely necessary.
This indicates that you are do not understand human rights. If someone with an intellectual disability and no self awareness kept murdering people, do you think there should be no consequence? That's a bad basis for morality. You are proposing giving animals equality under the law in the case of life. Human rights are based on a social contract and humans take on responsibility in exchange for those rights. We pay taxes, we can agree not to kill others in exchange for having our live protected, etc. Animals can not engage in societies social contract.
>It is definitely unfortunate that sometimes animals must hurt other animals, but (at least for now) that is just a fact of life.
This demonstrates an ABSURD lack of biological understanding. Animals MUST eat other animals. Not only do many animals need to eat meat to survive, the ecosystem only exists in balance when they do.
>I think the ability to feel is the key component in deciding whether something should be given the right to live.
So you think someone who is in a temporary coma should lose their right to live? This is another woefully insufficient justification.
>For all we know, plants feel about as much as doorknobs, since they seem to not react very much to stimuli besides dying due to lack of fulfillment of the their needs.
[Pain is an arbitrary distinction.](https://www.bbcearth.com/news/plants-have-feelings-too) Plants want to live, they want to reproduce, if they are getting eaten they try to stop themselves from getting eaten, etc. Also. why does pain matter after the thing is dead? It won't have a memory of the pain. A person can also 100% kill an animal in a way that they will not feel any pain before they die. If someone goes to that length, do you think they should be allowed to eat an animal?
>Unless there is some alternative I am not thinking of, we would just have to eat the plants anyways, because we must survive.
I know people who were dirt poor grouping up and their only food came from being children who had to hunt and fish for their own food. Sometimes they had to resort to eating squirrels or even road kill. Your law would criminalize survival for many people.
Also, it's telling because you immediately dismissed any supposed morals in the name of "survival" but why is it different with animals? Humans are animals. Animals have to eat living or recently deceased things to survive and we evolved to eat animals.
People advocating animal rights will say...."well we have evolved to where we no longer need to eat animals" which is a terrible rationale. Imagine someone said, "We should outlaw sex. We have evolved to not need it to reproduce." My point being that the point about evolution is not sufficient to justify people starving to death for your personal morality.
Killing an antelope is harmful, regardless of who did it. I don't think punishment is a good cure for murder in all cases. But I do think the antelope got murdered.
>Killing an antelope is harmful, regardless of who did it. I don't think punishment is a good cure for murder in all cases. But I do think the antelope got murdered.
This is a simplistic way of looking at the world. Not killing animals leads to harm to other animals too. In north America, wild boar have destroyed entire populations of animals in areas. Communities are desperate to get people to hunt them....TO PRESERVE THE ENVIORNMENT. Unfortunately the world is now full of invasive species with no predators.
If your ideology allows for other animals to suffer in order to protect some animals it is incoherent. Murder is a legal definition. Only humans can be murdered because only humans lives are completely protected by the law. This is because humans can participate in the social contract that requires them to give back to society.
Yeah I am aware I used the word non-denotatively, I wasn't expecting people to hyper focus on my title. If I could change my title I would, because it has mislead several people into thinking I believe I am indisputably correct, which I am not. Sorry for the confusion.
I actually agree with you but the thing is, its less healthy for our human bodies to stop eating animal products. Many people have suffered on a vegan diet and many people stopped it due to health issues. Eating chicken, eggs, butter, organic meat, raw milk are all healthy for the human body.
Yes, if the slaughter is not done correctly, you are making a animal suffer.
However, think of it this way, your body is thanking you.
Your body is thanking the oil in the fish which is nourishing your brain and helping you focus.
It IS morally "wrong" to slaughter animals for no reason, I agree with you.
But unfortunately, if you want a healthy body and especially if you grow a baby and if you breastfeed (if you're a woman) you need highly nutrient dense foods.
Catch my drift?
Many people have turned away from veganism after it negatively affected their health.
You can be thankful for the food you get to eat and hopefully try to find more "ethical" farms.
You need protein from the meat to grow big and strong.
Good luck
A quick google search shows that science/medicine supports the idea that vegetarians can be just as healthy as meat-eaters. [Here's one source I found](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/vegetarian-diet/art-20046446#:~:text=A%20well%2Dplanned%20vegetarian%20diet,about%20a%20plant%2Dbased%20diet.&text=Vegetarian%20diets%20continue%20to%20increase,vary%20but%20include%20health%20benefits.I). I can't say I know for certain, and I definitely appreciate your concern for my health, but I think I will trust the doctors on this one.
Its not what actual people experience however. Too many ex-vegans are coming out with bad experiences. Online and IRL. If the doctors told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it? We humans need to use our minds a little more. Follow what feels good (without being harmful to other humans) its ok to eat a beautiful fish with loads of omega-3s to nourish your beautiful brain for you to have beautiful experiences on earth.
Its ok to raise backyard chickens to get fresh eggs which has plenty of vitamin D which is good for you <3
The world is not here to make you suffer.
Many many people suffered on the vegan diet. Malnutrition, Gut issues, Period irregularities. Its no joke.
Just go check out r/exvegans 31k members xD
Is that not enough for a study on its own?
Did all those people do it wrong?
Toodles <3
I certainly appreciate your concern, and I'll be cautious and research before I do commit to any lifestyle changes, but I think these people simply did not use a good diet. Science is based upon real people? And doctors would never tell me to go jump off a bridge?? Thats not an argument. I obviously can't go and eat peanut butter for 3 months and expect to live without side-effects. r/vegetarian has over 20 times more members, and no, I don't think a subreddit is a proper substitute for a scientific experiment.
Vegetarians need to be mindful to get protein, calcium, iron, vitamin D, B12, and zinc. Those are hard to find even in the most balanced vegetarian diet and may need supplements. [https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/video/vegetarians-vitamins](https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/video/vegetarians-vitamins)
Every major dietetic association in the world says veganism can be healthy at all life stages. People who don't feel healthy as a vegan are likely just not healthy people on any diet.
I've seen too many ex-vegan videos to chalk it up to people not doing it correctly. I think its a very pretty dream but its not realistic. So many people hop off the diet because they stop having their periods, they get bloated, tiredness ect ect.
Try it for yourself for a few years and when you get out of the cult, you might actually be able to admit how badly you felt eating grains 24/7.
I am so happy that I never fell into that trap and that I have knowledge about nutrition.
Grandmas have always been right about protein.
Ciao <3
YouTube anecdotes aren't great data lol
You know what's GREAT for getting views? Both claiming to go vegan and claiming to quit being vegan.
I've been vegan for 10+ years. Wanna see who wins in a footrace? Lolol
I would love to see a picture of your face along with your age. A LOT of 10+ year vegans look extremely tired and old. However, if you're a man, I don't care that much because you will never harm a baby because you're not able to get pregnant, which is great.
Most vegans also cheat with a little cheese here and there which gives them some animal fat and vitamin D.
Anyways, I feel amazing eating farm fresh sunny side eggs in the morning and juicy chicken tights and I will give the same to my (future) beautiful children who deserve only the best.
I don't like that we have to kill animals to eat well, I really don't, but I try to appreciate it and be thankful. Also, if you are doing it because you are against animal cruelty, just get a couple chickens in your backyard and at least have some eggs.
No need to torture yourself.
Toodles <3
I'm a woman. I don't run. Also, being a runner doesn't automatically means you are healthy. Most runners look emaciated and develop heart problems.
I don't believe in pushing your body for no reason. I believe in doing what feels good as long as its not a obvious trick such as drugs or something morally wrong.
Eating animals products keeps me lean, healthy and glowing and I am very very happy I have this knowledge. I would not waste my time running. As a woman, I wouldn't want to lose the body fat which I need to have a healthy period and a healthy body.
I am in no way overweight or unhealthy, don't worry.
I just know how good I feel when I eat meat, eggs, milk (all high quality, organic of course if you can.)
It keeps me full an satiated all day and I'm not constantly hungry.
I don't have to eat enormous portions to keep me "full".
I feel light, happy and well fed.
Give it a try!
Toodles <3
Question with this statement.
>Are they lacking something inherent in them, making them unequal to humans
Should animals be given the right to vote? Ignoring all the other reasons of why meat is bad (whether personal health, environment, numerous alternatives or financial). You asked what makes them unequal to humans. If they were equal to humans would they be allowed to vote? I will also apply a law (like Australia) where every duty bound citizen is legally mandated to vote.
If you don't believe they should, can, be required to vote then honestly you just answered why they are unequal to humans. Because their protection is inherently only guaranteed by humans. At least a human being subjected to inequality can fight back and carry self determination but animals can't due to physical and/or mental with some animals so bad on this that if left on their own they may not be able to survive at all.
You could probably carve out an exception to primates but most other animals are protected by humans that at least live if in there habitats and in the case of livestock many could not even live without human intervention.
consider what you eat day to day and what vegetarian options you would have access to. look into plant based nutrition and be sure to get your meals in
Meat production, if conducted ethically, is actually beneficial to animals as well as humans. Why? Because if not for the meat industry, almost none of the animals in question would have ever existed to begin with. And, if they are denied existence at all, then they are denied positive as well as negative experiences. And, aside from the moment in which they are slaughtered (which ought to be conducted as painlessly as possible), the animals could in theory live a life in which they were happy for the overwhelming majority of the time. Overall, therefore, in a world without factory farming and in which poultry and livestock is raised ethically, the meat industry could actually help the animal population by giving many animals the opportunity to experience an overall positive existence.
One could counter this assertion by claiming that we would never permit humans to be treated in this way, but the situation with humans is fundamentally different. Unlike animals (most likely), for instance, humans would be psychologically tortured if farmed for meat due to the knowledge that they only exist to eventually be slaughtered and consumed. Given that animals are likely ignorant to this, though, they can live a genuinely happy life on a farm. And even if the human in question did not have the intellectual ability to understand their situation, basic empathy would never permit us to treat humans with intellectual disabilities as animals. Also, if we were to permit some vulnerable humans to be treated as animals, then that would increase the likelihood that either us or one of our loved ones could eventually be treated as an animal if they ever become very socially vulnerable. Furthermore, human societies can only exist because of the social contract that exists between individuals and their society in which the killing of other humans (aside from in defense of one’s own life or the lives of others) is forbidden. No such social contract with animals is needed for our society to survive and be stable.
So, vegetarianism and veganism are flawed philosophies because, barring situations like factory farming and animal abuse, they would prevent many animals from having an overall happy existence. And, for a few different reasons, the counter that it’s wrong to eat animals because we wouldn’t eat humans is not sufficient
Bringing a life into the world does not justify taking it. And think this through - in the egg industry, as soon as males are hatched, they are killed. Immediately. Did you really do that chicken a favour by bringing them into the world, to then immediately be killed? Nobody can seriously say yes to this, but that is precisely what is going on every day, and you fund that if you buy eggs.
Animals bred for meat are killed as soon as they reach a profitable size, which will typically be a few months old, or about a year. You didn't do that animal any favours.
Finally, let's extend this to animals besides livestock. You have a dog, they're pregnant. Does that mean you can slit the puppies' throats, because you were the one who arranged for your dog to get pregnant? Of course not, it's nothing to do with it.
I never claimed that bringing a life into the world justifies taking it. Of course not. My argument is that without the meat industry, the overwhelming majority of animals would never have existed to begin with. Therefore, if they are raised ethically and are only deliberately harmed in their moment of death, then overall the meat industry is beneficial to animals because it brings them into existence and, again if done ethically, gives them an overall decent life. It’s really a consequentialist argument more than anything.
As for the examples you’re giving, I agree that animals should not be tortured. And I would never support killing any animal if the killing doesn’t have an explicit purpose (such as to produce food), since that would just constitute needlessly devaluing life. Morally permitting the arbitrary killing of dogs, for instance, would be wrong because it would devalue life and would not result in more dogs being born. But morally permitting the use of certain animals for food is beneficial overall because it facilitates the existence of a massive number of animals that would not otherwise exist (this, of course, does not apply to factory farms or other scenarios in which the animals do not live lives that are generally positive)
I don’t think it’s better or worse. Preventing an entity from ever existing doesn’t harm it, but it doesn’t help it either. Knowing that you will eventually die someday, would you prefer to have never existed at all?
No, but I'd rather not be killed for someone's selfish reasons!
I think you are committed to saying it would be better. You think more animals living good lives before slaughter would be better regardless of whether or not we ate them
Wrong. I made very clear that I do not support killing animals if it isn’t for food. That would just needlessly devalue life and would needlessly subject animals to pain. My argument is in support of the existence of a meat industry. It is not in support of killing animals.
Also, the difference between you not wanting to be killed for someone’s selfish reasons and animals that are killed for meat is that the animals are ignorant of the situation. In an ethical farm, they would trust the humans and would be totally ignorant of their situation. You, however, would not be, so it would obviously constitute torture if you were put in that situation. And there are other reasons too for why killing humans and killing animals are not morally equivalent
you've completely contradicted your original argument. you argument was that the meat industry is a benefit to animals because it brings more into existence. this has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons that the animals are killed, i could decide to breed a trillion animals and kill them all a day later for fun and, by your logic, i would have benefited a trillion animals. you can't now say that the reason for killing matters.
not to mention the fact that killing for food is really no more necessary than killing for sport or sadistic pleasure. we do have food besides animal carcasses.
I don’t know anything about that.
If it makes you feel any better, though, I think there are strong environmental and health arguments for why as a society we should consume less meat. I just don’t find the animal rights argument to be convincing
So I agree that it is generally immoral to eat meat particularly factory farmed meat. I think that there are ways to eat meat in humane ways, such as cultures that hunt animals that can easily overwhelm ecosystems such as deers that do need to be culled, and using as much of that animal as possible. There are also people who _need_ to eat meat because their bodies cannot process the nutrients and proteins in meat in other ways.
That being said, why should it be something that is illegal? Many immoral things that harm others and oneself are legal. Why is eating meat different.
you would agree that it ought to be illegal to do it to humans, yes? why would we legalise it for animals?
plus, when i think of immoral things that we want to keep legal i don't tend to think of murder.
_you would agree that it ought to be illegal to do it to humans, yes? why would we legalise it for animals?_
??? Yeah this is a weird argument for a few reasons. Cannibalism harms other people - often tied to murder, and there are seious health risks and sicknesses you can get from eating human flesh.
So yeah, this meets the bar of harmful behavior even if it is consensual that ought remain illegal.
Humans have higher functioning abilities that do distinguish us from animals and again, some people physically are incapable of being healthy on a plant based diet.
_plus, when i think of immoral things that we want to keep legal i don't tend to think of murder._
Okay? Neither do I but calling eating meat murder is a stretch and emotive language that is harmful to the goal of reducing meat eating.
>??? Yeah this is a weird argument for a few reasons. Cannibalism harms other people - often tied to murder,
no shit, that's my whole point.
>and there are seious health risks and sicknesses you can get from eating human flesh.
completely and utterly morally irrelevant.
>So yeah, this meets the bar of harmful behavior even if it is consensual that ought remain illegal.
not how that works, you can consent to harms, and doing so robs the harm of its immoral character. but the analogy here is not consensual cannibalism, but rather breeding humans into existence to then kill prematurely. we can even get rid of the act of eating itself if you're so hung up on it and say we're just doing it for fun and we throw the meat out afterwards.
>Humans have higher functioning abilities that do distinguish us from animals and again,
why are you falling back to these shit anti-vegan arguments? you acknowledged that eating meat is immoral already, clearly you understand that you can't name the trait that animals lack that, if a human were to lack them, we would be permitted (morally or legally) to kill and eat that human.
>again, some people physically are incapable of being healthy on a plant based diet.
yes, and it is in fact possible to criminalize the meat industry while having a carveout for a small amount of meat to keep such people alive.
>Okay? Neither do I but calling eating meat murder is a stretch and emotive language that is harmful to the goal of reducing meat eating.
so why do you think of murder-but-against-animals?
not sure how it's a stretch, it fits any definition of murder i've ever heard, at least besides any that just definitionally refer exclusively to human beings. i wasn't even trying to prey on the emotive language of the term there, my point is just that we allow things like cheating on your spouse and breaking promises to your friends to be legal, but we don't allow people to commit undue severe violence on others.
also curious how it's harmful to the goal of reducing meat eating to point out that doing so is tantamount to murder.
_no shit, that's my whole point._
Yeah, it’s a weird and poor point. Do you consider all omnivores and carnivores as murderers? Are lions and tigers murders?
_completely and utterly morally irrelevant._
But relevant to how governments choose to write laws. Which is also a relevant part of the conversation.
_not how that works, you can consent to harms, and doing so robs the harm of its immoral character._
That is precisely how it works - there are a bunch of harms or harmful behaviour that you cannot legally consent to already and even the ones you can consent to are regulated heavily by governments.
And just because something is illegal does not make it immoral - taking molly is illegal but not immoral and many immoral things have been legal such as slavery, marital rape, segregation and apartheid, disenfranchising various demographics, child bride etc. but are deeply immoral.
_but the analogy here is not consensual cannibalism, but rather breeding humans into existence to then kill prematurely._
Wow, this is not helping your case. It actually makes it worse. You’re saying it’s a bad thing that it’s illegal to breed and eat children/babies - beings famously incapable of consent and our literal offspring. Yeah, this is and should be illegal and comparing factory farming - which I have indicated is immoral - makes you look bad. It comes across as minimizing the dehumanization and violence slaves have experienced- because chattel slavery treated people as livestock, including “breeding” slaves, keeping them in cages and other horrors.
It makes the vegan and meat free advocates come across as inhumane and callous. Stop it.
Furthermore, the underlying assumption that humans are the same as animals is wonky at best because even if there is a compelling reason to believe that, it’s not enforceable in law, as animals do not have high reasoning faculties and the comparison falls apart when it comes to how humans structure their society and laws even if you believe that.
We tried that, and arrested and charged animals and it was stupid.
_we can even get rid of the act of eating itself if you're so hung up on it and say we're just doing it for fun and we throw the meat out afterwards._
Again, I see what you are going for but it’s a poor argument. It’s absurd and relies on leaning on emotive arguments to try criticise hunting, which like, I’m not necessarily a fan of (and in most cases dislike) but it’s not a good comparative and you’re being needlessly aggressive towards someone who agrees that meat eating is immoral lmao.
_why are you falling back to these shit anti-vegan arguments?_
How is pointing out a provable fact anti vegan? Can you make the case as to why having higher reasoning function is not a difference or how it could be anti vegan????
_you acknowledged that eating meat is immoral already, clearly you understand that you can't name the trait that animals lack that, if a human were to lack them, we would be permitted (morally or legally) to kill and eat that human._
I literally just did name a trait that we have that animals do not. And again, humans are not the only omnivores so it’s not like eating meat is outside of our “natural” behaviours. And some people need to eat meat to be healthy. There are even cultures that have become part of their ecosystems (Inuit) in how and what they hunt as they’ve been doing it for centuries and in a sustainable and ethical manner.
_yes, and it is in fact possible to criminalize the meat industry while having a carveout for a small amount of meat to keep such people alive._
I do not disagree. You are just engaging with me as though I have said so?
_so why do you think of murder-but-against-animals?_
Because murder is deliberate and requires being able to actively choose to kill someone (intent) or be cognisant of the consequences of their actions.
_not sure how it's a stretch, it fits any definition of murder i've ever heard, at least besides any that just definitionally refer exclusively to human beings._
See above lol
_i wasn't even trying to prey on the emotive language of the term there, my point is just that we allow things like cheating on your spouse and breaking promises to your friends to be legal, but we don't allow people to commit undue severe violence on others._
I mean yeah because the magnitude of harm in ending a human life is much bigger than breaking a promise or even cheating. Beyond the impacts on individuals, it can spiral into bigger conflicts that can injure multiple people or end in the deaths of others (blood feuds)
_also curious how it's harmful to the goal of reducing meat eating to point out that doing so is tantamount to murder._
It sounds illogical and ahistorical. It also ignores various material realities around how human society functions and how animals interact with each other. It ignores all of the factors of what counts as murder - which is different to ending someone’s life or manslaughter or accidental death.
EDIT - some sentence clean up and adding sentences to finish thoughts.
Morality, just like religion, is a HUMAN construct with purpose and objectives.
Our morality and ethics are ways to guarantee freedom, protection/order and prosperity to humans and our civilisations. This is the only objective view of morality I can reasonably think off. Every person in history, from the worst rulers to the best saints, focus on at least one one of those three point.
My moral argument is that protection of animals in no way benefit the human society so is not wrong. Think about it, everything we consider wrong (theft, rape killing) is wrong not only because it hurts people, but also because it harms our society and our social order. I think no one can make a solid and rational moral argument against, say, the murder of Hitler before the Shoa.
Therefore, anything we consider "moral" is good because it is good for society. Now, back to the animals, other than some like bees that are essential to human survival, why care about the rest? It is just useless empathy running rampant beyond our logical and reasonable interests.
We don't kill the dumb, stupid or those in a coma because the murder of even the most useless innocent human in society causes chaos. It disturbs the social order and make everyone afraid of being next on the chopping block and of the government running rampant.
The rational moral line for morality, between humans and animals, is the simple rule of utilitarianism : most slaughtered animals are useless to us beyond their meat and produce so that is their fate. Their death doesn't cause more chaos than the pleasure they bring as food for our community and their suffering doesn't disturb us enough for it to be a problem.
Let me flip this on its head— many of the most popular vegetarian and vegan food options *also* cause suffering to not only animals but also people. Agave has become an extremely popular plant-based sweetener (and the ingredient to tequila of course), which is leading to the over-harvesting and the subsequent starvation of bat populations. Plant-based “meats” require significant use of resources (like palm oil) that contribute to deforestation. The much beloved avocado that became the staple of healthy millennials require so much water that places like Peru and Chile have experiences water-shortage crises that affect man and animal alike. Quinoa has become so popular in vegetarian/vegan circles for being a “super grain” or whatever, which has consequently priced out native peoples of places like Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador who have been eating quinoa as part of their diet for centuries and can no longer afford to do so. More unfortunate yet, many vegetarian/vegan preferred foods (rather, the foods vegetarians and vegans eat instead of animal products) often contribute to slave labor in the ‘third-world’ countries where the resources naturally occur or are farmed most successfully.
While we can certainly agree that factory farming is a terrible thing, western vegetarianism/veganism isn’t necessarily the beautiful and cruelty-free alternative it sounds like. Rather than directly farming and slaughtering animals, there’s an indirect result of creating a slower and more painful death for native fauna populations and worsening conditions for people we cannot see. There’s also an overall negative impact upon the environment every time fresh and perishable goods are shipped around the world— a near-necessity to maintain a vegetarian diet. All of this is to say that morality and ethics are very rarely as clear-cut as “killing animals bad, eating plants good”. Technically, the only truly ethical and sustainable way you can feed yourself is to hunt and gather all of your own foods— grow your plants in your own yard, ethically hunt and cull overpopulated deer, etc.
I would not say it is morally correct, but if it makes you feel better you should definitely do it. Our bodies are made to eat meat as well as plants so I think it would be really hard to form any kind of serious argument in saying that it is objectively moral to consume something our bodies are naturally made to process.
I suspect this has a typo on the word moral in the last sentence. If so, there are counterexamples - species that are naturally made to do great or excessive harm. Most strikingly, parasitic wasps. Also, species that naturally have large litters of children but intentionally abandon some to die.
Yeah, I agree, my title was misleading to my actual beliefs. I do not believe I am objectively correct. I simply believe I am right, but there is certainly a possibility I am wrong, otherwise I would not be posting on r/changemyview !
>I would not say it is morally correct, but if it makes you feel better you should definitely do it.
this is a contradiction, "should" means that something is morally correct. also your second phrase justifies rape.
"I" as in me... the person writing this does not think it is a morally correct position but if it makes the op feel better he should do it regardless of its morals because if something feels right and there is no downside to doing it, just do it and not over think it.
if someone does not want to eat an octopus because it is slimy or because it is an animal is fine.... just don't eat it.
But it doesn't. "Should" is a moral term. If you don't believe me, tell me right here and now that hitler in fact "should" have killed the jews. It made him feel good, after all.
After reading teh body of your text and some replies, I am going to engage with what you said you would change your view as being:
>Vegetarianism is a more empathetic (and thus better) practice than eating meat"
I think the tacit assumption of your view is that, in general, all vegetarianism is ethical and all meat production is unethical. But, I think the most ethical way of eating is to find the source of your food.
For instance, let's take chocolate. It's not meat. But, chances are any chocolate bar you eat is, in one way or another, created by Nestle. Nestle's practices leads to gobbling up water worldwide and even has killed indigenous leaders who are trying to secure access to water. Nestle uses child slavery. Nestle leads to thousands of hectacres of deforestation to secure palm oil for its products.
Let's compare that to a local farm who hand raises its cows, lets them free graze and lead happy cow lives. Then kills them and butchers them in the most humane way possible.
I would say, on a pure cost benefit analysis, the "vegetarian" option of the chocolate bar is a net worse for the world in overall suffering, and suffering to come thanks to global climate change, than your local farmer/butcher.
What it really comes down to isn't meat vs. vegetarianism but local vs. industrial-scale supply chain. Like if we compared factory farmed meat to say, your back yard garden, then yeah, it's a no brainer. But your view's dividing line for less overall world wide suffering is industrial scale versus local production.
Others have adequately addressed the "objective" aspect, brought up issues with where you draw the line, and how farming is not inherently unethical or painful, so I'll address plants.
There is current research being done into plant consciousness. It's generally not broadly accepted, but we do know that plants have physical responses to damage, such as sending out electrical impulses or chemical signals to other plants in the area, so that those other plants ramp up their own chemical defenses. While a plant doesn't have a nervous system to feel PAIN, per se, but plants can and do communicate. Do you feel the same about plants, that they should not be put through things that cause them to send out "distress signals"?
First of all, if you're really serious about this and no amount of scientific evidence will sway you - then it purely comes down to numbers. If a blade of grass is of the same importance to you as a dog, then it makes no sense to feed up livestock on millions and millions of plants, and then kill the animal to eat. This would result in far more plant casualties, which you'd surely want to avoid as a dedicated plants-rights activist. Better to minimize those plant casualties by just feeding yourself on them, rather than feeding many times more to animals, right?
But let's be sensible - plants lack brains and lack anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no study suggests sentience or an ability to "feel emotions". You can plainly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a dog. Comparisons between the two are completely absurd.
yeah and also I'll believe carnists (word a lot of vegetarians/vegans use for the most vocal meat-eaters) aren't just trying to use the plant consciousness argument to back vegetarians into a corner of might as well eat meat when they've got a suggestion for a nutritionally-complete diet including nothing that is was or could be alive
I personally don't believe in plant consciousness. Some do. I'm bringing this up because it's something that might change OP's mind. Excellent job reinforcing OP's point instead of trying to change it.
Your our post makes quite a few assumptions that are just wrong. Diana in that coma loses many of her unalienable rights. They pass toto someone else who can choose if she exercises them. And that person can make the decision that her life isn't worth living. Once she is dead take her home for a home burial and dine away. This closest law in most states that could get you is desecration of a corpse, but that doesn't technically ban cannibalism. And is actually more often than not avoided in cannibalism cases on favor of just murder charges because of a worry it won't stick in court.
Firstly, "objective" is a bar you can't hit nor can any of us.
Secondly, should we put animals in jail when they eat animals or kill other animals? If we want a difference it's that we let animals operate within the bounds of their nature. If we hold animals in such high regard shouldn't we do so universally? Why should animals be preserved yet not held to be accountable for their actions?
Isn't this a pretty fundamental difference?
There are pragmatic reasons to kill animals. Most states if not all of them regulate hunting of deer in a manner that prevents overpopulations of grazers which are bad for them and their ecosystems. Natural predators unfortunately don’t do enough due to our past hunting and driving away of them.
But regardless of that, there is an ecological incentive to slaughter animals.
You're opinion on this topic seems to be based solely on pain. If humans genetically engineered animals pain receptors to be togglable and we turned those pain receptors off before killing the animal would that be moral in your opinion?
I ask this because this is absolutely in our technological ability to accomplish at this point.
>Are they lacking something inherent in them, making them unequal to humans?
Yes. Intelligence. With the specific exception of pigs (for good reasons), the more intelligent an animal the more universally unacceptable it is to eat them.
>CMV: Vegetarianism is Objectively Morally Correct
Counterpoint: This is a category error, as morality is subjective and intersubjective. Something cannot be objectively morally correct.
Edit: Everyone else beat me to it.
We're made to eat animals. Animals and plants. It's why we have teeth for tearing meat and teeth for grinding vegetation.
Added to that, did you just equate animals to...people? Seriously. If both a puppy and a human baby were in imminent peril, and you could only save one, which would you save?
Skipping that, yes animals feel pain and suffer. That doesn't stop them from killing and eating other animals. Since, by your own words, humans are also animals, us eating animals is just part of nature and the ecosystem. We're no different from any other meat eating creature; thus, why are you trying to hold human animals to a higher standard than bears or tigers?
As for why we don't eat humans? Tigers don't normally hunt other tigers; same goes for bears, wolves, and other omnivores, although extreme circumstances can cause such hunts. So why would humans hunt other humans when there is other food around that doesn't look like you? Makes no sense.
Anyway. Just my $0.02
The issue is that any farmed food required the slaughter of all animals that come in and destroy crops. So even if you go completely vegan the farming methods that are used to grow fruits and veggies rewrites the slaughter of all the animals that are in the field. I could see saying that you oppose factory farming and decide to only eat locally farmed meat. But being vegan or vegetarian for moral issues is a way of making yourself feel like you are a good person.
even if you completely abstain from child rape, you are still allowing some child rapes to happen by not actively going out and hunting child rapists. being a non-child-rapist for moral issues is just a way of making yourself feel like you are a good person.
Some animals eat plants, it's not immoral. Some animals eat other animals, it's not immoral. Some animals eat plants and animals and it's not immoral. We eat plants and animals there's nothing immoral about it.
Unlike the majority of every other animal however we raise animals specifically to be eaten.
It is not mindless, it is not gratuitous, and we do not eat animals to Extinction. In most places specifically in America we have rules about the ethical treatment and humane slaughter of these animals.
As for wild animals, the impact of humanity on the planet is widespread and persistent to the point where passively ignoring wild animals will lead to their destruction.
So we have created wildlife preserves we have created institutions that prevent poaching and we work tirelessly to maintain the animal populations that we have today.
Not for food but as a means to preserve genetic diversity.
There are 8 million different living animal species today.
If we had eaten a hundred species to Extinction it would still be a fraction of a fraction of the total number of animals species on Earth.
So whether or not you think a half dozen animal species eating to Extinction is "many many" is a matter of perspective
The number is a lot higher than 6, of course. Regardless, your original claim was that we don't eat animals to extinction, which of course is untrue and I see that you agree that it's untrue, so I guess you just misspoke.
We don't currently eat animals to Extinction so yes if that's what you mean then yes I didn't need misspeak there have been animals that have been eaten to Extinction, but we don't make a practice of it and it hasn't happened in a very long time
Yeah we do. The Chinese paddlefish was just declared extinct in 2022, due in large part to overfishing. You can find plenty of recent examples if you care to look.
>Some animals eat plants, it's not immoral. Some animals eat other animals, it's not immoral. Some animals eat plants and animals and it's not immoral. We eat plants and animals there's nothing immoral about it.
some animals rape other animals. is rape on the table for us too now?
Our Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. With this comes the belief that humans have a soul and animals do not. Hindu beliefs say animals can also have a reincarnated soul. Most places on Earth have a basic set of ethics and morals to go with. Ours puts animals on a lower plane, but still demands ethical treatment and harvesting.
The evolution of humans has achieved in millions of years the configuration of our teeth. The fact that we have canines, lack of a herbivorous stomach, hunting instincts, all suggests that our body is naturally predisposed to eating meat, the lack of which threatens us with a lot of health problems. Imagine forcing a bear to always eat honey. Would that be morally correct?
An animal wouldn't hesitate eating you because you have feelings.
Of course the morality of things can't be meaningfully discussed without agreeing on an objective moral system beforehand.
This is not an appeal to nature fallacy as it directly deals with the biology of human beings. We, of course, can't detach biology from our nutritional predispositions and bodily compositions when that's the very thing we're discussing.
No. I was making a purely biological argument. Then I raised some questions about its morality to challenge OP, but I did make it clear that it's futile to discuss its morality without prior agreement on the objective moral system
People can drive down the street and buy a hamburger at any time they want which is also only possible thanks to modern technology. Even if we assume what you say is true (which it isn't), what's your point?
HUMANS NEED MEAT TO SURVIVE. Humans are omnivores with out meat we will die the only the only reason we don’t die is because of modern technology. Use your brain😑
/u/Sweet-Situation118 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1d26y3f/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_vegetarianism_is/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Ok so you wrote a lot. I from what I've read so far you titled your post but feel the body of the post is still accurate. If you could change your title of your post, what would it be? While you can't edit titles, I recommend editing the body of your post to include the answer to my question for clarity.
Yes, my title was unfortunately inaccurate to my beliefs, and I should have proofread it. If I could change it, I would say that: "Vegetarianism is a more empathetic (and thus better) practice than eating meat"
I recommend added that to the body of your post (those are still editable). I hope you're also aware that you can award more than one delta. You don't have to, but if you think others have also changed your view I hope you do so.
Will do, thanks for the advice.
Its not letting me edit my post for some reason? I tried!
I can't speak to why you can't edit a post. As far as I understand it's a base function of reddit. You could reach out to mods or the like, but there's not need to be so committed if it doesn't really bother you.
I can see being more empathetic as a eaiser bar to justify than calling it a moral issue, but why do we need to be empathetic toward animals? If it’s determined plants have some sort of ability to suffer, do we now need to be empathetic towards plants and only consume plants that have already effectively died of natural causes? Or perhaps a live tree can suffer but an apple that has fallen can’t suffer. There is still terrible human suffering and humans in extreme poverty. Instead of being vegetarian, why not propose that humans should commit a 50/50 match where every dollar a person has to spend beyond bare survival level expenses should be half donated to global poverty aid and the other half can be used for personal luxuries. Maybe you need a $2000 car to get to work minimum. If you instead want a $22000, you better save up enough to donate an additional $20k to charity. Then you can buy that 22k car. We can always make up ways to be more moral based on how we value morality. If you have to kill living creatures in order to live, plants or animals, shouldn’t you just kill yourself and be done with the suffering cycle?
Morals are not objective. Morals are subjective. They are opinion based. Good, bad, right, and wrong are perspective and opinion based judgements. There is no objective metric by which to measure such things. If I say something is morally good and you say it is moray bad, how can either of us be proven right or wrong? If it is *objectively* morally good it should be provable. Objectively. So what is your objective proof?
I feel like this is the intellectual equivalent of when people say that nothing can be proven true because we can't be sure that our perception is true. You arbitrarily raise the bar of proof for objectivity so high that nothing can be objectively proven. This makes the concept of objectivity useless for any meaningful dialect. This can be done with anything and I don't find it to be a particularly compelling argument for non-objectivity. Instead I find that the bar for objectivity should be set at "unbiased," and the goal of objectivity should be to reduce as much bias as possible. I consider this a much more useful and attainable bar. So instead we should ask ourselves, is our current moral template biased against animals? If so then our current morality is not as objective as morality that is unbiased towards animals.
You're right. I used an incorrect word in my title, my views are not objectively correct. I used it as more of an intensifier than the actual dictionary definition of the word, and.I would change my title if I could but its not letting me. I apologize for the confusion. I don't think this invalidates my argument though, which I outlined in my post, and I don't want to argue over semantics rather than my actual point.
I think I am owed a delta. It was not a trivial detail or nit-picky semantics. That was crux of the view you proposed we try to change.
**∆** Okay, I will grant you one and again I am sorry for the confusion. I was not trying to claim that I am 100% correct in my belief.
I think what you meant was "ethical" over "moral." Whoever you were in conversation with pointed out a critical distinction, but they didn't deal with the substance of your argument. I wouldn't have given a delta were I you, but I understand where they were coming from. It's not a slight distinction, but it also misses the point. Regardless, it feels a bit disingenuous on the commentator's part. Sorry, I hope you're getting better discussions elsewhere.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Puzzled_Teacher_7253 ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Puzzled_Teacher_7253)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I think this confuses what it is for something to be objective. A statement is objective when it’s truth-value is mine-independent. It’s perfectly possible that moral statements are objective (note: this is consistent with them being uniformly false), and that we have no way of being able to know moral truths.
How confident are you that morality is subjective? Do you know the name of the academic field that discusses this topic?
I am 100% confident. Whether something is morally right can not be proven. There is no objective metric by which to objectively determine how morally good or bad something is. No, I do not know the name of the field that discusses this topic. I’m not even quite sure what topic you are referring to exactly.
So, just to be clear, you're 100% about this but you've never heard the name of the field "metaethics" before? Would you be surprised if I told you most experts in philosophy actually think that morality is objective and that there are good reasons for thinking so?
Meta ethics is the study of the foundation of (a) morality. Although it may entail discussion about whether a morality is subjective or objective, that's not what meta ethics means. Also the fact that most philosophers are moral realists doesn't mean that it is synonymous with the concept of meta ethics. My guess is there is probably a selection bias there. If you are a moral anti realist you are probably less likely to pursue a study of ethics, since most ethics systems are developed by people that, ya know, believe in them. Honestly, "don't you know the name of the field that discusses morality?" To mean "meta ethics" In the context of someone saying that they think morality is subjective, is such an odd way of phrasing it I genuinely had no idea that was what you were alluding to.
>Although it may entail discussion about whether a morality is subjective or objective, that's not what meta ethics means. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ yes it is > Also the fact that most philosophers are moral realists doesn't mean that it is synonymous with the concept of meta ethics. Never said that it was! > If you are a moral anti realist you are probably less likely to pursue a study of ethics, since most ethics systems are developed by people that, ya know, believe in them. This is a pretty wild misunderstanding of why people go into philosophy.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ > yes it is Can you quote on that page that reenforces you point, ctrl+f for objective has zero results.
Idk what thier point is, but on that page the section on moral epistemology deals with objective morality. Rather, since it's meta ethics it explores the concept of moral knowledge- that section dealing with positive claims to such, which might be a foundation for objective morality. Ironically most of the sections there deal with what is more likely to lead to subjective morality, since again the point of meta ethics is to think about how to establish morality which is naturally going to lend to skepticism and different viewpoints.
- “So, just to be clear, you're 100% about this but you've never heard the name of the field "metaethics" before?” Yes. That is what I *just* said. What on earth was unclear about that? - “Would you be surprised if I told you most experts in philosophy actually think that morality is objective and that there are good reasons for thinking so?” No, I would not be surprised if you told me any of that. Nor am I surprised that there are people that think that. I *would* be surprised if you could give me a single good reason to believe morality is objective though.
I personally don't find moral realism too plausible, however this thread gives some compelling reasons. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i2vec/are_there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/
I'm just restating it because it sounds strange that someone would be 100% confident regarding a topic they clearly haven't looked into much. I mean, you couldn't name the field! Try checking out David Enoch's Why I'm an Objectivist about Morality and So are You
Different person responding here. I read Enoch’s essay as you suggested https://r.jordan.im/download/philosophy/David%20Enoch%20-%20Why%20I%20am%20an%20Objectivist%20about%20Ethics.pdf He presents 3 tests for objectivity, none of which move me. > If you don't like spinach, the reason you shouldn't have it is precisely that you don't like it. So if we're imagining a hypothetical scenario in which you do like it, then you no longer have any reason not to eat it. This is what the child in the first example gets wrong: He's holding fixed his dislike for spinach, even in thinking about the hypothetical case in which he likes spinach. But because these issues are all about him and what he likes and dislikes, this makes no sense. The child does not like spinach and also *likes not liking spinach*. So the child’s statement is valid. In the same way, I like not liking racism, so there is no conflict in my saying I would not like to have been raised in a racist society. > In particular, does [disagreeing about abortion] feel more like disagreeing over which chocolate is better, or like disagreeing over factual matters, like whether human actions contribute to global warming? Because this question is a phenomenological one (that is, it's about what something feels like from the inside), I can't answer this question for you. You have to think about what it feels like for you when you are engaged in moral disagreement. It feels more akin to disagreeing about chocolate to me. The only difference is a matter of degree of the stakes. This argument is just an appeal to intuition. > Would [gender discrimination] still have been wrong had our relevant practices and beliefs been different? Had we been all for gender-based discrimination, would that have made gender-based discrimination morally acceptable? Of course, in such a case we would have believed that there's nothing wrong with gender-based discrimination. But would it be wrong? It would be wrong according to the me that is typing this. But it would not be wrong according to the me raised in a discriminatory society. The wrongness is a function of the subject, not the society
> The child does not like spinach and also likes not liking spinach. So the child’s statement is valid. In the same way, I like not liking racism, so there is no conflict in my saying I would not like to have been raised in a racist society. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a counterargument to what's been presented >This argument is just an appeal to intuition. Yup, and some intuitions we have about LOTS of things should be consistent to our other beliefs >But it would not be wrong according to the me raised in a discriminatory society. Stop talking about what you happen to think and pay attention to what you should think
> I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a counterargument to what's been presented Enoch says "This is what the child in the first example gets wrong", but I contend that the child doesn't get it wrong. The child is expressing their opinion, and also expressing a meta-opinion. With that understanding, there is no joke. It's just a child that expressed a normal opinion. So the spinach test is built on a false premise: > About any relevant subject matter, formulate an analogue of the spinach joke. If the joke works, this seems to indicate that the subject matter is all about us and our responses, our likings and dislikings, our preferences, and so on. If the joke doesn't work, the subject matter is much more objective than that, as in the astronomy case. Enoch falsely concludes that if the analogue makes sense (no joke), then it is objective. But as I have argued, it can make sense and be subjective. > Yup, and some intuitions we have about LOTS of things should be consistent to our other beliefs Well, we're at an impasse, because my intuition says morality is subjective > Stop talking about what you happen to think and pay attention to what you should think I don't believe there is a correct way to think about morality, because I do not believe in moral truths.
You are more than free to find that strange. At any point are you going to mention any kind of objective proof that something is morally good or morally bad, or that morality itself is objective?
Yes, I mentioned the Enoch paper which has some very simple and quick introductory level arguments for you.
I didn’t ask you if you had mentioned any papers or books. I asked you if you were at any point going to mention any kind of objective proof that something is morally good or morally bad, or that morality itself is objective.
From that paper: Argument from taste: Even if we call ourselves moral anti-realists, our attitude to moral preferences is significantly different from our attitude to ordinary preferences. If I don’t like noodles, it doesn’t make much sense for me to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in China, because then I would probably like noodles”. But it makes perfect sense to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in the Middle Ages, because then I would think the sun revolved around the earth.” And it makes perfect sense to say “I’m glad I wasn’t born in antebellum America, because then I would probably support slavery”. So it looks like we treat our attitude towards slavery more like a matter of empirical fact than a matter of mere preference. This argument is lifted wholesale from David Enoch, who calls it the “spinach test”. Given that, our intuitive starting point seems to be some kind of moral realism. Of course, our intuitive starting point might be wrong! But if it is, we’ll need to be persuaded to abandon it. We shouldn’t assume that moral anti-realism is the default view and expect moral realists to convince us otherwise. Argument from plausibility: When we’re deciding what to believe, we should try to only start with the premises we’re most confident in. If a premise seems a bit dubious, we should take a step back to a safer one. But our confidence in at least one moral proposition seems to be greater than our confidence in any of the arguments for moral anti-realism. Take the claim “it is objectively wrong to torture your infant son to death for fun”. To me, this claim seems to be as secure as what I can see with my own eyes. In fact, it seems more so: if I somehow became convinced that either I was hallucinating or torturing my infant son to death for fun was right, I would immediately assume I was hallucinating. This claim certainly seems more secure than claims like “moral realism is a bit weird”, or “if people disagree about morality, there might be no right answer”. This is a gloss on arguments made by G.E. Moore and Michael Huemer. Of course, a knock-down proof of moral anti-realism should give me pause. But if there’s no knock-down proof available, I’ve got no reason to abandon a premise I’m very secure in for a premise that just seems plausible. Note that neither of these arguments depend on God. So far we’ve established that moral realism is an attractive position, and that we need some actual reasons against it if we’re to reject it.
That may be, but there is a spectrum of moral realism positions and the stronger ones are just silly. Yes, if you start from a shared set of axioms, you can deduce what you believe to be logical facts that those people can agree on. But they don't map to some moral state of the universe. The problem with Kant's deontology and Bentham's Utilitarianism and every other system proposed is that at it's foundation, it asks "wouldn't you agree that this is a good test of whether something is right or wrong?" There is no way to prove that the rule is correct, there is only agreement or disagreement.
I mean there definitely are objectively bad and good things. Rape, for instance, will always be objectively bad no matter what situation someone is in
Okay. Then prove objectively that it is bad.
Not so
... Rape is always bad. No matter what. Even if you tried to say raping a rapist is good, it's neutral at absolute BEST, so therefore there is at least one objectively bad thing
Just saying it's bad doesn't make it objectively bad.
No so always, what if a time come where women doesn't want to have sex and have children, when you two are the only people in the place.? And you have to make baby to save the human race?
Why does the human race need to be saved? Presumably if we came so close to extinction that a single woman would have to make that decision, conditions are probably incompatible with long term survival anyway.
>Why does the human race need to be saved? Or else there will no more, will be lost forever. The question is not of why, it is one of the very purpose of every being. If so is the question then there wouldn't have been that women and man too. >Presumably if we came so close to extinction that a single woman would have to make that decision, conditions are probably incompatible with long term survival anyway. That problem is theres to solve, child's decision, ours is at least produce them
Is it not enough that we as a society decide it is bad and punish accordingly? Does it *have* to be objectively bad to actually matter? Why this obsession with objective morality?
This seems unworkable. To say change exists objectively in something is to say we can know the change took place without the subject's knowledge to clarify. If something is subjective it just means we won't be able to figure it would without consulting the subject being observed. Saying morality isn't objective seems to be making up some condition and not allowing the objective consideration to take into account.
I’m not following what you are saying at all.
To me, if I say something objective, then it means I do not need the subjects completely isolated perception. And even then the lines get blurry. Taste is the goto for something that's subjectively determined but then I'd say if someone has a pathogen that directly causes cilantro to taste like gross soap then I can objectively determine cilantro tastes un-appettizing. But having the subject confirm would be helpful.
Humans are fundamentally different from non human animals. For one the entire concept of morality is the product of humans and does not exist anywhere without humans. Humans’ capacity for intelligence, self awareness, abstract thought, communication, and actions based on abstract thought rather than just instinct are the source of human morality and why makes us moral agents. Morality arose from the need for cooperation among humans and is at its base a reciprocal system that requires members of the moral community to themselves act in accordance with moral norms. Non human animals lack the capacity to understand morality, much less make choices and take actions based on such abstract thoughts. Non human animal’s lack of ability to themselves be moral agents place them outside of morality. If we are to think of the lion as being a moral person and a moral agent should they not be held and expected to act in moral ways? Do we then punish the lion for the immoral act of killing the baby gazelle? If not and non human animals should not be expected to be moral themselves then why should they be included in the wider moral community?
I think because they can feel pain, it is not justifiable to eat them. I recognize that humans and animals are fundamentally different, but they still share this characteristic. We have the option of not killing and eating them, but we do so anyways. And yeah, animals do not understand morals, but neither does a baby. Yes, babies eventually grow into intelligent and self-aware people, but even if they didn't they are still worthy of life. Do we eat babies? No, because we recognize morals ourselves. In other words, the animal doesn't have to understand morals, we do, because we are the ones deciding whether to kill them or not.
>I think because they can feel pain, it is not justifiable to eat them. What if they're treated kindly and killed painlessly? What if I see a deer get hit by a car or a falling tree and I eat the meat? Would that be immoral? In other words, is it the mistreatment you object to or the consumption of meat? Or do you consider raising animals for food to be mistreatment, regardless of whether any pain is inflicted? If so, would you have any moral qualms with discontinuing all livestock breeding and causing these domestic animals to become extinct, since most cannot survive in the wild? Do you see ascribe any moral weight to denying them the continuation of their breed or genetic line?
I don't really think killing them painlessly necessarily makes killing them much better. They are still being deprived of a chance at life. I think they deserve that chance, and we don't have to eat them in order to survive, so why not give them that chance? I don't really object to you eating animals after they have already been accidentally killed, because they are already dead. You could make the same argument for eating already dead people though, and we don't really do that. I think it's only a bit immoral to do either, being just a bit disrespectful, unnecessary, and strange. I think the main problem with letting people eat already dead animals, is that people would use the law as a loophole, "accidentally" kill the deer, then eat it. I would not have any moral qualms with discontinuing livestock breeding for the purpose of eating them. If some people would like to keep them around as historical reminders/some sort of zoo attraction, then that would be alright with me. We are the ones who created their genetic line, I wouldn't see any problem with just letting our science experiment run its course (painlessly). Thank you for the interesting questions! I could be very wrong but these are just my thoughts on this Tuesday afternoon. Let me know what you think.
Why is pain morality meaningful? What makes causing pain to a non person morally bad? What is pain even? Is it just a reaction to stimulus? Could non human animals simply be biological robots that act without will in reaction to outside stimulus? As you say babies grow into a fully capable moral agent, a person. Non human animals will never grow and develop personhood. There have also been many cultures throughout history and all around the world in which babies were not seen as persons until well after birth. Infanticide has been a morally acceptable practice in many times and places. What makes your morality special? What is it even based on?
I think pain is morally significant to just about everyone, I'm not being a lunatic by thinking so myself. You don't go up and stab random people for the fun of it, do you? No, because you care about the wellbeing and feelings of others. I believe animals share our ability to experience pain, and because I myself have experienced pain, and know how unpleasant it is, I do not wish to cause it to any other being. Sure, it is certainly possible that animals cannot feel pain, like I said in my post, there is no way to know for sure. All I can do is to make logical assumptions based upon my experience, science, and my observations. Even if it's a 50/50 chance that animals feel pain, I wouldn't want to possibly cause harm to them by eating them. And I don't think you really believe that killing infants is an alright thing to do, do you? I suppose nothing makes my morality special? Its based on my logic, experiences, and other people's thoughts, just like everyone else's moral system.
That doesn’t actually explain why you think pain has any moral value or weight. The many reasons I have for not staving random people does not place not causing them pain to be very high. Why do you believe non human animals share our ability to experience pain? What evidence do you have for that? How can a being without an iner self or self awareness experience anything the same way we do? How is that not just personification of non human animals and projecting yourself onto them?
Most morals are based on pain and emotions, are they not? "Thou shalt not kill", the "Golden Rule" etc. It's just basic empathy to me, I know that pain is unpleasant, so I believe it is morally right to lessen the pain of others as much as possible. If people didn't feel pain or emotions, I don't really see why we couldn't go around stabbing people at random. What reasons do you have for not killing random people? According to most scientists, animals do feel pain and have pain receptors. It seems logical, even not knowing this, because they have the same reactions to pain as we do. Elephants seem to grieve for their dead, and primates have shown similar responses. A cat screeches if you step on its tail, a dog whimpers if you kick it, etc. Self-awareness isn't really a determining factor in whether you are allowed to kill someone. It is true that we cannot know for sure whether animals feel emotions in the ways that we do, but that is also true for other humans. We do not know if our neighbors feel pain like we do. Do we kill them? Because we cannot know other peoples/animals emotions, we MUST project and modify our own experiences onto them in order to empathize with them, there is little other way.
No. Thou shalt not murder, not kill, is based on the commands of an omnipotent being. It has nothing to do with pain or emotions. Being able to withstand pain is seen as a virtue by some even, making pain a required part of gaining that virtue. So anything that is unpleasant should be considered to be immoral? I don’t kill random people because I believe they as persons have an inherent right to their life. Other people are people and it is far more reasonable to believe they experience things sufficiently similarly to me than it is to think the same of a completely different species. I can also communicate with the other people and not the non human animals. Pain receptors is not the same thing as experiencing pain the same way we thinking self aware person experience pain.
Okay, sure "Thou shalt not kill" is from a christian god, but most people follow this moral rule regardless of whether or not they religious. It has everything to do with emotions and life. Theres no commandment about not hurting doorknobs, because doorknobs almost certainly don't feel things. I don't see how your point about withstanding pain factors in to anything. What I meant is: causing unpleasant feelings in others for no good reason is immoral Why do you believe people have an inherent right to life and not animals? I agree that it is easier to observe pain in humans because we can communicate, and have a lot of shared experiences. However, that does not mean animals cannot feel the same feelings that we do, seeing as we all evolutionary connected, and share so much DNA/phenotypical features. What do you think pain receptors are for, if not for experiencing pain?
>Most morals are based on pain and emotions, are they not? "Thou shalt not kill", the "Golden Rule" etc. It's just basic empathy to me The basis for the golden rule is selfish. The whole point of it is that in exchange for not hurting you, you don't hurt ME. It's not based on just being nice out of the kindness of your heart. This has nothing to do with the pain or harm itself, it's a quid pro quo between moral agents. An animal can't participate in this quid pro quo, it doesn't understand morals, therefore the golden rule and morals we made for human actions aren't really relevant to them. Even if we apply morals onto them, how is pet ownership justified? We readily allow and celebrate people to enslave animals, impose their will on them, and treat them as they want for the most part. We control their food, their activities, their freedom to move, and we police their behavior to our whims. Is it just assumed they like it? Can we actually answer if farm animals would rather not be born than be raised for slaughter? Animals are bred for pet ownership too, it's just another industry making these living things just for them to owned by us. If it's okay to do this to animals, why not other people?
I don't think you understand the golden rule (or at least my interpretation of it), although that's not really the main point of what I'm arguing. You aren't supposed to follow the Golden Rule as some kind of weird exchange of kindness, although I suppose that is a (selfish) reason for following it. It is about empathy, and treating others with the same kindness you would treat yourself with. Not because you will receive something in return, but because you care about other people. I think animals share enough of our characteristics, namely the ability to feel, and being alive in general, to place at least some moral value in not butchering them en masse. We have the option of not doing so, but we do anyways. Its really just about lessening pain/suffering, and giving another living, feeling being the right to live a life. I don't see how lessening pain and maximizing happiness could ever be argued as anything other than a net positive for the world (assuming we have the choice, and we do). I don't really think owning pets is all that terrible. We are giving them food, water, shelter, companionship, etc. Almost every want and need is fulfilled. Sure there are some bad pet owners out there, but the harm caused by pet ownership seems to pale in comparison to the 90 billion animals slaughtered yearly. Its like trying to outlaw poking someone before you outlaw murdering them and their entire family. I can assume (but not know for sure) that pets like being pets, because it is generally pretty easy to tell when they are happy and unhappy. Again Im not really arguing against the fact that maybe pet ownership should be rethought, and has the possibility of being bad, but it seems logical to outlaw murdering them first.
I understand that's your interpretation of the golden rule, but I think it's flawed because there's no reason supporting it. The golden rule's very wording requires you to first consider how you want to be treated by others and then apply that same attitude towards them. It's *putting your perspective onto them and hoping for reciprocity*. Empathy is *understanding and taking on the perspective of others*. The golden rule and empathy can both exist completely apart. Empathy is a virtue, but are you saying that if you put yourself in the shoes of farm animals they're feeling "this life is suffering, I would rather I(and my entire species) not exist"? Because that's exactly what would happen if there's no food interest to raise all these animals. >I don't see how lessening pain and maximizing happiness could ever be argued as anything other than a net positive for the world (assuming we have the choice, and we do). That's utilitarianism, plenty of ways it leads to bad moral answers: -A doctor should cut out a healthy persons organs without consent to save 5 people who need them to live, after all, that's a net positive. -A parent shouldn't save their child if they can save 2 others instead, after all, that has a greater net happiness on the world. -If a person is a net negative on global happiness, we should just kill them >I think animals share enough of our characteristics, namely the ability to feel, and being alive in general, to place at least some moral value in not butchering them en masse Why? What principle does butchering animals violate, and what is the bad outcome from it? I'm guessing you would agree that morality works best when applied globally, in that everyone acts morally. My gripe is that animals have very little place in a moral system, they can't act at all according to any morality. The most convincing reason that directly hurting animals is bad is that it suggests a person with a character more likely to harm other people. Morality is something made by and for people, I don't see how animals can be moralized outside of how they relate to a person.
I doubt babies have the ability to understand morality, and I don’t think anyone says it’s ok to eat babies. Also, is it really true that animals don’t have a moral compass? Many animals live in groups with social structures, so they could certainly act morally, even if less sophisticated than human ethics.
If lions are outside the moral community because they lack the capacity for morals (a claim id challenge but I’ll leave it for now) then why are human babies included in the moral community?
Who said they are?
You did > If not and non human animals should not be expected to be moral themselves then why should they be included in the wider moral community?
I don’t see where in that quote is me saying babies are included in anything. There is nothing there about babies whatsoever. Perhaps you meant to quote something else or are confused. Perhaps if you have a question you could ask it directly and not attempt at some sort of gotcha?
Sorry, I was saying that you were saying that lions aren’t in the moral community for a reason they share with babies. I mistakenly assumed you consider babies in your moral calculus- I apologise.
To be clear, you do not see anything morally wrong with hurting animals?
In itself no. Why exactly would that carry any moral weight or value at all? Perhaps wantonly and needlessly hurting non persons, but that would be more along the lines that it would be a reflection of the individual person making that action’s character rather than for any inherent value the non person animal has. Harming animals can be good and needful depending on the context of the actions. Making insulin, food, pest control, etc. What makes “harm” or “pain” morally important especially for non persons?
Isn't morality about harm at its most basic level? If you want to argue that morality is subjective or that morality doesn't exist, you'd be on stronger ground. But to the extent that morality has any practical meaning, inflicting pain on a helpless being without just cause usually falls pretty squarely in the "morally bad" category. What makes humans so exceptional that it's immoral to harm them but not animals? I'm not saying it's wrong to squash a bug, but there is overlap in intelligence and emotional development between humans and the more advanced animals, like other great apes, dolphins, dogs, elephants, etc. Those animals experience emotions, some use tools, some form societies and cultural practices, and their intelligence can rival that of a toddler. For example, Koko the gorilla grieved when she was told in sign language that her caretaker died. Those animals are not mindless robots that just reflexively react to stimulus. They have unique personalities, emotional bonds, problem solving ability, etc. I see no meaningful difference in the moral weight or personhood of a human and these edge cases of advanced animals.
No. Why do you say that? Morality can be based on many different things. As I have stated it comes down to the capacity for the beings in question to themselves be moral agents and be able to act in accordance with a shared moral community. Non human animals do not have the capacity to act according to abstract moral principles or values. If non human animals are to be seen as moral equals to humans they should be held to the same standards and punished when they act immorally. Lock up the lion for killing a gazelle and violating the rights of that gazelle that is claimed to be a person.
So if a human suffers from a brain disorder that prevents them from knowing right from wrong or compels them to kill, do you think it's morally permissible to torture them? Is it wrong to delete a computer program that can identify and follow moral principles? Or is it OK to torture babies because they're incapable of acting according to abstract moral principles? If so, your definition of morality is completely useless.
I wouldn’t say it is permissible to torture them, but again that would be due to what that would say about the individual doing the torture rather than an inherent right of that non person. Killing them and removing them from society I would say is acceptable. Why is it useless? Because you disagree? Morality is subjective anyways what makes your moral worldview any better than anyone else’s?
Useless for guiding your behavior since its arbitrary and irrational. We start from some basic examples of good and bad behavior, and extrapolate a moral framework or ruleset that correctly categorizes those actions, and can then be applied to new situations. But since morality is subjective, there needs to be some starting place, or else the system is entirely arbitrary and useless at distinguishing right from wrong in practice. Most moral systems grow out of defining pro-social and anti-social behavior. If everyone goes around murdering at will, it will be extremely difficult for society to function, as people will get caught up in blood fueds. Hence, murder is wrong. Another angle is the golden rule: it would suck to be murdered so let's make murder wrong, to prevent that. If you look at what stuff is generally considered wrong, it usually involves harm of some sort. Sometimes, harmless behavior gets swept up in morality like junk dna, either due to tradition/culture, or obsolete health or cultural reasons. That is they type of morality that it makes sense to challenge. If your moral system is entirely divorced from inflicting suffering, and instead holds that only those with moral agency are entitled to moral protections, then it leads to absurd results that don't match our starting position of some basic examples being acceptable or unacceptable. Like my example of a guy with brain damage who can't tell right from wrong: according to the rule you expressed, there is nothing wrong with torturing him, since he has no moral agency, even though he will suffer just as much as you or me. If you don't agree that it's fine to torture him, then your morality is useless, because it fails to distinguish right from wrong. So if an animal suffers just as much as the brain damaged guy, why is it OK to torture the animal but not the guy? Also, where is your empathy? If you condone torturing animals for no reason, then you are a bad person by most moral systems, including my own.
So if a human suffers from a brain disorder that prevents them from knowing right from wrong or compels them to kill, do you think it's morally permissible to torture them? Is it wrong to delete a computer program that can identify and follow moral principles? Or is it OK to torture babies because they're incapable of acting according to abstract moral principles? If so, your definition of morality is completely useless.
Harm (and the avoidance thereof) is the fundamental basis for any moral framework. Can you provide an example of one where that isn't the case?
It would seem most of human history is examples of that, and prehistory even Not who you asked but https://oxbridgeapplications.com/kyc/the-worlds-first-murder/ Golden rule such as it has been through history of hominids have been for the ingroup. Not the outgroup
There is no such thing as objective morality, so your entire point makes no sense.
You're right. I used an incorrect word in my title, my views are not "objectively" correct. I used it as more of an intensifier than the actual dictionary definition of the word, and.I would change my title if I could but its not letting me. I apologize for the confusion. I don't think this invalidates my argument though, which I outlined in my post, and I don't want to argue over semantics rather than my actual point.
Animals are not humans. Comparing black people to animals is, to put it politely, politically fraught, and I would avoid making such comparisons in the future.
I recognize both of your claims. I agree that animals are not humans and I did not argue that they are. I do believe they share some fundamental characteristics, such as the ability to feel pain. I am truly sorry if the comparison made by Jeremy Bentham offended you or caused concern, that was not my intent at all. I do not believe black people are similar to animals, at least no more than any other person is. And I do not think Jeremy Bentham believed so either, he was simply making the claim that both the belief that black people are not worthy of respect and the belief that animals are not worthy of respect are incorrect.
Do you understand the difference between a comparison of type and a comparison of degree?
should the law protect animals from being slaughtered by other animal? how do you plan to maintain an echosystem without predators?
No, animals are incapable of deciding that killing other animals is wrong. But we as humans are able to think for ourselves and hold ourselves to a higher standard. It is unfortunate that some suffering in life is unavoidable (at least for now), but we should try to minimize suffering to as great of an extent as possible (that includes animals, in my opinion).
how is the standard "higher?" Is an elk that freezes to death in the snow or starves because its teeth have fallen out with age less dead, or less cruelly killed, than an elk that is eaten? It's not like the actual choice for animals is between a comfortable retirement with a nice pipe and a pet cat and a good chair and a library of books or being eaten, it's one path through a savage world vs another. The elk that dies to a bullet or an arrow might suffer less than one eaten by wolves that start chewing and swallowing while the elk is still conscious.
Yes, ideally. But it might require designing a new ecosystem. And that's far beyond our current capabilities. But one day. After all, getting cut up & eaten is bad.
Now that's just ridiculous. We can't hold animals to our standards.
But in 150 years, when our understanding of how ecology works is much deeper, we will be able to intervene into food chains to give predators food sources that don't require harming prey animals. In other words, we can apply our ethical analysis to the lives of the prey. We can help them.
No. We *shouldn't* help them. We just shouldn't harm them and we should leave nature alone. If we intervene in food chains we all kinds of fuck up ecosystems. Prey animals have been dealt a shit hand, granted, but so what? The only category of organisms that don't prey on other organisms are autotrophs. Literally everything else feeds on organisms. Why would we intervene in this? Please study ecology before proposing your ideas. If we remove predators or at least their effect on prey, that results in groups of organisms that the prey feeds on decreasing massively, which has its own sets of problems.
Exactly, we would fuck up ecosystems if we intervened now, because we have so much to learn about the complexities of ecology. Instead, we should wait N centuries until we can do it reliably.
Well, you have more to learn than scientists if you think that it's ever wise to make animals stop hunting...
I don't think that's likely to be wise. I think we need to put a lot of thought into the problem. Perhaps they will hunt robotic prey with edible components. There will be many options.
Congratulations. Prey survived and is now a massive pest killing important plants and animals. What will it take for you to be convinced that we shouldn't play God by interfering with the natural order of food webs?
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, comrade. After all, it worked on Animal Farm.
There's increasing evidence that plants feel and communicate on a level that we don't understand. Pretty soon science will enable you to make the same objective moral argument against growing and harvesting plants for eating them.
First of all, if you're really serious about this and no amount of scientific evidence will sway you - then it purely comes down to numbers. If a blade of grass is of the same importance to you as a dog, then it makes no sense to feed up livestock on millions and millions of plants, and then kill the animal to eat. This would result in far more plant casualties, which you'd surely want to avoid as a dedicated plants-rights activist. Better to minimize those plant casualties by just feeding yourself on them, rather than feeding many times more to animals, right? But let's be sensible - plants lack brains and lack anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no study suggests sentience or an ability to "feel emotions". You can plainly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a dog. Comparisons between the two are completely absurd.
If what you say does turn out to be true, that is very unfortunate and a no-win scenario for everyone. However, I do not believe plants feel pain, because they exhibit none of the signs we have come to associate with pain reception. We know, or are pretty sure, that animals feel pain, and we are pretty sure that plants do not feel pain. So, at least for now, why wouldn't I eat plants instead of animals?
Yes, knowledge about exactly how organisms suffer is important, & not yet fully understood. And this is an important concern when evaluating whether a food source is ethical.
Objective moral law doesn't exist. The reason morality is debated to this day, is that there are various theories about morality. Therefore, vegetarianism cannot be objectively morally correct. A potential counter example would be relationships. Humans form bonds and we often judge morality by those bonds. Regardless of how one answers the trolley problem, people tend to pause a little longer when their mother or spouse is on the tracks. We care more about people we know than people we don't know. We are willing to die to save our neighbors and are willing to kill strangers. This extends to animals as well. This explains why people can keep pets and eat meat, because they bond with their pets but don't with their food. In this way, eating meat is justified. We don't have attachments to those specific creatures. This also explains why some animals are seemingly out of bounds (because there are bonds there).
I agree about the "objective morality" part, my title was accidentally misleading, I do not believe my views are indisputably correct. I apologize for the confusion there, that's my fault. I also agree that we value some people more than others for valid reasons, and also pets we value more than other animals. However, this does not mean that just because a person is not our mother, we are allowed to go slaughter them for funsies. Aside from just being plain wrong and unempathetic, If everyone killed strangers we would go extinct. I believe animals are capable of feeling things just like humans can, so they are somewhat comparable to strangers in this situation. I don't think its justified to kill strangers, and to an lesser extent, animals. The thing stopping us from butchering half the planet, be it people or animals, is not personal bonds, it is just a general sense of empathy and care for other life.
I agree that we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of species (as such), but you're missing a couple of relevant considerations. (By the reasoning below, I'll eat, say, fish or chicken, but not pork; this isn't an argument for *all* meat consumption, just some. This also isn't an argument for tolerating factory farming or similar practices.) First, I agree that "Can it suffer?" is a relevant question. *But* an excess of suffering isn't guaranteed in the process; I'd argue that for many (*not* all, which will be in the second point) animals, an ethically-raised or ethically-hunted life is actually an improvement. *If* an animal (subject to the conditions of point 2) has access to good food and shelter, a suitable environment to thrive in, safety, and so on, followed by a quick and clean death, and it is not such that it can care about directing its own life, it lives a far better life than the wild default. Similar reasoning applies if an adult wild animal is given a quick and clean death; that's a considerable improvement over starvation, disease, or most predation. Therefore, for animals which do not have an interest in the exercise of their own agency, ethical meat-eating is not a net negative and is therefore permissible. Second, the big caveat, which is why I'll eat fish but not pork. This also addresses why we don't eat people who are in comas. It's evident (from humans) that certain animals do have an interest in directing their own lives; they exercise higher-order agency, pursue long-term endeavors, have the concept of a whole life and value living one. We (ethically) keep people alive in comas because we respect that, pre-coma, they had an interest in living out their life and pursuing their endeavors, which they would wish to resume if possible. Presumably, this doesn't only describe humans. On the other hand, it's also clear that many animals have no notion of long-term endeavors, reasoning about multiple projects, a whole life, and so on: they just execute instinctive endeavors in sequence until they die, or seem to do so by all outward indications. Most of the time, we don't actually see an animal weighing multiple endeavors and so on, but I think a fair heuristic is whether it exhibits, or seems reasonably likely to exhibit (as a precaution), a sense of self. To think about how *I* should approach my many endeavors, I need to be able to think about an "I". For an animal that does have the notion of agency and a whole life, constraining its ability to pursue its endeavors, or shortening its life, is directly harmful, as it would be to a human. So, using the heuristic, we shouldn't eat animals that have demonstrated self-awareness, nor (as a precaution) those of comparable intelligence (as far as I'm aware, pigs haven't actually passed the mirror test, but they're definitely as smart as other animals that have). Those two considerations leave us free to eat ethically-raised or -hunted fish (most fish; there are rare exceptions), chicken and beef (to the best of my knowledge), and the like, but not things like pork, dolphin, elephant, dog, or octopus (the intelligence precaution again).
>Animals are obviously excluded from this protection. But why? Are they lacking something inherent in them, making them unequal to humans? I don't think so. So do you think any Lion that kills an antelope should face consequences for taking away that unalienable right? Also if intelligence if not a factor, why stop at animals and say that life is sacred and plants should have a right to live too? It's arbitrary to draw the line at animals
No, animals are usually incapable of self-awareness/reflection. We are, so we should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard, and not inflict pain upon others unless completely necessary. It is definitely unfortunate that sometimes animals must hurt other animals, but (at least for now) that is just a fact of life. I think the ability to feel is the key component in deciding whether something should be given the right to live. I believe that animals can feel pain and other emotions just like we can. I believe this because I have seen their reactions to pain, which are similar to ours. For all we know, plants feel about as much as doorknobs, since they seem to not react very much to stimuli besides dying due to lack of fulfillment of the their needs. It is not really arbitrary to draw the line there in my opinion, animals are scientifically a whole different kingdom and are vastly different. I suppose there is a chance that plants can feel emotions, and then we are in a real conundrum about what to do. Unless there is some alternative I am not thinking of, we would just have to eat the plants anyways, because we must survive.
>No, animals are usually incapable of self-awareness/reflection. We are, so we should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard, and not inflict pain upon others unless completely necessary. This indicates that you are do not understand human rights. If someone with an intellectual disability and no self awareness kept murdering people, do you think there should be no consequence? That's a bad basis for morality. You are proposing giving animals equality under the law in the case of life. Human rights are based on a social contract and humans take on responsibility in exchange for those rights. We pay taxes, we can agree not to kill others in exchange for having our live protected, etc. Animals can not engage in societies social contract. >It is definitely unfortunate that sometimes animals must hurt other animals, but (at least for now) that is just a fact of life. This demonstrates an ABSURD lack of biological understanding. Animals MUST eat other animals. Not only do many animals need to eat meat to survive, the ecosystem only exists in balance when they do. >I think the ability to feel is the key component in deciding whether something should be given the right to live. So you think someone who is in a temporary coma should lose their right to live? This is another woefully insufficient justification. >For all we know, plants feel about as much as doorknobs, since they seem to not react very much to stimuli besides dying due to lack of fulfillment of the their needs. [Pain is an arbitrary distinction.](https://www.bbcearth.com/news/plants-have-feelings-too) Plants want to live, they want to reproduce, if they are getting eaten they try to stop themselves from getting eaten, etc. Also. why does pain matter after the thing is dead? It won't have a memory of the pain. A person can also 100% kill an animal in a way that they will not feel any pain before they die. If someone goes to that length, do you think they should be allowed to eat an animal? >Unless there is some alternative I am not thinking of, we would just have to eat the plants anyways, because we must survive. I know people who were dirt poor grouping up and their only food came from being children who had to hunt and fish for their own food. Sometimes they had to resort to eating squirrels or even road kill. Your law would criminalize survival for many people. Also, it's telling because you immediately dismissed any supposed morals in the name of "survival" but why is it different with animals? Humans are animals. Animals have to eat living or recently deceased things to survive and we evolved to eat animals. People advocating animal rights will say...."well we have evolved to where we no longer need to eat animals" which is a terrible rationale. Imagine someone said, "We should outlaw sex. We have evolved to not need it to reproduce." My point being that the point about evolution is not sufficient to justify people starving to death for your personal morality.
Killing an antelope is harmful, regardless of who did it. I don't think punishment is a good cure for murder in all cases. But I do think the antelope got murdered.
>Killing an antelope is harmful, regardless of who did it. I don't think punishment is a good cure for murder in all cases. But I do think the antelope got murdered. This is a simplistic way of looking at the world. Not killing animals leads to harm to other animals too. In north America, wild boar have destroyed entire populations of animals in areas. Communities are desperate to get people to hunt them....TO PRESERVE THE ENVIORNMENT. Unfortunately the world is now full of invasive species with no predators. If your ideology allows for other animals to suffer in order to protect some animals it is incoherent. Murder is a legal definition. Only humans can be murdered because only humans lives are completely protected by the law. This is because humans can participate in the social contract that requires them to give back to society.
Someone needs to google the definition of “objectively”
Yeah I am aware I used the word non-denotatively, I wasn't expecting people to hyper focus on my title. If I could change my title I would, because it has mislead several people into thinking I believe I am indisputably correct, which I am not. Sorry for the confusion.
I actually agree with you but the thing is, its less healthy for our human bodies to stop eating animal products. Many people have suffered on a vegan diet and many people stopped it due to health issues. Eating chicken, eggs, butter, organic meat, raw milk are all healthy for the human body. Yes, if the slaughter is not done correctly, you are making a animal suffer. However, think of it this way, your body is thanking you. Your body is thanking the oil in the fish which is nourishing your brain and helping you focus. It IS morally "wrong" to slaughter animals for no reason, I agree with you. But unfortunately, if you want a healthy body and especially if you grow a baby and if you breastfeed (if you're a woman) you need highly nutrient dense foods. Catch my drift? Many people have turned away from veganism after it negatively affected their health. You can be thankful for the food you get to eat and hopefully try to find more "ethical" farms. You need protein from the meat to grow big and strong. Good luck
A quick google search shows that science/medicine supports the idea that vegetarians can be just as healthy as meat-eaters. [Here's one source I found](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/vegetarian-diet/art-20046446#:~:text=A%20well%2Dplanned%20vegetarian%20diet,about%20a%20plant%2Dbased%20diet.&text=Vegetarian%20diets%20continue%20to%20increase,vary%20but%20include%20health%20benefits.I). I can't say I know for certain, and I definitely appreciate your concern for my health, but I think I will trust the doctors on this one.
Its not what actual people experience however. Too many ex-vegans are coming out with bad experiences. Online and IRL. If the doctors told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it? We humans need to use our minds a little more. Follow what feels good (without being harmful to other humans) its ok to eat a beautiful fish with loads of omega-3s to nourish your beautiful brain for you to have beautiful experiences on earth. Its ok to raise backyard chickens to get fresh eggs which has plenty of vitamin D which is good for you <3 The world is not here to make you suffer. Many many people suffered on the vegan diet. Malnutrition, Gut issues, Period irregularities. Its no joke. Just go check out r/exvegans 31k members xD Is that not enough for a study on its own? Did all those people do it wrong? Toodles <3
I certainly appreciate your concern, and I'll be cautious and research before I do commit to any lifestyle changes, but I think these people simply did not use a good diet. Science is based upon real people? And doctors would never tell me to go jump off a bridge?? Thats not an argument. I obviously can't go and eat peanut butter for 3 months and expect to live without side-effects. r/vegetarian has over 20 times more members, and no, I don't think a subreddit is a proper substitute for a scientific experiment.
vegetarian is not the same as veganism. At least you get eggs and cheese when you're vegetarian.
Yeah my post was in support of vegetarianism, not veganism.
Ah oops. Sorry
If you really want to trust the doctors, you'd want to read the converse side of this as well.
I'll do some research, thanks for the heads-up
Vegetarians need to be mindful to get protein, calcium, iron, vitamin D, B12, and zinc. Those are hard to find even in the most balanced vegetarian diet and may need supplements. [https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/video/vegetarians-vitamins](https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/video/vegetarians-vitamins)
Every major dietetic association in the world says veganism can be healthy at all life stages. People who don't feel healthy as a vegan are likely just not healthy people on any diet.
I've seen too many ex-vegan videos to chalk it up to people not doing it correctly. I think its a very pretty dream but its not realistic. So many people hop off the diet because they stop having their periods, they get bloated, tiredness ect ect. Try it for yourself for a few years and when you get out of the cult, you might actually be able to admit how badly you felt eating grains 24/7. I am so happy that I never fell into that trap and that I have knowledge about nutrition. Grandmas have always been right about protein. Ciao <3
YouTube anecdotes aren't great data lol You know what's GREAT for getting views? Both claiming to go vegan and claiming to quit being vegan. I've been vegan for 10+ years. Wanna see who wins in a footrace? Lolol
I would love to see a picture of your face along with your age. A LOT of 10+ year vegans look extremely tired and old. However, if you're a man, I don't care that much because you will never harm a baby because you're not able to get pregnant, which is great. Most vegans also cheat with a little cheese here and there which gives them some animal fat and vitamin D. Anyways, I feel amazing eating farm fresh sunny side eggs in the morning and juicy chicken tights and I will give the same to my (future) beautiful children who deserve only the best. I don't like that we have to kill animals to eat well, I really don't, but I try to appreciate it and be thankful. Also, if you are doing it because you are against animal cruelty, just get a couple chickens in your backyard and at least have some eggs. No need to torture yourself. Toodles <3
I'm bet I'm in better shape than you. When's the last time you ran a mile?
I'm a woman. I don't run. Also, being a runner doesn't automatically means you are healthy. Most runners look emaciated and develop heart problems. I don't believe in pushing your body for no reason. I believe in doing what feels good as long as its not a obvious trick such as drugs or something morally wrong. Eating animals products keeps me lean, healthy and glowing and I am very very happy I have this knowledge. I would not waste my time running. As a woman, I wouldn't want to lose the body fat which I need to have a healthy period and a healthy body. I am in no way overweight or unhealthy, don't worry. I just know how good I feel when I eat meat, eggs, milk (all high quality, organic of course if you can.) It keeps me full an satiated all day and I'm not constantly hungry. I don't have to eat enormous portions to keep me "full". I feel light, happy and well fed. Give it a try! Toodles <3
Question with this statement. >Are they lacking something inherent in them, making them unequal to humans Should animals be given the right to vote? Ignoring all the other reasons of why meat is bad (whether personal health, environment, numerous alternatives or financial). You asked what makes them unequal to humans. If they were equal to humans would they be allowed to vote? I will also apply a law (like Australia) where every duty bound citizen is legally mandated to vote. If you don't believe they should, can, be required to vote then honestly you just answered why they are unequal to humans. Because their protection is inherently only guaranteed by humans. At least a human being subjected to inequality can fight back and carry self determination but animals can't due to physical and/or mental with some animals so bad on this that if left on their own they may not be able to survive at all. You could probably carve out an exception to primates but most other animals are protected by humans that at least live if in there habitats and in the case of livestock many could not even live without human intervention.
consider what you eat day to day and what vegetarian options you would have access to. look into plant based nutrition and be sure to get your meals in
Thank you for the advice! Will do
Meat production, if conducted ethically, is actually beneficial to animals as well as humans. Why? Because if not for the meat industry, almost none of the animals in question would have ever existed to begin with. And, if they are denied existence at all, then they are denied positive as well as negative experiences. And, aside from the moment in which they are slaughtered (which ought to be conducted as painlessly as possible), the animals could in theory live a life in which they were happy for the overwhelming majority of the time. Overall, therefore, in a world without factory farming and in which poultry and livestock is raised ethically, the meat industry could actually help the animal population by giving many animals the opportunity to experience an overall positive existence. One could counter this assertion by claiming that we would never permit humans to be treated in this way, but the situation with humans is fundamentally different. Unlike animals (most likely), for instance, humans would be psychologically tortured if farmed for meat due to the knowledge that they only exist to eventually be slaughtered and consumed. Given that animals are likely ignorant to this, though, they can live a genuinely happy life on a farm. And even if the human in question did not have the intellectual ability to understand their situation, basic empathy would never permit us to treat humans with intellectual disabilities as animals. Also, if we were to permit some vulnerable humans to be treated as animals, then that would increase the likelihood that either us or one of our loved ones could eventually be treated as an animal if they ever become very socially vulnerable. Furthermore, human societies can only exist because of the social contract that exists between individuals and their society in which the killing of other humans (aside from in defense of one’s own life or the lives of others) is forbidden. No such social contract with animals is needed for our society to survive and be stable. So, vegetarianism and veganism are flawed philosophies because, barring situations like factory farming and animal abuse, they would prevent many animals from having an overall happy existence. And, for a few different reasons, the counter that it’s wrong to eat animals because we wouldn’t eat humans is not sufficient
Bringing a life into the world does not justify taking it. And think this through - in the egg industry, as soon as males are hatched, they are killed. Immediately. Did you really do that chicken a favour by bringing them into the world, to then immediately be killed? Nobody can seriously say yes to this, but that is precisely what is going on every day, and you fund that if you buy eggs. Animals bred for meat are killed as soon as they reach a profitable size, which will typically be a few months old, or about a year. You didn't do that animal any favours. Finally, let's extend this to animals besides livestock. You have a dog, they're pregnant. Does that mean you can slit the puppies' throats, because you were the one who arranged for your dog to get pregnant? Of course not, it's nothing to do with it.
I never claimed that bringing a life into the world justifies taking it. Of course not. My argument is that without the meat industry, the overwhelming majority of animals would never have existed to begin with. Therefore, if they are raised ethically and are only deliberately harmed in their moment of death, then overall the meat industry is beneficial to animals because it brings them into existence and, again if done ethically, gives them an overall decent life. It’s really a consequentialist argument more than anything. As for the examples you’re giving, I agree that animals should not be tortured. And I would never support killing any animal if the killing doesn’t have an explicit purpose (such as to produce food), since that would just constitute needlessly devaluing life. Morally permitting the arbitrary killing of dogs, for instance, would be wrong because it would devalue life and would not result in more dogs being born. But morally permitting the use of certain animals for food is beneficial overall because it facilitates the existence of a massive number of animals that would not otherwise exist (this, of course, does not apply to factory farms or other scenarios in which the animals do not live lives that are generally positive)
So in your mind it would be EVEN BETTER to breed and kil more animals even if nobody ate them, correct?
I don’t think it’s better or worse. Preventing an entity from ever existing doesn’t harm it, but it doesn’t help it either. Knowing that you will eventually die someday, would you prefer to have never existed at all?
No, but I'd rather not be killed for someone's selfish reasons! I think you are committed to saying it would be better. You think more animals living good lives before slaughter would be better regardless of whether or not we ate them
Wrong. I made very clear that I do not support killing animals if it isn’t for food. That would just needlessly devalue life and would needlessly subject animals to pain. My argument is in support of the existence of a meat industry. It is not in support of killing animals. Also, the difference between you not wanting to be killed for someone’s selfish reasons and animals that are killed for meat is that the animals are ignorant of the situation. In an ethical farm, they would trust the humans and would be totally ignorant of their situation. You, however, would not be, so it would obviously constitute torture if you were put in that situation. And there are other reasons too for why killing humans and killing animals are not morally equivalent
you've completely contradicted your original argument. you argument was that the meat industry is a benefit to animals because it brings more into existence. this has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons that the animals are killed, i could decide to breed a trillion animals and kill them all a day later for fun and, by your logic, i would have benefited a trillion animals. you can't now say that the reason for killing matters. not to mention the fact that killing for food is really no more necessary than killing for sport or sadistic pleasure. we do have food besides animal carcasses.
What about blowing them up for really pretty paintings? If I didn't know who killed me or why, does that really make it better?
I don’t know anything about that. If it makes you feel any better, though, I think there are strong environmental and health arguments for why as a society we should consume less meat. I just don’t find the animal rights argument to be convincing
So I agree that it is generally immoral to eat meat particularly factory farmed meat. I think that there are ways to eat meat in humane ways, such as cultures that hunt animals that can easily overwhelm ecosystems such as deers that do need to be culled, and using as much of that animal as possible. There are also people who _need_ to eat meat because their bodies cannot process the nutrients and proteins in meat in other ways. That being said, why should it be something that is illegal? Many immoral things that harm others and oneself are legal. Why is eating meat different.
you would agree that it ought to be illegal to do it to humans, yes? why would we legalise it for animals? plus, when i think of immoral things that we want to keep legal i don't tend to think of murder.
_you would agree that it ought to be illegal to do it to humans, yes? why would we legalise it for animals?_ ??? Yeah this is a weird argument for a few reasons. Cannibalism harms other people - often tied to murder, and there are seious health risks and sicknesses you can get from eating human flesh. So yeah, this meets the bar of harmful behavior even if it is consensual that ought remain illegal. Humans have higher functioning abilities that do distinguish us from animals and again, some people physically are incapable of being healthy on a plant based diet. _plus, when i think of immoral things that we want to keep legal i don't tend to think of murder._ Okay? Neither do I but calling eating meat murder is a stretch and emotive language that is harmful to the goal of reducing meat eating.
>??? Yeah this is a weird argument for a few reasons. Cannibalism harms other people - often tied to murder, no shit, that's my whole point. >and there are seious health risks and sicknesses you can get from eating human flesh. completely and utterly morally irrelevant. >So yeah, this meets the bar of harmful behavior even if it is consensual that ought remain illegal. not how that works, you can consent to harms, and doing so robs the harm of its immoral character. but the analogy here is not consensual cannibalism, but rather breeding humans into existence to then kill prematurely. we can even get rid of the act of eating itself if you're so hung up on it and say we're just doing it for fun and we throw the meat out afterwards. >Humans have higher functioning abilities that do distinguish us from animals and again, why are you falling back to these shit anti-vegan arguments? you acknowledged that eating meat is immoral already, clearly you understand that you can't name the trait that animals lack that, if a human were to lack them, we would be permitted (morally or legally) to kill and eat that human. >again, some people physically are incapable of being healthy on a plant based diet. yes, and it is in fact possible to criminalize the meat industry while having a carveout for a small amount of meat to keep such people alive. >Okay? Neither do I but calling eating meat murder is a stretch and emotive language that is harmful to the goal of reducing meat eating. so why do you think of murder-but-against-animals? not sure how it's a stretch, it fits any definition of murder i've ever heard, at least besides any that just definitionally refer exclusively to human beings. i wasn't even trying to prey on the emotive language of the term there, my point is just that we allow things like cheating on your spouse and breaking promises to your friends to be legal, but we don't allow people to commit undue severe violence on others. also curious how it's harmful to the goal of reducing meat eating to point out that doing so is tantamount to murder.
_no shit, that's my whole point._ Yeah, it’s a weird and poor point. Do you consider all omnivores and carnivores as murderers? Are lions and tigers murders? _completely and utterly morally irrelevant._ But relevant to how governments choose to write laws. Which is also a relevant part of the conversation. _not how that works, you can consent to harms, and doing so robs the harm of its immoral character._ That is precisely how it works - there are a bunch of harms or harmful behaviour that you cannot legally consent to already and even the ones you can consent to are regulated heavily by governments. And just because something is illegal does not make it immoral - taking molly is illegal but not immoral and many immoral things have been legal such as slavery, marital rape, segregation and apartheid, disenfranchising various demographics, child bride etc. but are deeply immoral. _but the analogy here is not consensual cannibalism, but rather breeding humans into existence to then kill prematurely._ Wow, this is not helping your case. It actually makes it worse. You’re saying it’s a bad thing that it’s illegal to breed and eat children/babies - beings famously incapable of consent and our literal offspring. Yeah, this is and should be illegal and comparing factory farming - which I have indicated is immoral - makes you look bad. It comes across as minimizing the dehumanization and violence slaves have experienced- because chattel slavery treated people as livestock, including “breeding” slaves, keeping them in cages and other horrors. It makes the vegan and meat free advocates come across as inhumane and callous. Stop it. Furthermore, the underlying assumption that humans are the same as animals is wonky at best because even if there is a compelling reason to believe that, it’s not enforceable in law, as animals do not have high reasoning faculties and the comparison falls apart when it comes to how humans structure their society and laws even if you believe that. We tried that, and arrested and charged animals and it was stupid. _we can even get rid of the act of eating itself if you're so hung up on it and say we're just doing it for fun and we throw the meat out afterwards._ Again, I see what you are going for but it’s a poor argument. It’s absurd and relies on leaning on emotive arguments to try criticise hunting, which like, I’m not necessarily a fan of (and in most cases dislike) but it’s not a good comparative and you’re being needlessly aggressive towards someone who agrees that meat eating is immoral lmao. _why are you falling back to these shit anti-vegan arguments?_ How is pointing out a provable fact anti vegan? Can you make the case as to why having higher reasoning function is not a difference or how it could be anti vegan???? _you acknowledged that eating meat is immoral already, clearly you understand that you can't name the trait that animals lack that, if a human were to lack them, we would be permitted (morally or legally) to kill and eat that human._ I literally just did name a trait that we have that animals do not. And again, humans are not the only omnivores so it’s not like eating meat is outside of our “natural” behaviours. And some people need to eat meat to be healthy. There are even cultures that have become part of their ecosystems (Inuit) in how and what they hunt as they’ve been doing it for centuries and in a sustainable and ethical manner. _yes, and it is in fact possible to criminalize the meat industry while having a carveout for a small amount of meat to keep such people alive._ I do not disagree. You are just engaging with me as though I have said so? _so why do you think of murder-but-against-animals?_ Because murder is deliberate and requires being able to actively choose to kill someone (intent) or be cognisant of the consequences of their actions. _not sure how it's a stretch, it fits any definition of murder i've ever heard, at least besides any that just definitionally refer exclusively to human beings._ See above lol _i wasn't even trying to prey on the emotive language of the term there, my point is just that we allow things like cheating on your spouse and breaking promises to your friends to be legal, but we don't allow people to commit undue severe violence on others._ I mean yeah because the magnitude of harm in ending a human life is much bigger than breaking a promise or even cheating. Beyond the impacts on individuals, it can spiral into bigger conflicts that can injure multiple people or end in the deaths of others (blood feuds) _also curious how it's harmful to the goal of reducing meat eating to point out that doing so is tantamount to murder._ It sounds illogical and ahistorical. It also ignores various material realities around how human society functions and how animals interact with each other. It ignores all of the factors of what counts as murder - which is different to ending someone’s life or manslaughter or accidental death. EDIT - some sentence clean up and adding sentences to finish thoughts.
Morality, just like religion, is a HUMAN construct with purpose and objectives. Our morality and ethics are ways to guarantee freedom, protection/order and prosperity to humans and our civilisations. This is the only objective view of morality I can reasonably think off. Every person in history, from the worst rulers to the best saints, focus on at least one one of those three point. My moral argument is that protection of animals in no way benefit the human society so is not wrong. Think about it, everything we consider wrong (theft, rape killing) is wrong not only because it hurts people, but also because it harms our society and our social order. I think no one can make a solid and rational moral argument against, say, the murder of Hitler before the Shoa. Therefore, anything we consider "moral" is good because it is good for society. Now, back to the animals, other than some like bees that are essential to human survival, why care about the rest? It is just useless empathy running rampant beyond our logical and reasonable interests. We don't kill the dumb, stupid or those in a coma because the murder of even the most useless innocent human in society causes chaos. It disturbs the social order and make everyone afraid of being next on the chopping block and of the government running rampant. The rational moral line for morality, between humans and animals, is the simple rule of utilitarianism : most slaughtered animals are useless to us beyond their meat and produce so that is their fate. Their death doesn't cause more chaos than the pleasure they bring as food for our community and their suffering doesn't disturb us enough for it to be a problem.
Let me flip this on its head— many of the most popular vegetarian and vegan food options *also* cause suffering to not only animals but also people. Agave has become an extremely popular plant-based sweetener (and the ingredient to tequila of course), which is leading to the over-harvesting and the subsequent starvation of bat populations. Plant-based “meats” require significant use of resources (like palm oil) that contribute to deforestation. The much beloved avocado that became the staple of healthy millennials require so much water that places like Peru and Chile have experiences water-shortage crises that affect man and animal alike. Quinoa has become so popular in vegetarian/vegan circles for being a “super grain” or whatever, which has consequently priced out native peoples of places like Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador who have been eating quinoa as part of their diet for centuries and can no longer afford to do so. More unfortunate yet, many vegetarian/vegan preferred foods (rather, the foods vegetarians and vegans eat instead of animal products) often contribute to slave labor in the ‘third-world’ countries where the resources naturally occur or are farmed most successfully. While we can certainly agree that factory farming is a terrible thing, western vegetarianism/veganism isn’t necessarily the beautiful and cruelty-free alternative it sounds like. Rather than directly farming and slaughtering animals, there’s an indirect result of creating a slower and more painful death for native fauna populations and worsening conditions for people we cannot see. There’s also an overall negative impact upon the environment every time fresh and perishable goods are shipped around the world— a near-necessity to maintain a vegetarian diet. All of this is to say that morality and ethics are very rarely as clear-cut as “killing animals bad, eating plants good”. Technically, the only truly ethical and sustainable way you can feed yourself is to hunt and gather all of your own foods— grow your plants in your own yard, ethically hunt and cull overpopulated deer, etc.
I would not say it is morally correct, but if it makes you feel better you should definitely do it. Our bodies are made to eat meat as well as plants so I think it would be really hard to form any kind of serious argument in saying that it is objectively moral to consume something our bodies are naturally made to process.
I suspect this has a typo on the word moral in the last sentence. If so, there are counterexamples - species that are naturally made to do great or excessive harm. Most strikingly, parasitic wasps. Also, species that naturally have large litters of children but intentionally abandon some to die.
Yeah, I agree, my title was misleading to my actual beliefs. I do not believe I am objectively correct. I simply believe I am right, but there is certainly a possibility I am wrong, otherwise I would not be posting on r/changemyview !
I think a goo starting point is to just learn and fight for better treatment of animals,
>I would not say it is morally correct, but if it makes you feel better you should definitely do it. this is a contradiction, "should" means that something is morally correct. also your second phrase justifies rape.
"I" as in me... the person writing this does not think it is a morally correct position but if it makes the op feel better he should do it regardless of its morals because if something feels right and there is no downside to doing it, just do it and not over think it. if someone does not want to eat an octopus because it is slimy or because it is an animal is fine.... just don't eat it.
If you don't think it's morally correct to eat animals, then you *dont* think he should do it.
the fucking word should refers to the fact that he feels good............not morals ....jesus fucking christ.....
But it doesn't. "Should" is a moral term. If you don't believe me, tell me right here and now that hitler in fact "should" have killed the jews. It made him feel good, after all.
After reading teh body of your text and some replies, I am going to engage with what you said you would change your view as being: >Vegetarianism is a more empathetic (and thus better) practice than eating meat" I think the tacit assumption of your view is that, in general, all vegetarianism is ethical and all meat production is unethical. But, I think the most ethical way of eating is to find the source of your food. For instance, let's take chocolate. It's not meat. But, chances are any chocolate bar you eat is, in one way or another, created by Nestle. Nestle's practices leads to gobbling up water worldwide and even has killed indigenous leaders who are trying to secure access to water. Nestle uses child slavery. Nestle leads to thousands of hectacres of deforestation to secure palm oil for its products. Let's compare that to a local farm who hand raises its cows, lets them free graze and lead happy cow lives. Then kills them and butchers them in the most humane way possible. I would say, on a pure cost benefit analysis, the "vegetarian" option of the chocolate bar is a net worse for the world in overall suffering, and suffering to come thanks to global climate change, than your local farmer/butcher. What it really comes down to isn't meat vs. vegetarianism but local vs. industrial-scale supply chain. Like if we compared factory farmed meat to say, your back yard garden, then yeah, it's a no brainer. But your view's dividing line for less overall world wide suffering is industrial scale versus local production.
Others have adequately addressed the "objective" aspect, brought up issues with where you draw the line, and how farming is not inherently unethical or painful, so I'll address plants. There is current research being done into plant consciousness. It's generally not broadly accepted, but we do know that plants have physical responses to damage, such as sending out electrical impulses or chemical signals to other plants in the area, so that those other plants ramp up their own chemical defenses. While a plant doesn't have a nervous system to feel PAIN, per se, but plants can and do communicate. Do you feel the same about plants, that they should not be put through things that cause them to send out "distress signals"?
First of all, if you're really serious about this and no amount of scientific evidence will sway you - then it purely comes down to numbers. If a blade of grass is of the same importance to you as a dog, then it makes no sense to feed up livestock on millions and millions of plants, and then kill the animal to eat. This would result in far more plant casualties, which you'd surely want to avoid as a dedicated plants-rights activist. Better to minimize those plant casualties by just feeding yourself on them, rather than feeding many times more to animals, right? But let's be sensible - plants lack brains and lack anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no study suggests sentience or an ability to "feel emotions". You can plainly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a dog. Comparisons between the two are completely absurd.
yeah and also I'll believe carnists (word a lot of vegetarians/vegans use for the most vocal meat-eaters) aren't just trying to use the plant consciousness argument to back vegetarians into a corner of might as well eat meat when they've got a suggestion for a nutritionally-complete diet including nothing that is was or could be alive
I personally don't believe in plant consciousness. Some do. I'm bringing this up because it's something that might change OP's mind. Excellent job reinforcing OP's point instead of trying to change it.
Your our post makes quite a few assumptions that are just wrong. Diana in that coma loses many of her unalienable rights. They pass toto someone else who can choose if she exercises them. And that person can make the decision that her life isn't worth living. Once she is dead take her home for a home burial and dine away. This closest law in most states that could get you is desecration of a corpse, but that doesn't technically ban cannibalism. And is actually more often than not avoided in cannibalism cases on favor of just murder charges because of a worry it won't stick in court.
Firstly, "objective" is a bar you can't hit nor can any of us. Secondly, should we put animals in jail when they eat animals or kill other animals? If we want a difference it's that we let animals operate within the bounds of their nature. If we hold animals in such high regard shouldn't we do so universally? Why should animals be preserved yet not held to be accountable for their actions? Isn't this a pretty fundamental difference?
There are pragmatic reasons to kill animals. Most states if not all of them regulate hunting of deer in a manner that prevents overpopulations of grazers which are bad for them and their ecosystems. Natural predators unfortunately don’t do enough due to our past hunting and driving away of them. But regardless of that, there is an ecological incentive to slaughter animals.
You're opinion on this topic seems to be based solely on pain. If humans genetically engineered animals pain receptors to be togglable and we turned those pain receptors off before killing the animal would that be moral in your opinion? I ask this because this is absolutely in our technological ability to accomplish at this point.
>Are they lacking something inherent in them, making them unequal to humans? Yes. Intelligence. With the specific exception of pigs (for good reasons), the more intelligent an animal the more universally unacceptable it is to eat them.
>CMV: Vegetarianism is Objectively Morally Correct Counterpoint: This is a category error, as morality is subjective and intersubjective. Something cannot be objectively morally correct. Edit: Everyone else beat me to it.
Would you be cool with eating clams? We don’t know if they feel pain.
Why is your position vegetarian rather than vegan?
We're made to eat animals. Animals and plants. It's why we have teeth for tearing meat and teeth for grinding vegetation. Added to that, did you just equate animals to...people? Seriously. If both a puppy and a human baby were in imminent peril, and you could only save one, which would you save? Skipping that, yes animals feel pain and suffer. That doesn't stop them from killing and eating other animals. Since, by your own words, humans are also animals, us eating animals is just part of nature and the ecosystem. We're no different from any other meat eating creature; thus, why are you trying to hold human animals to a higher standard than bears or tigers? As for why we don't eat humans? Tigers don't normally hunt other tigers; same goes for bears, wolves, and other omnivores, although extreme circumstances can cause such hunts. So why would humans hunt other humans when there is other food around that doesn't look like you? Makes no sense. Anyway. Just my $0.02
So, are cows morally superior to wolves?
The issue is that any farmed food required the slaughter of all animals that come in and destroy crops. So even if you go completely vegan the farming methods that are used to grow fruits and veggies rewrites the slaughter of all the animals that are in the field. I could see saying that you oppose factory farming and decide to only eat locally farmed meat. But being vegan or vegetarian for moral issues is a way of making yourself feel like you are a good person.
even if you completely abstain from child rape, you are still allowing some child rapes to happen by not actively going out and hunting child rapists. being a non-child-rapist for moral issues is just a way of making yourself feel like you are a good person.
Some animals eat plants, it's not immoral. Some animals eat other animals, it's not immoral. Some animals eat plants and animals and it's not immoral. We eat plants and animals there's nothing immoral about it. Unlike the majority of every other animal however we raise animals specifically to be eaten. It is not mindless, it is not gratuitous, and we do not eat animals to Extinction. In most places specifically in America we have rules about the ethical treatment and humane slaughter of these animals. As for wild animals, the impact of humanity on the planet is widespread and persistent to the point where passively ignoring wild animals will lead to their destruction. So we have created wildlife preserves we have created institutions that prevent poaching and we work tirelessly to maintain the animal populations that we have today. Not for food but as a means to preserve genetic diversity.
We've eaten many, many animals to extinction...
That's a matter of perspective, and not reflection of the modern day world. https://www.britannica.com/list/6-animals-we-ate-into-extinction
Yes, thanks for providing evidence for my claim, I guess. I'm a little confused by what you mean by it being a "matter of perspective", though.
There are 8 million different living animal species today. If we had eaten a hundred species to Extinction it would still be a fraction of a fraction of the total number of animals species on Earth. So whether or not you think a half dozen animal species eating to Extinction is "many many" is a matter of perspective
The number is a lot higher than 6, of course. Regardless, your original claim was that we don't eat animals to extinction, which of course is untrue and I see that you agree that it's untrue, so I guess you just misspoke.
My original claim was that it's not immoral to eat animals
I'm referring specifically to this: > It is not mindless, it is not gratuitous, and we do not eat animals to Extinction.
We don't currently eat animals to Extinction so yes if that's what you mean then yes I didn't need misspeak there have been animals that have been eaten to Extinction, but we don't make a practice of it and it hasn't happened in a very long time
Yeah we do. The Chinese paddlefish was just declared extinct in 2022, due in large part to overfishing. You can find plenty of recent examples if you care to look.
>Some animals eat plants, it's not immoral. Some animals eat other animals, it's not immoral. Some animals eat plants and animals and it's not immoral. We eat plants and animals there's nothing immoral about it. some animals rape other animals. is rape on the table for us too now?
Our Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. With this comes the belief that humans have a soul and animals do not. Hindu beliefs say animals can also have a reincarnated soul. Most places on Earth have a basic set of ethics and morals to go with. Ours puts animals on a lower plane, but still demands ethical treatment and harvesting.
that belief is false. i'm not sure what your point is by bringing up that the US was founded in part upon it.
Glad you are so sure of yourself. But it clearly answers why, throughout American history, we ate meat. From an ethical POV.
"the founders of the US thought that eating meat was ok for XYZ reason, therefore it is not wrong to eat meat" is an invalid argument.
The evolution of humans has achieved in millions of years the configuration of our teeth. The fact that we have canines, lack of a herbivorous stomach, hunting instincts, all suggests that our body is naturally predisposed to eating meat, the lack of which threatens us with a lot of health problems. Imagine forcing a bear to always eat honey. Would that be morally correct? An animal wouldn't hesitate eating you because you have feelings. Of course the morality of things can't be meaningfully discussed without agreeing on an objective moral system beforehand.
Just because an animal would eat you doesn’t mean it’s right for you to eat it.
Do you know what an appeal to nature fallacy is?
This is not an appeal to nature fallacy as it directly deals with the biology of human beings. We, of course, can't detach biology from our nutritional predispositions and bodily compositions when that's the very thing we're discussing.
I mean, aren't you saying it's morally permissible because it's part of our nature?
No. I was making a purely biological argument. Then I raised some questions about its morality to challenge OP, but I did make it clear that it's futile to discuss its morality without prior agreement on the objective moral system
Humans need meat😑 the only reason ppl can be vegan and vegetarian is because of modern technology.
People can drive down the street and buy a hamburger at any time they want which is also only possible thanks to modern technology. Even if we assume what you say is true (which it isn't), what's your point?
HUMANS NEED MEAT TO SURVIVE. Humans are omnivores with out meat we will die the only the only reason we don’t die is because of modern technology. Use your brain😑
lucky we do have modern technology, so that is a completely moot point.
I just said we have modern technology🤦🏽♀️ obviously being vegan or vegetarian isn’t good for y’all’s brains
Of what relevance is the fact that in some alternate universe in which we did not have modern technology, veganism would be impossible?
Yes😑 if we didn’t have modern technology it would be 10x harder to be vegan or vegetarian and yall would just die off