What is your excuse for killing animals?

[tsig]

Why?

That's the crux.

Why not?

That's your burden.

 

[volatile]

Eat a steak, do a rape
All the same in your mind.

Nope. You forget, this is not my argument. It's Ron's.

Rape and diet would be - or at least should be - equivalent in the mind of someone who uses "No need for a justifications" and "Animals is animals" as a justification for their diet.

And yet, they aren't. Funny that, huh? It almost looks like they don't really mean it.

 

[tsig]

All of them, by definition.

Then it won't be difficult to post one.

 

[volatile]

Why not?

That's your burden.

Not at all. My diet is rational, and rationally consistent with the rest of my moral outlook.

Yours just seems to be unthought, unthinking, unjustified and unjustifiable.

Your diet has consequences, and it has consequences which would seem to be at odds with your broader moral position. So, how do you rationally account for that. Can you rationally account for that?

 

[volatile]

Then it won't be difficult to post one.

Really? You want an example of "a moral rule based on philosophy"?

Seriously. All of them. Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape your sister. Or do. Because those are also moral positions. Name a moral position. It's philosophical.

Morality is a philosophical construct. Morality is philosophical, inherently. I don't even understand why you're asking the question.

 

[tsig]

I talked earlier about Kant and Bentham's moral rules. I'm guessing that you missed it, didn't understand it, or are asking some completely different question but failing to express yourself clearly.

Since Kant and Bentham don't post here I'm asking you, Kevin Lowe:

Can you please cite one moral rule based on philosophy?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Why?

That's the crux.

Why do I sympathize or why do I eat them?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Morality is a philosophical construct. Morality is philosophical, inherently. I don't even understand why you're asking the question.

No. Morality is a social construct. The last living human in the universe is incapable of commiting a moral or immoral act.

 

[tsig]

Aaannnddd... We're back to where we came in. Care to explain why it isn't a moral issue? Even if you conclude that it's OK to eat meat, it's still fundamentally an issue with a moral dimension. That much is unavoidable. That some people choose to behave as if it isn't does not make it so.

How we treat animals is very obviously a moral issue, and one with which most people would agree with - even those most vocally pro-meat. Bestiality, animal torture, issues of husbandry, farming, extinction are all questions which are questions, fundamentally, of morality. I haven't yet seen one person pushing the "Diet isn't a moral issue" line explain why it, and it alone, is free from even having a moral dimension to the question. If you'd care to try, rather than just assert, I'm willing to listen.

I think - and this is only my guess - that even thinking about diet in moral terms leads people to realise just how untenable that steak is in the firmament of their broader moral philosophy.

Yeah we're just scared of the Truth^TM. I've heard that line before and it doesn't put you in good company.

With all your concern about animals I'd think you'd get off that high horse.

 

[volatile]

Why do I sympathize or why do I eat them?

Both. Or, more accurately, how do you square the circle of doing both at the same time.

Or, more verbosely, how do you square the circle of doing both at the same time without sipping into contradiction, fallacious reasoning or special pleading for diet?

 

[volatile]

Yeah we're just scared of the Truth^TM. I've heard that line before and it doesn't put you in good company.

With all your concern about animals I'd think you'd get off that high horse.

So, you don't care to explain why it isn't a moral issue, then?

How would you react to someone who turned up on these forums and posted "Killing Jews isn't a moral issue" and then got all uppity when people asked him to justify himself?

If you want to have a conversation, let's have a conversation. I find it rather funny that we vegans get accused of arrogance, though, when requests for discussion and conversation are met with rude assertion and denials that justification is even necessary.

If you're so sure you're right, I'd love to hear you explain why. If you can do so without any recourse to thinking of diet as a moral question, I'll be surprised and impressed.

 

[tsig]

Nope. You forget, this is not my argument. It's Ron's.

Rape and diet would be - or at least should be - equivalent in the mind of someone who uses "No need for a justifications" and "Animals is animals" as a justification for their diet. And yet, they aren't. Funny that, huh? It almost looks like they don't really mean it.

You can read Rons' mind?

I see no other explanation as to how you can post what his argument should be.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Both. Or, more accurately, how do you square the circle of doing both at the same time.

Or, more verbosely, how do you square the circle of doing both at the same time without sipping into contradiction, fallacious reasoning or special pleading for diet?

It's not a moral issue, therefore there is no contradiction.

 

[volatile]

No. Morality is a social construct. The last living human in the universe is incapable of commiting a moral or immoral act.

Social construction is a philosophical concept too. Morality is philosophical. What's so troubling about that particular truism?

Of course morality is a social construct. But don't confuse the existence of cultural normativity with the necessary absence of morality. I know you don't want to do that.

Don't confuses an is with an ought - and that's as true for normative moral rules as it is for "the natural world".

Tell me - why should we eat animals?

 

[tsig]

Not at all. My diet is rational, and rationally consistent with the rest of my moral outlook.

Yours just seems to be unthought, unthinking, unjustified and unjustifiable.

Your diet has consequences, and it has consequences which would seem to be at odds with your broader moral position. So, how do you rationally account for that. Can you rationally account for that?

How can you rationally know my diet or my moral position?

Your remark rationally seem to be unthought, unthinking, unjustified and unjustifiable.

 

[volatile]

It's not a moral issue, therefore there is no contradiction.

Why is it not a moral issue?

Explain to me why you "sympathise" with animals if how we treat them is not even a moral question.

This isn't even about the conclusion to eat meat (yet). What I'm interested in is how you can wall off diet from moral consideration. Questions like "Should bestiality be illegal?", "Should we outlaw bear-baiting?" and "Should I dog-fight?" are questions with moral dimensions, aren't they? If not, on what other grounds can we even start discussing these issues? That being the case, on what grounds can meat eating be excluded even from consideration?

 

[volatile]

How can you rationally know my diet or my moral position?

Your remark rationally seem to be unthought, unthinking, unjustified and unjustifiable.

So, tell me.

You're awfully good at snippy posts at the edges, and asking oblique questions. We might have more fun, and learn more, if you actually take some time to explain your position.

Go ahead.

 

[volatile]

You can read Rons' mind?

No, but I can read what he wrote.

I see no other explanation as to how you can post what his argument should be.

He has argued that "There's nothing to justify", because we are animals, and animals eat each other. By that logic, "There's nothing to justify" in rape, because we are animals and animals have sexual intercourse with each other indiscriminately.

For some reason, Ron (and you) don't like this extrapolation, but seem unwilling to explain why it doesn't hold, save by affirmation. Would you like to try?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Aaannnddd... We're back to where we came in. Care to explain why it isn't a moral issue?

It is not necessary to do so. You have arbitrarily chosen to require that it be a moral issue.

Tell me - why should we eat animals?

They are a food source, and we are omnivores.

DR

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Social construction is a philosophical concept too. Morality is philosophical. What's so troubling about that particular truism?

What's troubling is that it does not appear to be true. If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem is a nail.

Don't confuses an is with an ought - and that's as true for normative moral rules as it is for "the natural world".

Don't project an "ought" where there isn't.

Tell me - why should we eat animals?

I think that is a poor choice of words. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the question is not "should we", but "can we." Why can we eat animals? Because they are nutricious, delicious and there's no moral reason not to.