What is your excuse for killing animals?

[tsig]

If it's not a moral issue, then is it a mistake for non-vegetarians/vegans to insist on humane farming and slaughtering?

They taste better when they're well fed and killed right.

ETA: I see I was too slow

 

[mumblethrax]

More straw men. Stop posting them.

Would you care to point out where you believe I've misrepresented you?

I'm merely taking the things you've actually said in this thread and pointing out that they do not make sense when taken together. That's not called 'a straw man', it's called 'basic reasoning.'

The language of critical thinkers--stop abusing it.

 

[tsig]

snip

Nominated

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Would you care to point out where you believe I've misrepresented you?

Here:

So you don't actually buy the idea that society decides what is immoral (otherwise, you'd have no grounds for holding a contrary opinion).

and here:

If you believe that society determines what is moral or immoral, then all you have to do to answer any question about morality is look to what society has determined. So it does not make sense to then assert that you can hold a position contrary to society's view on any given topic. It's like saying "Science is how we discover things about the natural world, and, by the way, God created the Earth 6,000 years ago."

In both of these posts you determined my position for me to make it easier for you to knock down.

I'm merely taking the things you've actually said in this thread and pointing out that there do not make sense when taken together. That's not called 'a straw man', it's called 'basic reasoning.'

It doesn't make sense to you because you disagree with it. I never said you don't buy your own premise.

I certainly can hold an opinion that is contrary to a social moral. Otherwise, how could morality ever change?

 

[Cain]

Contrariwise, "Eating meat is cruelty"- also an opinion- does not have enough people that share it to make it a subjective moral truth in our society in general, so the contrary opinions are still the subjective moral thruths. However, those sub-groups for which this opinion is a subjective moral truth like to pretend it is an objective moral truth in order to try to persuade others to adopt their opinion.

If there are objective moral truths, I'd love to here from whence they come and how they are determined to be so.

A lot of these meta-ethical discussions miss the point. What if a religious conservative asks you to justify gay marriage? Does that mean you have to blather on and on about how the institution of state recognized marriage has an important social function and -- No!

Instead you will probably argue that they are discriminating against gays without any good reason. Maybe the institution of state recognized marriage IS without merit, but whether it is or it isn't we should strive for consistency: everybody marries or nobody does.

This is where the "meat-eaters" have been dishonest. As Mumblethrax wrote:

What I find frustrating about these threads is that people will take whatever steps necessary to nihilistically privilege their own views. Moral relativism is provisionally accepted long enough to cloak opinions and protect them from scrutiny; you see, my inchoate opinion is just as meaningful as yours, because neither is meaningful at all. As soon as the topic drifts to something that doesn't implicate their own behavior, we're back to confident moral proclamations.

People, vegan and non-vegan, advocate all sorts of laws, including, probably, laws protecting the rights of developmentally disabled humans. Why not extend those rights to similarly-abled non-humans? If the answer is we do not have the same "feelings" for animals, then you would have to consider that a good enough argument for anything, including discriminating against homosexuals, blacks, or women. We can look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Some argue that marriage is about God. Okay, so atheists should not be allowed to get married? They say marriage is about having children? So childless senior citizens should not be allowed to get married? They ask, "what next, people going to marry rocks?" Rocks can't give consent.

Kevin has tried to bring this to the front:

Singer, again, is perfectly consistent about this issue. He says that we should either be perfectly happy to stun the mentally disabled and bleed them out if it suits us and also be happy to do it to animals, or we should refrain from killing either group because it suits us. He goes with the not-kill-either-group alternative, but I think he accepts that the kill-the-disabled-and-pigs alternative is equally consistent.

Instead meat-eaters quickly move to nihilism or relativism, demanding someone prove an objective morality. If the question is about objective morality, then you're in the wrong thread. Concern for animals is not restricted to any single moral outlook. It is robust, capable of accommodating Kantians, utilitarians, and others, just as almost everybody here probably thinks gays should be allowed to marry or that torture is bad.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So: no justification is required, except when it is.

How... convenient.

I believe you just stabbed a scarecrow.

I'm still over here.

 

[Cain]

They taste better when they're well fed and killed right.

So it should be called the Better Tasting Act. Maybe they revised the title for political reasons.

 

[mumblethrax]

In both of these posts you determined my position for me to make it easier for you to knock down.

Here I pointed out that your answer to my later question overturned your answer to my earlier question. This isn't a straw man.

It doesn't make sense to you because you disagree with it. I never said you don't buy your own premise.

No, it does not make sense to me because you've made statements about the nature of morality that cannot be rationally reconciled. I'm not asking you to reconcile your view to mine--I'm asking you for a coherent set of premises.

I certainly can hold an opinion that is contrary to a social moral. Otherwise, how could morality ever change?

If what is moral is determined by society, then morality can never change (since any discordant view would be immoral, by definition).

Which is perhaps a good reason not to hold the view that what is moral is determined by society.

Think about it this way: if I ask you whether late-term abortion is wrong, do you immediately defer to what society has to say about it? Do you look up polling data, read legal opinions, look at legislation that has passed? Do you say, well, it's immoral in some states, but not in others?

Or do you, before you do any of that, think about it for yourself?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I tried to respond line by line to this rambling collection of trivially obvious claims, straw men and outright nonsense, but frankly it doesn't deserve a detailed response.

Ron, you've dug yourself into a hole of nihilism and your attempts to find a way out just aren't working. You've figured out that moral claims are value judgements made by humans rather than objectively factual claims about the external universe. Yippee for you. You seem to think that you're the first person in history this has occurred to, but let's leave that conceit aside for the moment.

So now you're in a hole. There's nothing to say from within your hole about the morality or otherwise of altruism, or serial killing, or rape, or slavery, or genocide. Anything goes, because as far as you're concerned if moral claims are not claims of fact about the external universe they have no meaning at all.

Then you try to climb out of the hole. You don't want to embrace the logical conclusion of your own position and say "Actually I, Ron, have nothing negative to say about death camps, or sex slavery, or child prostitution. Who is to say we ought not to do these things? The universe? Ha!". You want to be able to say "I'm a really nice guy, I behave in a moral way, and I get to eat meat whenever I want, and there's no contradiction".

However because you don't know jack about philosophy you'e trying to climb out of the hole using the naturalistic fallacy. You're still trying to pull an "ought" statement about how we ought to act from "is" statements about the nature of the world without realising that it's a philosophically impossible endeavour. As a result you are still in the hole.

Meanwhile Cain and I are standing around at the top of the hole while you yell abuse at us. "How dare you make moral value judgements, and demand consistency from me? That is disgusting and dishonest and arrogant! Not that I'm making any moral judgements of course, I am just making statements of fact about the external universe! Who do you think you are? The universe is ignoring you, you know! Do you think you're better than me, just because you make moral value judgements and act on them? How smug and sanctimonious!".

Wow. Just..... plain.... wow.

You have a very distorted image of the situation. But if it pleases your ego to imagine that I am down in "a hole" looking up at you (in other words, you're above me), then good for you.

I'll just say something regarding this part:

Anything goes, because as far as you're concerned if moral claims are not claims of fact about the external universe they have no meaning at all.

Seems you're the one in a hole, because you continuously repeat the same idiotic argument: I have never said that everything goes, if we're talking in the context of a human society. I agree with you that there are rules we have created to find harmony as a society, and that there are harmonious ways to live as a society. I've wasted more time than I should have, repeating that I have not advocated an anarchist behavior based on the fact that there is no such thing as an Objective Moral.

But in nature (and this only takes serious, unbiased, scientific observation), when it comes down to the gene, anything goes as long as it favors the survival of the gene. This is what I'm arguing with you. This one little part that has no bearing on moral arguments. This little part that deals with genes (as opposed to memes).

Beyond the fact that such conclusion is "pretty" or "ugly" or "indecent" or "unacceptable by human standards", or that such conclusion is or isn't a good role model for a moral society, that's another issue. But if you're gonna discuss nature as it is, then you have to get off your Moral Objectivism high horse. Because nature is amoral.

Now go back and claim that I'm suggesting we should go outside and kill and rape everyone. Go ahead and keep repeating that as a parrot. A blind, obtuse parrot that doesn't understand what he's being told.

Have a good day.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Instead meat-eaters quickly move to nihilism or relativism, demanding someone prove an objective morality. If the question is about objective morality, then you're in the wrong thread. Concern for animals is not restricted to any single moral outlook. It is robust, capable of accommodating Kantians, utilitarians, and others, just as almost everybody here probably thinks gays should be allowed to marry or that torture is bad.

Meat eaters didn't bring up objective morality. That was Kevin_Lowe. The meat eaters have consistently pointed out that killing animals is not immoral. How you kill animals can be immoral. Why you kill animals can be immoral. But in general, killing animals is not immoral.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

If what is moral is determined by society, then morality can never change (since any discordant view would be immoral, by definition).

Which is perhaps a good reason not to hold the view that what is moral is determined by society.

The needs of society can change. Sometimes it changes slowly and with great strife. Look at history and see that this is so.

Think about it this way: if I ask you whether late-term abortion is wrong, do you immediately defer to what society has to say about it? Do you look up polling data, read legal opinions, look at legislation that has passed? Do you say, well, it's immoral in some states, but not in others?

Or do you, before you do any of that, think about it for yourself?

I think about it for myself because there are no great stone tablets carved with the perfect unchanging morals to consult.

 

[mumblethrax]

The needs of society can change. Sometimes it changes slowly and with great strife. Look at history and see that this is so.

That doesn't immediately suggest anything about morality. Maybe infanticide is permissible where resources are scarce and not where they are abundant. Maybe slavery was wrong despite contemporary conditions.

I think about it for myself because there are no great stone tablets carved with the perfect unchanging morals to consult.

Great. Progress! We agree.

So what this suggests to me is that society is not determinative of morality. What I'm asking you to do, then, is to have the courage of your convictions. Try to come up with a coherent set of beliefs as to why you think it's wrong or right to kill these animals or those, these people or those, without deferring to or hiding behind what society has determined. Specifically, maybe you'd like to take another shot at volatile's question.

 

[Cain]

Meat eaters didn't bring up objective morality. That was Kevin_Lowe.

I highly doubt that, but what's done is done.

The meat eaters have consistently pointed out that killing animals is not immoral. How you kill animals can be immoral. Why you kill animals can be immoral.

Don't look now, but vegans are in your midst.

But in general, killing animals is not immoral.

Unless it's for a good reason, people generally agree it's immoral to kill or harm animals. We disagree over what we consider a good reason.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Great. Progress! We agree.

So what this suggests to me is that society is not determinative of morality. What I'm asking you to do, then, is to have the courage of your convictions. Try to come up with a coherent set of beliefs as to why you think it's wrong or right to kill these animals or those, these people or those, without deferring to or hiding behind what society has determined. Specifically, maybe you'd like to take another shot at volatile's question.

The first time you did that, I thought you did it on purpose. I apologize for calling it dishonest. Now I think you can't help it.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Unless it's for a good reason, people generally agree it's immoral to kill or harm animals. We disagree over what we consider a good reason.

I agree that this is what we disagree about.

 

[mumblethrax]

The first time you did that, I thought you did it on purpose. I apologize for calling it dishonest. Now I think you can't help it.

Are you going to go back to claiming that society determines morality, even after we've agreed that we can come up with moral beliefs before we consult society at large?

 

[dudalb]

So, killing insects is okay because they "probably" don't feel pain or have "consciousness". Glad to see the morality is based on such rock-solid foundations. I wonder, if there compelling scientific evidence of insects feeling pain surfaced, would you sanctimonious vegans start avoiding stepping on ants or squashing mosquitoes?



You realize you're comparing eating meat to rape, pillage and murder, right?


Wow, just wow.

I don't mind people being Vegans, it's their damn air of moral superority that annoys me.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

This just in: Morality in the Brain. Further discoveries on how to measure it and alter it

 

[Piscivore]

Unless it's for a good reason, people generally agree it's immoral to kill or harm animals.

Got any data to support that, or is it just your opinion?

 

[Cain]

Got any data to support that, or is it just your opinion?

Supposing it's true, where does it take us?
Supposing it's false, where does it leave me?