Options

Fundamentalist Militant [Vegetarianism] and [Veganism]

1235718

Posts

  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    I eat meat because I like it, and to crib from Anthony Bourdain, vegetarianism/veganism is largely a luxury that we can afford because we're not in a third world country. I don't really ascribe human sentiments like cruelty, suffering, love, etc, onto animals because they simply don't have the function to really understand that and by all intents and purposes they are not equal to man and womankind and never will. And also that whole pathetic/anthropomorphic fallacy thing.

    With that said, that doesn't mean I hate animals or want them to suffer. I support ethical treatment of animals as pets and as livestock. I went door to door to campaign for the green candidate for governor a few years back specifically because he promised me that Mississippi would make harmful treatment of animals, pets and livestock, as a state crime with huge consequences.

    Every vegetarian I know that I consider a friend is a vegetarian that isn't a dick about it. The type that isn't really defined by their choice in diet. They don't breathlessly whisper "No thanks, I'm a vegatarian" when offered something, they don't make a scene about it in public. It's merely their preference for a certain type of food, whether out of sheer taste or personal reasons.

    Sadly, the other type of vegen/vegetarians I know I don't consider friends. It's obvious that their "empowerment" and "compassion" and "standing up for helpless animals" is just a ruse for attention, even if they do care that much about the issue. It's still guaranteed to come up at least twice a day during any conversation that is even remotely related to food.

    Of course, if you felt the way vegans do about the morality of meat, you'd probably want to speak up. I can say that I'd take time out of my schedule to call Strom Thurmond a dick to his face each day were he still alive.

    Also, your complaint about vegetarians refusing food reminds me of how conservatives react to teachers "flaunting" their sexuality by admitting to being gay when asked.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    Also, I support eating whatever animal you want. Cats, dogs, rats, baboons, whatever. All equal game.

    most predators at high trophic levels are sacks of toxins, if i recall correctly

    eating a hawk or a wolf or a human is a great way to get horrible infections and die or become very ill

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Most insects lack a brain as we know them, yet most will also show some sort of pain response if damaged.

    Where do they fall?
    Nervous system then. And there are going to be fuzzy boundary cases.

    Likewise for the debate about "what is consciousness"? I don't think consciousness, or an ability to experience pain, is a binary state (i.e. something you either have or you don't). The structures that create consciousness and pain evolved.
    So you would see it as a sliding scale, with some animals being more animal than other animals?
    I'd say more "conscious" in this case. But yes.

    And some animals are more animal than others. I mean, there are living things that exist on the boundary between protozoans and metazoans, such as sponges. A cnidarian is more of an animal than a sponge is, in this sense.
    COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL TO FOLLOW:

    Would eating a normally developed person be better or worse from a moral perspective than eating a person with a mental disability?

    Is one of them tastier than the other?

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    Also, I support eating whatever animal you want. Cats, dogs, rats, baboons, whatever. All equal game.

    I prefer the most dangerous game.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL TO FOLLOW:

    Would eating a normally developed person be better or worse from a moral perspective than eating a person with a mental disability?
    All things being equal? Better.

    But things are never equal. It is impossible to disentangle the abstract morality of the situation from the moral structures of rights and social relations that human society is based around.

    This is a common line of critique of utilitarianism in general, and some utilitarians are okay with it; in my case, I feel like any morality as applies to human beings needs to be filtered through social-level morality. A society which protects the life of the mentally disabled and treats everyone as "equals" is a more moral society than one that does not.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    since we are operating from arbitrary moral claims like "suffering is bad", i don't think there is any appreciable moral difference between a fully-functioning person and a mentally disabled person. they are both equally capable of suffering, especially when it comes to being killed, which is a form of suffering we are all capable of enjoying.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL TO FOLLOW:

    Would eating a normally developed person be better or worse from a moral perspective than eating a person with a mental disability?
    All things being equal? Better.

    But things are never equal. It is impossible to disentangle the abstract morality of the situation from the moral structures of rights and social relations that human society is based around.

    This is a common line of critique of utilitarianism in general, and some utilitarians are okay with it; in my case, I feel like any morality as applies to human beings needs to be filtered through social-level morality. A society which protects the life of the mentally disabled and treats everyone as "equals" is a more moral society than one that does not.
    I'm not sure I follow your reasoning as to why it is better to eat a normally developed person.

    The handicapped should be treated as equals, so it's better to eat the other guy?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Am I the only one who, upon seeing the thread title, thought "this thread brought to you by The People's Republic of China Commision for the Defense Against Violent Splittism in The Tibet Autonomous Region?"

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    since we are operating from arbitrary moral claims like "suffering is bad", i don't think there is any appreciable moral difference between a fully-functioning person and a mentally disabled person. they are both equally capable of suffering, especially when it comes to being killed, which is a form of suffering we are all capable of enjoying.
    So the core conceit that emerged early in the thread of humans being superior because of our ability to reason (or levels of "free will" as it was then being called) doesn't apply in a situation involving one human and another human less capable of reason?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Umm. Meat is expensive, actually.

    No it isn't.
    But today I don't think it makes sense to say veg-ism is a luxury.

    It's a luxury because it's something many people do because they can afford to do it. Largely at the expense of taking advantage of the world wide fruit and vegetable trade that routinely does damage to communities in third world countries. But who cares about them, huh?
    I'm comfortable saying that humans have a significantly deeper capacity for suffering, because our emotional and social bonds are more complex.

    Then don't directly compare the two. Thanks.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I'm not sure I follow your reasoning as to why it is better to eat a normally developed person.

    The handicapped should be treated as equals, so it's better to eat the other guy?
    Sorry, I should have said "Worse" in the first line.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I'm not sure I follow your reasoning as to why it is better to eat a normally developed person.

    The handicapped should be treated as equals, so it's better to eat the other guy?
    Sorry, I should have said "Worse" in the first line.
    Ok, that makes more sense.

    So the morally superior option is the preservation of the more highly functioning of the two? Am I reading that right?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Am I the only one who, upon seeing the thread title, thought "this thread brought to you by The People's Republic of China Commision for the Defense Against Violent Splittism in The Tibet Autonomous Region?"

    I did when we got to the part about elitist assholes assaulting people for exercising free speech that broke from established dogma.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    As a "this occurs in nature, therefore this is right" argument I'd say that the appeal to predators is a hell of a lot more convincing than the appeal to rapist chimps, if we disregard for a moment the fundamental bankruptcy of this argument structure in the first place. While our ancestors were almost certainly a bunch of rapists, it doesn't exactly require a doctorate in ethics to recognize that rape is bad, and doesn't (in the long run) benefit anyone. On the other hand, it's rather clear that our ancestors would in many cases not have survived if their societies had scorned predation as a method of survival. This has no bearing on our ability to survive in the age of iron supplements and protein shakes (not the dude, the drink), but it certainly has implications regarding the notion that humans are predators.

    I support this notion, because I think it's pretty tough to reconcile the fact that we are a majority-omnivorous species (implicated as a causal factor in the extinction of several species of delicious, meat-bearing mammals on multiple continents) with the idea that we aren't predators. So the only way I see to argue that lions are moral while hunters are cruel is to set up a special pleading either for lions (natural predator exclusivity; their predation is motivated by survival) or for people (human exclusivity; a higher standard of morality is required for predators so very clever as us). I find neither compelling, though I'd appreciate an earnest defense of either.

    It was shocking to me, though, to find that I am very unusual for thinking the way I do, particularly since I grew up in a suburban environment and lack firsthand experience with ranching or hunting or food-animals in general. In one class where an instructor posed a question about whether we would be comfortable personally killing a chicken (which, regardless of our personal action, would be served at dinner that evening) I instantly raised my hand and was baffled by my classmates' failure to do so. Quick as I am to embrace it, I don't believe that most modern humans would appreciate the idea of themselves as a predator.

    I blame Disney. From the beginning of the 20th century, developing in parallel to the shift from rural to urban majority population, we've had these fucking cartoons anthropomorphizing our meat. Just as people forgot what producing food even looks like, we've introduced our children on a massive scale to the notion that animals are just smaller, cuter people. I'm furious that our meat industry is as insane and destructive as it is, but so long as that industry can paint its opposition as a bunch of fucking idiots comparing their operations to the holocaust, they'll continue to get away with murder (of ecosystems; I could give a shit about the livestock). The blood doesn't bother me, but the offal running into the water supply sure does.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    since we are operating from arbitrary moral claims like "suffering is bad", i don't think there is any appreciable moral difference between a fully-functioning person and a mentally disabled person. they are both equally capable of suffering, especially when it comes to being killed, which is a form of suffering we are all capable of enjoying.
    So the core conceit that emerged early in the thread of humans being superior because of our ability to reason (or levels of "free will" as it was then being called) doesn't apply in a situation involving one human and another human less capable of reason?

    the idea that humans are more ethically valuable because of various humanist conceits like reason, free will, etc. is an empty and vacuous one

    if we're going to start making arbitrary value claims as the basis of our moral systems, "suffering is bad" is the only good one i've seen in this thread

    "only beings which can reason have moral worth" is not by any means self evident or anywhere near it

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Umm. Meat is expensive, actually.

    No it isn't.
    [/quote]
    I don't know how you can seriously claim this. Are you being sarcastic?
    It's a luxury because it's something many people do because they can afford to do it. Largely at the expense of taking advantage of the world wide fruit and vegetable trade that routinely does damage to communities in third world countries. But who cares about them, huh?
    Non-sequitor.

    Bottom line: unless your meat subsists on steppe grass, the meat you eat takes 10x as much food to raise.
    Then don't directly compare the two. Thanks.
    There is no bright-line distinction between humans and animals, the cheekiness of your retorts notwithstanding. I'm quite comfortable comparing humans to chimpanzees because our genomes are almost identical. I'm also comfortable comparing monkeys to cats.

    I'd appreciate if you would actually defend the points you were trying to make.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    since we are operating from arbitrary moral claims like "suffering is bad", i don't think there is any appreciable moral difference between a fully-functioning person and a mentally disabled person. they are both equally capable of suffering, especially when it comes to being killed, which is a form of suffering we are all capable of enjoying.
    So the core conceit that emerged early in the thread of humans being superior because of our ability to reason (or levels of "free will" as it was then being called) doesn't apply in a situation involving one human and another human less capable of reason?

    the idea that humans are more ethically valuable because of various humanist conceits like reason, free will, etc. is an empty and vacuous one

    if we're going to start making arbitrary value claims as the basis of our moral systems, "suffering is bad" is the only good one i've seen in this thread

    "only beings which can reason have moral worth" is not by any means self evident or anywhere near it
    I would be inclined to agree with this, particularly with the last line.

    But that then leaves us with the problem of requiring sustenance to live but having no way of determining if we're more morally valuable than the things that we would be consuming to stay alive, even if those things were plants.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Ok, that makes more sense.

    So the morally superior option is the preservation of the more highly functioning of the two? Am I reading that right?
    No, because of everything else I wrote in that post.

    Human morality doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in societies, and a society that treated the mentally handicapped dude as "fair game" would be morally worse than one which strove towards equality, for a variety of reasons probably not really suited for discussion here.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Of course, if you felt the way vegans do about the morality of meat, you'd probably want to speak up. I can say that I'd take time out of my schedule to call Strom Thurmond a dick to his face each day were he still alive.

    I'm not really in the business of rapid proselytising. I don't like it when it's done to me so I don't really care to go out of my way to do it myself.
    Also, your complaint about vegetarians refusing food reminds me of how conservatives react to teachers "flaunting" their sexuality by admitting to being gay when asked.

    Nice attempt at a Godwin like comparison.

    Would you like something to eat?

    "No thanks. I'm a vegetarian."

    Right. Because we eat meat means we don't prepare vegetables. Ever.

    Please. GMAFB.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Intelligence. Self awareness. That thing that makes a living human more valuable than a human corpse.

    E: @ protein

    Am I the only one who thought "well, I assume we're killing it first?"

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Ok, that makes more sense.

    So the morally superior option is the preservation of the more highly functioning of the two? Am I reading that right?
    No, because of everything else I wrote in that post.

    Human morality doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in societies, and a society that treated the mentally handicapped dude as "fair game" would be morally worse than one which strove towards equality, for a variety of reasons probably not really suited for discussion here.
    But everything else you wrote in that post consisted of reasons it is morally advantageous to treat the disadvantaged with respect. So using that as a springboard to the decision to eat the handicapped guy instead of the non-handicapped guy seems a little off.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Ok, that makes more sense.

    So the morally superior option is the preservation of the more highly functioning of the two? Am I reading that right?
    No, because of everything else I wrote in that post.

    Human morality doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in societies, and a society that treated the mentally handicapped dude as "fair game" would be morally worse than one which strove towards equality, for a variety of reasons probably not really suited for discussion here.

    It is very, very easy to distinguish between a human and a cow. It is rather difficult to distinguish between a "human-smart-enough-not-to-eat" and a "human-dumb-enough-to-eat." I see nothing wrong with a strong taboo against cannibalism, and this doesn't really have any implications with regard to the morality of eating other species.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    since we are operating from arbitrary moral claims like "suffering is bad", i don't think there is any appreciable moral difference between a fully-functioning person and a mentally disabled person. they are both equally capable of suffering, especially when it comes to being killed, which is a form of suffering we are all capable of enjoying.
    So the core conceit that emerged early in the thread of humans being superior because of our ability to reason (or levels of "free will" as it was then being called) doesn't apply in a situation involving one human and another human less capable of reason?

    the idea that humans are more ethically valuable because of various humanist conceits like reason, free will, etc. is an empty and vacuous one

    if we're going to start making arbitrary value claims as the basis of our moral systems, "suffering is bad" is the only good one i've seen in this thread

    "only beings which can reason have moral worth" is not by any means self evident or anywhere near it
    I would be inclined to agree with this, particularly with the last line.

    But that then leaves us with the problem of requiring sustenance to live but having no way of determining if we're more morally valuable than the things that we would be consuming to stay alive, even if those things were plants.

    i have yet to see a compelling case for the existence of vegetable suffering

    it seems fairly obvious to me that a human is in no way more morally valuable than an anima

    and that if there is the slightest doubt about that question of worth, it is better to err on the side of caution, and assign moral value

    and that in an ideal world, we would not eat meat - unless it were vital to our survival, because we are none of us saints, and who would die for an animal? humanist values, as arbitrary as they are, are difficult to deny.

    even now, i think meat is the easiest way to have a balanced, healthy diet, and there are many who can't afford to use expensive supplements instead

    self-interest wins out

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I support this notion, because I think it's pretty tough to reconcile the fact that we are a majority-omnivorous species (implicated as a causal factor in the extinction of several species of delicious, meat-bearing mammals on multiple continents) with the idea that we aren't predators. So the only way I see to argue that lions are moral while hunters are cruel is to set up a special pleading either for lions (natural predator exclusivity; their predation is motivated by survival) or for people (human exclusivity; a higher standard of morality is required for predators so very clever as us). I find neither compelling, though I'd appreciate an earnest defense of either.
    I have no problem saying lions are dicks. I'd genetically engineer them to live off soy cat food 'twere it not merely a science fiction conceit.

    I would not be happy with Prince Nanaki if he nabbed a bird outside.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I don't know how you can seriously claim this. Are you being sarcastic?

    Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

    I can go buy a pound of ground beef for 2$.
    Non-sequitor.

    Uh. No.
    I'd appreciate if you would actually defend the points you were trying to make.

    I did, but you're being ridiculously dishonest and you've managed to contradict yourself a couple of times.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Ok, that makes more sense.

    So the morally superior option is the preservation of the more highly functioning of the two? Am I reading that right?
    No, because of everything else I wrote in that post.

    Human morality doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in societies, and a society that treated the mentally handicapped dude as "fair game" would be morally worse than one which strove towards equality, for a variety of reasons probably not really suited for discussion here.
    But everything else you wrote in that post consisted of reasons it is morally advantageous to treat the disadvantaged with respect. So using that as a springboard to the decision to eat the handicapped guy instead of the non-handicapped guy seems a little off.
    Wait, my conclusion is that it would be equally bad to eat either of them, not "therefore it would actually be better to spare the r-tard"

    Qingu on
  • Options
    TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Tarranon wrote: »
    since we are just opening cans of worms all over the place, here is one I have been musing on

    mainly, and i'm not saying all ethical vegetarians/vegans feel like this, but the ones that essentially equate human and animal life: is it feasible for them to exist in this society? I feel like if I thought that the equivalent of people were being raised and slaughtered at the current magnitude they are, I would go out of my mind.

    I'm not saying that the only behavior consistent with that believe would be revolution or terrorism, but at the very least some sort of wide scale Thoreau measure would be in order.
    I honestly believe that our descendants are going to look at factory farming as one of the greatest atrocities in history, up there with slavery and the Holocaust.

    There, I said it.

    And no, pigs, chickens, etc. are not morally equivalent to human beings.

    But if you genuinely feel like the negative utility is that great, enough to compare to the great atrocities of history, I have to ask again how you can stand to have anything to do with this society. I think things are definitely moving in a better direction, but not nearly enough if the atrocities being committed were on the level you're invoking here.

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Ok, that makes more sense.

    So the morally superior option is the preservation of the more highly functioning of the two? Am I reading that right?
    No, because of everything else I wrote in that post.

    Human morality doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in societies, and a society that treated the mentally handicapped dude as "fair game" would be morally worse than one which strove towards equality, for a variety of reasons probably not really suited for discussion here.
    But everything else you wrote in that post consisted of reasons it is morally advantageous to treat the disadvantaged with respect. So using that as a springboard to the decision to eat the handicapped guy instead of the non-handicapped guy seems a little off.
    Wait, my conclusion is that it would be equally bad to eat either of them, not "therefore it would actually be better to spare the r-tard"
    Ok then. We've been having a bit of a misunderstanding it seems.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    since we are operating from arbitrary moral claims like "suffering is bad", i don't think there is any appreciable moral difference between a fully-functioning person and a mentally disabled person. they are both equally capable of suffering, especially when it comes to being killed, which is a form of suffering we are all capable of enjoying.
    So the core conceit that emerged early in the thread of humans being superior because of our ability to reason (or levels of "free will" as it was then being called) doesn't apply in a situation involving one human and another human less capable of reason?

    the idea that humans are more ethically valuable because of various humanist conceits like reason, free will, etc. is an empty and vacuous one

    if we're going to start making arbitrary value claims as the basis of our moral systems, "suffering is bad" is the only good one i've seen in this thread

    "only beings which can reason have moral worth" is not by any means self evident or anywhere near it

    but then you start running into stupid stuff
    what about people with CIP and the like. Are they fairer game?

    I guess I'm just pretty down on moral systems that make statement on what life is good and valuable. every single attempt to codify it rings hollow to me.

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    It's not really potential though. Production of enough food for humans will destroy ecosystems. In fact, converting grasland into a farm is already destruction of an ecosystem. Animals are hurt by it.
    Right. Most utilitarians like Singer would probably agree that human population should be limited. I certainly believe this.

    Well yeah but that doesn't have much to do with it. The same argument goes for factory farms.
    Of course, usually this is brought up with regards to the destruction of "special" ecosystems like rainforests which for some reason are more important.
    They're more important because more things and more kind of things live there.
    What makes that important?
    However, it's hypocritical to feel morally superior to people who don't agree with you.
    I utterly fail to see where the hypocrisy charge comes from.

    I feel pretty confident in saying I am morally superior to Karl Rove. For a variety of reasons. Feeling this makes me a hypocrite?
    I meant hypocritical in the context of what I was talking about. Hating on meat-eaters but acting like the destroyal of ecosystems is far less of a problem is to me hypocritical.
    And if anyone is going to point out (like you already did) that this is a non-sequitor because you don't think special ecosystems should be destroyed then Guess What? Most of us also don't think factory farms are good or ethical.
    Not sure what your point is here.

    This thread is full of stuff mentioning how factory farms are evil therefore vegetarians are superior.

    Julius on
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Tarranon wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Tarranon wrote: »
    since we are just opening cans of worms all over the place, here is one I have been musing on

    mainly, and i'm not saying all ethical vegetarians/vegans feel like this, but the ones that essentially equate human and animal life: is it feasible for them to exist in this society? I feel like if I thought that the equivalent of people were being raised and slaughtered at the current magnitude they are, I would go out of my mind.

    I'm not saying that the only behavior consistent with that believe would be revolution or terrorism, but at the very least some sort of wide scale Thoreau measure would be in order.
    I honestly believe that our descendants are going to look at factory farming as one of the greatest atrocities in history, up there with slavery and the Holocaust.

    There, I said it.

    And no, pigs, chickens, etc. are not morally equivalent to human beings.

    But if you genuinely feel like the negative utility is that great, enough to compare to the great atrocities of history, I have to ask again how you can stand to have anything to do with this society. I think things are definitely moving in a better direction, but not nearly enough if the atrocities being committed were on the level you're invoking here.

    Maybe he's the type of person that wears clothes and uses computers and electronics and all sorts that take advantage of poor working conditions in third world countries. Or the type that uses electricity generated from coal at the cost of terrible treatment of our miners.

    Maybe he uses animal suffering to feel better about the morally caustic things in his other life and being a vegetarian is a convenience and luxury that he can afford.

    Which is still goosery, since he's using animal suffering to feel good about himself.

    But to each his own.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

    I can go buy a pound of ground beef for 2$.
    Uh, that's great. It's not cheaper than comparably-quality vegetarian ingredients.

    It's certainly not cheaper to produce, which was my point anyway. The corn that goes into that beef could feed 10x as many people as the beef does.
    Uh. No.
    Yes. Pointing out a potential inconsistency was not really applicable to the discussion.
    I did, but you're being ridiculously dishonest and you've managed to contradict yourself a couple of times.
    ?

    Qingu on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Tarranon wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    since we are operating from arbitrary moral claims like "suffering is bad", i don't think there is any appreciable moral difference between a fully-functioning person and a mentally disabled person. they are both equally capable of suffering, especially when it comes to being killed, which is a form of suffering we are all capable of enjoying.
    So the core conceit that emerged early in the thread of humans being superior because of our ability to reason (or levels of "free will" as it was then being called) doesn't apply in a situation involving one human and another human less capable of reason?

    the idea that humans are more ethically valuable because of various humanist conceits like reason, free will, etc. is an empty and vacuous one

    if we're going to start making arbitrary value claims as the basis of our moral systems, "suffering is bad" is the only good one i've seen in this thread

    "only beings which can reason have moral worth" is not by any means self evident or anywhere near it

    but then you start running into stupid stuff
    what about people with CIP and the like. Are they fairer game?

    I guess I'm just pretty down on moral systems that make statement on what life is good and valuable. every single attempt to codify it rings hollow to me.

    physical pain is not the only way to experience suffering. especially the kind of suffering one would endure from being killed or dismembered or kept in a pen knowing you are to be eaten.

    life isn't good and valuable. we can't even define it. or rather, life is good and valuable because we feel that it is. there is no solid rational justification for it that isn't arbitrary, because that is how morality works.

    the best we can do is attempt to quantify it in a functional fashion that is most consistent.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I have no problem saying lions are dicks. I'd genetically engineer them to live off soy cat food 'twere it not merely a science fiction conceit.
    I was going to disagree with you, but then I gave it a moment of thought and decided lions really are dicks. So is it okay to eat them?
    Qingu wrote: »
    I would not be happy with Prince Nanaki if he nabbed a bird outside.
    Does Prince Nanaki subsist on soy catfood? Is soy catfood a thing? I'm not sure whether to be outraged or not.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Tarranon wrote: »

    But if you genuinely feel like the negative utility is that great, enough to compare to the great atrocities of history, I have to ask again how you can stand to have anything to do with this society. I think things are definitely moving in a better direction, but not nearly enough if the atrocities being committed were on the level you're invoking here.
    My view on progress is that we humans are steadily expanding the circle of "empathy" but at the same time getting much more efficient at exploiting and in the process torturing the fuck out of whatever we deem as outside that circle.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Tarranon wrote: »

    But if you genuinely feel like the negative utility is that great, enough to compare to the great atrocities of history, I have to ask again how you can stand to have anything to do with this society. I think things are definitely moving in a better direction, but not nearly enough if the atrocities being committed were on the level you're invoking here.
    My view on progress is that we humans are steadily expanding the circle of "empathy" but at the same time getting much more efficient at exploiting and in the process torturing the fuck out of whatever we deem as outside that circle.

    the circle of our power is growing much, much more quickly than the circle of our empathy
    1 colourless mana: protection from moral dilemmas.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Uh, that's great. It's not cheaper than comparably-quality vegetarian ingredients.

    It's about the same cost last time I checked.
    It's certainly not cheaper to produce, which was my point anyway. The corn that goes into that beef could feed 10x as many people as the beef does.

    The beef industry doesn't/didn't exist simply to feed people. There are plenty of byproducts.

    What you need to do is break down the cost and use we get from one cow and compare that to the cost and use we could get from the corn grown to feed that cow.
    Yes. Pointing out a potential inconsistency was not really applicable to the discussion.

    You should pay attention. If you ask me to clarify how I feel it's a luxury, and I proceed to do so, is not a non-sequitor and is, indeed, applicable to the discussion.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    EnigEnig a.k.a. Ansatz Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I'm strongly against direct animal cruelty, but putting a lower mammal or a bird into less-than-ideal conditions (within reason) so that they can be cultivated for meat or byproducts is acceptable on my moral spectrum. Of course, I buy free-range and such when I can, but I'm not going to force an artificial, and possibly unhealthy, diet on myself to protect animals from a little discomfort. Maybe I'm biased because meat tastes pretty good, but animals just do not have the capacity to suffer that we usually assume (some sort of anthropomorphism I guess. I blame Disney)

    Moral arguments aside, the attack on the woman was disgusting and pathetic, as were the reactions of the "cheering" people in question.

    Enig on
    ibpFhR6PdsPw80.png
    Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
  • Options
    TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Tarranon wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    since we are operating from arbitrary moral claims like "suffering is bad", i don't think there is any appreciable moral difference between a fully-functioning person and a mentally disabled person. they are both equally capable of suffering, especially when it comes to being killed, which is a form of suffering we are all capable of enjoying.
    So the core conceit that emerged early in the thread of humans being superior because of our ability to reason (or levels of "free will" as it was then being called) doesn't apply in a situation involving one human and another human less capable of reason?

    the idea that humans are more ethically valuable because of various humanist conceits like reason, free will, etc. is an empty and vacuous one

    if we're going to start making arbitrary value claims as the basis of our moral systems, "suffering is bad" is the only good one i've seen in this thread

    "only beings which can reason have moral worth" is not by any means self evident or anywhere near it

    but then you start running into stupid stuff
    what about people with CIP and the like. Are they fairer game?

    I guess I'm just pretty down on moral systems that make statement on what life is good and valuable. every single attempt to codify it rings hollow to me.

    physical pain is not the only way to experience suffering. especially the kind of suffering one would endure from being killed or dismembered or kept in a pen knowing you are to be eaten.

    life isn't good and valuable. we can't even define it. or rather, life is good and valuable because we feel that it is. there is no solid rational justification for it that isn't arbitrary, because that is how morality works.

    the best we can do is attempt to quantify it in a functional fashion that is most consistent.

    hmm, but then doesn't that bring it right back to intellect of some type being the key thing? the type of suffering you are describing there requires some sort of intelligence to appreciate. which is the less grievous kill: a 'stupid' thing that feels pain, or a 'smart' thing that doesn't?

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I have no problem saying lions are dicks. I'd genetically engineer them to live off soy cat food 'twere it not merely a science fiction conceit.
    I was going to disagree with you, but then I gave it a moment of thought and decided lions really are dicks. So is it okay to eat them?
    No, because they are cute
    Qingu wrote: »
    Does Prince Nanaki subsist on soy catfood? Is soy catfood a thing? I'm not sure whether to be outraged or not.
    Heh, no way. He's very picky! Also, I'd worry he would try to run away, like what happened to my ex's vegan cat.

    (I actually got him fucking organic hippie $30 cat food for a while, and then he developed a bladderstone and has been on special vet cat food ever since ... so much for that)

    Qingu on
Sign In or Register to comment.