Morality / Ethics is dumb. Go read the history of western ethical / moral debates, and try to come away from it with the notion that this results from correct thinking, and not just a reification of emotive nonsense.
Ok, so that's the moral / ethical considerations solved.
lol
It's like, if you don't want to deal with society go live in a shack in Montana already.
_J_ is gonna keep trying until he has those people that post in news stories convinced.
Another million or so times of typing ""ewww horse". should about cover it.
Well, considering that for J, "eww horse" covers everything from, "I don't eat pets," to "my faith considers that meat unclean," he may need a slightly more tailored argument.
Nah. Nuance is only necessary for dealing with nuanced positions. The "pets" and "religion" and "ethics" and "six year old child saying ewww horse" all fit into the same category, on this issue.
However, the "That's not what I thought I was buying" position is sensible. It's just not the main issue persons tend to vocalize.
0
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
What I find so weird about this is that the food companies weren't checking to see that their suppliers were giving them what they paid for. I used to work for Premier Foods who made something like 80% of the canned goods in British supermarkets (pulled out of my arse, but it was a big number) and there were loads of checks on the vegetable ingredients. Why weren't they checking the most expensive ingredient that they bought?
What I find so weird about this is that the food companies weren't checking to see that their suppliers were giving them what they paid for. I used to work for Premier Foods who made something like 80% of the canned goods in British supermarkets (pulled out of my arse, but it was a big number) and there were loads of checks on the vegetable ingredients. Why weren't they checking the most expensive ingredient that they bought?
What I find so weird about this is that everyone seems to be buying that the food companies weren't aware. Or at least just choosing to ignore it.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
_J_ is gonna keep trying until he has those people that post in news stories convinced.
Another million or so times of typing ""ewww horse". should about cover it.
Well, considering that for J, "eww horse" covers everything from, "I don't eat pets," to "my faith considers that meat unclean," he may need a slightly more tailored argument.
Nah. Nuance is only necessary for dealing with nuanced positions. The "pets" and "religion" and "ethics" and "six year old child saying ewww horse" all fit into the same category, on this issue.
However, the "That's not what I thought I was buying" position is sensible. It's just not the main issue persons tend to vocalize.
Finding out that you have been deceived into a course of action that you would not have otherwise taken can result in a real psychic harm. Or would you say that Oedipus should have just rolled with killing his father and sleeping with his mother because "eww, patricide" and "eww, incest" are irrational?
What I find so weird about this is that the food companies weren't checking to see that their suppliers were giving them what they paid for. I used to work for Premier Foods who made something like 80% of the canned goods in British supermarkets (pulled out of my arse, but it was a big number) and there were loads of checks on the vegetable ingredients. Why weren't they checking the most expensive ingredient that they bought?
What I find so weird about this is that everyone seems to be buying that the food companies weren't aware. Or at least just choosing to ignore it.
Checking their suppliers requires at least X fucks. My guess is that Burger King's management didn't have an adequate number of fucks to give.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
What I find so weird about this is that the food companies weren't checking to see that their suppliers were giving them what they paid for. I used to work for Premier Foods who made something like 80% of the canned goods in British supermarkets (pulled out of my arse, but it was a big number) and there were loads of checks on the vegetable ingredients. Why weren't they checking the most expensive ingredient that they bought?
What I find so weird about this is that everyone seems to be buying that the food companies weren't aware. Or at least just choosing to ignore it.
Checking their suppliers requires at least X fucks. My guess is that Burger King's management didn't have an adequate number of fucks to give.
Yeah, I have to agree on J with this one. Having a clearly delineated supply system requires that they even give a damn.
What I find so weird about this is that the food companies weren't checking to see that their suppliers were giving them what they paid for. I used to work for Premier Foods who made something like 80% of the canned goods in British supermarkets (pulled out of my arse, but it was a big number) and there were loads of checks on the vegetable ingredients. Why weren't they checking the most expensive ingredient that they bought?
What I find so weird about this is that everyone seems to be buying that the food companies weren't aware. Or at least just choosing to ignore it.
Checking their suppliers requires at least X fucks. My guess is that Burger King's management didn't have an adequate number of fucks to give.
Yeah, I have to agree on J with this one. Having a clearly delineated supply system requires that they even give a damn.
I don't know how things are going in Europe, but the US has had restaurants bitch about how they have to up costs for ACA. So I suspect that most of it is them not giving any fucks and being too fucking short sighted to realize this will fuck them up. Sadly, common sense doesn't seem to be common and seems to say that as a business that provides food, you'd want to give the image you know what's in your products, that your employees are hygienic and that your costumers don't have to worry about getting sick from eating your product.
Manufacturers have a pretty damn good get out clause when they have receipts and records showing they paid beef prices for what they received.
Blame can be squarely placed at the feet of the person making the massive profit by 'accidentally' labelling horse as beef when the meat was under their care.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited March 2013
@_J_ - I am interested in your reply to my last post:
_J_ is gonna keep trying until he has those people that post in news stories convinced.
Another million or so times of typing ""ewww horse". should about cover it.
Well, considering that for J, "eww horse" covers everything from, "I don't eat pets," to "my faith considers that meat unclean," he may need a slightly more tailored argument.
Nah. Nuance is only necessary for dealing with nuanced positions. The "pets" and "religion" and "ethics" and "six year old child saying ewww horse" all fit into the same category, on this issue.
However, the "That's not what I thought I was buying" position is sensible. It's just not the main issue persons tend to vocalize.
Finding out that you have been deceived into a course of action that you would not have otherwise taken can result in a real psychic harm. Or would you say that Oedipus should have just rolled with killing his father and sleeping with his mother because "eww, patricide" and "eww, incest" are irrational?
_J_ is gonna keep trying until he has those people that post in news stories convinced.
Another million or so times of typing ""ewww horse". should about cover it.
Well, considering that for J, "eww horse" covers everything from, "I don't eat pets," to "my faith considers that meat unclean," he may need a slightly more tailored argument.
Nah. Nuance is only necessary for dealing with nuanced positions. The "pets" and "religion" and "ethics" and "six year old child saying ewww horse" all fit into the same category, on this issue.
However, the "That's not what I thought I was buying" position is sensible. It's just not the main issue persons tend to vocalize.
Finding out that you have been deceived into a course of action that you would not have otherwise taken can result in a real psychic harm. Or would you say that Oedipus should have just rolled with killing his father and sleeping with his mother because "eww, patricide" and "eww, incest" are irrational?
For the Oedipus example, a more reasonable response would have been to rethink his previous beliefs given the new empirical data.
Oedipus has sex with Jocasta and seems to like it, given that they had two sons and two daughters. The fact that he enjoyed sex with Jocasta, when they had sex, doesn't change when he later discovers that she is his mother. What changes is his perception of the sex that was had. There were at least two options for how Oedipus could react:
1) I enjoyed sex with Jocasta. Having sex with one's mother is terrible. Jocasta was my mother. Oh holy fuck what have I done?
2) I enjoyed sex with Jocasta. Having sex with one's mother is terrible. Jocasta was my mother. Ok, well, given that I enjoyed the sex with Jocasta, and she was mother, I guess mother fucking isn't all bad.
Oedipus went with #1.
When we apply this to horse meat consumption, I think there are still two options. One can maintain the previously held belief that horse is icky, despite the empirical evidence of having enjoyed Whoppers that were made of horse. Or, one can modify one's belief regarding the deliciousness and consumability of horse in light of the empirical evidence of having enjoyed horse Whoppers.
Deception may result in psychic harm, whatever that is, but it need not necessarily result in psychic harm. The important aspect, and what causes the harm, seems to be the "you would not have otherwise taken" factor. We can privilege the "you would not have otherwise taken" factor and lament mother fucking, or be grossed out at having consumed horse. Alternatively, one can discern that one's predilection to not fuck mom, and not eat horse, was a foolish predilection. This judgment is based upon the recognition that the experience of consuming horse, and the experience of Oedipus boning his mom, was enjoyable.
So, when a Jew unknowingly eats pork, a Hinduist unknowingly eats beef, or Scott Tenorman unknowingly eats his parents the individual can freak out because their actions conflict with previously held beliefs.
Or, they can realize that their previously held beliefs were silly, given the deliciousness of pork, beef, and Scott Tenonrman's parents.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
_J_ is gonna keep trying until he has those people that post in news stories convinced.
Another million or so times of typing ""ewww horse". should about cover it.
Well, considering that for J, "eww horse" covers everything from, "I don't eat pets," to "my faith considers that meat unclean," he may need a slightly more tailored argument.
Nah. Nuance is only necessary for dealing with nuanced positions. The "pets" and "religion" and "ethics" and "six year old child saying ewww horse" all fit into the same category, on this issue.
However, the "That's not what I thought I was buying" position is sensible. It's just not the main issue persons tend to vocalize.
Finding out that you have been deceived into a course of action that you would not have otherwise taken can result in a real psychic harm. Or would you say that Oedipus should have just rolled with killing his father and sleeping with his mother because "eww, patricide" and "eww, incest" are irrational?
For the Oedipus example, a more reasonable response would have been to rethink his previous beliefs given the new empirical data.
Oedipus has sex with Jocasta and seems to like it, given that they had two sons and two daughters. The fact that he enjoyed sex with Jocasta, when they had sex, doesn't change when he later discovers that she is his mother. What changes is his perception of the sex that was had. There were at least two options for how Oedipus could react:
1) I enjoyed sex with Jocasta. Having sex with one's mother is terrible. Jocasta was my mother. Oh holy fuck what have I done?
2) I enjoyed sex with Jocasta. Having sex with one's mother is terrible. Jocasta was my mother. Ok, well, given that I enjoyed the sex with Jocasta, and she was mother, I guess mother fucking isn't all bad.
Oedipus went with #1.
When we apply this to horse meat consumption, I think there are still two options. One can maintain the previously held belief that horse is icky, despite the empirical evidence of having enjoyed Whoppers that were made of horse. Or, one can modify one's belief regarding the deliciousness and consumability of horse in light of the empirical evidence of having enjoyed horse Whoppers.
Deception may result in psychic harm, whatever that is, but it need not necessarily result in psychic harm. The important aspect, and what causes the harm, seems to be the "you would not have otherwise taken" factor. We can privilege the "you would not have otherwise taken" factor and lament mother fucking, or be grossed out at having consumed horse. Alternatively, one can discern that one's predilection to not fuck mom, and not eat horse, was a foolish predilection. This judgment is based upon the recognition that the experience of consuming horse, and the experience of Oedipus boning his mom, was enjoyable.
So, when a Jew unknowingly eats pork, a Hinduist unknowingly eats beef, or Scott Tenorman unknowingly eats his parents the individual can freak out because their actions conflict with previously held beliefs.
Or, they can realize that their previously held beliefs were silly, given the deliciousness of pork, beef, and Scott Tenonrman's parents.
The fact that there is a choice hardly excuses the deception, nor does it indicate that the first reaction of "Oh holy fuck what have I done?" is not valid, so I'm not really sure what this post is supposed to demonstrate. This seems like your thesis from the old thread about choosing to be offended.
_J_ is gonna keep trying until he has those people that post in news stories convinced.
Another million or so times of typing ""ewww horse". should about cover it.
Well, considering that for J, "eww horse" covers everything from, "I don't eat pets," to "my faith considers that meat unclean," he may need a slightly more tailored argument.
Nah. Nuance is only necessary for dealing with nuanced positions. The "pets" and "religion" and "ethics" and "six year old child saying ewww horse" all fit into the same category, on this issue.
However, the "That's not what I thought I was buying" position is sensible. It's just not the main issue persons tend to vocalize.
Finding out that you have been deceived into a course of action that you would not have otherwise taken can result in a real psychic harm. Or would you say that Oedipus should have just rolled with killing his father and sleeping with his mother because "eww, patricide" and "eww, incest" are irrational?
For the Oedipus example, a more reasonable response would have been to rethink his previous beliefs given the new empirical data.
Oedipus has sex with Jocasta and seems to like it, given that they had two sons and two daughters. The fact that he enjoyed sex with Jocasta, when they had sex, doesn't change when he later discovers that she is his mother. What changes is his perception of the sex that was had. There were at least two options for how Oedipus could react:
1) I enjoyed sex with Jocasta. Having sex with one's mother is terrible. Jocasta was my mother. Oh holy fuck what have I done?
2) I enjoyed sex with Jocasta. Having sex with one's mother is terrible. Jocasta was my mother. Ok, well, given that I enjoyed the sex with Jocasta, and she was mother, I guess mother fucking isn't all bad.
Oedipus went with #1.
When we apply this to horse meat consumption, I think there are still two options. One can maintain the previously held belief that horse is icky, despite the empirical evidence of having enjoyed Whoppers that were made of horse. Or, one can modify one's belief regarding the deliciousness and consumability of horse in light of the empirical evidence of having enjoyed horse Whoppers.
Deception may result in psychic harm, whatever that is, but it need not necessarily result in psychic harm. The important aspect, and what causes the harm, seems to be the "you would not have otherwise taken" factor. We can privilege the "you would not have otherwise taken" factor and lament mother fucking, or be grossed out at having consumed horse. Alternatively, one can discern that one's predilection to not fuck mom, and not eat horse, was a foolish predilection. This judgment is based upon the recognition that the experience of consuming horse, and the experience of Oedipus boning his mom, was enjoyable.
So, when a Jew unknowingly eats pork, a Hinduist unknowingly eats beef, or Scott Tenorman unknowingly eats his parents the individual can freak out because their actions conflict with previously held beliefs.
Or, they can realize that their previously held beliefs were silly, given the deliciousness of pork, beef, and Scott Tenonrman's parents.
So if I'm interpreting your argument correctly.
If I was at a bar and a guy offered to hook me up with his friend and I agreed and liked it. Were I to later find out she wasn't his friend, but a women he had entrapped in sex slavery. I should then realign my moral position to be pro sex-slavery? Or at least I wouldn't be able to make the statement "I dislike sex slavery', since clearly I did like it in that moment?
If I was at a bar and a guy offered to hook me up with his friend and I agreed and liked it. Were I to later find out she wasn't his friend, but a women he had entrapped in sex slavery. I should then realign my moral position to be pro sex-slavery? Or at least I wouldn't be able to make the statement "I dislike sex slavery', since clearly I did like it in that moment?
What you could not do is say, "I could / would never enjoy having sex with a sex slave." since you had sex with a sex slave and enjoyed it. The fact that you were unaware of her sex slavery doesn't change the fact that:
1) She was a sex slave.
2) You fucked her.
3) You enjoyed it, you sick sick little goose.
With respect to the moral considerations? You could still oppose sex slavery, but you would need to do so with the recognition that you fucked a sex slave. It's the question of what moral grounds you appeal to when opposing sex slavery, and the degree to which your fucking a sex slave impacts those grounds.
The fact that there is a choice hardly excuses the deception, nor does it indicate that the first reaction of "Oh holy fuck what have I done?" is not valid, so I'm not really sure what this post is supposed to demonstrate. This seems like your thesis from the old thread about choosing to be offended.
Excusing the deception has to do with the deceiver, rather than your assessment of act-X. I'm not concerned with the deception. I'm concerned with the individual's reaction to the deception.
1) Player A is pissed off by horse Whoppers because they were deceived into eating horse.
2) Player A is pissed off by horse Whoppers because "ewww horse".
I'm talking about #2. Eating a horse Whopper, and enjoying it, undermines the "ewww horse" claim, since not all instances of consuming horse resulted in "Ewww".
If Player A eats a horse Whopper, and enjoys it, then they can still be irritated by the deception. But their irritation is related to the deception, not the consumption of horse.
That's the distinction we've made in this thread:
1) Problems of food labeling, inspection, and regulation.
2) EWWWW HORSEY
_J_ is gonna keep trying until he has those people that post in news stories convinced.
Another million or so times of typing ""ewww horse". should about cover it.
Well, considering that for J, "eww horse" covers everything from, "I don't eat pets," to "my faith considers that meat unclean," he may need a slightly more tailored argument.
Nah. Nuance is only necessary for dealing with nuanced positions. The "pets" and "religion" and "ethics" and "six year old child saying ewww horse" all fit into the same category, on this issue.
However, the "That's not what I thought I was buying" position is sensible. It's just not the main issue persons tend to vocalize.
Finding out that you have been deceived into a course of action that you would not have otherwise taken can result in a real psychic harm. Or would you say that Oedipus should have just rolled with killing his father and sleeping with his mother because "eww, patricide" and "eww, incest" are irrational?
Deception may result in psychic harm, whatever that is...
That would be harm to the human psyche or mind. It's a thing. It happens to people. It is not silly.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The fact that there is a choice hardly excuses the deception, nor does it indicate that the first reaction of "Oh holy fuck what have I done?" is not valid, so I'm not really sure what this post is supposed to demonstrate. This seems like your thesis from the old thread about choosing to be offended.
Excusing the deception has to do with the deceiver, rather than your assessment of act-X. I'm not concerned with the deception. I'm concerned with the individual's reaction to the deception.
1) Player A is pissed off by horse Whoppers because they were deceived into eating horse.
2) Player A is pissed off by horse Whoppers because "ewww horse".
I'm talking about #2. Eating a horse Whopper, and enjoying it, undermines the "ewww horse" claim, since not all instances of consuming horse resulted in "Ewww".
If Player A eats a horse Whopper, and enjoys it, then they can still be irritated by the deception. But their irritation is related to the deception, not the consumption of horse.
That's the distinction we've made in this thread:
1) Problems of food labeling, inspection, and regulation.
2) EWWWW HORSEY
#1 is fine. #2 is silly.
The problem with your "eww horsey" formulation is that it collapses "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat." If your position is that it is wrong to eat horse, then eating it and enjoying it does not impact the perceived wrongness of the act, just like enjoying accidentally having sex with your mother does not mean that you were incorrect in determining that it is wrong to have sex with your mother. I strongly suspect that the reason most people refrain from having sex with their mothers has nothing to do with whether they think it would be physically enjoyable.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Alteratively,
Vincent: Want some bacon?
Jules: No man, I don't eat pork.
Vincent: Are you Jewish?
Jules: Nah, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.
Vincent: Why not?
Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.
Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces.
Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces.
Jules: I don't eat dog either.
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charming motherfuckin' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?
Jules could eat pig, sewer rat or dog and enjoy eating them, and it would not invalidate his position on not eating these animals.
The problem with your "eww horsey" formulation is that it collapses "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat." If your position is that it is wrong to eat horse, then eating it and enjoying it does not impact the perceived wrongness of the act, just like enjoying accidentally having sex with your mother does not mean that you were incorrect in determining that it is wrong to have sex with your mother. I strongly suspect that the reason most people refrain from having sex with their mothers has nothing to do with whether they think it would be physically enjoyable.
Whence the wrongness of eating horse?
I would argue that "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat" are the same thing, expressions of emotional attitudes. What someone says "X is wrong" they mean "booo X".
Now, you may be correct that the person's moral aversion to eating horse is based upon something other than the taste / flavor of horse meat. But what would that be? If the meat is nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender, what other factors would need to be considered when assessing whether or not eating horse goes into the "Yey" or "Boo" column?
Given that the individual is a carnivore who intentionally consumes animal flesh, their emotive basis for "boo horse" cannot be "boo eating meat", since they would eat other meat. So, why "boo horse" but "yey cow"? What is the actual difference between those two sources of protein, with respect to moral emoting?
The problem with your "eww horsey" formulation is that it collapses "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat." If your position is that it is wrong to eat horse, then eating it and enjoying it does not impact the perceived wrongness of the act, just like enjoying accidentally having sex with your mother does not mean that you were incorrect in determining that it is wrong to have sex with your mother. I strongly suspect that the reason most people refrain from having sex with their mothers has nothing to do with whether they think it would be physically enjoyable.
I would argue that "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat" are the same thing, expressions of emotional attitudes. What someone says "X is wrong" they mean "booo X".
I do not like spending time with you. There is nothing morally wrong about your existence, it simply offends me at a basic level, and so I will seek to avoid it.
I think it is wrong to kick people in the junk, however, if we met I would cheerfully and repeatedly do so for quite some time. I would feel personally satisfied, but guilty, and thus seek absolution from my local Italian pederast.
Do you see the difference between the two sentiments or shall we move on to the practical demonstration?
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
The problem with your "eww horsey" formulation is that it collapses "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat." If your position is that it is wrong to eat horse, then eating it and enjoying it does not impact the perceived wrongness of the act, just like enjoying accidentally having sex with your mother does not mean that you were incorrect in determining that it is wrong to have sex with your mother. I strongly suspect that the reason most people refrain from having sex with their mothers has nothing to do with whether they think it would be physically enjoyable.
I would argue that "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat" are the same thing, expressions of emotional attitudes. What someone says "X is wrong" they mean "booo X".
I do not like spending time with you. There is nothing morally wrong about your existence, it simply offends me at a basic level, and so I will seek to avoid it.
I think it is wrong to kick people in the junk, however, if we met I would cheerfully and repeatedly do so for quite some time. I would feel personally satisfied, but guilty, and thus seek absolution from my local Italian pederast.
Do you see the difference between the two sentiments or shall we move on to the practical demonstration?
The problem with your "eww horsey" formulation is that it collapses "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat." If your position is that it is wrong to eat horse, then eating it and enjoying it does not impact the perceived wrongness of the act, just like enjoying accidentally having sex with your mother does not mean that you were incorrect in determining that it is wrong to have sex with your mother. I strongly suspect that the reason most people refrain from having sex with their mothers has nothing to do with whether they think it would be physically enjoyable.
Whence the wrongness of eating horse?
I would argue that "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat" are the same thing, expressions of emotional attitudes. What someone says "X is wrong" they mean "booo X".
Now, you may be correct that the person's moral aversion to eating horse is based upon something other than the taste / flavor of horse meat. But what would that be? If the meat is nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender, what other factors would need to be considered when assessing whether or not eating horse goes into the "Yey" or "Boo" column?
Given that the individual is a carnivore who intentionally consumes animal flesh, their emotive basis for "boo horse" cannot be "boo eating meat", since they would eat other meat. So, why "boo horse" but "yey cow"? What is the actual difference between those two sources of protein, with respect to moral emoting?
It could be anything. It could be a sense that they are smarter or prettier or not as clean. All that matters is that it is not based on the belief that horse does not taste good or is not nutritious, and so learning that it tastes good or is nutritious is irrelevant.
The problem with your "eww horsey" formulation is that it collapses "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat." If your position is that it is wrong to eat horse, then eating it and enjoying it does not impact the perceived wrongness of the act, just like enjoying accidentally having sex with your mother does not mean that you were incorrect in determining that it is wrong to have sex with your mother. I strongly suspect that the reason most people refrain from having sex with their mothers has nothing to do with whether they think it would be physically enjoyable.
Whence the wrongness of eating horse?
I would argue that "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat" are the same thing, expressions of emotional attitudes. What someone says "X is wrong" they mean "booo X".
Now, you may be correct that the person's moral aversion to eating horse is based upon something other than the taste / flavor of horse meat. But what would that be? If the meat is nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender, what other factors would need to be considered when assessing whether or not eating horse goes into the "Yey" or "Boo" column?
Given that the individual is a carnivore who intentionally consumes animal flesh, their emotive basis for "boo horse" cannot be "boo eating meat", since they would eat other meat. So, why "boo horse" but "yey cow"? What is the actual difference between those two sources of protein, with respect to moral emoting?
Supply chain considerations. Not only would I be willing to move meat from different animals from the "yey" to ""boo" columns based on exactly how it ended up on my plate, I will cheerfully discriminate nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender meat from the same animal, depending on just how it ended up in front of me.
Environmental reasons. Deception. I just don't like one part of the supply chain very much. Or anything else. The assertion that if it tastes alright and doesn't harm you, one should have no problem eating it is meaningless, because nowhere in real life is such a scenario going to occur - there will always be other considerations.
Calixtus on
-This message was deviously brought to you by:
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think I figured out the problem. The robot who doesn't understand emotion ALSO doesn't understand that different emotions are different. Lumping all emotional responses into one category is not helpful, because not all emotional responses are the same. I can be scared of spiders, and you telling me that their venom cannot harm me does not neccesarily mean that I am not scared of them, because my fear may be based on how many legs they have or the fact that they can lower themselves down from the ceiling.
The problem with your "eww horsey" formulation is that it collapses "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat." If your position is that it is wrong to eat horse, then eating it and enjoying it does not impact the perceived wrongness of the act, just like enjoying accidentally having sex with your mother does not mean that you were incorrect in determining that it is wrong to have sex with your mother. I strongly suspect that the reason most people refrain from having sex with their mothers has nothing to do with whether they think it would be physically enjoyable.
Whence the wrongness of eating horse?
I would argue that "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat" are the same thing, expressions of emotional attitudes. What someone says "X is wrong" they mean "booo X".
Now, you may be correct that the person's moral aversion to eating horse is based upon something other than the taste / flavor of horse meat. But what would that be? If the meat is nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender, what other factors would need to be considered when assessing whether or not eating horse goes into the "Yey" or "Boo" column?
Given that the individual is a carnivore who intentionally consumes animal flesh, their emotive basis for "boo horse" cannot be "boo eating meat", since they would eat other meat. So, why "boo horse" but "yey cow"? What is the actual difference between those two sources of protein, with respect to moral emoting?
Supply chain considerations. Not only would I be willing to move meat from different animals from the "yey" to ""boo" columns based on exactly how it ended up on my plate, I will cheerfully discriminate nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender meat from the same animal, depending on just how it ended up in front of me.
Environmental reasons. Deception. I just don't like one part of the supply chain very much. Or anything else. The assertion that if it tastes alright and doesn't harm you, one should have no problem eating it is meaningless, because nowhere in real life is such a scenario going to occur - there will always be other considerations.
Toss some panda fat on the griddle and break out the whale burgers.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The problem with your "eww horsey" formulation is that it collapses "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat." If your position is that it is wrong to eat horse, then eating it and enjoying it does not impact the perceived wrongness of the act, just like enjoying accidentally having sex with your mother does not mean that you were incorrect in determining that it is wrong to have sex with your mother. I strongly suspect that the reason most people refrain from having sex with their mothers has nothing to do with whether they think it would be physically enjoyable.
Whence the wrongness of eating horse?
I would argue that "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat" are the same thing, expressions of emotional attitudes. What someone says "X is wrong" they mean "booo X".
Now, you may be correct that the person's moral aversion to eating horse is based upon something other than the taste / flavor of horse meat. But what would that be? If the meat is nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender, what other factors would need to be considered when assessing whether or not eating horse goes into the "Yey" or "Boo" column?
Given that the individual is a carnivore who intentionally consumes animal flesh, their emotive basis for "boo horse" cannot be "boo eating meat", since they would eat other meat. So, why "boo horse" but "yey cow"? What is the actual difference between those two sources of protein, with respect to moral emoting?
Supply chain considerations. Not only would I be willing to move meat from different animals from the "yey" to ""boo" columns based on exactly how it ended up on my plate, I will cheerfully discriminate nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender meat from the same animal, depending on just how it ended up in front of me.
Environmental reasons. Deception. I just don't like one part of the supply chain very much. Or anything else. The assertion that if it tastes alright and doesn't harm you, one should have no problem eating it is meaningless, because nowhere in real life is such a scenario going to occur - there will always be other considerations.
Toss some panda fat on the griddle and break out the whale burgers.
Should've mentioned giant tortoise, because apparently that shit was delicious.
The problem with your "eww horsey" formulation is that it collapses "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat." If your position is that it is wrong to eat horse, then eating it and enjoying it does not impact the perceived wrongness of the act, just like enjoying accidentally having sex with your mother does not mean that you were incorrect in determining that it is wrong to have sex with your mother. I strongly suspect that the reason most people refrain from having sex with their mothers has nothing to do with whether they think it would be physically enjoyable.
Whence the wrongness of eating horse?
I would argue that "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat" are the same thing, expressions of emotional attitudes. What someone says "X is wrong" they mean "booo X".
Now, you may be correct that the person's moral aversion to eating horse is based upon something other than the taste / flavor of horse meat. But what would that be? If the meat is nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender, what other factors would need to be considered when assessing whether or not eating horse goes into the "Yey" or "Boo" column?
Given that the individual is a carnivore who intentionally consumes animal flesh, their emotive basis for "boo horse" cannot be "boo eating meat", since they would eat other meat. So, why "boo horse" but "yey cow"? What is the actual difference between those two sources of protein, with respect to moral emoting?
Supply chain considerations. Not only would I be willing to move meat from different animals from the "yey" to ""boo" columns based on exactly how it ended up on my plate, I will cheerfully discriminate nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender meat from the same animal, depending on just how it ended up in front of me.
Environmental reasons. Deception. I just don't like one part of the supply chain very much. Or anything else. The assertion that if it tastes alright and doesn't harm you, one should have no problem eating it is meaningless, because nowhere in real life is such a scenario going to occur - there will always be other considerations.
Toss some panda fat on the griddle and break out the whale burgers.
Should've mentioned giant tortoise, because apparently that shit was delicious.
Eww...reptile...
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
If I was at a bar and a guy offered to hook me up with his friend and I agreed and liked it. Were I to later find out she wasn't his friend, but a women he had entrapped in sex slavery. I should then realign my moral position to be pro sex-slavery? Or at least I wouldn't be able to make the statement "I dislike sex slavery', since clearly I did like it in that moment?
What you could not do is say, "I could / would never enjoy having sex with a sex slave." since you had sex with a sex slave and enjoyed it. The fact that you were unaware of her sex slavery doesn't change the fact that:
1) She was a sex slave.
2) You fucked her.
3) You enjoyed it, you sick sick little goose.
With respect to the moral considerations? You could still oppose sex slavery, but you would need to do so with the recognition that you fucked a sex slave. It's the question of what moral grounds you appeal to when opposing sex slavery, and the degree to which your fucking a sex slave impacts those grounds.
But the thing you are ignoring is the mental anguish of having your moral code violated without your knowledge. Which is something you give short shrift to in this thread.
People having a moral code and suffering emotional distress when said code is violated is not a imaginary thing. The fact that said codes can change and are arbitrary does not alter the fact that they exist and are very important to a lot of people.
Claiming that people should "get over it", ignores the fact that moral codes are central to most people self-image and people often go out of their way to maintain them even when its not in their best interest.
Horse meat might be an arbitrary line, but its a line many people have agreed is there. Having people trick them into crossing it, is violation of who they are. The pain they feel at having their boundaries crossed is real, since they had decided that their moral code included not eating horse meat. Who are you to tell people that they should ignore it? or even worse that all their moral judgment have no value? You sick sick little goose.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
If I was at a bar and a guy offered to hook me up with his friend and I agreed and liked it. Were I to later find out she wasn't his friend, but a women he had entrapped in sex slavery. I should then realign my moral position to be pro sex-slavery? Or at least I wouldn't be able to make the statement "I dislike sex slavery', since clearly I did like it in that moment?
What you could not do is say, "I could / would never enjoy having sex with a sex slave." since you had sex with a sex slave and enjoyed it. The fact that you were unaware of her sex slavery doesn't change the fact that:
1) She was a sex slave.
2) You fucked her.
3) You enjoyed it, you sick sick little goose.
With respect to the moral considerations? You could still oppose sex slavery, but you would need to do so with the recognition that you fucked a sex slave. It's the question of what moral grounds you appeal to when opposing sex slavery, and the degree to which your fucking a sex slave impacts those grounds.
But the thing you are ignoring is the mental anguish of having your moral code violated without your knowledge. Which is something you give short shrift to in this thread.
People having a moral code and suffering emotional distress when said code is violated is not a imaginary thing. The fact that said codes can change and are arbitrary does not alter the fact that they exist and are very important to a lot of people.
Claiming that people should "get over it", ignores the fact that moral codes are central to most people self-image and people often go out of their way to maintain them even when its not in their best interest.
Horse meat might be an arbitrary line, but its a line many people have agreed is there. Having people trick them into crossing it, is violation of who they are. The pain they feel at having their boundaries crossed is real, since they had decided that their moral code included not eating horse meat. Who are you to tell people that they should ignore it? or even worse that all their moral judgment have no value? You sick sick little goose.
_J_ can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop thinking we are all silly, ever..until we are dead.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
But the thing you are ignoring is the mental anguish of having your moral code violated without your knowledge. Which is something you give short shrift to in this thread.
People having a moral code and suffering emotional distress when said code is violated is not a imaginary thing. The fact that said codes can change and are arbitrary does not alter the fact that they exist and are very important to a lot of people.
Claiming that people should "get over it", ignores the fact that moral codes are central to most people self-image and people often go out of their way to maintain them even when its not in their best interest.
Horse meat might be an arbitrary line, but its a line many people have agreed is there. Having people trick them into crossing it, is violation of who they are. The pain they feel at having their boundaries crossed is real, since they had decided that their moral code included not eating horse meat. Who are you to tell people that they should ignore it? or even worse that all their moral judgment have no value? You sick sick little goose.
If we want to have a sustained argument about morality, then it may be good to either change the OP, or take this to a new thread. To your specific point:
I agree that, for some people, their notion of a moral code is central to their self-conception, and they go out of their way to maintain it. The problem is that when we apply that premise to this situation we find that the individuals were not going out of their way to maintain their moral conviction, and therefore etc.
If an individual has a moral stance against horse meat, then part of that stance is acting in such a way as to maintain it. The strength of the moral conviction can be understood in terms of the actions one takes to act in accord with the preference. An individual who foregoes all meat, ever, in order to avoid the risk of accidentally consuming horse has a very strong conviction. Someone who raises their own meat, hunts their own meat, or directly purchased their meat from a butcher is also acting in a way that indicates a strong preference.
Someone who engages in regular carnivore activities, but checks the label before eating a burger or steak, seems to have less moral conviction.
That's why your "suffering emotional distress" seems out of place. If they truly cared about avoiding horse, then they would have placed themselves in a position such that they could not have eaten horse. Offloading that personal responsibility onto some system of government regulation also seems to offload the moral conviction, or at least decrease it.
That and the fact that persons who feel mental anguish can simply build a "knowingly and willfully" clause into their moral system to get themselves off the hook. Rationalizations are not difficult.
So, yeah, "ewww horsey" is a silly declaration of emotive preferences. And the situation of accidentally consuming horse meat, and then claiming moral outrage, is naught but an opportunity for some people to feign righteous indignation.
_J_ can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop thinking we are all silly, ever..until we are dead.
I can be reasoned with.
I can't be emoted with.
Reason ≠ emotion
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
But the thing you are ignoring is the mental anguish of having your moral code violated without your knowledge. Which is something you give short shrift to in this thread.
People having a moral code and suffering emotional distress when said code is violated is not a imaginary thing. The fact that said codes can change and are arbitrary does not alter the fact that they exist and are very important to a lot of people.
Claiming that people should "get over it", ignores the fact that moral codes are central to most people self-image and people often go out of their way to maintain them even when its not in their best interest.
Horse meat might be an arbitrary line, but its a line many people have agreed is there. Having people trick them into crossing it, is violation of who they are. The pain they feel at having their boundaries crossed is real, since they had decided that their moral code included not eating horse meat. Who are you to tell people that they should ignore it? or even worse that all their moral judgment have no value? You sick sick little goose.
If we want to have a sustained argument about morality, then it may be good to either change the OP, or take this to a new thread. To your specific point:
I agree that, for some people, their notion of a moral code is central to their self-conception, and they go out of their way to maintain it. The problem is that when we apply that premise to this situation we find that the individuals were not going out of their way to maintain their moral conviction, and therefore etc.
If an individual has a moral stance against horse meat, then part of that stance is acting in such a way as to maintain it. The strength of the moral conviction can be understood in terms of the actions one takes to act in accord with the preference. An individual who foregoes all meat, ever, in order to avoid the risk of accidentally consuming horse has a very strong conviction. Someone who raises their own meat, hunts their own meat, or directly purchased their meat from a butcher is also acting in a way that indicates a strong preference.
Someone who engages in regular carnivore activities, but checks the label before eating a burger or steak, seems to have less moral conviction.
That's why your "suffering emotional distress" seems out of place. If they truly cared about avoiding horse, then they would have placed themselves in a position such that they could not have eaten horse. Offloading that personal responsibility onto some system of government regulation also seems to offload the moral conviction, or at least decrease it.
That and the fact that persons who feel mental anguish can simply build a "knowingly and willfully" clause into their moral system to get themselves off the hook. Rationalizations are not difficult.
So, yeah, "ewww horsey" is a silly declaration of emotive preferences. And the situation of accidentally consuming horse meat, and then claiming moral outrage, is naught but an opportunity for some people to feign righteous indignation.
You are completely failing to grasp the purpose of government regulation, which is to centralize the effort of ordering the world so that individuals do not need to devote constant effort to doing so. Just as you would not say "that man who has his house robbed did not have a strong conviction to protect his property because he trusted in the police system instead of guarding it all day with a shotgun," you cannot impute a lack of conviction re: the consumption of horses based on a person's reliance on the government to ensure that meat labeled as beef is not horse.
SKFM said all that needs to be said about why we ask the government to help enforce our moral decisions. Nobody can spend all their time safeguarding their moral code, at some point we have to depend on others not to actively try to make us break it. We need a good faith agreement on what we as a society have decided is right and proper. Otherwise we are all going to have to spend our lives in a bunker looking out at the world through a gun sight.
There is one point that _J_ keeps missing in his dismissal of emotive arguments. That is that emotional pain is real. Our feelings are a real and they affect our lives every day in real ways. Somebody causing us emotional distress are causing us a very real harm. We have a fairly big psychological care industry dedicated to fixing purely emotional damage. In _J_ world they are apparently all quacks, but in this one they are doing important and difficult work.
There is no greater emotional damage then somebody violating our sense of self. A persons moral code is often central to their sense of self. Even inadvertently violating it would cause pain, because of how central it is how we feel.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
But the thing you are ignoring is the mental anguish of having your moral code violated without your knowledge. Which is something you give short shrift to in this thread.
People having a moral code and suffering emotional distress when said code is violated is not a imaginary thing. The fact that said codes can change and are arbitrary does not alter the fact that they exist and are very important to a lot of people.
Claiming that people should "get over it", ignores the fact that moral codes are central to most people self-image and people often go out of their way to maintain them even when its not in their best interest.
Horse meat might be an arbitrary line, but its a line many people have agreed is there. Having people trick them into crossing it, is violation of who they are. The pain they feel at having their boundaries crossed is real, since they had decided that their moral code included not eating horse meat. Who are you to tell people that they should ignore it? or even worse that all their moral judgment have no value? You sick sick little goose.
If we want to have a sustained argument about morality, then it may be good to either change the OP, or take this to a new thread. To your specific point:
I agree that, for some people, their notion of a moral code is central to their self-conception, and they go out of their way to maintain it. The problem is that when we apply that premise to this situation we find that the individuals were not going out of their way to maintain their moral conviction, and therefore etc.
If an individual has a moral stance against horse meat, then part of that stance is acting in such a way as to maintain it. The strength of the moral conviction can be understood in terms of the actions one takes to act in accord with the preference. An individual who foregoes all meat, ever, in order to avoid the risk of accidentally consuming horse has a very strong conviction. Someone who raises their own meat, hunts their own meat, or directly purchased their meat from a butcher is also acting in a way that indicates a strong preference.
Someone who engages in regular carnivore activities, but checks the label before eating a burger or steak, seems to have less moral conviction.
That's why your "suffering emotional distress" seems out of place. If they truly cared about avoiding horse, then they would have placed themselves in a position such that they could not have eaten horse. Offloading that personal responsibility onto some system of government regulation also seems to offload the moral conviction, or at least decrease it.
That and the fact that persons who feel mental anguish can simply build a "knowingly and willfully" clause into their moral system to get themselves off the hook. Rationalizations are not difficult.
So, yeah, "ewww horsey" is a silly declaration of emotive preferences. And the situation of accidentally consuming horse meat, and then claiming moral outrage, is naught but an opportunity for some people to feign righteous indignation.
You are completely failing to grasp the purpose of government regulation, which is to centralize the effort of ordering the world so that individuals do not need to devote constant effort to doing so. Just as you would not say "that man who has his house robbed did not have a strong conviction to protect his property because he trusted in the police system instead of guarding it all day with a shotgun," you cannot impute a lack of conviction re: the consumption of horses based on a person's reliance on the government to ensure that meat labeled as beef is not horse.
You can if the effort required to better safeguard your moral convictions is not that big though. And it is unreasonable to have an arbitrary set of morals that are heavily invested in that you lay at the foot of others not to violate. Moral outrage over other parties having been unable to prevent your feelings from being hurt is silly. It is foolish to expect the government to be perfect, or to expect companies to be good all the time. So if you put your trust in the government or a fellow multinational corporation you must also accept the risk that goes with it, i.e. that the government might fail.
People either need to get over their reaction to this and accept that it might happen or start avoiding places where it might happen that their feelings are hurt.
What? You are not allowed to be angry when people don't do the job you hired them for? Fuck that noise.
I may have to accept that events beyond their control may prevent them from doing their job, but otherwise its on them if they fail. You have no responsibility if a drunk driver smashes into your car, even though you accept that car accidents might happen.
In this case its doubly stupid argument as the horse meat did not get there by accident, meaning the government/multinational corporations where negligent in their duties. Part of what we hired them for is so that people trying to sell horse meat as cow gets stopped.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
What? You are not allowed to be angry when people don't do the job you hired them for? Fuck that noise.
I may have to accept that events beyond their control may prevent them from doing their job, but otherwise its on them if they fail. You have no responsibility if a drunk driver smashes into your car, even though you accept that car accidents might happen.
In this case its doubly stupid argument as the horse meat did not get there by accident, meaning the government/multinational corporations where negligent in their duties. Part of what we hired them for is so that people trying to sell horse meat as cow gets stopped.
It's not a question of who is at fault. It's about your reaction to events. Eating a bit of horse meat is not the same as having someone crash into your car. You don't have the same reaction to those things.
It's perfectly all right to be angry over people not doing their job. But saying that tells us nothing about the level of angriness that is appropriate. Is it reasonable to be livid when a waiter messes up your order? Surely not. Is it ok if I claim that my deeply-held personal beliefs were violated by the messing up and I suffered real emotional distress over it? Would you consider that then a reasonable reaction?
Yes, if I order beef and he gave me horse meat I would consider it a reasonable reaction.
Not only did he mess up my order, but he gave me food that went against my personal beliefs despite me specifically ordering something else. I would have the same sympathy if somebody gave a Hindu beef, when he order lamb or a Muslim Pork, when he order chicken.
Do I have the right to punch the waiter? No! But I have the right to be angry and to let the waiter know. You desire that we should simply seethe in silence is stupid.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Posts
Oh fuck no. We have enough crazy here.
I hear Idaho is nice.
Nah. Nuance is only necessary for dealing with nuanced positions. The "pets" and "religion" and "ethics" and "six year old child saying ewww horse" all fit into the same category, on this issue.
However, the "That's not what I thought I was buying" position is sensible. It's just not the main issue persons tend to vocalize.
- John Stuart Mill
What I find so weird about this is that everyone seems to be buying that the food companies weren't aware. Or at least just choosing to ignore it.
Finding out that you have been deceived into a course of action that you would not have otherwise taken can result in a real psychic harm. Or would you say that Oedipus should have just rolled with killing his father and sleeping with his mother because "eww, patricide" and "eww, incest" are irrational?
Checking their suppliers requires at least X fucks. My guess is that Burger King's management didn't have an adequate number of fucks to give.
Yeah, I have to agree on J with this one. Having a clearly delineated supply system requires that they even give a damn.
I don't know how things are going in Europe, but the US has had restaurants bitch about how they have to up costs for ACA. So I suspect that most of it is them not giving any fucks and being too fucking short sighted to realize this will fuck them up. Sadly, common sense doesn't seem to be common and seems to say that as a business that provides food, you'd want to give the image you know what's in your products, that your employees are hygienic and that your costumers don't have to worry about getting sick from eating your product.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Recession era austerity cut backs seems in part to blame at the FSA
Blame can be squarely placed at the feet of the person making the massive profit by 'accidentally' labelling horse as beef when the meat was under their care.
For the Oedipus example, a more reasonable response would have been to rethink his previous beliefs given the new empirical data.
Oedipus has sex with Jocasta and seems to like it, given that they had two sons and two daughters. The fact that he enjoyed sex with Jocasta, when they had sex, doesn't change when he later discovers that she is his mother. What changes is his perception of the sex that was had. There were at least two options for how Oedipus could react:
1) I enjoyed sex with Jocasta. Having sex with one's mother is terrible. Jocasta was my mother. Oh holy fuck what have I done?
2) I enjoyed sex with Jocasta. Having sex with one's mother is terrible. Jocasta was my mother. Ok, well, given that I enjoyed the sex with Jocasta, and she was mother, I guess mother fucking isn't all bad.
Oedipus went with #1.
When we apply this to horse meat consumption, I think there are still two options. One can maintain the previously held belief that horse is icky, despite the empirical evidence of having enjoyed Whoppers that were made of horse. Or, one can modify one's belief regarding the deliciousness and consumability of horse in light of the empirical evidence of having enjoyed horse Whoppers.
Deception may result in psychic harm, whatever that is, but it need not necessarily result in psychic harm. The important aspect, and what causes the harm, seems to be the "you would not have otherwise taken" factor. We can privilege the "you would not have otherwise taken" factor and lament mother fucking, or be grossed out at having consumed horse. Alternatively, one can discern that one's predilection to not fuck mom, and not eat horse, was a foolish predilection. This judgment is based upon the recognition that the experience of consuming horse, and the experience of Oedipus boning his mom, was enjoyable.
So, when a Jew unknowingly eats pork, a Hinduist unknowingly eats beef, or Scott Tenorman unknowingly eats his parents the individual can freak out because their actions conflict with previously held beliefs.
Or, they can realize that their previously held beliefs were silly, given the deliciousness of pork, beef, and Scott Tenonrman's parents.
The fact that there is a choice hardly excuses the deception, nor does it indicate that the first reaction of "Oh holy fuck what have I done?" is not valid, so I'm not really sure what this post is supposed to demonstrate. This seems like your thesis from the old thread about choosing to be offended.
So if I'm interpreting your argument correctly.
If I was at a bar and a guy offered to hook me up with his friend and I agreed and liked it. Were I to later find out she wasn't his friend, but a women he had entrapped in sex slavery. I should then realign my moral position to be pro sex-slavery? Or at least I wouldn't be able to make the statement "I dislike sex slavery', since clearly I did like it in that moment?
What you could not do is say, "I could / would never enjoy having sex with a sex slave." since you had sex with a sex slave and enjoyed it. The fact that you were unaware of her sex slavery doesn't change the fact that:
1) She was a sex slave.
2) You fucked her.
3) You enjoyed it, you sick sick little goose.
With respect to the moral considerations? You could still oppose sex slavery, but you would need to do so with the recognition that you fucked a sex slave. It's the question of what moral grounds you appeal to when opposing sex slavery, and the degree to which your fucking a sex slave impacts those grounds.
Excusing the deception has to do with the deceiver, rather than your assessment of act-X. I'm not concerned with the deception. I'm concerned with the individual's reaction to the deception.
1) Player A is pissed off by horse Whoppers because they were deceived into eating horse.
2) Player A is pissed off by horse Whoppers because "ewww horse".
I'm talking about #2. Eating a horse Whopper, and enjoying it, undermines the "ewww horse" claim, since not all instances of consuming horse resulted in "Ewww".
If Player A eats a horse Whopper, and enjoys it, then they can still be irritated by the deception. But their irritation is related to the deception, not the consumption of horse.
That's the distinction we've made in this thread:
1) Problems of food labeling, inspection, and regulation.
2) EWWWW HORSEY
#1 is fine. #2 is silly.
That would be harm to the human psyche or mind. It's a thing. It happens to people. It is not silly.
- John Stuart Mill
The problem with your "eww horsey" formulation is that it collapses "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat." If your position is that it is wrong to eat horse, then eating it and enjoying it does not impact the perceived wrongness of the act, just like enjoying accidentally having sex with your mother does not mean that you were incorrect in determining that it is wrong to have sex with your mother. I strongly suspect that the reason most people refrain from having sex with their mothers has nothing to do with whether they think it would be physically enjoyable.
Jules could eat pig, sewer rat or dog and enjoy eating them, and it would not invalidate his position on not eating these animals.
Whence the wrongness of eating horse?
I would argue that "I don't like eating horse meat" and "I think it is wrong to eat horse meat" are the same thing, expressions of emotional attitudes. What someone says "X is wrong" they mean "booo X".
Now, you may be correct that the person's moral aversion to eating horse is based upon something other than the taste / flavor of horse meat. But what would that be? If the meat is nutritious and edible, flavorful and tender, what other factors would need to be considered when assessing whether or not eating horse goes into the "Yey" or "Boo" column?
Given that the individual is a carnivore who intentionally consumes animal flesh, their emotive basis for "boo horse" cannot be "boo eating meat", since they would eat other meat. So, why "boo horse" but "yey cow"? What is the actual difference between those two sources of protein, with respect to moral emoting?
I do not like spending time with you. There is nothing morally wrong about your existence, it simply offends me at a basic level, and so I will seek to avoid it.
I think it is wrong to kick people in the junk, however, if we met I would cheerfully and repeatedly do so for quite some time. I would feel personally satisfied, but guilty, and thus seek absolution from my local Italian pederast.
Do you see the difference between the two sentiments or shall we move on to the practical demonstration?
- John Stuart Mill
Some preferences are stronger than others.
- John Stuart Mill
It could be anything. It could be a sense that they are smarter or prettier or not as clean. All that matters is that it is not based on the belief that horse does not taste good or is not nutritious, and so learning that it tastes good or is nutritious is irrelevant.
Environmental reasons. Deception. I just don't like one part of the supply chain very much. Or anything else. The assertion that if it tastes alright and doesn't harm you, one should have no problem eating it is meaningless, because nowhere in real life is such a scenario going to occur - there will always be other considerations.
Toss some panda fat on the griddle and break out the whale burgers.
- John Stuart Mill
Should've mentioned giant tortoise, because apparently that shit was delicious.
Eww...reptile...
- John Stuart Mill
But the thing you are ignoring is the mental anguish of having your moral code violated without your knowledge. Which is something you give short shrift to in this thread.
People having a moral code and suffering emotional distress when said code is violated is not a imaginary thing. The fact that said codes can change and are arbitrary does not alter the fact that they exist and are very important to a lot of people.
Claiming that people should "get over it", ignores the fact that moral codes are central to most people self-image and people often go out of their way to maintain them even when its not in their best interest.
Horse meat might be an arbitrary line, but its a line many people have agreed is there. Having people trick them into crossing it, is violation of who they are. The pain they feel at having their boundaries crossed is real, since they had decided that their moral code included not eating horse meat. Who are you to tell people that they should ignore it? or even worse that all their moral judgment have no value? You sick sick little goose.
_J_ can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop thinking we are all silly, ever..until we are dead.
- John Stuart Mill
If we want to have a sustained argument about morality, then it may be good to either change the OP, or take this to a new thread. To your specific point:
I agree that, for some people, their notion of a moral code is central to their self-conception, and they go out of their way to maintain it. The problem is that when we apply that premise to this situation we find that the individuals were not going out of their way to maintain their moral conviction, and therefore etc.
If an individual has a moral stance against horse meat, then part of that stance is acting in such a way as to maintain it. The strength of the moral conviction can be understood in terms of the actions one takes to act in accord with the preference. An individual who foregoes all meat, ever, in order to avoid the risk of accidentally consuming horse has a very strong conviction. Someone who raises their own meat, hunts their own meat, or directly purchased their meat from a butcher is also acting in a way that indicates a strong preference.
Someone who engages in regular carnivore activities, but checks the label before eating a burger or steak, seems to have less moral conviction.
That's why your "suffering emotional distress" seems out of place. If they truly cared about avoiding horse, then they would have placed themselves in a position such that they could not have eaten horse. Offloading that personal responsibility onto some system of government regulation also seems to offload the moral conviction, or at least decrease it.
That and the fact that persons who feel mental anguish can simply build a "knowingly and willfully" clause into their moral system to get themselves off the hook. Rationalizations are not difficult.
So, yeah, "ewww horsey" is a silly declaration of emotive preferences. And the situation of accidentally consuming horse meat, and then claiming moral outrage, is naught but an opportunity for some people to feign righteous indignation.
I can be reasoned with.
I can't be emoted with.
Reason ≠ emotion
You are completely failing to grasp the purpose of government regulation, which is to centralize the effort of ordering the world so that individuals do not need to devote constant effort to doing so. Just as you would not say "that man who has his house robbed did not have a strong conviction to protect his property because he trusted in the police system instead of guarding it all day with a shotgun," you cannot impute a lack of conviction re: the consumption of horses based on a person's reliance on the government to ensure that meat labeled as beef is not horse.
There is one point that _J_ keeps missing in his dismissal of emotive arguments. That is that emotional pain is real. Our feelings are a real and they affect our lives every day in real ways. Somebody causing us emotional distress are causing us a very real harm. We have a fairly big psychological care industry dedicated to fixing purely emotional damage. In _J_ world they are apparently all quacks, but in this one they are doing important and difficult work.
There is no greater emotional damage then somebody violating our sense of self. A persons moral code is often central to their sense of self. Even inadvertently violating it would cause pain, because of how central it is how we feel.
You can if the effort required to better safeguard your moral convictions is not that big though. And it is unreasonable to have an arbitrary set of morals that are heavily invested in that you lay at the foot of others not to violate. Moral outrage over other parties having been unable to prevent your feelings from being hurt is silly. It is foolish to expect the government to be perfect, or to expect companies to be good all the time. So if you put your trust in the government or a fellow multinational corporation you must also accept the risk that goes with it, i.e. that the government might fail.
People either need to get over their reaction to this and accept that it might happen or start avoiding places where it might happen that their feelings are hurt.
I may have to accept that events beyond their control may prevent them from doing their job, but otherwise its on them if they fail. You have no responsibility if a drunk driver smashes into your car, even though you accept that car accidents might happen.
In this case its doubly stupid argument as the horse meat did not get there by accident, meaning the government/multinational corporations where negligent in their duties. Part of what we hired them for is so that people trying to sell horse meat as cow gets stopped.
It's not a question of who is at fault. It's about your reaction to events. Eating a bit of horse meat is not the same as having someone crash into your car. You don't have the same reaction to those things.
It's perfectly all right to be angry over people not doing their job. But saying that tells us nothing about the level of angriness that is appropriate. Is it reasonable to be livid when a waiter messes up your order? Surely not. Is it ok if I claim that my deeply-held personal beliefs were violated by the messing up and I suffered real emotional distress over it? Would you consider that then a reasonable reaction?
Not only did he mess up my order, but he gave me food that went against my personal beliefs despite me specifically ordering something else. I would have the same sympathy if somebody gave a Hindu beef, when he order lamb or a Muslim Pork, when he order chicken.
Do I have the right to punch the waiter? No! But I have the right to be angry and to let the waiter know. You desire that we should simply seethe in silence is stupid.