5 ms·

> Non-human animal activities should not provide a logical or moral foundation for our behavior Why not? What should provide a moral foundation for our behavi

> Non-human animal activities should not provide a logical or moral foundation for our behavior Why not? What should provide a moral foundation for our behavior? That's a trick question. There is no objective basis for morality. We can make it whatever we like, preferably optimizing our value preferences. As for me, I like meat, so I will continue to enjoy eating animals. On the other hand, I personally dislike unnecessary cruelty, so I am not adverse to treating farm-raised animals better, up to some point where the tradeoff between lots of cheap meat and well-treated animals starts looking bad for me. There is, of course, no objectively "correct" value-preferences either, but since humans are social animals, you should probably abide by the norms of your social group if you want to fit in. Morality as herd instinct in the individual and all. > More importantly, we recognize that unlike animals, we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences. Sure we can. I want to, and that's all the justification I need. What is your basis for claiming that I need some special justification?

noondip 11y ago
There are victims which suffer as a consequence of your actions. I think that makes it clear the behavior is unethical. If "I want to" were all the justification needed, the world would be an even more terrible place to live. We wouldn't accept that excuse if made by a person kicking a dog, for example, so why should we for abuse of other non-human animal species? Edit (can't directly reply): > There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering There is plenty wrong with causing suffering. I think in the case of eating animals, society is quite detached from the experience, though. That's why we shy away from watching slaughterhouse videos, why we put pictures of happy cows on cartons of milk - why such an unbelievably rosy picture must be painted to justify ruthless and horrific violence taking place all the time. Anyway, I would like to share with you that it has been my experience watching those videos and learning more about how animals are treated for food and other purposes changed my perspective, and it might interest you, too. Earthlings is a powerful documentary, is available free on YouTube, and I recommend it. > The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. Exactly! To the same point, the reason it is acceptable to raise and kill billions of animals are also social norms and culture. Is the hypocrisy of it all not apparent? > I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better. It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior. Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of. Do check out the Earthlings documentary, it will really open your eyes.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  It doesn't make it clear at all. There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering, however most of us personally don't like it or however much some of us might empathize with the victims. You're simply restating your position based on your personal value preferences (such as 'suffering is evil') which are by no means universal and certainly not binding moral edicts. The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. That doesn't make our beliefs moral truths, or our arguments sound. What you're advocating is that we change those norms to proscribe the eating of animals based on your value-preferences - you're advocating a change of our tastes, in both senses of the word. And you are not going to sway many people to make a fundamentally emotional decision with 'logical' or 'moral' reasoning, particularly when for many people the eating of meat (or even the killing of animals) is not only something they like but part of their cultural identity. Even so, people like me are still going to be steadfast in their opposition to your attempted revolution of social norms based simply on their value-preferences and because, frankly, I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering Nothing wrong or evil about human-inflicted suffering? So, what is objectively wrong or evil in this world? Give me some examples. The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. That's really the only reason you see for this? So, anything that doesn't go against social norms is ethically acceptable? Are there no historical incidents where horrible things were done within the bounds of "social norms" that maybe make you question that belief? Is it always right, if popular opinion says it is?
    - Amezarak 11y ago
      > Nothing wrong or evil about human-inflicted suffering? So, what is objectively wrong or evil in this world? Give me some examples. Nothing. That's my whole point. Can you tell me where we can see what is objective evil? Or is it all just ultimately based on our contemporary feelings that "oh, that's awful"? > So, anything that doesn't go against social norms is ethically acceptable? Correct, ethically acceptable is defined by your culture. If you're an ancient Aztec, human sacrifice is ethical. If you're a 21st century American, human sacrifice is not ethical. > Are there no historical incidents where horrible things were done within the bounds of "social norms" that maybe make you question that belief? No, because I'm not arrogant enough to declare myself somehow wiser and more able to see The Truth than the billions of humans who have lived on this earth over the past two million years who were also convinced they alone knew the truth of right and wrong while all holding very different moral beliefs from one another. Why do you think you're different? If there is a "true" morality, it is clearly not accessible to mere mortals by reason.

noondip 11y ago

There are victims which suffer as a consequence of your actions. I think that makes it clear the behavior is unethical. If "I want to" were all the justification needed, the world would be an even more terrible place to live. We wouldn't accept that excuse if made by a person kicking a dog, for example, so why should we for abuse of other non-human animal species? Edit (can't directly reply): > There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering There is plenty wrong with causing suffering. I think in the case of eating animals, society is quite detached from the experience, though. That's why we shy away from watching slaughterhouse videos, why we put pictures of happy cows on cartons of milk - why such an unbelievably rosy picture must be painted to justify ruthless and horrific violence taking place all the time. Anyway, I would like to share with you that it has been my experience watching those videos and learning more about how animals are treated for food and other purposes changed my perspective, and it might interest you, too. Earthlings is a powerful documentary, is available free on YouTube, and I recommend it. > The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. Exactly! To the same point, the reason it is acceptable to raise and kill billions of animals are also social norms and culture. Is the hypocrisy of it all not apparent? > I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better. It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior. Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of. Do check out the Earthlings documentary, it will really open your eyes.

Amezarak 11y ago
It doesn't make it clear at all. There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering, however most of us personally don't like it or however much some of us might empathize with the victims. You're simply restating your position based on your personal value preferences (such as 'suffering is evil') which are by no means universal and certainly not binding moral edicts. The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. That doesn't make our beliefs moral truths, or our arguments sound. What you're advocating is that we change those norms to proscribe the eating of animals based on your value-preferences - you're advocating a change of our tastes, in both senses of the word. And you are not going to sway many people to make a fundamentally emotional decision with 'logical' or 'moral' reasoning, particularly when for many people the eating of meat (or even the killing of animals) is not only something they like but part of their cultural identity. Even so, people like me are still going to be steadfast in their opposition to your attempted revolution of social norms based simply on their value-preferences and because, frankly, I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better.
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering Nothing wrong or evil about human-inflicted suffering? So, what is objectively wrong or evil in this world? Give me some examples. The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. That's really the only reason you see for this? So, anything that doesn't go against social norms is ethically acceptable? Are there no historical incidents where horrible things were done within the bounds of "social norms" that maybe make you question that belief? Is it always right, if popular opinion says it is?
  - Amezarak 11y ago
    > Nothing wrong or evil about human-inflicted suffering? So, what is objectively wrong or evil in this world? Give me some examples. Nothing. That's my whole point. Can you tell me where we can see what is objective evil? Or is it all just ultimately based on our contemporary feelings that "oh, that's awful"? > So, anything that doesn't go against social norms is ethically acceptable? Correct, ethically acceptable is defined by your culture. If you're an ancient Aztec, human sacrifice is ethical. If you're a 21st century American, human sacrifice is not ethical. > Are there no historical incidents where horrible things were done within the bounds of "social norms" that maybe make you question that belief? No, because I'm not arrogant enough to declare myself somehow wiser and more able to see The Truth than the billions of humans who have lived on this earth over the past two million years who were also convinced they alone knew the truth of right and wrong while all holding very different moral beliefs from one another. Why do you think you're different? If there is a "true" morality, it is clearly not accessible to mere mortals by reason.