6 ms·

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 justificatio

by 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.
    - SwellJoe 11y ago
      "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"?" My particular ethics are (mostly) utilitarian in nature. Maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering, with a recognition that we live in a world of limited resources and limited understanding of both happiness and suffering. But, it's relatively easy to recognize suffering, so I try to shape my life in such a way that the amount of suffering I cause is minimized. I would argue that suffering is a more objective measure than popular opinion, though neither is perfect, and both rely on my ability to understand what other people or sentient beings are experiencing and thinking. "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" But, arrogant enough to dismiss thousands of years of philosophers on the topic of ethics. Got it. Frankly, I find your belief on this repugnant, and disturbing. I'm not sure how to even have a conversation about ethics with someone who denies the very existence of ethical behavior, instead replacing it with adherence to popular opinion (and demanding objectivity while relying on something as shifting and difficult to observe as the beliefs of large groups of people).
Amezarak 11y ago
Unfortunately I waited too long to edit a response to your edit, so I have to engage in the discourtesy of double posting. :) > There is plenty wrong with causing suffering. What, specifically? What makes it wrong? > 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. For millions of years, most people hunted down and slaughtered their own food. In many cases the animals suffered horribly, even as badly or worse than they do in our industrial farming environments. I agree that most people are far removed from the experience of the suffering and killing of farm animals. I think that's exactly why people like you exist. Most people are raised up surrounded by puppies and kittens, not food animals, and grow up watching Disney movies full of friendly, talking animals. The majority of modern western society is far removed from the reality of life. No surprise that when confronted with excerpts from it, they respond with horror, it being utterly at odds with their prior experience. > 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? No. There is no larger moral framework. Morality is a social phenomena that manifests in arbitrary ways, though with humans (as with other social animals) it will always tend to some degree of in-group altrusim. There is no hypocrisy to be had because it is fundamentally arbitrary. > It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior This is my point. Our culturally contextual blinders generally prevent us from coming to objective conclusions about right and wrong. There is no objective right and wrong. There is no telescope science can use to inform us about moral reality. There are no sacred laws inscribed on our souls by God. Innumerable philosophers have tried to ground morality in something objective and all of them failed. This is why you keep repeating that the suffering and killing of animals is wrong, but cannot explain to me why this is so, except that is appalling that I need an explanation. It is a reality for you, insofar as it is a reflection of your feelings and tastes, but your feelings and tastes are not my feelings and tastes nor at they anyone else's; they are yours alone. History is the single best teacher of the subjectivity of morality. There's nothing wrong (in my opinion) with having the feelings and tastes you do (and therefore the moral-philosphical positions), but you cannot convince me, or people like me, of your position by stamping your feet and asserting a moral superiority that not only does not exist but cannot exist. > Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of. My moral nihilism, or whatever you might choose to label it, came to fruition long before I had the vaguest idea of defending the eating of animals. Nor do I feel particularly strongly on the subject; if a law was passed tomorrow I would chiefly be annoyed at the difficulty of getting the protein/calorie ratio demanded by my workout and diet regimen. I am not interested in the documentary, having seen plenty of examples of gratuitous animal cruelty myself, and having killed animals (legally) myself. There is no amount of suffering that a video could show me that would change my mind because I deny that the suffering is inherently wrong. I merely prefer that the suffering of animals be minimized to the extent that it can be done without raising the cost of meat significantly.

by noondip 11y ago

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.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    "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"?" My particular ethics are (mostly) utilitarian in nature. Maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering, with a recognition that we live in a world of limited resources and limited understanding of both happiness and suffering. But, it's relatively easy to recognize suffering, so I try to shape my life in such a way that the amount of suffering I cause is minimized. I would argue that suffering is a more objective measure than popular opinion, though neither is perfect, and both rely on my ability to understand what other people or sentient beings are experiencing and thinking. "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" But, arrogant enough to dismiss thousands of years of philosophers on the topic of ethics. Got it. Frankly, I find your belief on this repugnant, and disturbing. I'm not sure how to even have a conversation about ethics with someone who denies the very existence of ethical behavior, instead replacing it with adherence to popular opinion (and demanding objectivity while relying on something as shifting and difficult to observe as the beliefs of large groups of people).

Amezarak 11y ago

Unfortunately I waited too long to edit a response to your edit, so I have to engage in the discourtesy of double posting. :) > There is plenty wrong with causing suffering. What, specifically? What makes it wrong? > 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. For millions of years, most people hunted down and slaughtered their own food. In many cases the animals suffered horribly, even as badly or worse than they do in our industrial farming environments. I agree that most people are far removed from the experience of the suffering and killing of farm animals. I think that's exactly why people like you exist. Most people are raised up surrounded by puppies and kittens, not food animals, and grow up watching Disney movies full of friendly, talking animals. The majority of modern western society is far removed from the reality of life. No surprise that when confronted with excerpts from it, they respond with horror, it being utterly at odds with their prior experience. > 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? No. There is no larger moral framework. Morality is a social phenomena that manifests in arbitrary ways, though with humans (as with other social animals) it will always tend to some degree of in-group altrusim. There is no hypocrisy to be had because it is fundamentally arbitrary. > It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior This is my point. Our culturally contextual blinders generally prevent us from coming to objective conclusions about right and wrong. There is no objective right and wrong. There is no telescope science can use to inform us about moral reality. There are no sacred laws inscribed on our souls by God. Innumerable philosophers have tried to ground morality in something objective and all of them failed. This is why you keep repeating that the suffering and killing of animals is wrong, but cannot explain to me why this is so, except that is appalling that I need an explanation. It is a reality for you, insofar as it is a reflection of your feelings and tastes, but your feelings and tastes are not my feelings and tastes nor at they anyone else's; they are yours alone. History is the single best teacher of the subjectivity of morality. There's nothing wrong (in my opinion) with having the feelings and tastes you do (and therefore the moral-philosphical positions), but you cannot convince me, or people like me, of your position by stamping your feet and asserting a moral superiority that not only does not exist but cannot exist. > Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of. My moral nihilism, or whatever you might choose to label it, came to fruition long before I had the vaguest idea of defending the eating of animals. Nor do I feel particularly strongly on the subject; if a law was passed tomorrow I would chiefly be annoyed at the difficulty of getting the protein/calorie ratio demanded by my workout and diet regimen. I am not interested in the documentary, having seen plenty of examples of gratuitous animal cruelty myself, and having killed animals (legally) myself. There is no amount of suffering that a video could show me that would change my mind because I deny that the suffering is inherently wrong. I merely prefer that the suffering of animals be minimized to the extent that it can be done without raising the cost of meat significantly.