2 ms·

I'm asking you to elaborate your position. Consider how worrying it would be to see an analogous interaction: "Could we all stop having slaves?" "Since you a

by yboris 6y ago

I'm asking you to elaborate your position. Consider how worrying it would be to see an analogous interaction: "Could we all stop having slaves?" "Since you asked, no, but if slaves stop being so profitable to force to work, I may consider it."

a1369209993 6y ago
The problem in that case is that slaves are generally people (nonsapient 'slaves' aren't typically called that) and therefore have rights[0], which are violated by enslaving them. So, while your example is superficially similar, it's not analogous in the ways that actually matter. 0: Confusingly called "human" rights, both as if there were any other kind of rights and as if the fact that all known currently existing people are humans were in any way ontologically fundamental, rather than a contingent result of Earth's natural history.
- yboris 6y ago
  You are just appealing to the common framework of morality that asserts that humans have rights and animals do not. This is not the only framework. Furthermore I think the rights framework does not provide any arguments in its favor, it simply denies rights to animals. Do not focus on rights; I am not arguing for "rights" for animals. Ask yourself about whether pain matters to sentient beings. Whether animals are sentient. And reflect on whether you are able to decrease your financial contribution to a system that abuses animals. The analogy was meant to show that the format of the response is problematic when stated about something we now agree is morally problematic (slavery). I am nudging readers of my comment to reflect whether in 50 years we will consider abusing animals as morally problematic as well (note: I am not arguing about degree of wrongness here).
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > that [only] humans have rights I'm not dignifying this with a rebuttal; go back and read the second paragraph. > And reflect on whether you are able to decrease your financial contribution to a system that abuses animals. Of cource I'm able to. I'm also able to feed lead to toddlers. The relevant question is whether one should, not whether one can. > the format of the response is problematic The format of the response is irrelevant: "Could we all stop infringing copyright?" "Since you asked, no, but if people stop creating things that are worth watching/reading/etc, I may consider it." "Could we all stop donating to charity?" "Since you asked, no, but if they stop doing good deeds, I may consider it." And so on. > whether in 50 years we will consider abusing animals as morally problematic as well Popularity doesn't make something right, and speculations of future popularity definitely don't.
    - yboris 6y ago
      This is not about popularity. It's about moral growth. As a child you do things you later regret doing (e.g. hurting people). As a society we look back, and while we realize the circumstances were very different before (and we don't have to make a judgment about moral problems), we can still recognize that some things were problematic (enslaving other human beings, not letting women vote, not letting people of color vote, etc) and that we do not want to do that now. This is best understood (not as "popularity" or "fad", but) as moral growth. And it's good. You are fighting over semantics "able" vs "should". I am trying to use language that is not confrontational. I am not calling you a bad person, I do not think you are. I am asking you politely, in the privacy of your own mind, to reflect on some practices we take for granted. And to realize that the parallel is that in the past we've made moral mistakes, and that we are likely making a moral mistake now. I proclaim that it's good to mature and grow up. I hope we as a civilization grow out of this phase where we abuse the shit out of billions of sentient creatures for a the unimportant goal of having food taste slightly different.
  - pluto9 6y ago
    > You are just appealing to the common framework of morality that asserts that humans have rights and animals do not. This is not the only framework. Right, but it's the one we meat eaters believe in. You're asking people to substitute your preferred moral framework for theirs. This is the same thing as asking people to forego the right to abortion just because your religion, which they don't share, says it's murder.
    - yboris 6y ago
      My argument here: 1) Reflect that "commonly done" != "unproblematic". 2) Think for yourself: reflect on whether causing pain to sentient creatures is something you want to be doing in your life. I am not recommending people reject the "rights" framework of morality; I am asking them to pause and consider something that virtually everyone agrees with: "hurting sentient creatures is morally problematic". If after reflection you do not share this sentiment, there isn't much I can do (at least with a short comment). Re: religion - it's much easier to dismiss a religious appeal if you do not share the religion. It's harder in my example, as the appeal is to a (what I claim) is a sentiment that the reader already has. Moral uncertainty is an interesting argument too. If theory A claims act X is unproblematic, but theory B claims act X is very problematic, even if you only believe in A, you should be cautious that you may be wrong and theory B is correct. If act X is of no great importance to you, it is a prudent decision to avoid doing X. I do recommend everyone read Animal Liberation (1975) by Peter Singer - it's the classic text on animal welfare.
      - pluto9 6y ago
        > Reflect that "commonly done" != "unproblematic". I agree, but I'm sure you also agree that "commonly done" != "problematic". Morality and common practice have nothing to do with each other, so I don't think that line of argument helps or hurts either side here. And I don't think I ever implied that eating animals is unproblematic simply because most people do it. > Think for yourself: reflect on whether causing pain to sentient creatures is something you want to be doing in your life. The morality of hurting sentient creatures depends entirely on context. If I were torturing animals for my own sick pleasure, that would certainly be immoral. If I shoot a bear that's attacking me, I think we would both agree that that's justified. That's an extreme example, but it proves the general point that there exist conditions where hurting a sentient being is morally acceptable. In my opinion, getting adequate nutrition is also an acceptable reason. I assume you either disagree that that's a good enough reason, or you simply believe that plant-based diets provide adequate nutrition. If the former, then we're back to the moral disagreement: I think the pain caused to farm animals is an acceptable trade off for my health, and you don't. If the latter, well... I really don't want to get into the health side of this argument. I doubt we'd change each others' minds and the moral issue is much more interesting. I do agree that morality dictates we cause minimal possible suffering to the animals we eat, and I agree that modern farming practices leave a lot to be desired in that regard. But I'm trying to stick to the core question of whether eating animals is morally justifiable in its own right, regardless of the messy realities of the particular world in which we live.

by yboris 6y ago

a1369209993 6y ago

The problem in that case is that slaves are generally people (nonsapient 'slaves' aren't typically called that) and therefore have rights[0], which are violated by enslaving them. So, while your example is superficially similar, it's not analogous in the ways that actually matter. 0: Confusingly called "human" rights, both as if there were any other kind of rights and as if the fact that all known currently existing people are humans were in any way ontologically fundamental, rather than a contingent result of Earth's natural history.

yboris 6y ago
You are just appealing to the common framework of morality that asserts that humans have rights and animals do not. This is not the only framework. Furthermore I think the rights framework does not provide any arguments in its favor, it simply denies rights to animals. Do not focus on rights; I am not arguing for "rights" for animals. Ask yourself about whether pain matters to sentient beings. Whether animals are sentient. And reflect on whether you are able to decrease your financial contribution to a system that abuses animals. The analogy was meant to show that the format of the response is problematic when stated about something we now agree is morally problematic (slavery). I am nudging readers of my comment to reflect whether in 50 years we will consider abusing animals as morally problematic as well (note: I am not arguing about degree of wrongness here).
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > that [only] humans have rights I'm not dignifying this with a rebuttal; go back and read the second paragraph. > And reflect on whether you are able to decrease your financial contribution to a system that abuses animals. Of cource I'm able to. I'm also able to feed lead to toddlers. The relevant question is whether one should, not whether one can. > the format of the response is problematic The format of the response is irrelevant: "Could we all stop infringing copyright?" "Since you asked, no, but if people stop creating things that are worth watching/reading/etc, I may consider it." "Could we all stop donating to charity?" "Since you asked, no, but if they stop doing good deeds, I may consider it." And so on. > whether in 50 years we will consider abusing animals as morally problematic as well Popularity doesn't make something right, and speculations of future popularity definitely don't.
  - yboris 6y ago
    This is not about popularity. It's about moral growth. As a child you do things you later regret doing (e.g. hurting people). As a society we look back, and while we realize the circumstances were very different before (and we don't have to make a judgment about moral problems), we can still recognize that some things were problematic (enslaving other human beings, not letting women vote, not letting people of color vote, etc) and that we do not want to do that now. This is best understood (not as "popularity" or "fad", but) as moral growth. And it's good. You are fighting over semantics "able" vs "should". I am trying to use language that is not confrontational. I am not calling you a bad person, I do not think you are. I am asking you politely, in the privacy of your own mind, to reflect on some practices we take for granted. And to realize that the parallel is that in the past we've made moral mistakes, and that we are likely making a moral mistake now. I proclaim that it's good to mature and grow up. I hope we as a civilization grow out of this phase where we abuse the shit out of billions of sentient creatures for a the unimportant goal of having food taste slightly different.
- pluto9 6y ago
  > You are just appealing to the common framework of morality that asserts that humans have rights and animals do not. This is not the only framework. Right, but it's the one we meat eaters believe in. You're asking people to substitute your preferred moral framework for theirs. This is the same thing as asking people to forego the right to abortion just because your religion, which they don't share, says it's murder.
  - yboris 6y ago
    My argument here: 1) Reflect that "commonly done" != "unproblematic". 2) Think for yourself: reflect on whether causing pain to sentient creatures is something you want to be doing in your life. I am not recommending people reject the "rights" framework of morality; I am asking them to pause and consider something that virtually everyone agrees with: "hurting sentient creatures is morally problematic". If after reflection you do not share this sentiment, there isn't much I can do (at least with a short comment). Re: religion - it's much easier to dismiss a religious appeal if you do not share the religion. It's harder in my example, as the appeal is to a (what I claim) is a sentiment that the reader already has. Moral uncertainty is an interesting argument too. If theory A claims act X is unproblematic, but theory B claims act X is very problematic, even if you only believe in A, you should be cautious that you may be wrong and theory B is correct. If act X is of no great importance to you, it is a prudent decision to avoid doing X. I do recommend everyone read Animal Liberation (1975) by Peter Singer - it's the classic text on animal welfare.
    - pluto9 6y ago
      > Reflect that "commonly done" != "unproblematic". I agree, but I'm sure you also agree that "commonly done" != "problematic". Morality and common practice have nothing to do with each other, so I don't think that line of argument helps or hurts either side here. And I don't think I ever implied that eating animals is unproblematic simply because most people do it. > Think for yourself: reflect on whether causing pain to sentient creatures is something you want to be doing in your life. The morality of hurting sentient creatures depends entirely on context. If I were torturing animals for my own sick pleasure, that would certainly be immoral. If I shoot a bear that's attacking me, I think we would both agree that that's justified. That's an extreme example, but it proves the general point that there exist conditions where hurting a sentient being is morally acceptable. In my opinion, getting adequate nutrition is also an acceptable reason. I assume you either disagree that that's a good enough reason, or you simply believe that plant-based diets provide adequate nutrition. If the former, then we're back to the moral disagreement: I think the pain caused to farm animals is an acceptable trade off for my health, and you don't. If the latter, well... I really don't want to get into the health side of this argument. I doubt we'd change each others' minds and the moral issue is much more interesting. I do agree that morality dictates we cause minimal possible suffering to the animals we eat, and I agree that modern farming practices leave a lot to be desired in that regard. But I'm trying to stick to the core question of whether eating animals is morally justifiable in its own right, regardless of the messy realities of the particular world in which we live.