3 ms·

> 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, bu

by 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.
  - yboris 6y ago
    You're right about shooting an animal that is attacking you in self defense. Notice how that's also allowed in the human domain (shooting a human who is threatening your life). I think for anyone who feels like the trade off between getting good nutrition and hurting animals in the process is acceptable, must learn what the current treatment of animals is, and not turn a blind eye, thinking it's "decent enough" for the tradeoff to work. I strongly recommend everyone watch Earthlings. The moral discussion you are trying to have at some point becomes uninteresting to me. It begins to sound akin to "what if, hypothetically, slaves enjoyed being enslaved?". It's not a bad question to ponder, it really probes deep at some of our hidden assumptions, and we can learn something about morality while thinking about it. But I'm currently more interested in the absolute moral catastrophe that is happening now: billions of animals are being tortured every day, and so many people are unwilling to decrease the amount of money they give to the corporations that do the abuse.
a1369209993 6y ago
> 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. This is much better explanation of what's wrong with that part of their 'argument' than I was able to come up with; thank you.
- pluto9 6y ago
  One of the reasons I come to this website is because I find people who can articulate my positions much better than I can, and I get to steal their arguments. I don't usually get to be on the other side of that, so thanks :)

by pluto9 6y ago

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.
- yboris 6y ago
  You're right about shooting an animal that is attacking you in self defense. Notice how that's also allowed in the human domain (shooting a human who is threatening your life). I think for anyone who feels like the trade off between getting good nutrition and hurting animals in the process is acceptable, must learn what the current treatment of animals is, and not turn a blind eye, thinking it's "decent enough" for the tradeoff to work. I strongly recommend everyone watch Earthlings. The moral discussion you are trying to have at some point becomes uninteresting to me. It begins to sound akin to "what if, hypothetically, slaves enjoyed being enslaved?". It's not a bad question to ponder, it really probes deep at some of our hidden assumptions, and we can learn something about morality while thinking about it. But I'm currently more interested in the absolute moral catastrophe that is happening now: billions of animals are being tortured every day, and so many people are unwilling to decrease the amount of money they give to the corporations that do the abuse.

a1369209993 6y ago

> 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. This is much better explanation of what's wrong with that part of their 'argument' than I was able to come up with; thank you.

pluto9 6y ago
One of the reasons I come to this website is because I find people who can articulate my positions much better than I can, and I get to steal their arguments. I don't usually get to be on the other side of that, so thanks :)