5 ms·

I glossed over some of the subtleties. To show that eating animals needs to be justified requires extending our ethical framework to animals beyond humans. Nobo

I glossed over some of the subtleties. To show that eating animals needs to be justified requires extending our ethical framework to animals beyond humans. Nobody feels the need to justify eating vegetables, for example, nor have compelling arguments been presented that this is unwarranted. Also: most disciplines require "general skill at persuasion," philosophy being no exception.

Volpe 15y ago
I think it's important to distinguish Philsophy from Critical thinking here. The practical skill Philsophy teaches is critical thinking and logical reasoning. But you don't need philosophy to learn either of those. "general skill at persuasion" sounds more like sophistry/rhetoric...
- Goladus 15y ago
  > "general skill at persuasion" sounds more like sophistry/rhetoric... Persuasive techniques can be used deceptively but that's hardly necessary. It's important to accept that people are emotional and simply proving them wrong is usually not sufficient to change their mind about something they've already decided.
jodrellblank 15y ago
Nobody feels the need to justify eating vegetables, for example, To the contrary, almost every vegetarianism argument on the Internet has comments like "plants are living things which you slaughter for food", and they just get ignored. I suspect because if you seriously believed killing living things for food is wrong, it would be suicide, so the only conceivable answer is to reason in such a way that it comes out with the answer you want - draw your arbitrary cutoff between important-living-things and not-important-living-things somewhere above plants and bacteria while staying comfortably below humans. Then let the argument rage as if there was a real substantive difference between drawing the line above cow or below cow, or just diverting it around milk, or only around milk sourced in a particular way.
- siglesias 15y ago
  Anybody using that argument is talking nonsense. There is no evidence that cutting a cabbage causes it pain and suffering. On the other hand, you can look at the vast similarities between our nervous systems and those of other vertebrates as well as their behavior under pain (squealing and so on) to reasonably conclude that these animals feel pain like we do.
  - Goladus 15y ago
    There is no evidence that cutting a cabbage causes it pain and suffering. We don't have as much evidence and the evidence we do have isn't as visceral or widely discussed. That doesn't mean there is no evidence.
    - siglesias 15y ago
      You're distorting my position anyway. I'm not stating that it is categorically unethical to eat living things, only that any enjoyment we get out of meat over vegetables isn't worth animal suffering. In no way does a weak position that plant suffering is possible make a strong case for animal suffering inadmissable to our eating choices. That's simply absurd.
      - jodrellblank 15y ago
        And you focusing on plant suffering is distorting my position. By killing plants, we stop them from being alive and furthering their goals, for our purposes. By focusing on pain and suffering you are implicitly drawing the line I mentioned about important/non-important living things there, and calling other views 'absurd'. But you aren't objectively right.
        siglesias 15y ago
        I suspect because if you seriously believed killing living things for food is wrong, it would be suicide I don't believe that killing living things for food is wrong. Of course you could be using the generic "you," in which case your point is irrelevant to the conversation. so the only conceivable answer is to reason in such a way that it comes out with the answer you want I don't disagree. If you find flaws in the reasoning by all means point them out. - draw your arbitrary cutoff between important-living-things and not-important-living-things somewhere above plants and bacteria while staying comfortably below humans. My cutoff isn't arbitrary (again I presume you are addressing me), and this is a mistaken presumption. If you endeavor to minimize suffering among things in the world capable of suffering, eliminating animal suffering is a net plus. If you want to argue that since all living things suffer and therefore all of our food sources suffer and therefore any attempt to delimit an ethical food source is arbitrary, good luck. I eagerly await your finding that vegetables feel pain.

Volpe 15y ago

I think it's important to distinguish Philsophy from Critical thinking here. The practical skill Philsophy teaches is critical thinking and logical reasoning. But you don't need philosophy to learn either of those. "general skill at persuasion" sounds more like sophistry/rhetoric...

Goladus 15y ago
> "general skill at persuasion" sounds more like sophistry/rhetoric... Persuasive techniques can be used deceptively but that's hardly necessary. It's important to accept that people are emotional and simply proving them wrong is usually not sufficient to change their mind about something they've already decided.

jodrellblank 15y ago

Nobody feels the need to justify eating vegetables, for example, To the contrary, almost every vegetarianism argument on the Internet has comments like "plants are living things which you slaughter for food", and they just get ignored. I suspect because if you seriously believed killing living things for food is wrong, it would be suicide, so the only conceivable answer is to reason in such a way that it comes out with the answer you want - draw your arbitrary cutoff between important-living-things and not-important-living-things somewhere above plants and bacteria while staying comfortably below humans. Then let the argument rage as if there was a real substantive difference between drawing the line above cow or below cow, or just diverting it around milk, or only around milk sourced in a particular way.

siglesias 15y ago
Anybody using that argument is talking nonsense. There is no evidence that cutting a cabbage causes it pain and suffering. On the other hand, you can look at the vast similarities between our nervous systems and those of other vertebrates as well as their behavior under pain (squealing and so on) to reasonably conclude that these animals feel pain like we do.
- Goladus 15y ago
  There is no evidence that cutting a cabbage causes it pain and suffering. We don't have as much evidence and the evidence we do have isn't as visceral or widely discussed. That doesn't mean there is no evidence.
  - siglesias 15y ago
    You're distorting my position anyway. I'm not stating that it is categorically unethical to eat living things, only that any enjoyment we get out of meat over vegetables isn't worth animal suffering. In no way does a weak position that plant suffering is possible make a strong case for animal suffering inadmissable to our eating choices. That's simply absurd.
    - jodrellblank 15y ago
      And you focusing on plant suffering is distorting my position. By killing plants, we stop them from being alive and furthering their goals, for our purposes. By focusing on pain and suffering you are implicitly drawing the line I mentioned about important/non-important living things there, and calling other views 'absurd'. But you aren't objectively right.
      - siglesias 15y ago
        I suspect because if you seriously believed killing living things for food is wrong, it would be suicide I don't believe that killing living things for food is wrong. Of course you could be using the generic "you," in which case your point is irrelevant to the conversation. so the only conceivable answer is to reason in such a way that it comes out with the answer you want I don't disagree. If you find flaws in the reasoning by all means point them out. - draw your arbitrary cutoff between important-living-things and not-important-living-things somewhere above plants and bacteria while staying comfortably below humans. My cutoff isn't arbitrary (again I presume you are addressing me), and this is a mistaken presumption. If you endeavor to minimize suffering among things in the world capable of suffering, eliminating animal suffering is a net plus. If you want to argue that since all living things suffer and therefore all of our food sources suffer and therefore any attempt to delimit an ethical food source is arbitrary, good luck. I eagerly await your finding that vegetables feel pain.