4 ms·

Yeah I gave up after trying to ask this simple question in philosophy forums: is there a justification for eating meat? And for the most part the answers from a

Yeah I gave up after trying to ask this simple question in philosophy forums: is there a justification for eating meat? And for the most part the answers from actual academics is no. Then the simple follow up is are you vegetarian. The answer is very commonly no. So everything is just theory for them. Like a cardiologist with heart disease (also common). No wonder it's all gone south.

bloat 3y ago
https://www.routledge.com/Why-Its-OK-to-Eat-Meat/Shahar/p/book/9780367172763 https://www.routledge.com/Why-Its-OK-to-Eat-Meat/Shahar/p/bo... Why It's Ok To Eat Meat By a philosophy professor at the University of New Orleans.
eynsham 3y ago
There is more to philosophy than moral philosophy, and I don’t see why philosophical findings would be devalued by the moral failings of philosophers any more than cardiological findings would be devalued by the alleged unhealthiness of cardiologists.
- ramraj07 3y ago
  I totally see them being linked and as one of the reasons why there's a general failing of trust on expertise. Here's a clearer analogy; would you sign up with an obese personal trainer? I mean you might say that you personally would but the point stands that most people won't. It's not like I'm asking the philosopher's to cut a toe off to prove their mettle. This is such a simple lifestyle choice that millions of people take for ethical moral reasons anyway. Arguing that they're in a different branch of philosophy also sounds disengenous. I can try and give analogies for that we well but something tells there'll be mor nitpicking.
  - eynsham 3y ago
    If the only information I had about a personal trainer were their obesity, I wouldn’t. If I were satisfied that they had a long record of success, I would. Philosophers’ work can be and is best assessed by reading it. I do not think that pointing out the limited applicability of your point is remotely disingenuous. There is no guarantee that arguments you would give about other fields of philosophy would be convincing. That is not due to undesirable nitpicking but a general feature of argument.
IncreasePosts 3y ago
Of course there's a justification. Meat contains a lot of calories per gram, specifically in the form of proteins and fats, as well as a bunch of other micro nutrients.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

bloat 3y ago

https://www.routledge.com/Why-Its-OK-to-Eat-Meat/Shahar/p/book/9780367172763 https://www.routledge.com/Why-Its-OK-to-Eat-Meat/Shahar/p/bo... Why It's Ok To Eat Meat By a philosophy professor at the University of New Orleans.

eynsham 3y ago

There is more to philosophy than moral philosophy, and I don’t see why philosophical findings would be devalued by the moral failings of philosophers any more than cardiological findings would be devalued by the alleged unhealthiness of cardiologists.

ramraj07 3y ago
I totally see them being linked and as one of the reasons why there's a general failing of trust on expertise. Here's a clearer analogy; would you sign up with an obese personal trainer? I mean you might say that you personally would but the point stands that most people won't. It's not like I'm asking the philosopher's to cut a toe off to prove their mettle. This is such a simple lifestyle choice that millions of people take for ethical moral reasons anyway. Arguing that they're in a different branch of philosophy also sounds disengenous. I can try and give analogies for that we well but something tells there'll be mor nitpicking.
- eynsham 3y ago
  If the only information I had about a personal trainer were their obesity, I wouldn’t. If I were satisfied that they had a long record of success, I would. Philosophers’ work can be and is best assessed by reading it. I do not think that pointing out the limited applicability of your point is remotely disingenuous. There is no guarantee that arguments you would give about other fields of philosophy would be convincing. That is not due to undesirable nitpicking but a general feature of argument.

IncreasePosts 3y ago

Of course there's a justification. Meat contains a lot of calories per gram, specifically in the form of proteins and fats, as well as a bunch of other micro nutrients.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]