|
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote:
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.
"It is my opinion.."
"To me, it is...."
See where I'm going at?
The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.
I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.
|
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote:
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html
|
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.
|
On June 04 2011 15:49 MrProb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote:
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them. One thing about human is they only care what they can see.You're feeling bad to see animal being killed to feed ppl but how about insects or some other small lives that is being killed to grow vegetables, do they count as lives? or are they too small to count as living creatures or too small to have any feelings.
Your totally right. I'm only human and I'm going to respond more dramatically to what I can relate to. I would definitely prefer to kill an ant or a snail than a cow. I can only base my interpretations off of what I can observe and the more sophisticated the animal the more pain I observe. It is definitely MORE wrong IMO to kill a cow than an ant for pleasure but I still see killing anything for pleasure as inherently wrong, some are just wrong-er to kill.
|
On June 04 2011 15:51 Impervious wrote:Ok. Dude. That is not going to end this thread. What you've done is a lot like showing up to a gunfight with a shiny desert eagle. Your argument looks badass. Unfortunately, the other side is sitting 1km away with an R700..... If you try this one, you're going to be left a bloody mess..... It's quite easy to see how, if morals do apply to the situation, the vegan view is "superior" to any non vegan view. Less animals suffer. If you're going to attack that point, you need to do it other ways. Either prove how useless morals are in realistic terms (I mentioned it near the top of the page, since there's only a few cases where a vegan and a carnivore will actually have a variation in their views of what animals are okay to kill, whereas they share similar views in the vast majority of cases), or you need to somehow show that morals are either subjective/objective and therefore cannot be compared properly, or you need to show that morals have no place in this argument (which I see you are going for, but it is not very convincing, even when I'm on your side of the fence). If you can think of another way of doing it, by all means, go for it. But know that you will never hold any moral high ground over vegans in any argument, without getting ripped to shreds. EDITed for clarity.
The analogies in this thread are terrible 
I'm not arguing for a moral high ground, I'm arguing for the fact that morals in question here are subjective, fluid and have an enormous range* and have no place in discussion or debate.
And since OP based ALL of his arguments on his own brand of morality, his arguments, and in extension, this thread is moot.
*There's no widely accepted, generalized view, there's a broad spectrum of beliefs.
|
On June 04 2011 15:56 tryummm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.
Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.
|
On June 04 2011 15:59 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:56 tryummm wrote:On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions. Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.
You're right, but quite a few proponents of veganism/vegetarianism in this thread have been quite condescending, smug and "persuasive". I'm guessing thats where he's coming from. Don't take it personally ;D
|
On June 04 2011 15:59 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:56 tryummm wrote:On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions. Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.
The issue isn't morality or your rationale, the issue is you using morality and your rationale alone as an argument when ecology and evolution are pretty much completely against you.
|
On June 04 2011 15:55 RoseTempest wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote:
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them. True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing. "It is my opinion.." "To me, it is...." See where I'm going at? The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals. I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.
I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates?
Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
|
Morality is a bad argument for any discussion whatsoever.
|
On June 04 2011 13:33 Lexpar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 13:24 BlackJack wrote:On June 04 2011 12:19 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
Vegetarians and vegans will kill millions of animals directly and indirectly during their lifetime. Each cow gives several hundred pounds of meet. If you have an occasional steak or burger you will only be responsible for the death of a few cows over the course of your lifetime. Do vegans really think it is so morally superior to be responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 animals instead of 1,000,001 animals? Vegetarians and vegans probably do contribute inadvertently to the death of animals. I don't think the ratio of animals that are inadvertently killed over a lifetime to animals killed for meat during a lifetime is 1,000,000 to 1. I know you were exaggerating, but still, animals killed for meat over a lifetime is definitely going to be higher than animals inadvertently killed, and to me, and probably the others on here, that is worth the sacrifice. You guys should also consider that, for me personally, I just feel bad or wrong emotionally when I am eating an animal, so the natural thing to do is just not eat them. If you don't know your killing an animal its much harder to feel bad about it. Yeah, I was exaggerating, but I was also talking about all animals, including insects. But yeah, even some non-insect animals die to produce vegetables. So the only thing you're saying is "You're not perfect!"? Very nice contribution to the thread.
Would you only hand farm without using chemicals or machines to reduce the deaths of snakes, birds, squirrels, field mice, wildlife, etc?
The point here is that to reduce animal suffering you would probably have to go to extreme measures that most people wouldn't do or care to do, even if they refrain from eating meat.
I don't find eating meat, building cities, cutting down forests, and using chemicals\machines among a million other things that improve human well being at the expense of other animals as necessarily bad. There would have to be a technical discussion about the impacts on other animals and alternatives. It isn't outright wrong (to live better at the loss of other species).
On June 04 2011 16:08 Laerties wrote:
Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
You didn't HAVE to cut down that forest to build a home that resulted in the local deer dying off; you could have lived in a cave. You killed them for pleasure.
|
On June 04 2011 15:55 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote:
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them. So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html
Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
|
On June 04 2011 16:04 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:55 RoseTempest wrote:On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote:
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them. True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing. "It is my opinion.." "To me, it is...." See where I'm going at? The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals. I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds. I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates? Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
But once again, we might disagree on what is and isn't moral, thus grinding the debate to a halt. My preferred course of action would be to look at ecological, nutritional, health and possibly environmental issues presented by both and look at which one makes more sense.
A few moral high grounds off the top of my head would be the 3rd world nation, lack of choice argument. A tribesman hunts to feed his family because that is all he can do in the arid country that he lives in. Is it morally wrong for him to feed his family?
|
On June 04 2011 16:03 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:59 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 15:56 tryummm wrote:On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions. Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z. The issue isn't morality or your rationale, the issue is you using morality and your rationale alone as an argument when ecology and evolution are pretty much completely against you.
None of the moral issues I have with eating meat were invalidated by any ecological or evolutionary information posted. If you really believe this, pls post the info or quote the previous post or w/e.
|
It's quite easy to see how, if morals do apply to the situation, the vegan view is "superior" to any non vegan view. Less animals suffer.
No, more animals suffer as a result of agriculture for food. And if we stopped eating meat we'd need to grow larger numbers of high-quality plant foods than we do now, which would require more fertilizer and water and pesticides which would cause even more animals to suffer.
|
On June 04 2011 16:08 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:55 Ig wrote:On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote:
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them. So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present: Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
I understand your argument perfectly, but as we've been saying, the whole rationale is only possible in the industrialized world, which has oh boy, moral issues with how it's supported by exploitation of the rest of the world. You also failed to mention how industrial agriculture is one of the things that enable you to have a diet to go along with this rationale, bringing in other issues of morality with small farmers being bought or squeezed out, subsidies to large agricultural corporations that have questionable ethics, and a whole slew of other things. Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions, but if you're saying I don't understand your argument, I'm going to say you don't even understand the whole picture behind your argument.
Greater land use efficiency can more or less translate to greater economic efficiency with best management practices. Pasture is also more or less free to use.
|
On June 04 2011 16:13 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 16:03 Ig wrote:On June 04 2011 15:59 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 15:56 tryummm wrote:On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions. Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z. The issue isn't morality or your rationale, the issue is you using morality and your rationale alone as an argument when ecology and evolution are pretty much completely against you. None of the moral issues I have with eating meat were invalidated by any ecological or evolutionary information posted. If you really believe this, pls post the info or quote the previous post or w/e.
Humans evolved bigger brains after eating meat, canine teeth, high fat diet, millions of years of omnivorous existence blah blah blah
It's been said before, not exactly relevant to the issue at hand, but I can see where he's coming from
|
On June 04 2011 16:04 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 15:55 RoseTempest wrote:On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote:
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them. True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing. "It is my opinion.." "To me, it is...." See where I'm going at? The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals. I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds. I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates? Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
Moral consistency - meateaters are willing to kill all animals equally to improve their situation whereas vegans are only willing to kill those they deem as pests (spiders, ants, the likes). Thus being a meateater is morally superior as it stays true to the demand of universalism which is the aim of morals.
|
Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions,
tbh I'm pretty sure the tens or hundreds of millions who didn't starve in India and Pakistan and China (once Deng finally beat the idiot Maoists) over the last forty years outweigh "questionable ethics" by Monsanto or whoever the corporate bogeyman of the industry may be.
The Green Revolution isn't connected to vegans, it's the best thing we've done for ourselves as a species since the original invention of farming probably.
Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
Easy, I'm keeping myself alive by eating meat in diet that through including meat is more balanced and healthy for myself. The only animal raised for food in an even possibly objectionable way is chickens, but then I think of all the poor voles and mice more or less vaporized by tractors and combines and all kinds of animals killed by pesticides and fertilizers directly or through runoff and I just don't care.
|
There are only two mainstream moral systems: Idealism and Utilitarianism. Well to be honest, those are the only two schools with a universalist approach that aren't hogwash. There are a few relativistic moral systems out there but you can simply justify anything with them, making them irrelevant as a guide. Why? Depending on what flavor you prefer, the act of raping a young girl is either immoral, moral or amoral, all with a justification of the same value.
Idealism being founded by Kant argues, among other things, that no rational being ought be used as a means to an end and that one should act in a way that the principle of ones acts may be natural law.
I don't think I have to define "rational being" here but it basically excludes non self-aware animals. The "acts can be natural law" principle or the categorical imperative means, that if I steal, I can want that everyone else also steals.
Applied to animals that would be "I treat animals poorly, therefore I can want that everyone treats animals poorly" or "I eat meat therefore I can want that everyone eats meat"
It's only in the second part where we run into a problem: If everyone ate meat, we would have too much methane produced. That can be rectified by saying "I eat only non-methane producing meat".
Second school: Utilitarianism.
Most vegans or vegetarians must follow this school. Utilitarianism searches to maximize "pleasure" and avoid "suffering" as Bentham and Mill put it. More recently Peter Singer argued for vegetarianism with preference utilitarianism. Meaning, we ought to maximize whatever is preferred. Animals simply prefer not to be killed.
For his argument Singer assumes one thing though: an "aware" animal can suffer. Aware here is basically just more interactive with the environment than a plant and less so than a self-aware being.
Question is, can you really suffer without being self-aware? Imagine yourself without an I. Can you suffer? What is pain if there is nobody to experience it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
