You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is Eating Meat Philosophically Consistent with Non-violence?
Ants don't have morality. I never even implied they did. No animals have morality.
I could eat people with brain damage because they have less neurons by your logic.
It's just a wired argument to make. To me anyway. It's ok to eat a dog, eat a child, eat a pig, eat an old person with dementia, they have less neurons...
You cant make a case, you haven't made one, your not making a moral argument. Do you even know what you're trying to say?
I've made my case - killing = bad. If you want to make a point please do.
And you're telling me we're not doing mathematics. Thank you for the clarification but at no point was I under the illusion we we're. None of you're points are connected.- "Do ants have morality?" what a deeply weird question.
You acknowledge a spectrum. It may be silly to you, to me it’s part of this philosophical discourse. To go further with it: are all zygotes equal? Does future potential for well-being and pain matter? Even further (and this is the controversial part), is all human life equally valuable without question in every circumstance, no matter what? This is where the trolly problem and philosophy comes in to play. I think it’s an over-simplification to ignore our biology as omnivores and our evolutionary history which got us here. Some animals (like cows) have been bred and genetically modified by us for generations as meat factories and farmers can sustainably grow them, care for them, and humanely (without pain) end their life cycle for the benefit of others. Those that are free range can live a “good” life in cow terms. Are you suggesting it would be better if those cows never exist? They have been so domesticated, they most likely could not survive in the wild. They now play a purpose in a resource cycle we created. I fully acknowledge it’s a tricky topic and maybe saying “death = violence” is clear cut to you, but I don’t consider stepping on an ant violent. I do have a speciesism bias towards humans because we seem to be capable of having these discussions about morality in the first place due to our higher neuron count and advanced brains. Pigs are also incredibly intelligent, from what I hear, and as I mentioned in my post, I hope we can someday grow our meat synthetically to avoid any form of violence. In that case, what would you suggest we do with the species we’ve bread for meat production (like pigs and cows)? Couldn’t they still play a roll in sustainable ecosystems and have their flesh used to benefit others?
"Are you suggesting it would be better if those cows never exist? " yes. non existence is neutral, being bred to be slaughtered is bad. How did you find non existence before you were born? it wasn't bad was it? That's what you'll be when you're dead. You can't be harmed.
"maybe saying “death = violence” is clear cut to you, but I don’t consider stepping on an ant violent. " - its not violent to step on an ant. I never said it was. Its an unhappy accident without intention. When you deliberately kill something, that's a very violent thing to do, obviously.
Also you've made a weird equation with death = violence - I never said that. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from. I said killing things is a violent thing to do. I don't think you've bothered reading what I've written (and frankly I don't blame you - my comments are too long).
"Couldn’t they still play a roll in sustainable ecosystems and have their flesh used to benefit others?" - maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and see how useful your flesh could be in a sustainable ecosystem. I'd argue - not very, and it would be a tragic waste of a life. Like any animal that's killed for its meat.
I've already said you can't make your argument ethical and you keep trying. My point is so simple and you keep deliberately misconstruing it.
Killing animals deliberately = morally bad. Its very simple and easy to understand.
You have to make a case why killing things to eat them is morally permissible and that's not possible.
In your opinion, is killing plants deliberately morally bad (especially given some studies I've seen which suggest they can respond to stimulus in a way that could be considered "pain")? Is there any room for utilitarian views on well-being or Nash equilibrium's or some rational measure of capacity for pain / pleasure? Would you say killing an ant is not in the same category as killing a dog as our laws suggest?
That's yet to be determined in my opinion just as we are part of a larger ecosystem, and a lion killing its prey is an amoral act. The thing that separates the lion from the human relates to our discussion and how we define morality. It sounds to me you've made up your mind before the conversation has started. I'm saying things are little more complicated than that.
If you want to talk Arthur Schopenhauer and antinatalism, we could do that too, but I prefer a moral landscape approach (Sam Harris) which sees peaks and valleys in morality and us working together to figure what we think about ethics in a changing landscape. If synthetic meat becomes readily available to meet omnivore needs, then I would more actively promote NOT raising animals for the sole purpose of killing them for food (even if they did live a wonderful life according to the capacity of their species to have enjoyment and fulfillment). Until then, I do see how they, as us and the plants and everything else, are part of a system which can be sustainable and ethical.
if you can't get that shooting a living creature in the head and slitting its throat is not a good thing and you think its complicated then fine. Just please make a point explaining why its not bad and the good derived from it!!! It benefits no one and really harms the animal, it really does.
" If synthetic meat becomes readily available to meet omnivore needs..." What needs??? You don't need to eat meat - its not like its oxygen. Its not very good for you anyway. I've gone for years without it and I'm fine, I feel ok. I'm not sick.
You can't have an ethical killing in the context were talking about - meat eating.
"blood can make a delicious and ethical pudding."..