/lit/ - Literature

i think it comes from religion such as budhism. do not kill living animal and such

>>12390235
>such as budhism
why do the chinks and japs eat meat then?

>>12390277
because buddhism is an import from the darkest depths of india, not native to east asia, so people don't follow it like it's law

for one, it's incredibly good for the environment to not eat meat

for two, i think a lot of it, from what i've seen, is about the factory farm production which is outstandingly terrible for animal wellbeing

>>12390193
4chan, or the mainstream internet, isn't the place to ask about this. the answer is that yes, obviously vegetarianism/veganism is more ethical a lifestyle than eating meat, but most people's egos are uncomfortable by the thought of this and throw out the edgiest of "counterarguments" against this fact

>>12390324
>obviously vegetarianism/veganism is more ethical a lifestyle than eating meat,
why?

>>12390324
Not even.

Most of the time I tell people I don’t eat meat and do not purchase any retail / cpg goods with animal products, they usually are 1) not interested in the whole retail thing, do not ask questions 2) reply to my dietary choice with “Ha well OH MY GOD I just COULDN’T IIIMMAAAAGINE NOT EATING MEEAATT ahahaha”

Most people don’t need counterarguments. Their ego’s are so huge and hedonism so advanced that it drowns any pang of conscience.

>>12390641
1) Factory farming is extremely environmentally destructive and contributes to global warming. Not eating meat is a fairly easy and significant choice that many people can make ( as opposed to not driving a car ). On a somewhat meta note, it acts not only as a means to slow the physical contribution of greenhouse gasses, but is also a more-or-less constant soft protest and daily reminder to those close around you who do eat meat.

2) As the most dominant species ( in terms of ability to survive, reproduce, conquer disease ) and most rational, we have a duty to steward the lesser-species, which involves not killing them for what is truly a very small, hedonistic gain of ours. This is especially true in the west.

also these are just my personal reasons and I understand that arguments via duty are sorta weak, plz no bully

>>12390235
>budhism
more like butthurtism

Had a dream a few days ago that I was forced to kill a pig and I started to cry, since then I've eaten meat and feel guilty as fuck over it

I love animals therefore I don't want to see them suffering. Purely Egotistical but that is the way it is.

>>12390995
Oh yeah one last thing

3) Animals fear death in the same sense we do. When we physically fear for our lives, an overwhelming majority of our brain activity occurs in the amygdala, nowhere else. This is a part of the brain that all earth life possess ( actually not sure about fish ). The experience of death is probably largely the same between species - the shear terror of the pain before hand, sight of your own blood, etc. Do not fool yourself thinking “But they do not experience fear and pain as we do”, it’s just not the case. Lust, fear of death, and hunger are more or less universal feelings amongst animals, and fear of death possibly the most.

>>12391037
why do you cast this as egotistical?

>>12391063
Because I am acting upon my own interests. All acts are egotistical whether you are aware of it or not.

>>12391077
have you read the bible?

>>12390193
Most philosophy regarding veganism stems in some way from utilitarian ideas. Peter Singer, a prominent vegetarian advocate/philosopher, likes to reference a quote from Jeremy Bentham (foundational utilitarian) that says, “the question is not ‘can they reason,’ nor ‘can they talk,’ but ‘can they suffer?’”

Edgelords might well counter with something to the tune of “suffering is not objectively bad” or “animal suffering is unimportant/less important than human taste,” but almost anyone who truly considers the miserable state of most farmed animals’ lives (and deaths) is liable to concede that something somewhere has gone wrong.

Most vegetarians/vegans that I have talked to/watched/read do not make the claim that eating meat is itself inherently bad. Rather, the problem is more so the inhumane way in which factory farmed animals are raised, kept, and killed. Beyond the ethical considerations, meat-advocates also have to attend to ecological qualms as well. Farm animals (particularly cows) contribute greatly to greenhouse gas emissions, and the amount of crops and arable land needed to feed the growing number of livestock often leads to deforestation and other environmental missteps.

>>12390193
Check out this WOKE ASS NIGGA who makes videos about raw veganism, fasting, Plato, Hegel, and sometimes Hitler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fsFecUplOQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIuVej9VZ9Y

>>12391477
>missteps

this downplays the apocalyptic desolation of the situation so much. like calling the holocaust a mistake or something

>>12390995
>we have a duty
We have no duty to anything.

>>12390193
Not all living creatures are equal

>>12390999

pain and pleasure are all life is, and i reduce the latter as much as i can

>>12390277
A lot of those people do (well, more Chinese than Japanese, since Japanese Buddhism was reformed by the government in the 1800s to allow for more loose ethical constraints.) Where I love a lot of the local vegetarian restaurants are run by Buddhist Taiwanese and Vietnamese, for instance.

>>12390324
non vegans know that they are fucking wrong but
>duh meat taste good
>duh animals are stupid
>duh id eat my dog
>duh my ancestors ate meat
people just need to get over themselves. the main problem is that it is engrained into their world view, so many people get triggered and scared that they are wrong.

Peter Singer (utilitarian) made the case for animal rights in Animal Liberation back in the seventies

You can check the first (and most important) chapter here
http://www.uvm.edu/rsenr/wfb175/singer.pdf

If I remember correctly, he uses the "overlap of species" argument, which states that there are no characteristics present in humans and missing in animals that wouldn't also justify mistreating humans that would miss that characteristic.

For example if you'd try to justify animal suffering by saying it's ok because animals aren't as intelligent as us, you'd have to concede saying that human suffering is acceptable as soon as the human in question is not intelligent enough (such as intellectually disabled humans, or infants).

For an explanation from the ground-up and not just as a logical following of the principles of equality between humans, check out his book Practical Ethics.

He also introduces the concepts of speciesism, which states that discriminating on the basis of the species of an individual is arbitrary, akin to racism or sexism.

I think Tom Regan made another case for animal rights from a Kantian pov, but I never looked into it so I might be mistaken.

>>12393119
What about abortion? How would a vegan reconcile human abortion with their beliefs re: animals? I know there's not really a vegan orthodoxy so I imagine exact beliefs differ from person to person.

But if killing and consuming animals for our own benefit constitutes a kind of barbarism, then surely killing our own young would too, no? Speciesism is less arbitrary than personhood.

>>12391477
Suffering is a human concept, an emotional state which can only be experienced by a sentient organism with a developed sense of Self. Animals can't suffer. Their bodies can surely experience pain, causing all sorts of twitchy bodily reactions, but it's not suffering. There's isn't a Self within an animal which may suffer. It's not hard hard to engineer a humaboid-looking robot and program it to exhibit twitchy reaction and produce scream-like noises upon being hit, would you also protect this automaton from what seems like pain? What if nobody told you that the robot is merely following the programming?

>>12391055

>Their ego’s are so huge and hedonism so advanced that it drowns any pang of conscience.

If the organism is an earthworm or feeder cricket, then its brain is whichever end of the organism happens to contain photoreceptors and a higher concentration of nerve stumps. If the organism is Frank Armstrong who lives down the block and who you were on the football team with, then his brain might even have comparable neural pathways for things like food, water, the government, and his mother.

One can stab almost any organism with a cold metal rod and append his own connotations to interpret the increase in neural activation that will follow. Anyway, I don't know where I was going with this, but sympathy (as opposed to empathy) is not very utilitarian, and I think it's a better argument not to kill something if the world is less bio-diverse as a result. If somebody grows a million pigs in a vat for the purpose of eating their flesh, then the vat is probably some kind of blight on the landscape anyway.

>Not eating meat is a fairly easy and significant choice that many people can make ( as opposed to not driving a car ).

Isn't that an analogy? Oh my god, I couldn't imagine living somewhere where I didn't get to occupy a giant polymer shell and perform mundane tasks for two hours of my daily routine.

>>12393146
>What about abortion? How would a vegan reconcile human abortion with their beliefs re: animals?

It's an extension of its mother until it's old enough to drive a tractor. When we dissected pigs a lot of them were pregnant. Actually, we dissected the fetuses.

>>12391477
>Most philosophy regarding veganism stems in some way from utilitarian ideas

this is simply untrue. peter singer is the most prominent utilitarian thinker of animal rights, but characterizing this as 'most' philosophy is untrue. fwiw, most of the animal rights philosophers i see are deontologists. bentham quote aside, the concept of duty has much more philosophical cash value for veganism/animal rights than utility does. don't confuse utilitarianism for a question of what would be empirically better to do.

>>12393161

ah yes the old automaton canard. not even descartes was able to bring himself to say that animals don't suffer, because this is the retreat of a psychopath. derrida says it better than i can.

"But for the moment let us note the following: the response to the question "can they suffer?" leaves
no doubt. In fact it has never left any room for doubt; that is why the experience that we have of it is not even indubitable; it precedes the indubitable, it is older than it. No doubt either, then, for the possibility of our giving vent to a surge of compassion, even if it is then misunderstood, repressed, or denied, held in respect."

>>12393247
>the response to the question "can they suffer?" leaves no doubt.
Whoa some 10/10 philosophy right there. Guess I'm a fucking vegan now.

>>12393257

do you really need argumentation to see with your own eyes that animals suffer greatly when inflicted with the worse-than-nightmarish pain we have doled out to them? the fear in an animal's eye heading out to slaughter? it is decidedly *not* philosophical to deny this brute fact of existence. like i said, not even descartes himself, automaton king, could bring himself to say something as stupid and asymmetrical with lived experience as that animals don't suffer.

>>12393161

>It's not hard hard to engineer a humanoid-looking robot [that has a hundred thousand servo-motors and a gigabit processor and looks perfectly human].

I will accept that he has a soul as soon as you go and engineer him. (That chick in the lung machine, on the other hand...)

>>12393267

>the worse-than-nightmarish pain we have doled out to them? the fear in an animal's eye heading out to slaughter?

This is literary sensationalism. You can easily conceal the animal's fate from it until the final moment, in fact it is a requirement for kosher and halal meat. The suffering it experiences "as it is heading out to slaughter" is just the unfulfilling daily routine, which many humans experience every day.

>>12393267
Yes, I do need arguments, and no, I don't need to see shit my eyes when I reason about things, something dumb fucking animals can't.
>the fear in an animal's eye heading out to slaughter
Oh fuck off, this is your, human projection of the human idea of fear, projected on a stupid animal. This cannot be denied. Veganism is just a silly, idiotic stance on life which contradicts itself every step of the way. If suffering is the only affirmation of life's value, why shouldn't we kill people? Guns are pretty humane actually, headshot will kill you before you can even comprehend your demise. If it's not suffering, but sanctity of life in general, why only hold animals sacred, what about plants? Plants are living, they are helpless, beautiful things that never hurt anyone, they oxygenate the planet and in that way keep you alive, yet vegans hold no reservations on the amount of kale they chop into pieces. What about cancer cells? Pure little buddies just want to survive and multiply, it's not their fault that it entails killing the host.

>>12393284

>This is literary sensationalism

Quite the opposite. It is actually quite easy to argue and successfully demonstrate that animals have been subjected wholesale to a fate much worse than any holocaust victim was ever exposed to. The sheer amount of biological experimentation alone performed animals outweighs the most horrific human examples by significant margins. Of course, this is only one dimension, and yet they *all* exceed the human experience analogs.

>>12393267
>do you really need argumentation to see with your own eyes that animals suffer greatly

Your definition of suffering is an under-defined term. When Descartes defined suffering, it was correctly-defined because their eyes were the best tools they had. To correctly-define the term today, you would need to base the definition on real-time MRI or contrast-enhanced tomography, not what you can see with your eyes, because that's mere sensationalism.

>>12393304
Do you have some device that measures and aggregates suffering across beings? What's your unit of measure?

>>12393304

>It is actually quite easy to argue
>and successfully demonstrate
>biological experimentation
>outweighs
>holocaust victim
>by significant margins

Pound of flesh, pound of flesh!

>>12393325

>Do you have some device that measures and aggregates suffering across beings?

Yeah. The healthcare industry.

>What's your unit of measure?

The U.S. dollar.

>>12393297

> Veganism is just a silly, idiotic stance on life which contradicts itself every step of the way.

I love this gambit because it comes up every time. I get that you want to go for some larger metaphysical argument below, but the cornerstone of this argument--every single time--is that eating meat is the demonstration of some kind of dominance that got us here in the first place. Despite the fact that this being demonstrably and empirically untrue, it is also ecologically untrue, and yet it is a very nice, packaged up fable that people tell themselves.

>If suffering is the only affirmation of life's value, why shouldn't we kill people

Need I remind you that Nietzsche's last act as a sane man was to wrap his arms around a horse being whipped. This whole suffering-as-live-value thing is beyond warped and completely bastardized in people like you. Remember what Zarathustra's commandment? "Listen to the earth"? I refuse to let Nietzsche be maligned in this way.

>plants suffering blah blah

I don't eat animals because my gustatory pleasure causes them a great deal of suffering. So far as I know, plants don't suffer when eaten. (Some plants, of course, even compete to be the most eaten.) If new information becomes available that indicates an incredible amount of suffering due to my gustatory pleasure, I'll have to reconsider.

>>12393312

the fact that we need to resort to usage of MRIs to display suffering is only indicative of how unbelievably poor our powers of observation have become; why do we need to empirically verify neurological activity when the suffering of animals is observationally undeniable? this response is absolutely chilling to me.

The vegan struggle in this day and age is really just human ease vs animal life as far as I can see.
I choose human ease.

>>12393375
>this response is absolutely chilling to me.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. If I was trying to method act you reading my post, what kind of cue would I have to use -- should my face get pale? Should I break out into a cold sweat, even?

>>12393325

I'm not talking about suffering quantifiables. The breadth and severity of harmful biological experiments being done on animals is certainly, without a doubt, greater than what humans have inflicted on other humans.

>>12393304
>holocaust is nothing compared to being a cow
Please just stop being ingenuine. Vegan "beliefs" are screaming at normal people how much animal lives matter while whispering how little human lives don't, and this aged argument is proof. I can't even tell anyone I'm vegetarian when they ask because faggots like you ruin the concept of "I don't eat meat".

>>12393365
>is that eating meat is the demonstration of some kind of dominance that got us here in the first place.
Stop assigning your own insecure interpretations to my reasoning, faggot. this isn't what I was saying at all. People aren't simply dominant to animals, we're the only animals that matter, period. Ascribing any moral quality to the animals is a pointless act because animals aren't moral, they don't understand morals, they aren't capable of morals, they lives and deaths lack any moral value, subjective OR objective.

>>12393394

>not talking about (...) quantifiables

>The breadth (...) of harmful biological experiments

How are these experiments harmful? My grandpa would've died of AIDS if they hadn't tested VX-99 on rats and rhesus monkeys. I'm so much happier every day when I go fishing with my gramps. I don't need no fancy spreadsheets to tell me that biological experimentation is a good thing.

>>12393396
The question isn't one of morality but of animal suffering. Animal suffering is very real, and we have the capacity to end it by abstaining from eating meat. Literally anything else is just a post-hoc rationalisation for something we intrinsically realise to be harmful.

>>12393392
>I'm not sure I understand you correctly. If I was trying to method act you reading my post, what kind of cue would I have to use -- should my face get pale? Should I break out into a cold sweat, even?

now we're talking past each other. the point that i am making is that there is a concatenation of points about animal suffering (that they have no selves, they aren't rational, they 'don't suffer' per se) that have historically served to deny the undeniable. (that is the heart of bentham's question.) recourse to MRI's is a further retreat. what you see as innocent 3rd party verification, i see as a completely and utterly needless digression. i do not agree that what is needed is to 'clarify' the meaning of suffering by pointing to which neurological signposts light up.

>>12393395

>Please just stop being ingenuine. Vegan "beliefs" are screaming at normal people how much animal lives matter while whispering how little human lives don't

I have never once said this.


>>12393396
>Ascribing any moral quality to the animals is a pointless act because animals aren't moral, they don't understand morals, they aren't capable of morals, they lives and deaths lack any moral value, subjective OR objective

Just because an animal cannot be a moral agent does not mean that an animal cannot be a moral patient.

>>12393406
We literally make the tits on chickens bigger to have better tasting meat. You don't see how that would be needlessly harmful?

>>12393429

We're making the tits on everything bigger. That's evolution, baby.

>>12393394
This is nothing more than moral feeling. Veganism is not scientific in the slightest. You're claiming that animal suffering far outweighs human suffering, i.e., the totality of animal suffering is greater than the totality of human suffering. That's a mathematical (quantifiable) statement.

I'm not even against veganism... but come on. You're pretending your position is scientific and empirical while simultaneously refusing to provide scientific/empirical evidence. It's based on moral feeling, nothing more.

>>12393417
And I already explained to your dumb face that suffering of animals is an oxymoron. Only humans can suffer, because only humans retain a sense of Self.

>>12393436

lol'd

>>12393441
>because only humans retain a sense of Self.
There is vast dearths of scientific evidence to suggest that dogs, pigs, dolphins, chimps, elephants, etc. all have the mental and emotional functions of very young humans (between the ages of about 2 and 8.) If you're suggesting that these animals lack a sense of self, then I guess by your logic it'd be OK to kill and eat babies, since they have the same mental / emotional abilities of cows and pigs.

>>12393429
How are animals moral patients, what's your evidence for this claim?

Vegans are last decade's atheist. The same group who was into the atheist crowd attached themselves to Veganism.

>>12393429
>I never once said this
You can't even deny or refute my statement because it is truth. Surely you can't speak it because it doesn't help your legitimacy, but you believe it.

>>12393449
Care to actually post any of this evidence or should we take your word for it?

the idea that meat consumption is purely egotistic and, further than that, purely hedonistic is pretty retarded.

>>12393438

>This is nothing more than moral feeling.

Moral feelings have no place in moral reasoning? Am I arguing with fucking Hobbes right now or something?

>Veganism is not scientific in the slightest.

wtf lol, claiming the word 'scientific' does not automatically put you at a higher caliber. lol.

>You're claiming that animal suffering far outweighs human suffering, i.e., the totality of animal suffering is greater than the totality of human suffering. That's a mathematical (quantifiable) statement.

No, I'm not, and no, it's not. My point hitherto has simply been that the suffering of animals is undeniable. I also think that we have subjected animals to unthinkably cruel punishments for the purposes of factory farming. My actual belief is that, if you buy your meat from a grocery store, eating meat is by and large an ethically indefensible act.


>>12393441
> Only humans can suffer, because only humans retain a sense of Self

Okay. So, this is patently false observationally, but, in this case, highly dogmatic. Why do you deny animals subjectivity? What faculty is present in humans that enables their suffering that conversely is absent in animals? You cannot just wave a magic wand called 'sense of self' because this is the fucking same old goddamn card that has been erroneously played by all of the major thinkers for centuries. this is the repetition of a dogmatic and uselessly stupid claim made countless times throughout the ages.

>>12393449
I'm sure I'm replying to a bait at this point but no, we don't kill babies because they are the recipients and future moral actors. And we don't ascribe any moral values to the actions of small children either. For example, if a child grabs a fork and stabs another child, we don't think of it as an immoral act, merely as a very unfortunate one. I also don't appreciate how you switched your entire argument from suffering to cerebral functions to slip in the last word, just to be petty about it. Cause you know, I don't see you including cows and chicken, the main exports of meat industry, into your list of
>dogs, pigs, dolphins, chimps, elephants

>>12393453

why would the lack of moral agenthood in animals diminish their ability to be moral patients?

>>12393458
this is weird projection. you should call your mom.

I eat meat because it tastes good. I don't give a fuck about what they do to the cows as long as the meat tastes good. They can even torture them if that makes the beef tender.

>>12393462
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/elephants-intelligence-test-pass-profound-implications-understanding-species-dolphins-great-apes-a7680566.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-stsr-dogs-self-awareness.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dolphin-self-recognition/

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html

This, of course, is ignoring the intuitive realisation of self-awareness one gets from interacting with the awesome animals of pigs, dogs, elephants, and so on, which I can imagine only a particularly cold-blooded and heartless person would be able to ignore.

>>12393488
Do you eat pork, bacon or ham?

>>12393500

i think this basically summarizes the entire position of unreflective meat eaters and i thank you for actually posting it

>>12393488
>we don't kill babies because they are the recipients and future moral actors

animals aren't the recipients of moral actions?

>>12393479
There's nothing wrong with moral feeling. What you (and other vegans I've encountered) are trying to do is disguise your moral feeling as some sort of scientific position.

If you want to make this mathematical, then what if one animal's suffering alleviates the suffering of a human family of four? The end result is a reduction of net suffering in the world. How do I know that? I fucking don't. It should be clear to you now how utterly absurd any attempt at the quantification of suffering is. It's impossible, you dunce. It is a ridiculous angle for you to take. Stick to the pure moral feeling and maybe you'll win more adherents.

>>12393479
Just because its recycled rhetoric, doesn't necessarily make it wrong. If we consider that all beings observe the world through a social lens (and most due, to different degrees) then the primary difference of the human and animal variety is that humans understand the world through a social lens and animals simple exist in a social manner, which is a decidedly different point of view. Its like, you say that cows have the same brain function as retarded adults or young children, and maybe thats true, but doesn't cut into the underlying primordial consciousness, and therefore isn't fully honest. You could argue from an evolutionary perspective that all animals share common functions and therefore all animals partake in an act of moral cannibalism by consuming each other, but that would be pretty unreasonable.
I mean, look, at a basic level eating animals is wrong, and thats why people get upset when you accuse them of being immoral, but it isn't that simple, and it doesn't consider all of the factors. Meat tasting good is not a negligible reason for why somebody eats meat, as well as the evolutionary facilities that necessitate meat consumption, the availability of vitamin supplements and meat alternatives on such a wide scale is pretty recent, and to expect a mass of people who have been living a certain way for basically their entire evolutionary history, with principles that are rooted even deeper than instinct, to suddenly shift their pallete is unreasonable. And the appeal to moral upstanding and "righteousness" is uncalled for, and unearned.
I'm a vegan btw, I don't eat meat because I don't like the way it tastes. More of a fruit and vegetable kind of guy, but I dont fault another person for eating it

>>12393502
Nice google no jutsu, the second link I clicked sounds like a joke I'd write to troll /sci/
>A new study carried out by the Department of Psychology at Barnard College in the U.S. used a sniff test to evaluate the ability of dogs to recognize themselves. The results have been published in the journal Behavioural Processes.
Hilarious.
Not sure what you tried to prove though, nobody ever denied that animals have brains that work. The issue is complexity. Self emerges as a faculty of a highly developed intellect, and sorry, but some doge sniffing itself and waggling a tail in response doesn't cut it. As far as I'm concerned, dogs are about as self-aware as roomba cleaners.

>>12393535

>There's nothing wrong with moral feeling. What you (and other vegans I've encountered) are trying to do is disguise your moral feeling as some sort of scientific position.

What? I am making a philosophical argument.

>If you want to make this mathematical

What?

>then what if one animal's suffering alleviates the suffering of a human family of four?

The suffering inflicted on an animal so a family of four gets to eat hamburgers? Come on.


>It's impossible, you dunce. It is a ridiculous angle for you to take. Stick to the pure moral feeling and maybe you'll win more adherents.

I'm not making that argument. You are. And it's absolutely not impossible to argue that: since most meat eating boils down to gustatory pleasure, the horrible treatment of animals in factory farms is far much worse than the completely unnecessary pleasure gained from eating them.

> My actual belief is that, if you buy your meat from a grocery store, eating meat is by and large an ethically indefensible act.

This is what I actually articulated. Eating meat is completely elective, and the result of that choice boils down to getting tasty food and almost nothing else (in the vast majority of cases). There is almost always another option that does not necessitate the needless death of animals.

>>12393565
there is much more underneath the consumption of meat than pure gustatory pleasure, and you are willfully ignoring it for the sake of convenience

>>12390995
>Factory farming is extremely environmentally destructive and contributes to global warming.
this isn't an argument for veganism, it's an argument for agricultural reform.
>As the most dominant species ( in terms of ability to survive, reproduce, conquer disease ) and most rational, we have a duty to steward the lesser-species, which involves not killing them for what is truly a very small, hedonistic gain of ours.
why does your compassion only extend to your fellow animals? i've never understood how a vegan can on one hand argue that it is morally inconsistent to eat animals whilst sanctifying humans whilst simultaneously holding a similar double standard for plants. if the argument is based upon the difference in sentience between plants and animals, i don't see why an omnivore might not appeal to the same concept when arguing for meat consumption.

>Factory farming is extremely environmentally destructive and contributes to global warming.
this isn't an argument for veganism, it's an argument for agricultural reform.
>As the most dominant species ( in terms of ability to survive, reproduce, conquer disease ) and most rational, we have a duty to steward the lesser-species, which involves not killing them for what is truly a very small, hedonistic gain of ours.
why does your compassion only extend to your fellow animals? i've never understood how a vegan can on one hand argue that it is morally inconsistent to eat animals, but sanctify humans whilst simultaneously holding a similar double standard for plants. if the argument is based upon the difference in sentience between plants and animals, i don't see why an omnivore might not appeal to the same concept when arguing for meat consumption.

>>12393539
>>12393539
Just because the dietary transition from meat-based to plant-based would have to be a slow one, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t advocate for it. As you point out, multivitamins and plant-based alternatives are available now, so why shouldn’t we push for transitioning away from meat? Also, I would argue that meat tasting good IS a negligible reason for eating it. There are plenty of things that might feel or taste good but that are morally wrong, and the pleasure derived from them doesn’t negate their immorality.

Moreover, when you consider the urgency of reversing ecological damage before it’s too late, we likely don’t have the time to wait for the human race to leave meat naturally.

As much as I hate making analogies: would slavery in the American South have ended when it did if no one made moral arguments against it? If abolitionists had said, “the economy and way of life has been dependent on slavery for over a hundred years; we can’t expect people to just stop using slaves all of a sudden”?

>>12393564

>The issue is complexity. Self emerges as a faculty of a highly developed intellect

the onus is *on you* to demonstrate what that actually looks like *and* to demonstrate why that 'highly developed intellect' is a necessary condition to experience suffering. you and the other guy keep repeating the same shit completely dogmatically without actually giving arguments for your belief. that's great that you repeat the same thing, but it's an evasion.

>>12393594
meant for
>>12390995

>>12393575

yes, there are cultural and inertial factors as well. i get that. but while i recognize those factors as being psychologically important, i don't recognize them as being philosophically significant.

>>12393600
this same exact argument can be made for plants as opposed to animals. there is no morally self-consistent way to be a biological organism that does not allow for causing suffering in some manner, other than starving yourself to death.

>>12393594
>it is an argument for agricultural reform
Yeah, but not everyone has influence in the agriculture industry. Unless you’re the owner of a factory farm, abstaining from eating meat (or at the very least buying ethical meat) is the only real action you can take.

As to your second point, we have to again appeal to the criterion of ability to suffer. Plants do not have neurons, nociceptors, or any of the biological hardware we know is responsible for feelings of pain, so there is no reason to think that plants can suffer. Animals, on the other hand, DO have these characteristics, and on top of that, we can directly observe animal behavior that ostensibly indicates feelings of fear, anguish, and pain.

Vegans always look unhealthy as hell.

While their argument about the industrial scale slaughter of animals is true, I'm not so convinced that actually being a vegan is healthy even though there are constant claims that it is.

Take a look at this video for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFnkWjmvMOA&

I mean, very few cultures on the planet have been strictly vegetarian, whereas there are several cultures that have been strictly carnivorous. There's has to be a reason for this, and I think it has something to do with the nutrient content of meat relative to the amount.

>>12393600
The burden of proofs falls to those who wish to change the status quo and take away my delicious steaks. Actually, it falls to animals too. The moment I witness a procession of chicken holding the "PLEASE DONT EAT US" signs, I shall repent and become a hard vegan. Until then, it's tendies day every day.

>>12393615
>this same exact argument can be made for plants as opposed to animals. there is no morally self-consistent way to be a biological organism that does not allow for causing suffering in some manner, other than starving yourself to death.

i disagree. as far as i know, plants don't suffer--at the very least suffer to the immense degree that animals do--when they are eaten. i also take it as significant that many plants do everything they can to be eaten by other animals. but i already said that if new information came to light that suggested that plant suffering was on par with animal suffering, i'd probably have to rethink.

it's worth noting that this is a classic straw man case. i never made the argument that eating must stop if something suffers; you perverted my argument in order to try and destroy it. in fact, i think that there are morally permissible situations in which to eat meat. i also believe in doing *the best that i can do morally* which means trying to avoid unnecessary suffering as much as possible. i never argued for moral sainthood nor for the premise that you are committing me to.

>>12393635

i mean, you understand how stupid of a defense this is. i'll just take this as the last gambit of someone who's failed to offer an explication of their own position.

>>12393596
I wasnt necessarily making an argument against the advocation for it, but moreso arguing the unreason-ability of it. There are a lot more layers to this than just "animals feel pain, and therefore killing them for meat is wrong" thats an interactionist view that only looks at the parts of the whole and uses that to construct a different whole. Don't think that an animal wouldnt rip you to shreds and eat your body if given the chance, and the only way you can rectify that argument is by appealing the idea that humans are moral creatures and animals arent which deconstructs the entire argument that animals are moral actors the same way that humans are. Furthermore, we have to look at the underlying religious presuppositions that go into veganism, and its primarily eastern roots. Thats not something very insignificant and just because we can recognize it doesnt mean we necessarily hold the key to change it.

>>12393654
>the only way you can rectify that argument is by appealing the idea that humans are moral creatures and animals arent which deconstructs the entire argument that animals are moral actors the same way that humans are
I definitely will concede that animals are not moral actors. I don't think it is "wrong" morally when a lion kills a gazelle or even a human. However, as someone mentioned earlier, something doesn't have to be a more agent to be a moral patient. I.e., just because an animal's actions are not moral, that doesn't mean actions towards animals are not moral. If we accept that animals are capable of suffering, I think we should do what we can to minimize that suffering, whether that entails abstaining from eating more or simply keeping and killing them in humane ways.

I don't see the relevance of the religious roots of veganism. Would you care to elaborate on what you're getting at?

>>12393146
>what about abortion
Bless your heart anon. Veganism is strictly about signalling your moral/intellectual superiority to the common rube, and taking as prole a stance as pro-life would obviously be very counterproductive.

>>12393654
>. Don't think that an animal wouldnt rip you to shreds and eat your body if given the chance, and the only way you can rectify that argument is by appealing the idea that humans are moral creatures and animals arent which deconstructs the entire argument that animals are moral actors the same way that humans are.

this appeals only to self-interest, not morality. you need to stop confusing moral agenthood and moral patienthood.

saying 'there are many parts to the issue' is not a legitimate defense. there ARE many parts, and all of those parts have been put under stringent philosophical argumentation.

Veganism is, unironically, just upper class chauvinism.

It's always metropolitan bourgeois hippies in the West who are vegans, the same people who also have most of the money in the world. Pure coincidence.

>>12393488
Riddle me this, vegans:
If animals can self-reflect, an understand suffering, why is it never reflected in their behavior? A dog would happily maul a child to death if disturbed during eating, pigs would gladly eat human remains, chimps have no problem tearing off your face if intruded upon, elephants won't become depressed and suicidal after stomping you to death by accident. Not only animals seem ready and willing to cause suffering, they also don't seem to understand the consequences of their actions, never repent or make amends. Do you think pitbulls ever get sad about the children they recently mauled? Is there a study on it?
So, animals demonstrably have about as much empathy in them as the coldest human psychopaths, the ones we either execute or imprison forever because we find them abominable and inhuman. Why should animals be treated differently?

>>12393695
was meant for
>>12393449

>>12393694

>It's always metropolitan bourgeois hippies in the West who are vegans, the same people who also have most of the money in the world. Pure coincidence.

veganism and vegetarianism is a worldwide historical phenomenon that has instantiations in almost every religious group and amongst every socioeconomic stratum

> Why should animals be treated differently?

because animals are moral patients, even though they are not moral actors. fucking frogposter.

>>12393695
See the above explanations of moral agenthood vs. patienthood. Also, a lot of people in the developed world are against capital punishment, even for the most "abominable" humans, and I would argue that prison confinement is not so much about the prisoner being abominable and inhuman as it is about them being a danger to the rest of society. When these points are considered, the double standard implied by your post ceases to be so.

>>12393682
>I don't see the relevance of the religious roots of veganism
My bad. I'll try to explain the best I can.
There's this assumption, primarily in the modern west, where the post-modern revolution has really taken form over the last hundreds of years, that people are somehow individually liberated from their religious roots, many of which could be considered evolutionary, or at the very least, linked with evolutionary principle. The religious artifacts of a lot of things are still resonant within most people, and I don't think you can divorce the two. Here's an example: people say "i'm not religious" but then they won't steal, and its not apparent from a purely scientific perspective why that is, and the answer is most likely because of a philosophical quandary about the nature of "bad behavior" which sits ontop of an underlying religious idea about the nature of sin, which probably sits ontop of a 3rd unidentifiable factor relating to the social nature of the development of humans.
Ok, so what does all this mean? It means you cant necessarily seperate the modern west from its judeo-christian history, and that the principles of meat consumption possibly run a lot deeper than any sort of hedonism, the same way you wouldn't divorce the eastern cultures from their roots in religious veganism.

As for this argument about the moral patienthood of animals, and to also argue against >>12393691, I think saying that the issue is complicated is perfectly reasonable and cuts to the main point a lot better than most arguments can. Its like, I'm vegan, but I can't fully articulate why it is morally better to be vegan, philosophically or realistically because there are a lot of different worldviews that conflict with each other, and there's no way of telling which one is right, other than that I simply agree with one more than the other. A meat eater would probably say the same thing, and they'd be right in their own way.

>>12393719
>See the above explanations of moral agenthood vs. patienthood.
You can be one and not the other, dingus. I'm not treating my car with respect, nor do I thank my computer for working well. Animals are, in fact, far less complex than computers.
>Also, a lot of people in the developed world are against capital punishment, even for the most "abominable" humans, and I would argue that prison confinement is not so much about the prisoner being abominable and inhuman as it is about them being a danger to the rest of society.
That's such a stupid thing to say that it kinda made me sad t b h. That's not how justice system works, we call it PUNISHMENT because it PUNISHES people for their deeds, not to keep them out. In your idiotic worldview, a lot of murderers would walk free because they could be proven to present no danger to society. For example, accidental/unintentional murders, or murders out of necessity/self-defense.
>When these points are considered, the double standard implied by your post ceases to be so.
There is no double standard. There's no evidence that animals suffer because they're no evidence of them understanding the concept of suffering as a terrible thing. Same as with psychopaths.

>>12390995
>we have a duty to steward the lesser-species
Go fuck yourself, american pig. What, you think you float above the rest of the planet, you self-righteous cocksucker? You have a DUTY to save the "lesser-species"? Yeah, because you're so great and pure, aren'tcha? Who put YOU in charge, you little cunt?

Hope you get raped and split in half by a horse.

>>12393764

brah the existence of different viewpoints does not speak to the quality of certain arguments. "there is no way of telling which one is right," is not what i'm after. i'm after rigorous, philosophical belief which is not whimsical or an expression of a psychological belief. that is what you are expressing. you don't have to be such a pussy about the matter. it is perfectly reasonable to say that certain arguments are indefensible, weak, or strong.

>>12393718
>veganism and vegetarianism is a worldwide historical phenomenon that has instantiations in almost every religious group and amongst every socioeconomic stratum

Yeah "instantiations" is the correct word indeed, because it has never been the norm anywhere.

>>12393792

not that guy, but i believe that my powers of moral deliberation make me necessarily responsible to protect other moral patients. what is wrong about that?

>>12391781
if society was full up with people like yourself we’d still be rubbing sticks to a flame

>>12393625
As the guy who posted the original 1), 2), 3) bit I fully endorse this argument.

>>12393695
What brainlet structures an argument for veganism around reflective capacity of animals? You’re attacking a premise which nobody endorses.

Also, to run a blocks-length with this standard of yours, I suppose we should also live in shit and communicate by grunts as well. Yeah, that’s right - if animals don’t have the capacity for it ( like self-reflection and morality ) neither should we!

Comparative ethics is always a shitter. You never do as other people do to you or have done to everyone, but how you want to be treated and what you intuitively know would make a better world.

>>12393794
Well, I think mostly in psychological terms and mostly have researched and considered the psychological (and somewhat theological) aspects of the issue, and therefore my argument leans more in that direction. To expect a rigorous philosophical argument against veganism is dishonest, because you know that there really isnt one, or at the very least that you have the necessary toolkit to dismantle or deflect any argument made. In the same way, a person could ask for purely scientific or health based reasons for veganism and then dismantle and deflect it in the same way, if they had the necessary tools to do so.

>>12393803
>Yeah "instantiations" is the correct word indeed, because it has never been the norm anywhere.

india and huge swaths of south east asia. i don't give a fuck that it's been a marginalized position. you are also incorrect in saying that it was only upper-class chauvinism.

>>12393783
>you can be one and not the other
That's exactly my point.

>Animals are, in fact, far less complex than computers.
Is this bait? Since when is does complexity determine something worth as an entity? Cars and computers are not living things and have no consciousness, so of course you don't thank them.

>accidental/unintentional murders, self-defense
How many accidental murders or self-defense murders get prison time? Not many, especially in the case of self-defense. If the accidental murder is something like drunk driving, that person DOES pose a risk to society, so the point stands.

>animals can't suffer because they don't understand the concept of suffering
How are these two related? First of all, what is your basis for claiming that animals don't view suffering as something to be avoided? Haven't you ever seen an abused animal that runs from humans? Seems like they are trying to avoid suffering. Also, a baby doesn't truly understand the concept of suffering, do they? What is the difference?

>>12393807
Because you're a self-righteous little pussy who doesn't give 2 shits "du anemalz :'((((", you just wanna stroke your fragile little ego to feel better about yourself, superior to the other people AND animals you share this mudball with.

No one put in your charge. No, you don't float above anything. You don't wanna eat meat? Fine, go ahead, but don't go around shitting out of your mouth-anus with gibberish "i hab dootii to brotekt anemal :'("

I spit on you and the entire lineage that you lead to your birth, you fucking american worm.

>>12393822
It is an upper class phenomenon in the West and part of the reason for that is because the upper class is full of extreme commodity fetishists and virtue signalers.

you know, you arent that morally virtuous for recognizing that animals suffer

>>12393839
So what?

>>12393849
So get off your high horse

Most Vegans I know only do it for egotistical reasons because they like to feel morally superior to others. Assuming there is objective morality and that it is like a hidden mathematical equation, veganism isn’t uniformally more moral than meat eating.

You can be an omnivore and selectively buy from local free range farms that look after their animals. You can also be a vegan who purchases fashional items (like avocados and cashews) that have an environment and human impact. One could also act so morality/immortality outside of their eating habits to make the decision redudant.

I don’t agree with the idea that all meat production is immortal because it causes suffering as that would mean the animals would not get to experience life. Anyone who contests this must agree with antinatalism (humans have potential to experience much greater suffering than an animal).

Finally, veganism is not healthier (I’ve yet to see a study to compare it to a balanced diet) and can be more expensive.

>>12393852
>you abolitionists aren't that morally virtuous for recognizing that blacks are worthy of personhood, so get off your high horse

>>12393833
>>12393828

why is it always people like this who come into threads only to discharge their weird insecurities and programmes

>>12393839
yeah, i believe that it is a fundamentally uncontroversial position.

>>12393858
false equivalence

>>12393863
My point is that advocating for change is not necessarily putting yourself on a high horse. What is the appropriate way to speak out against perceived injustice without putting oneself on a pedestal?

>>12393858
straw-manning much, pea-brain?

>>12391055
In what way do animals fear death like humans? They can’t comprehend what life is after death, they can’t know what actions may cause it. Animals are like children, they are hardwired to understand that things that lead to death are bad but they have no concept of it.

>>12393860
>why is it always people like this who come into threads only to discharge their weird insecurities and programmes

Same could be said of vegetarians and vegans.

Why is it that vegans and vegetarians say that they love animals but are also at the same time the people who hate humanity the most in my social circle and can't stop talking about overpopulation and how we should cull the herd by 90&?

They also seem the least likely to have children themselves.

It's almost as if veganism is a symptom of mental illness.

>>12393877
It's probably because the people who are vegans tend to be more ecologically minded, so they are more concerned about topics like overpopulation and its impact on the environment. That said, I have never seen any vegan advocating for "culling the herd."

>>12393877
This has been my experience as well. The militant veganism is a redirection of their deep-seated self-loathing. They're almost always misanthropes.

>>12393877
>It's almost as if veganism is a symptom of mental illness.
It's a symptom of hypnosis induced by years of virtue-signalling.
Eating meat and consuming animal-derived products is 100% ethical. Animals eat other animals in nature. There are carnivores, omnivores, etc. We are also animals. It's completely natural for us to eat meat.

What is truly controversial, however (ethics-wise), is how you treat the animals-to-be-slaughtered. And that's why we have ethical treatment laws for cattle and whatnot.

>>12393877

i don't care about what your 'friends' have to say.

>>12393858
wtf I hate veganism now

>>12393886
>It's probably because the people who are vegans tend to be more ecologically minded, so they are more concerned about topics like overpopulation and its impact on the environment.

Or they secretly hate humanity and want it destroyed.

Hitler was also a vegetarian you know, and while it would be ridiculous to say that is an argument against vegetarianism, I still find it peculiar that one of the most destructive individuals who has ever lived shares the same opinion on animal life as Peter Singer.

>>12393901
I think a lot of vegans would agree with your stance. Factory farming is the principal talking point of vegan activists and media. The husbandry laws that are currently in place tend to be vague and loophole ridden, and the lives of livestock are still largely nightmarish. For example, for chicken producers to get the designation of "free range," the chickens just have to have access to the outside, even if this just means a window in their quarters or a ridiculously small outside area. It's generally agreed that cattle husbandry is typically the most ethical, whereas chickens and pigs have it much worse.

>>12393146
No. You need to consider what makes life valuable in the first place. It is wrong to farm and kill animals because of their capacity to feel pain and possibly many more emotions. It is not the taking of life in itself which is wrong. Foetuses abilities for sensation and emotion are limited, and in the case where an abortion is warranted, the consequences of carrying the baby to term would usually incur more suffering than what the abortion would.

That's the position advocated by Singer and I'd recommend reading Practical Ethics, as another anon suggested.

I think Singer's preference utilitarianism is helpful as it is so close to being a non-moral philosophy. It is only a few steps removed from a meta-ethical theory like emotivism. And interpreting it in this way can appease the Sturmer fans that frequent this board

>>12393901

the 'it's natural' posts are such good bottlenecks to indicate who it is that i can actually take seriously or not

>>12393930
>>12393931
wtf I love veganism again.

>>12393931
This whole discussion is revolving around vegans rather than veganism. The quirks/insufferability/others viewpoints/etc. of vegans does not invalidate their arguments and amounts to little more than ad hominem.

>>12393952
cry more. either refute the argument or keep sobbing.

>>12390316
*citation needed*

>>12393980
The argument is based on a naturalist fallacy. Just because something is natural does not make it morally defensible. Animals rape each other, but we still label rape as immoral. Therefore, animals eating each other does not necessarily mean that humans should do it too.

It all goes into the ground in the end. Besides, most animals that humans keep are bred to be dependent on humans, so you'll just be keeping cows who cannot produce enough calves for their milk supply in pain. If your objection is to factory farming, then move out of America or whichever shithole you live in because your vegetables are going to have the same problem. Go Jain vegetarian if you actually want to minimise damage to species that can survive in the wild while not hurting the cows or goats who need milking. Vegans never think of how they kill microorganisms or damage the water flow or hurt cows

>>12393994
>Just because something is natural does not make it morally defensible. Animals rape each other, but we still label rape as immoral.
I'm gonna need citation for that there. I know ducks fuck corpses.

>>12394010
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232429621_Rape_in_non-human_animals_An_evolutionary_perspective

Your fact about ducks would work just as well. If necrophilia occurs in the wild, does that mean it's okay for humans?

>>12394022
Not who you replied to, I'm just curious about it.

>>12394036
Gotcha. Disturbingly, cat penises are basically rape devices. They have barbs on them that pretty much make it impossible for the female to stop mating with them until they are finished.

>>12393936
>in the case where an abortion is warranted
I imagine most abortions are done for the sake of convenience now, not out of medical necessity. Similarly, I eat meat out of convenience, not necessity - a point I think all vegans agree with.

I *could* abstain from eating meat if I truly wanted to and I would probably survive just as well as before. It would take effort, discipline, and dedication. I view abortion similarly (i.e., a barbarism that is entirely avoidable if you're conscientious), but I realize most people don't.

I know there are differences, but barbarism underlies them both. And both are avoidable if we are conscientious and diligent.

>>12393994
That is a weak equivalency/generalisation. Naturally, when humans and animals eat other animals they are motivated by the same exact thing: acquiring sustenance. When humans and animals rape, they are motivated by DIFFERENT things: sick kicks (humans), forced propagation of species (animals). There are more than 7.5 billion humans, we are from being in danger of extinction, and our power over the world means we are not going anywhere, therefore the only reason a human would rape another is for unjustified sick kicks (brought on by general disturbed mentality or mental illness, or otherwise). Animals don't rape, if they do, don't do it for pleasure, because they don't have the same conception of sex as we do, they do it for (forced) survival of their kind.

>>12394087
Animals don't rape, and if they do, they don't do it for pleasure*

this thread is surprisingly civil and informative

>>12394101
>>12394087
>>12394022
>>12393994
rape is a human idea, eating is universal.

>>12394103
between this and the xeno-feminism thread, we're having a good week

>>12390324
suck it

in my personal assumption, I dont think its very obvious that eating animals is unethical

>>12390324
>obviously vegetarianism/veganism is more ethical a lifestyle than eating meat
Fucking lol
The irony of this post is that you then procede to talk about people's egos for not aligning with your morals.
>Muh eating meat is bad for the enviroment
>Procedes to eating vegies imported from 20 diferent countries using super ships that polute more than all the cars in europe combined instead of eating some locally raised cow because of "muh farts".
Unless you eat your vegies locally you really arent helping that much. Not even going to argue with your urbanoid "b-but killings animals is still bad" bullshit.
Most vegans are nothing but giant shitheads acting as if they have moral superiority just because they believe their shit is more "ethical".

>>12390995
>we have a duty to steward the lesser-species, which involves not killing them for what is truly a very small, hedonistic gain of ours.
>Imagine being this retarded and full of spooks
Yep, vegans are truly retarded super ego mongoloids

>>12394087
>>12394111

I'll concede that the equivalency is not exact. However, just as rape is excusable in animals because it is motivated by necessity, the inverse is true of human consumption of animals. It is possible (in today's world) to survive without eating meat, so continuing to eat it is more for pleasure/ease than necessity. In sum, animals eating animals and humans eating animals are not equivalent either.

>>12394101
>animals dont rape
Read "The Bad Lion" by Toni Bentley

>>12394180

>Unless you eat your vegies locally you really arent helping that much. Not even going to argue with your urbanoid "b-but killings animals is still bad" bullshit.

empirically untrue. the shift of one-days’ worth of calories from red meat per week to even chicken or fish (or, better yet, plant-based foods) achieves more greenhouse gas emissions reductions than buying 100% locally-sourced food for an entire week.

>>12394199
> It is possible (in today's world) to survive without eating meat
Speak for yourself, not everybody's as privileged as you to have so much excess of food available that you can opt not to eat meat.

>>12394242
>the shift of one-days’ worth of calories from red meat per week to even chicken or fish (or, better yet, plant-based foods) achieves more greenhouse gas emissions reductions than buying 100% locally-sourced food for an entire week.
Articulate this better.
If i eat meat from a local producer i will polute more than eating greens locally aswell. That's pretty well known.
But most countries in europe you cant have that during winter where its impossible to grow shit, that is why meat is important in those parts.
If you plant to eat only local food in europe you will have to rely on fish and meat.

>>12394288

>Articulate this better.

Ok. It's empirically established that the vast majority of greenhouse gasses are produced in the production stage of animal agriculture rather than their transport. Transportation of agriculture is a drop in the bucket when compared to the production of meat, in terms of GHG.

>>12394087
Anyone could easily live their live on a vegetarian diet though. It might not be 100% healthy, but it's clearly possible. In this sense, eating meat purely for the taste of it (which is what we do) could be described as a "sick kick"

Also your point about animals not raping/having sex for pleasure is ludicrous. I think it's far more likely they experience pleasure when shagging, and that's what motivates them. It's far less likely they're governed by any abstract imperative in their head for the survival of their species. Unless you're implying animals have no experience of consciousness at all?

Like I'm willing to accept human courtship is a bit more sophisticated than a chimpanzee, but do I think the feeling of sticking your dick in a female pussy is that different between us? I don't know. I doubt it, to be honest. The mind of a duck while having sex is outside of my scope of empathy, however.

>>12394330
Is it really that true?
Most lists that i see say container ships are some of the worlds worst polluters, even worse if we add the polution used for freezing the food for that amount of time.
Meanwhile the goverments keep raising shitty "enviromental" taxes on cars and oil for the people while those transport ships have close to no restrictions.
Even if that is true i still see no reason to force me to switch to veganism, i respect the people that do it for their choices, but they arent going to force me shit just because it pollutes a bit more, as if they dont pollute nothing at all.

>>12394198
>Imagine having no real opinions and only the ability to produce shallow critiques of others.

laughable post anon.

Say you saw a child about to take the passenger seat in a pedophilloic's van or something like it, would you not be morally obliged to save them?

>inb4 "nah I'd hop in the van with him lelel"

The point is that it's a moral obligation for you to not and prevent from harm those that don't have the capacity to do so themselves, especially when the scenario they are in with almost definitely lead to their pain / demise ( a slaughterhouse is the best possible example of this. )

So really, get totally fucked. All of you pricks who say "there is no moral obligation" are the same who idly stand by for any human or animal atrocity, who literally just maintain an idiotic distance as the world burns. If the entire world were full of people like yourself, it would be a far greater flaming mess than it is now.

honestly just shut the fuck up

>>12390193
there is a reason why almost all vegans are leftists - it is just another symptom of self hatred and insecurity in their position in nature

>>12394410

>Is it really that true?

yes, it is. https
//pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702969f

"the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption"

>Even if that is true i still see no reason to force me to switch to veganism, i respect the people that do it for their choices, but they arent going to force me shit just because it pollutes a bit more, as if they dont pollute nothing at all.


if you can't be swayed by good argumentation that demonstrates that you can have a meaningful impact on lowering (not negating) your carbon impact, then why are you even posting in this thread? merely saying 'well, they're polluting too' is fucking childish. are you a child? or are you an adult that can reasonably respond to criticism?

>>12394438

says the internet cryptoracist teenager

>>12394480
Not him, but he specified Europe. A lot of US food is banned for human consumption here because they do awful things to everything. Cruelty laws and fertilizer and land use laws are different.

>>12394499

from my research, it clearly indicated a similar conclusion, namely that the environmental costs were concentrated largely in production rather than transportation, carried over to europe, asia, and south america as well.

>>12393213
To your first point - it seems as if you agree with me for some time, saying that the neural pathways of worms are similar to that of humans. So we're symmetrical in our axioms, at least.

>One can stab almost any organism with a cold metal rod and append his own connotations to interpret the increase in neural activation that will follow.

It is true that we could, but more critical study reveals that there is a limited roster of appendages one can apply, and that the most reasonable must exist within the idea that pain does occur in the same parts of the brain throughout species and is experienced , internally, as the same thing.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/295b/adab3664eb934f27bcc246b268bf029e9269.pdf
^ a very interesting study regarding pain between species and the material origins of them.

> Anyway, I don't know where I was going with this, but sympathy (as opposed to empathy) is not very utilitarian, and I think it's a better argument not to kill something if the world is less bio-diverse as a result. If somebody grows a million pigs in a vat for the purpose of eating their flesh, then the vat is probably some kind of blight on the landscape anyway.

The second point you make I actually agree with, but I'd just like to say that this would be a matter of aesthetics and not utilitarianism.

I think bio-diversity is a great point to harp on, and one that not many people consider is a function of eating meat and the slaughter house. Land must be cleared for cows to pasture many times, and factory farms cause massive change in the local landscape.

That being said, biodiversity, only in extreme cases, seems to harm human lives and cause long-term damage to the eco-system as a whole. Is biodiversity not always a matter of aesthetics and an appeal to the goodness of a natural state ( things are arranged this way in nature so humans should not interfere, because nature knows best)?

It's really only when species hit incredibly low levels of population that they become unable to ever reproduce back to healthy levels and things are permanently changed. So is it not usually a question of aesthetics and dogmatic naturalism that we maintain biodiversity?

>>12394436
>Imagine having no real opinions
>shallow critiques
lmaoing at your shitty attempts. Using "having no ""real"" opinions" as a counterarguement to make me feel stupid or inadequate is just shitty teen girl behaviour trying to put its self on a high horse.

>Say you saw a child about to take the passenger seat in a pedophilloic's van or something like it, would you not be morally obliged to save them?
Would probably save her. Why do you think that should apply to saving an animal from being eaten by another person? What stupid premisse is that "hurr humans are super equal to the rest of animals"? huh?
The mere fact that i dont care about animals being killed to eat, is already enough proof that im not morally obligated to do so. Morals are completly relative and change from person to person and there is no logic in "well if you save the kid then that means you also are obligated to save the animal lmao".
You are the one full of spooks and idiotic fixed ideas that think everyone gives a shit about the feelings of all animals or that all animals are equal, so i dont know whose ideas are really "not real".
Go shove your opinions under someone else's mouth.

>>12393936
This excuse for killing human fetuses also licenses killing animal fetuses (and grown yet simple animals, human vegetables etc), and that's not even touching on the enormous discrepancy in the richness of future experiences that the human victim is being robbed of compared to the animal.

Also, if killing human fetuses is okay, how do you justify letting the resulting nutritious, vegan-kosher abortion meat go to waste?

#eatfetusesnotanimals

>>12394528
>The mere fact that i dont care about animals being killed to eat, is already enough proof that im not morally obligated to do so.

arguing that indifference negates moral obligation is definitely one of the dumbest things i'll read all week

>hurr
>Morals are completly relative
>spooks

this is an 18+ website

>>12394528
>You are the one full of spooks and idiotic fixed ideas that think everyone gives a shit about the feelings of all animals or that all animals are equal, so i dont know whose ideas are really "not real".

I clearly do not believe this as we exist in a world of mostly non-vegetarians and vegans.

> Would probably save her. Why do you think that should apply to saving an animal from being eaten by another person? What stupid premisse is that "hurr humans are super equal to the rest of animals"? huh?

You seem to not be following my argument at all. My premise is actually not based on equality, it's baed on the idea that you have superior thinking ability and experience to the child, know to a profound degree that they are about to be in real danger whereas they do not, and must intervene. This is once again justified by almost every study in the field of adolescent psychology and the study of animal psychology - while children/animals feel many things the way we do, they express them differently and lack foresight / analytic ability / intuition for danger.

>The mere fact that i dont care about animals being killed to eat, is already enough proof that im not morally obligated to do so.

You can can shurk obligations. Do you realize the definition of obligation becomes circular if it's fulfilled by your action? Then only things you act upon are those things which are moral, allowing you to do anything and retro-actively make them good. Obligations come from a critical view of the situation and how you may be able to make it better, not what you're already doing.


>Morals are completly relative and change from person to person and there is no logic in "well if you save the kid then that means you also are obligated to save the animal lmao".

There is a limited spectrum of legitimate moral ideas, as there are with all varieties of ideas. This is thing that necessitates a philosophical method.

You only see me full of spooks because you're to afraid to look at life and take a stab at doing what's right, too afraid to find out that maybe you were a little misguided later and then tweak your ideas. Why don't you read anything apart from Stirner?

>>12394594

there is a zero percent chance that he has actually read stirner. he is using the word spook to classify anything that cannot be proved to exist empirically, which is the sure-fire mark of an idiot. is there a containment board for ben shapiro fanboys or something?

>>12390995
>2) As the most dominant species ( in terms of ability to survive, reproduce, conquer disease ) and most rational, we have a duty to steward the lesser-species, which involves not killing them for what is truly a very small, hedonistic gain of ours. This is especially true in the west.
First point was reasonable, but this is far too non sequitur and unfounded to reasonably act as though it's obviously true. I mean I believe that humans are the master of Earth and deserve the right to destroy all life but ours if we for whatever reason so desired and could live with the consequences.

>>12394528
rekt by >>12394593 & >>12394594

gg

>>12394604
from the guy who posted this, a legitimate apology for using Stirner in that way. I've read a very limited amount of his work.

>>12394593 is definitely an idiot though at least we can agree on that.

>>12394620
yikes meant >>12394528

>>12394210
The lioness deserved it

>>12390193
>>>/his/
>>>/ck/

>>12393952
It genuinely is though. Research the accepted theories of evolution, you’ll see that the change from a plant based diet to meat (particularly cooked meat) allowed us to take on more calories and shorter our digestive track (lowering its need for energy) leading to our brains growing to levels incomparable to other animals. It also freed up a lot of time (gorillas spend 9 hours a day eating). This was then the foundation for our other unique advancements.

Unironically, if we stayed with a plant based diet we’d be brainlets incapable of having this debate.

>>12394593
>this is an 18+ website
Great counter arguement. Look up my previous reply to that sort of shit.

>>12394594
>My premise is actually not based on equality, it's baed on the idea that you have superior thinking ability and experience to the child, know to a profound degree that they are about to be in real danger whereas they do not, and must intervene. This is once again justified by almost every study in the field of adolescent psychology and the study of animal psychology - while children/animals feel many things the way we do, they express them differently and lack foresight / analytic ability / intuition for danger.
And why does that imply that im morally obligated to save the animals? Just because i can see a danger that they cannot see? I can choose to save the kid because i can feel empathy for her, and not to see empathy for an animal being killed to eat.

Please explain to me, why should i feel obligated to save a animal that is being eaten, if i dont have a moral for that.

>>12394614
>>12394626
Looks like the whole vegie go green gang is here.

Non-meat eaters will automatically take the standpoint that they're correct and then ask for others to refute them, which is the exact opposite attitude that those refuting an established system should have.

The easiest way to truly examine a vegan's argument is to ask them to justify themselves without recycled "muh animal suffering is an inherent evil" rhetoric. Why should humanity go against its own nature to care after other unknowable, alien species?

>>12391037
this is the truth, vegetarianism is egotistical

>>12394669
> And why does that imply that im morally obligated to save the animals? Just because i can see a danger that they cannot see? I can choose to save the kid because i can feel empathy for her, and not to see empathy for an animal being killed to eat.

You see a danger they cannot see and every study of human and animal psychology indicates that they experience pain as you do. As far as the experience of imminent, tremendous danger goes, you are all the same species and should adopt an empathy by this fact.

1. The idea of empathy is a feeling of sameness for one's situation. You know you would feel the same way given their circumstance or, beyond reason, you simply feel as they feel.

2. Given that animals minds process pain in the same way as humans, one should be empathetic to them, as their experience is - as all research suggests - the same.

3. To feel empathy for someone's pain, know you could stop their pain, and not do it is - roughly speaking - immoral.
3a. This is greatly flawed, but hopefully you get
the gist.

>Please explain to me, why should i feel obligated to save a animal that is being eaten, if i dont have a moral for that.

Because you can observe the situation rationally and see that you can improve it.

We're going in circles here, so this'll be my last post to you. I've made my ideas perfectly clear within this post.

Also, you're morally corrupt and should see a priest, go on a retreat, something. Your ideas of what is right and how one should take on new ideas of what is right are text book arrogance.

>inb4 "but ur stopping posting so you're arrogant"

No, I'm stopping posting because I've made my ideas clear and have other things to do. I've just got a life to attend to, maybe I'll be back tonight,

>>12394682
literally no vegetarian ever.

there are a multitude of environmentally-based arguments for vegetarianism and veganism that people make on a regular basis within the community.

Because the fate and good of humanity is actually wrapped up in what it consumes and how that "it" is produced.

>>12394490
not an argument but im here for another hour so get back to me

>>12394750
>You see a danger they cannot see and every study of human and animal psychology indicates that they experience pain as you do. As far as the experience of imminent, tremendous danger goes, you are all the same species and should adopt an empathy by this fact.
You are telling me i "should" not im "obligated to".
>3. To feel empathy for someone's pain, know you could stop their pain, and not do it is - roughly speaking - immoral.
Its only immoral because you opted to be so, it interfered with your moral "i need to help everyone i feel empathy for". Its more than proven that all morals and immorals are subjective, so this doesnt prove to be any universal obligation.

>Also, you're morally corrupt and should see a priest, go on a retreat, something.
Well that is just your opinion now, isnt it?

>>12394514
But that could just mean that Europe eats more locally, and says nothing about shipping (especially from outside Europe such as exotic fruits and vegetables) Look at Anon's argument again.

>>12394840
Well turns out I have no life, but you're still an idiot.

>Its only immoral because you opted to be so, it interfered with your moral "i need to help everyone i feel empathy for". Its more than proven that all morals and immorals are subjective, so this doesnt prove to be any universal obligation.

Once again, no. Reality is finite, morals are based off subjectivized reality, and therefore there is a limited roster of legitimate moral landscapes. While you may subjectivize in many different ways, the input remains the same, limiting the variety.

Please source me one piece of evidence for infinite moralities, my mind would be fucking blown.

>>12394866
Or actually, I'd like to add that philosophy doesn't "prove" things in the first place and me demanding "evidence" here is non-sense. Philosophy only clarifies and describes.

Anyway, please give me a decent source proving infinite moral landscapes of btfo.

If you want to eat meat, you should kill the animal yourself. The cognitive disconnection between the live animal and the food leads to unimaginable disrespect for animal life, that while not completely sentient obviously feels emotions.

>>12394866
>Reality is finite, morals are based off subjectivized reality, and therefore there is a limited roster of legitimate moral landscapes.
And why does that disprove the the relativity of morals, If i can hold one that is completly diferent from yours?
Having a limitation from the number of morals existing doesnt prove one is objectively better than another.

>>12394866
>Reality is finite, morals are based off subjectivized reality, and therefore there is a limited roster of legitimate moral landscapes. While you may subjectivize in many different ways, the input remains the same, limiting the variety.
Tbh, this is a very interesting topic. Do you know where i can read more about this?

My best take would be that while reality is finite, we can fit an infinite number of diferent ways to precieve it. The same way a person takes drugs to alter his prespective of reality because of chemical balances in the brian, eating ,as an example, only nuggets for a day will also impact the way your brain works and thus the way it percieves reality, of course its something minimal that we may not notice, but its there. Following the logic that morals are based off subjectivized reality and proving that we can percieve reality in a infinite number of ways, then we can also fit an infinite amount of morals.
You can theoretically find infnity inside the finite. A similar example to the one of the morals would be, despite the interval [1;2] being finite, we can still find an infite amount of numbers inside it.
Maybe this might not make all sence since this is pretty much a topic that i have no experience on, but if you know any books, or articles talking about this i would be very glad to know.

>>12394891
I don't care what animals feel. Killing animals is messy trash-tier job, so I leave it to the trash people.

>>12394907
You were saying that morality is infinite. I told you it was not. Great job not remembering your own argument.

To quote you, you said:
> Its only immoral because you opted to be so, it interfered with your moral "i need to help everyone i feel empathy for". Its more than proven that all morals and immorals are subjective, so this doesnt prove to be any universal obligation.

Well, if it were completely subjective, it would be infinite, because our mind's capacity to imagine things is infinite. So there you go m8.

It doesn't prove that I'm right, but it proves that you just can't take any moral and say "Well hurr durr I believe it so it must be true" because there is a limited spectrum of legitimate moral ideas. It means it is not an entirely subjective matter, as you just claimed.

>>12395151
A lot of Wittgenstein and B.Russel' stuff deals with things like this. Read an intro to set theory and get more interested in set theory, I guess.

Early Wittgenstein would say that even though there is an infinite variety of ways to process a word, the relationship between words in a sentence limits their possible interpretations, making communication possible and sentences an accurate picture of relationships in reality.

These two examples you've supplied, though, actually work against the idea of an infinite moral landscape. People jump off cliffs and in front of cars all the time, resulting in their death. Regardless of their perception, reality remains there to contain them.

Once again, your perception on drugs, to a great degree, is simply non-legitimate in terms of physical reality.

I'd agree with you, "theoretically" we can, but when we take a closer view reality constrains the subjective. I could lucidly trip and imagine that a unicorn is inside my living room - this does not make it so. I could trip and imagine that Hitler was justified in his holocaust - this would be a hard defense once I was sober, and would not stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore, just imagine if the idea were applied universally, if people could just slaughter one another for their race? It would be a horrible world.

Also, and I'm really not joking here, number theory does not apply very well to reality. Mathematics and logic are, a lot of times, very apart from it.

>>12395292
people on drugs jump off cliffs**

>>12393804
>i''ll just make a simple diagram
>thread continues to flounder in aimless polemic

If we look at the overall footprint each individual human leaves on this earth it is insane. We can not think like primitives who had lower morals and sought simple pleasures. Nearly all of the living mass on Earth serves humans and until we liberate the planet I think we should look at realistic things we can do to improve our footprint.
If we restored wild habitat for the species that are left then I would not be against people hunting. But until then, every time you are increasing the demand for animal products, you are speeding up the need for domestication.

>>12394665
How does that justify continuing to eat meat? Argument from nature is a fallacy and demonstrates a poor understanding of evolution.

>>12393901
'Completely natural' and '100% ethical' aren't the same thing unfortunately.

>>12395292
Not the first anon you replied.

>Well, if it were completely subjective, it would be infinite
Why does subjectivity imply infinity?
The concept of subjectivity in the terms of morals is that there is no appropriate correct one or so to say.

>People jump off cliffs and in front of cars all the time, resulting in their death. Regardless of their perception, reality remains there to contain them.
>Once again, your perception on drugs, to a great degree, is simply non-legitimate in terms of physical reality.
Cant really say if that is a good counter example, theories suggest that we can never know reality for sure, since we are theoretically at all times in a "psychedelic" state of mind that changes how we percieve reality, one could say that you can never actually prove if those druggies really died because that could be just your perception of reality working in a diferent way.
Idk i find this hard to explain, but it can very easily fall into the "we cant prove if there is a greater force (like the matrix) decieving us from reality" scenario that we are taught in high school. But i think arguing about the perception of reality or not would very easily fall into the Rationalists vs Epicureanism. This topic of proving or disproving "objective reality" is really a pain in the ass desu.

>>12395468
>Why does subjectivity imply infinity?

Peterson said it's true so it must be

Having two sources of food for most areas of the planet especially one that basically cant be done in certain times of the year is clearly more efficient

>>12395513
I'll let my hunter-gatherer band know this is the case