/lit/ - Literature

>>asking people to empirically prove morality
>>2013

sage'd for being pointless, non-/lit/ related bullshit

>>3716831

Literature. Board.

No. I suspect eating meat is immoral insofar as we can survive without it. Just haven't been able to make the jump to vegetarianism yet. I'm a skinny bastard with poor eating habits as it is. Excuses, excuses, I know. No man's a saint.

>subjecting to speciesism
seems like a pretty arbitrary restriction

>>3716831

THAT IS A CAPTIOUS QUESTION.

THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY "IMMORAL" IN CONSUMING MEAT, THEREFORE ASSUMING THAT THERE IS AN INHERENT "IMMORALITY" IN CONSUMING MEAT, AND THEN "DISPROVING" IT, IS FALLACIOUS.

Speciesism needs to be expanded into some criterion before a serious discussion is had. But I'll bite: the avoidance of speciesism is an extent begging the question, depending on your interpretation of your use of the word; appeal to the innate qualities of the different species is, in face, speciesist in a non-pejorative sense. You will, if you are actually here to discuss, probably equivocate between the perjorative sense, the sense of mere prejudice, and the sense which is a mere classification of the type of argument. For example, I might use the typical argument from man's capacity for language, reasoning, and moral reasoning (perhaps qualified by the degree of complexity.)

>>3716901
i would think the issue is with the process of raising and procuring meat, not the actual act of eating it

I'm a vegetarian, and honestly don't give a shit if someone else eats meat. Sure, we can survive without it, but we can also survive without caffeine and ice cream, doesn't mean people won't do it anyway.

I don't even remember why I'm a vegetarian anymore, it's just been a long enough time for me not to be bothered about changing back.

>>3716915

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD BE AN "ISSUE".

>>3716934
because you are autistic. also, your captious question is retarded, because it only shows how much of an autistic nipplet and retarded your logic is.

>>3716934
>not "survival of the fittest"
>enslaving animals, breeding them together with no hope of freedom just to slaughter and devour their offspring

>>3716831
Can you definitely prove that wearing two different color socks is not immoral without subjecting to color preferences?

>>3716967

HOW IS THAT ULTIMATELY DIFFERENT FROM HUNTING, FOR INSTANCE?

THE RESULT IS THE SAME WHETHER THE ANIMAL IS HUNTED, OR RAISED & SLAUGHTERED FOR CONSUMPTION, ONLY THE LATTER METHOD IS MORE PRACTICAL & EFFICIENT.

IT IS SENSELESS & ABSURD TO APPLY MORALITY TO SUCH PRIMARY ASPECT OF LIFE.

>>3716831
Yeah animals have no wills.

Winner.

>>3717025
>IT IS SENSELESS & ABSURD TO APPLY MORALITY TO SUCH PRIMARY ASPECT OF LIFE.
why do you think primacy dismisses ethics?

>>3717040

I DO NOT THINK THAT.

>>3716831
If only there were a real kantian here.

>>3717040
stop giving him attention you stupid boy.

>>3717086
That would be great. i was kinda thinking the same thing. But I don't think anyone's going to argue that animals being incapable of rational agency makes them immune to moral consideration. Utilitarianism has more-or-less won the day, in the sense that we tend judge right and wrong in terms of suffering caused. That is, whether we are right or wrong in this.

>>3716831
>2013
>moral view of life

le neechee face . org

>>3716831
The aghoris eat scavenged meat, both human and animal and are hardline monists. So it's possible.

>>3716831
The demand for meat have made the cow/chicken/etc population larger than it would ever have been otherwise, giving millions of these animals at least a short go at life.

I eat cows because I love them.

>>3716967
>thinks cattle cares for freedom

Anthropomorphism all around. Cows are not libertarians.

>>3716837
>doesn't know transcendental pragmatism

>L2Apel

It would be interesting to go to the third world and ask hungry people constantly preoccupied with mere survival in war torn areas if they would agree to a fixed date of death if they would be assured of a pleasant and safe environment with everything they desire in the period leading up to that.

>Morals
>Not subjective

>>3716831
The only thing immoral is raising cattle under unpleasant circumstances. If the cattle has a pleasant life there is nothing wrong with it. A well cared for cow has a much more pleasant life than wild bovines. It also has no conceptual grasp of 'dying before it's time' or some hypothetical age expectancy in general, so if they walk into the barn with the nice man who feeds them everyday and suddenly nothingness. It's basically utopia until it's nothing if you do it right.

>>3717167
This. Ending a life is not immoral in itself since there is no one to suffer from it.

>>3717054
>>3717025
>>3716934
>>3716901

If i were a little girl, I would find you and hug you and let you caress my body, REI. We would cuddle & sleep together for hours, so cozy & warm; just the two of us. We would spam 4chan together whilst listening to Postpunk & Electronica.
; _ ;

I am hungry
Corpse is edible
Problems?

I doubt the corpse will be offended
Besides a hungry enough lion would eat me even if I were running away from it

Breeding animals to be eaten is a little sad, but modern farm animals would not exist had we not bred them for thousands of years. Artificial selection by farmers resulted in species desgined to be eaten.
They could not live in the wild.
And not eating them would leave them void of purpose. Therefore I giving purpose to their lives and forfilling their destinies.

Therefore, I am making a very moral choice by eating them

>>3717245
>tfw alleviating poultry of existential crisis

>>3716831
Is not immoral because I enjoy meat too much.

>>3717245
You're right, but modern factory farming conditions are deplorable. Eating free range meat is actually more ethical than vegetarianism, in the sense that fewer animals have to die. It's been demonstrated that tilling fields kills many field mice and the such. Yet, we don't normally eat free range animals. We eat animals that are practically tortured their entire lives. for basic economic reasons. So omnivorism is far more sketchy in such a light.

I don't want animals to die just so I can have a different taste in my mouth, so I don't eat meat. I would prefer other people didn't eat meat but it doesn't bother me.

I really think a lot of the people who can't imagine not eating meat are so because they are horrible cooks and can't produce nice things which aren't meat as unprocessed meat is somewhat tasty without doing much to it.

>>3717291
I think you are mistaken saying free range meat is more ethical than not eating them, in this context I don't think it is ethical for huge numbers to be bred in the first place if we don't need to. Same for people but for different reasons.

>>3717151
This is the only reasonable post in this thread.

In many ways, animals raised for their meat have better lives in captivity than they do in the wild. In captivity there is no chance of famine, the spread of diseases is (mostly) mitigated, there are no predators, and death is as painless and as quick as possible.

>>3717359
None of the animals we generally keep for meat would survive in the wild anyway.

>>3717157
Animals bred and raised for slaughter often do not have a "pleasant" life. They are safe in the sense that they are locked up in a cage or stuffed into a fenced in area for the better part of their life and thus have no real chance to come to harm.

>>3717167
>>3717186
Are you implying that it's ok to kill little children?

>>3717154
You better not pout
You better not cry
You better not shout
I'm telling you why
All moral values are merely spooks

>>3717403
>Comparing livestock bred for the sole purpose of being eaten to children
My fucking sides.

It's impossible to justify killing animals for food for a good reason (ie. not for pleasure).

>>3717403
The killing itself isn't immoral. I would have to ask the reason that you are killing them, and if you are the parent, the reason you had it in the first place.

If you are eating them, then it's fine.

>>3717411
>there is no one to suffer from [death]

That was the only criteria. As far as I know very young children don't suffer any more than animals.

>My fucking sides.

Ditto.

>>3717409
"Throw a baby in a woodchipper right in front of me I don't give a fuck" - Max Stirner.

>>3717420
You can't fool me retard I happen to know that wood chippers didn't exist in the early 19th century. Try harder next time you darn troletariat :)

>>3717403
If there is a child with no one caring for him or even aware of his existence and you kill him painlessly in his sleep then there is no victim, so I wouldn't view this as an immoral act as long as the doer of the deed does not suffer from it himself.

>>3717333
I'm actually not one of those people who are excessively worried about overpopulation. The size of the population is correlated with technological progress, which is the only thing which sustains the current world population. If we all became hunter-gatherers, many many of us would die. Nature will happily limit our population if it gets out of control. It won't be pleasant, but there are no pleasant alternatives;

So free range meat. If you can afford and access it, it's probably the most ethical route you can go.

Our society that considers death literally the worst possible outcome in a situation 99% of the time always makes me realize how much trouble I have relating to people. It's not that I don't value life, but on the list of shitty things that can happen to a person, I'd say death is pretty decent. I realize survival instinct is a big part of this, I guess I just wish people would give it more consideration at times.

>>3717333
>I think you are mistaken saying free range meat is more ethical than not eating them
Are you an antinatalist?

>>3717443
I think you missed my point, the people thing was seperate.

>>3717469
Not universally, I just think that if people didn't eat meat and the excessive amount of food animals were not born then clearly that wouldn't be immoral at all.

Animals cannot and will not contribute to the spread of the revolution and the rise of the proletariat. But the animal does consume resources which belong to the proletariat. They are no better than the bourgeoisie. Thus they must be purged.