[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 39 KB, 330x250, Lisa the Vegetarian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370518 No.1370518 [Reply] [Original]

Do you think one day, in some enlightened future, we'll look down on with disdain the daily mass slaughter of innocent animals done purely to keep our own bellies full?

>> No.1370522

No.

>> No.1370525
File: 890 KB, 1366x768, drawdoor.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370525

yes, we shall sob into our tofu and alge produced pseudo-steak

>> No.1370528

I don't think so. I did however become a pesco-vegetarian recently though!

>> No.1370529

Nope.

>> No.1370531

Only if the future of mankind is to all become giant pussies.

>> No.1370534

I was raised a vegetarian and as a result I don't really enjoy meat all that much. I occasionally eat chicken or burgers and stuff like that but really it's very feasible that everyone could just be brought up on a vegetarian diet and nobody would care either way. It's just something you're conditioned to enjoy, and if getting rid of it means stopping cute piggies dying then I'm all for it.

>> No.1370535

I think that depends entirely on what latitude you live at (as well as quite a few other factors). Not all pasture land is suited to growing beans, after all.
There's nothing wrong with meat if it is done right.

>> No.1370539

>>1370531
future? that's not the future, thats 4chan in the present.

>> No.1370542

Yeah, who needs meat, we don't need our awesome brains, it's fine being a shitty ol' herbivore ape.

>> No.1370547

>>1370531

Why do so many people go on the defensive when vegetarianism is mentioned? It's not an infectious disease, and no-one forcing you to stop eating meat. All this macho bullshit makes you sound insecure.

>> No.1370548

Sorry no meat is awesome and delicious

>> No.1370560

The amount of meat eaters on here and in the academic community in general is pretty disgusting. It's obviously immoral. Anyone with one iota of logic can see that, but the thing is, everyone is in denial. These smug liberal bastards with university degrees on their high horses talk down to racists, pro-lifers, teapartiers, people who are anti-immigration etc. yet the inhumane mass genocide of animals doesn't shake them one bit. They'll "hold principals" merely to satisfy their ego and appear "smarter" than others, but when one of their hedonistic pleasures is under threat, they'll just ignore it.

>> No.1370566

>>1370560
ANIMALS ARE PEOPLE TOO AND WHY SHOULD THEY BE TREATED DIFFERENT

>> No.1370568

>>1370547
>OP effectively calls meat eaters unenlightened and mass killers
I have no fucking idea. What about that could people find offensive?

>> No.1370569

To people here who think it's ok to kill an animal for food, Do you think it's okay for people to use animals for sex?

>> No.1370570

>>1370560

My thoughts exactly.

>> No.1370575

>>1370569
Yes.

>> No.1370577

I'm under the belief that we should let animals go extinct. The only animals we need to keep around are ones that serve purposes to us.

>> No.1370580

>>1370569
If the animal reciprocates sure.

>> No.1370581

>>1370569
Yes. Absolutely. Animals are not people. They have no human rights. It's fucked up for a human being to do things like have sex with animals, torture animals, cause them pain unnecessarily. It evinces something pretty screwed-up going on in the human being that they would want to do that. And so we should stop those kinds of things on that ground. But there's nothing wrong with it. And there's certainly nothing wrong with eating meat. That shit is, it turns out, fairly awesome, and not immoral because - I don't know if you understand this - ANIMALS ARE NOT FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS

>> No.1370582

>>1370577
I'm pretty sure that justifies the execution of everybody on 4chan.

>> No.1370583

>>1370581

>ANIMALS ARE NOT FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS

So?

>> No.1370587

>>1370547
see
>>1370560

There's nothing defensive about it. Eating meat is as natural as not. In the end, whatever road you choose to secure your sustenance, the origination is all sunlight. It's just a matter of how that reaches our frail little bodies.

Quite frankly, if you see something immoral about eating meat, you essentially know nothing of nature, have never lived amongst it in any meaningful way, and are anthropomorphizing it to the point of absurdity.

"Nature is neither kind nor cruel. Only indifferent." -Richard Dawkins

What I DO find annoying, and I do get very into people's faces, are those who eat meat but then go on some petty little tirade about the inhumanity of hunting. Oh the cruelty! Please. If you eat meat, as far as I am concerned, you are of weak character if you never do hunt. To put a packaging company, butcher, etc. between you and what you eat and then claim some moral high-ground because you lack courage to do the killing yourself is absurd. When you hunt, you learn the price that is paid in taking the life of a creature for your own survival. You learn what nature truly is, you see it as it really is. Rather than pretending that packaged turkey grows on a fucking tree and is plucked down and given to your plate at no cost to another living thing.

Only when you understand what it is to take a life for the sake of your own do you truly understand the natural world.

>> No.1370589

>>1370581
To be honest I don't think meat eating is immoral, but as you say "It's fucked up for a human being to do things like have sex with animals, torture animals, cause them pain unnecessarily!
and the reality behind meat eating is that most animals are kept in horrible conditions, they are not killed in totally humane ways (it's not only halal meat that causes unnecessary pain to animals)
>ANIMALS ARE NOT FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS
but human beings are animals? what are you? a creationist? do you believe humans are the pinnacle of creation?

>> No.1370590

first person to say "non-natural" itt gets the dubious honour of having me shit in their mouths

>> No.1370595
File: 11 KB, 480x360, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370595

>>1370581
>They have no human rights

Of course they don't. "Human rights" are artificial and contrived by humans. You don't have any rights at all. If you think you do you may as well believe in Santa Claus, also.

>> No.1370596

>>1370589
>what are you? a creationist?
No.
>do you believe humans are the pinnacle of creation?
In the current observable world yes.

>> No.1370597

>>1370547
I don't care what you want to do with your life. Be vegetarian. Fine. Good for you. Just don't go around telling me that I'm an immoral uncivilized barbarian for eating me. If you say that: fuck you.

>>1370583
What kind of fucking moral prohibition against killing and eating animals are you going to derive, given that they are not human beings? It's difficult enough to derive some kind of convincing moral code regarding human beings, who possesses sentience, rationality, abstraction, human character, souls. How you going to do that with animals?

>> No.1370601

in the post-scarcity future, maybe, but only for cute animals.

>> No.1370602

>>1370589
do you seriously believe that there is no significant distinction between human beings and other animals?

Not a creationist at all, but yeah - human beings are the greatest species on earth. GO TEAM HUMANITY.

>> No.1370604

>>1370597
>It's difficult enough to derive some kind of convincing moral code regarding human beings, who possesses sentience, rationality, abstraction, human character, souls. How you going to do that with animals?

It's impossible, actually. If you're happy with people eating animals, you ought - if you want to be consistent, anyway - to dismiss it when one human eats another.

>> No.1370606

I want to become a vegetarian but I love carne asada too much to stop eating meat. I've stopped buying meat from the big producers and get grass-fed, grass-finished meat from farmers markets and like.

>> No.1370608

>>1370602
I draw the same distinction that most people naturally do: animals with true, observable, and definable self-awareness deserve to be treated as fellow sentient beings.
I am only aware of apes, monkeys, elephants, dolphins, and whales falling under that definition, however.

>> No.1370610

>>1370604
i mean i can see where you're coming from but that notion - the notion that there is no morality at all, even between human beings - is something that i see as a deep and calamitous problem, one which needs to be faced up to and solved

put this way: i acknowledge the difficulty of talking about morality amongst human beings, but this is something where i want to assume that it exists while searching for a reason to believe in it.

>> No.1370612

>>1370602
>>1370608

Sooo, what about severely mentally retarded people? Can I eat them?

>> No.1370613

>>1370596
and what makes them objectively the pinnacle of creation?
humans and animals have entirely the same fate, whether you spend your life sucking up to your boss for a raise and watch the latest movie or spend your life in wilderness preying on animals and being preyed upon doesn't matter in the least.
I don't think meat eating is immoral, but I do think it is unnecessary, I think the meat industry is horrible and the land used for cultivating meat could be much better utilised growing different crops.

>> No.1370614

>>1370604
>to dismiss it when one human eats another.
Wholly incorrect. A human being is a sentient and self-aware being, a turkey is not.
The line is quite easily definable: observable and scientifically demonstrated self-awareness sets a species apart from others. Many species have demonstrated this capacity, but not the ones we eat in Western society.

>> No.1370615

>>1370606
Fuck that. You're still fucking killing the animals, for god's sake. If you really believe that it's immoral to eat meat, have the fucking courage of your convictions, for God's sake. If eating meat is genocide, do you really want to be involved in genocide for the sake of carne asada?

either believe that eating meat is fine and eat meat, or believe that it's abhorrent and don't.

>> No.1370616

>>1370610

How dishonest. Where are you looking for it, precisely?

>> No.1370617

>>1370604
>to dismiss it when one human eats another.
As long as they both consent I do. Sadly I don't write the laws.

>> No.1370618

>>1370604
>If you're happy with one human having sex with another, you ought - if you want to be consistent, anyway - to dismiss it when people have sex with animals.

>> No.1370620

>>1370614

Why should I care about sentience and self-awareness?

>> No.1370621

>>1370612
They are a member of a self-aware species, so no. Nor do we judge the value of a human life based upon intellect. Even a very stupid human is above most animals.

>> No.1370622

Animals eat each other
this is a troll thread
not /lit/ related
etcetera
etcetera
etcetera

>> No.1370623

>>1370613
>objectively the pinnacle of creation?
The fact that we're the top of the food chain, what the fuck else would?

>> No.1370624

>>1370618

Nonconsensual. I'm perfectly happy for a dog to mount a human and fuck him/her, though.

>> No.1370625

>>1370613
well, that's fine, as long as it's a pragmatic and not a moral argument

>>1370616
some sort of absolute grounding for morality which can lift us above the morass of relativism and which is not deeply suspect or unbelievable. unfortunately i don't think there is any.

>> No.1370627

>>1370602
>do you seriously believe that there is no significant distinction between human beings and other animals?
humans live, humans die.
animals live, animals die.
humans have nothing over animals that really matters, oh you're a scientist? you understand the origins of the universe? well one day everything will end and everything humans have achived will be on the same level as everything that animals have achieved.

>> No.1370628

>>1370621

Where does this "value" come from? Is it intrinsic?

>> No.1370629

>>1370615
I take it you've never had a plate of carne asada, rice, beans, guacamole and warm corn tortillas with an ice cold beer on a warm summer night.

>> No.1370631
File: 106 KB, 407x546, shutupyouliberalpieceofshit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370631

>>1370627
WE HAVE HARNESSED THE POWER OF THE STARS THEMSELVES

>> No.1370632

>>1370627
well in that case, screw everything, we're all going to die, ashes to ashes dust to dust - nothing matters, there is no reason to talk about morality, you might as well eat dog, and human, and fuck humans while you're eating them. if you really believe in this kind of materialist it's all pointless thing, there's no moral values at all. why is it wrong to murder someone? they were going to die anyway. in the end.

>> No.1370635

>>1370625

So you see why what you've said is superfluous? It's like looking for Santa.

Now tell me, why shouldn't human beings eat one another? In anticipation of your great epiphany?

>> No.1370636

>"eating animals"
>"animals"
>"eating"

Pitiful human viewpoint. Bunch of stupid suckers all of u.

>> No.1370637

>>1370620
Because if you don't, then animals of all types are no different than plant matter and there is, therefore, no moral difference between eating a fungus or eating your own children.

You are drawing your own argument down ad absurdem, and it's not really helping your case. If you are incapable of drawing a line at sentience, then you cannot draw a line anywhere.

It is an easily definable, easily proved, and easily accepted moral standard. If you choose to ignore it, then no line exists whatsoever. This means there is no difference between munching on a carrot or a person, as both are living things, and you foolishly accept that sentience means nothing. As no human being would possibly agree with you, your argument is muted and frail and not likely to convince anyone of anything.

More to the point ,however, you're undercutting your own silly argument that eating meat is immoral. You only take this stance because you overly anthropomorphize animals, but then fail to recognize animals who actually do share distinct human characteristics. I find that more than a bit amusing.

>> No.1370638

>>1370627
Don't worry my nihilist friend. Once you become an adult you're opinions will change dramatically

>> No.1370639

>>1370629
I have. I fucking love carne asada. It's great. It's not enough, however, to implicate me in a grievous and great crime. You weak-willed, lily-livered pansy. For god's sake, have some fire in your belly. "Oh, well, yes, the Holocaust is wrong, I suppose, but I do so enjoy the wages I get as a prison guard." Good lord.

>> No.1370640

>>1370597

Fair point, but some (NOT all) meat-eaters act personally offended if the fact I'm vegetarian is mentioned in casual conversation (i.e. not trying to convert, not going out of my way to mention it) as if vegetarianism is a personal insult to them or makes me a target for derision somehow.

>> No.1370641

>>1370635
Because that's disgusting, bro.

>> No.1370643

>>1370632
>nothing matters, there is no reason to talk about morality

Absolutely. Talking about "morality" is totally meaningless. You can't justify eating animals any more than you can justify eating a full-grown adult human.

>> No.1370644

YOU GUYS ARE ALL IDIOTS
WE DON'T EAT OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE OTHERWISE THERE'S A FUCKHUGE CHANCE OF GETTING SICK.

JESUS HOW RETARDED ARE YOU PEOPLE?

>> No.1370645

>>1370623
top of what food chain? you die and then you're decomposed by micro-organisms.
you think a society that for the most part loves justin beiber is the metaphorical top of the food chain. no life is more precious than another.

>> No.1370647

>>1370635
I don't have any reason to convince YOU not to do it, no.

Personally, I don't want to engage in it, however, and I want to behave as though there is some morality while suspending questions about its base, as the alternative is pretty much suicide.

>> No.1370648

>>1370641

Some people obviously like it very much. Otherwise there would be no cannibals.

>> No.1370649

>>1370518
They can eat each other why can we not eat them?

>> No.1370650

>>1370647

Do you believe in God so you won't go to hell, too? JUST IN CASE. Do you wear orange every day because a random deity only sends orange-wearers to heaven? JUST IN CASE.

>> No.1370651

>>1370632
I am not arguing against meat eating on moral grounds, see >>1370613
>>1370638
I'm not a nihilist at all, I believe in a higher power and that life has a purpose.

>> No.1370652

>>1370643
Yes you can, and I have been doing just that. You are obviously too set in your own ways to accept contrary arguments to your own beliefs, akin to a highly partisan conservative chanting about Obama is the antichrist. Essentially: you're the Glenn Beck of vegetarians.

>> No.1370653

>>1370649
>Let's act like animals!

They can rape each other, why can't we rape each other?!

>> No.1370654

>>1370639
But the Holocaust is different because not only were human beings being murdered, but it was for mostly nonsensical reasons as well. Cows mean very little to me, and they're killed for human consumption, so I see no problem there.

>> No.1370655

>>1370652

Can you prove to me objective morality exists? How? Where can I find it?

>> No.1370662

>>1370518

>to keep our own bellies full

>saying that like it"s a bad thing....

my answer though, fuck no.

>> No.1370663

>>1370627
You think human achievement is stupid? Alright then, sell all of your man-made material possessions and live in the wilderness with your little animal friends, you faggot.

>> No.1370664

>>1370655
I have no such need whatsoever. In the contexts of accepting that there are moral codes, specifically those within our own society, it is wholly acceptable to eat meat, as I have shown through the demonstration of drawing the line at sentience and self awareness.

However, accepting that there is no moral code whatsoever only strengthens my argument. Nature does not live by or abide moral codes, so in a world without morality eating meat is only further acceptable, and even further strengthens the argument that creatures with the ability to reason and be aware of the concept of self have risen above the morass of this pointless and futile world.

I shall quote again:

"Nature is neither kind nor cruel. Only indifferent." -Richard Dawkins

Accepting that as truth, for it is, one then comes to realize that if morality does not exist, one is a member of this indifferent world. And an indifferent world, one in ewhich only the needs of the self matter, then eating meat is, again, perfectly reasonable.

>> No.1370670

>>1370664

What's your opinion on the treatment of women, apostates and gays in Islamic societies?

I'm not a vegetarian. I just find your talk of morality, as if humans are naturally *supposed* to not be eaten, tiresome.

>> No.1370671

What does it mean to eat meat? It means that animals die for it. Most people are ok with that. Some people are not hence they're vegetarians. If you eat meat there is no reason for you to stop just because some people are emotionally repelled by the idea. That's all there is to it.

>> No.1370673

Without talking about morality:
Reasons for eating meat:
>tastes good
>good source of protein + vitamin B12

Reasons against eating meat:
>it's not entirely necessary, protein and B12 are available from other sources.
>keeping animals releases greenhouse gasses.
>the area of land used to feed animals is a very inefficient use in terms of energy and the amount of people who could be fed.
>animals are kept horribly, killed inhumanely, growth hormones are put into them.

my conclusion is not for meat eating to stop, but I think it definitely should be drastically reduced, mainly because for vitamin B12 you either need to eat meat or dairy products. If you are on either side of the morality argument you are a full blown retard. if you think you need to eat a shit ton of meat to be healthy you are an even bigger retard.

>> No.1370674

ITT: natural fallacy everywhere

>> No.1370675

>>1370664

While the world, as a whole, may be indifferent, no karmic justice, no heaven or hell, the living creatures in it are not, some humans find some things morally unacceptable, and from a purely personal standpoint, I'm sure animals aren't too thrilled about being kept shitty environments then slaughtered. The fact is that since there is no objective morality, the only morality is subjective, and if your subjective morality dictates, as mine does, that other beings outside the self do matter, then acting purely in self interest is immoral.

tldr A lack of objective morality doesn't necesarrily make pure selfishness right

>> No.1370676

>>1370670
Well, keep in mind I actually do believe in morality and I believe that the simplest forms of morality a person can follow are to "Do unto others as they would do unto you". The Golden Rule, as it is.

However, that's barely skirting a very very very deep discussion and we both know that it could go on ad nauseum.

I'm completely unaware of what you mean by my "discussion of morality". I am only responding to (I assume they are yours) your pointed questions about my beliefs. I enjoy the repartee, but I'm not preaching anything except in this post
>>1370587
in which I rant against people who eat meat but deride hunting.

Morality isn't the subtext or point of my argument. If anything, I take a far more scientific approach.

>> No.1370678

>>1370671
>What does it mean to eat meat? It means that animals die for it
gross and blatant oversimplification

>> No.1370679

>>1370663
Never did I say it was stupid, just that is no less worthless than you think everything else is. I won't live in the wilderness because I'm not suited to living in the wilderness.

>> No.1370681

>>1370675
An excellent argument. The only problem I see with it is that it is then impossible to apply it to other people. For instance, if your personal morality dictates you should not eat meat, in any form, but there is no objective morality, then it is never incumbent upon anyone else to adhere to your standards. Furthermore, it does not make any one person's moral code superior to another person's.

A good response to nihilism, though.

>> No.1370682

>>1370676

How can you prove that I should follow the golden rule? I'm quite keen to go into it, because I think it's an impossibly strange opinion to hold if your approach is "scientific".

Also, answer my questions about Islamic societies please.

>> No.1370683

>>1370678

Hey Deep&Edgy why don't you stop copping out and actual post your own thoughts on the topic, pussy. Nobody else here is studying philosophy and yet they can still contribute more than you.

>> No.1370684

i think vegetarians are cute.

>> No.1370687

Stop trying to be pure rational entities, humans are not and if you try to go around fighting your own gut and other viscera you'll just bring unhappiness upon yourself. We are all subject to a morality somewhere in our core, it is the set of beliefs socialized into us, that we associate shame/guilt or praise. Everyone has some morality instilled in them simply by growing up as a member of one society or another, and no matter how much you may read Nietzsche you cannot will it away.

So what do you do? you recognize it and take ownership of it as a fundamentally irrational emotive set of beliefs about things where no truth exists, and you having taken ownership of them can fight for them, go to war for them, whatever you choose to be the proper response. So much is made of indicting relativism because you supposedly cannot "condemn Hitler as evil", But why can't you? Nothing's stopping you? So what if they were conditioned into you by a society you didn't choose to be born into, that's all you are the product of your socialization and some small contribution of your biology, it is intrinsic to who you are today, and you should take ownership of it as much as you take ownership of your arm or leg.

You relativists need to realize that just because there is no objective source moral truth doesn't mean you cannot hold moral truth, and doesn't make moral debate worthless. It just means moral debate cannot be done based logical propositions and their natural conclusions. Instead moral debate is a continuous ongoing effort to change opinions by way of the coercive force of moral judgements a la Stevenson's emotivism, and by explicating consequences of the position that do have moral force with your opponents.

Now I want to see no more of this moral relativism/nihilism bullshit about "If there's no God all things are lawful", that's not how it works, "If there's no God, only those things we as men choose to allow, are lawful."

>> No.1370689

Nope.

Although, I am a vegan. But I try not to be a douche about it. I just don't want to be involved in that, killing or causing pain. I don't even much talk about it, because it tends to become a defining factor of my personality. It's not. I see it as just one part in my broader desire to be a more compassionate person.

b real.

>> No.1370693

>>1370681
>>1370675

Relativism is utterly ridiculous. Just because you think such and such is wrong does not mean you shouldn't do it. It means it's inexpedient to do it, because it'll probably make you feel bad.

The only way you can say someone "should" do a certain action is if they ask a question like "What can I do to go along with my own morality?"

>> No.1370694

>>1370683
>why don't you stop copping out and actual post your own thoughts on the topic
Of course bro, I must be copping out if I don't want to encourage such idiotic products of slave dialectic with an equally deluded remark, which of course must necessarily be part of such a pitiable system in order to be intelligible.

No, I piss on this garbage, and rightly so.

>> No.1370701

Mankind thrives off death. We cannot escape it. Every moment of our lives our bodies are destroying microscopic life. Whatever we eat, even if we cultivate it ourselves, must die to feed us. When we till the earth we destroy earthworms and on a large scale we destroy mammals and birds. We literally cannot survive without killing.

We cannot pretend to believe that cows have a greater right to life than earthworms or even carrots.

To demand mankind stop the slaughter of 'innocent animals' is beyond stupid. You choose to believe that one form of life has a greater right to live than another and are as hypocritical as those you pretend to hate.

The only way to stop killing is to kill yourself which I suggest you do so that the world can be done with your faggotry.

>> No.1370702

>>1370694

but that's your opinion on everything. you just use your philosophical knowledge to justify your apathy towards everything.

>> No.1370704

this thread is fucking stupid

is deep&edgy seriously the only person on here with brains?

>> No.1370706

>>1370682
> think it's an impossibly strange opinion to hold if your approach is "scientific".
You misunderstand me, and perhaps I simply wasn't writing clearly, but I'm saying that my approach to eating meat is more scientific and less moral. In some ways, yes, I do view it with morality and spiritualism, but I am a hunter and if anyone is able to take a life and feel nothing then you they truly a broken person.

I'm rambling. My overall point is that I generally approach eating meat in scientific terms, not morality itself. I'm trying to avoid a moral discussion because such things are impossible.

>Islamism
As to the treatment of women, homosexuals, etc. in predominantly Islamist countries I find it barbaric in the extreme. It is, quite demonstrably, a Middle Ages (Dark Ages) mindset. I am a historian, and this is actually provable. They are abhorrent ways to treat human beings.

That one human being could bury another to their waist and then beat them to death with rocks, for being the VICTIM of a rape, is so beyond any sense of morality that the people committing the act may as well be psychopaths.

>The Golden Rule
I simply find that to be a very simple and easy way to guide one's actions, when in doubt. It does not, by any stretch, cover all human experience or moral repercussions, it's merely a very simple compass. To me, that is, and one that I think most people can easily accept. Or at least, should.

>> No.1370707

>>1370694

Deep&Edgy, how do you feel about the fact that I'd fuck your sweet little ass *really* hard?

>> No.1370710

>>1370706

I can't read your fucking contradictory shit dressed up as some kind of consistent thought process any more. Really. You make me mad.

>> No.1370711

>>1370693
Well, I think his response was a good response to a point I had posited and furthermore I DID demonstrate the flaws in his argument, specifically that it cannot then be applied to any other person anywhere. Ever.

However he did aptly demonstrate that even in a world without objective morality, complete selfishness need not rule the day. I think he proved his point, and I proved that relativism is not a perfect way to guide moral questions.

I fail to see what your objection is.

>> No.1370712

>>1370681

Which is where things like society come into play, I suppose reduced to a basic level, society can be defined as a grouping of people who follow the same or similar moral code. I'd argue that a moral code should be based on what is best not just for humans, but for life in general. I perosnally, am a vegetarian, but I don't argue that everyone should be, and it is a personal choice, but I'd say it's not too absurd to demand that within our collective moral code, animals be treat with a level of dignity and respect, even the ones we intend to kill for food, because despite being food, the food was once alive, and felt pain.

>> No.1370715

>>1370710
There's nothing contradictory about it. What possible contradiction have you found? I also fail to see why you're mad, I was rather enjoying this. I like being challenged on my views, I like having to think about them.

If I'm challenging yours, maybe you should just take time to consider your own beliefs and not get angry about it.

As I said, I'm doing everything I can to avoid a discussion on morality, because that has NEVER been my point, from the start.

>> No.1370716
File: 110 KB, 500x396, 1281678501929.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370716

i don't know about you, but someone who hurts cute animals like this must be a meanie

>> No.1370717

Once all the tasty ones become extinct sure.

>> No.1370718

>>1370702
>that's your opinion
that is not my opinion, that is how it is

>everything
Taking "everything" to be a bunch of pea-brained concerns that a bunch of folks made a big deal of somewhere at some point in time.

>you just use your philosophical knowledge to justify your apathy towards everything
You have used 3, maybe 4, completely useless terms in an utterly inferior language which almost drives me to the point of nausea in attempting to bridge language-wise. I do not "justify", that is an utterly deluded practice I will have no part in unless in an ironic mode or if I deign to steep myself on occasion into the cesspit of the subhuman masses in order to make a point.

>> No.1370719
File: 441 KB, 1024x683, Camel_slaughter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370719

hai guise can i play

>> No.1370721

Define slave dialectic D&E

>> No.1370722

seriously though, i think at some point in time people will find a market for mysterious blob meat made from muscle tissue mass, and the pigs cows etc will be replaced.

>> No.1370724

>>1370721
don't even try to pull that stupid socratic shit on me

>> No.1370725

>>1370715

Explaining is like smashing my head against a wall. You don't seem to be seeing the self-evident truth that you can't tell people that they *should* follow the golden rule. You also don't seem to see the contradiction of talking about "moral codes" justifying everything, promoting one, but then deriding another because it makes you feel a little unhappy.

Hopefully you're "hunted" one day, though.

>> No.1370726
File: 94 KB, 515x770, slaughtered-lamb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370726

lisa....lisa....dont eat me lisa...

>> No.1370728

but srsly this one time on 711chan there was a vid of drowning a cat in the bath, shit was harsh

>> No.1370731

>>1370728
yeah man i saw that, with the german metal song or whatever

>> No.1370733

>>1370724
How is a simple request like request like that socratic? Just give me a fucking definition wise ass.

>> No.1370734

>>1370733
-like request

>> No.1370735

>>1370725
>You don't seem to be seeing the self-evident truth that you can't tell people that they *should* follow the golden rule.

Why oh why do you keep making this about morality? You have taken this so far off on a complete tangent. What does this have to do with eating meat?


>You also don't seem to see the contradiction of talking about "moral codes" justifying everything, promoting one, but then deriding another because it makes you feel a little unhappy.
I wasn't talking about moral codes in the first place, friend. Other people brought up that point and I responded to it that eating meat is acceptable in the general confines of most Western societies and within a world with no objective morality. I was specifically addressing eating meat, which I still am.

Furthermore, I have never said that all moral codes are equivalent. They are not. Had I been saying that, then certainly, I'd be contradictory in deriding one.

But as I said, my argument as to sentience is more in lines with scientific rather than philosophical argumentation.

>> No.1370739

>>1370645
Is this a serious post? Aside from how blatantly retarded supposing cultural preference has anything to do with biological status, I don't think you understand how a food chain works.

Nevermind, this whole thread is just outright retarded. I think that bell curve graph of the various boards on 4chan needs to be redone.

>> No.1370740

>>1370733
how bout you learn how to use wikipedia you dumb shit

>> No.1370742

>>1370735

Nothing, it just annoys me that you hold the view despite the blatant incorrectness of it.

What makes the Islamic moral code (objectively) "worse" than the Western one? They're just very different.

>> No.1370745

>>1370687
>>1370687
I hate you people so much.

>> No.1370750

>>1370742
>What makes the Islamic moral code (objectively) "worse" than the Western one?
Because one is based in Middle Ages mysticism and anti-woman theology, and the other is based on reason and the Enlightenment. Generally, of course.

It is the general problem with anyone who purely defines their morality in terms of religion. You can use it to justify anything. And that, invariably, leads to cruel behavior towards other human beings.

I don't think it's really arguable that beating a rape victim to death with a rock is more cruel than to not.

>> No.1370752

>>1370740
Hey, Hegel can be tough shit, give the little fellow a break, he just needs a little help.

>> No.1370756

>>1370752
no, fuck that guy. he's side stepping the point with his faggot troll face on being a bitch and is serious.

>> No.1370757

>>1370750

I still fail to see how that makes Western moral codes "better". Certainly subjectively. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean one should have that moral code or that that moral code is what should exist.

"Cruel" is not synonymous with "shouldn't".

I also still want an answer to why I should follow the golden rule, if I don't want to.

>> No.1370759

Those things which make animals akin to humans are the characteristics of life, which plants, too, share. If we are to give animals human rights based on their similarities to humankind, those rights must be extended to plants, too. Obviously, that isn't possible, so we must hold animals and plants to a higher standard before giving them rights--a standard which none have reached. Until they reach that standard, they remain natural resources.

>> No.1370770

If interested read, Zoographies: The Question of the Animal from Heidegger to Derrida.

Great book on the question of the animal.

Now excuse me while i enjoy my bacon and sausage breakfast.

>> No.1370772

>>1370757
> I also still want an answer to why I should follow the golden rule, if I don't want to.

I honestly don't know. I'd have to consider it. As I said, it's merely a compass by which I guide my own actions, broadly at least.

>> No.1370773

>>1370759
Except animals are not plants, they have apparent mental states, even emotions, they react to pain and can display problem solving behavior. There is plenty of reason to assume that inflicting pain and death upon them should have the same moral weight as torturing a kid with down syndrome or something.

>> No.1370774

>>1370742

It's wrong to declare homosexuality wrong when it isn't and it's wrong to treat women less favourably than men because they have Y chromosones, among other reasons. There is no "Western moral code"; only moral codes of other religions more prominent in the West which have some of the same failings of Islam's moral code and some which Islam's doesn't. Morality should be based on what's right; not the threat of punishment. People rely on religious texts for morality because they don't want to think deeply themselves; people want to live happily and by a set of rules so they can be sure that they're "good people" as opposed to people doing as they should.

>> No.1370776

>>1370756
Calm down bro. I've just read the article about master-slave dialectic on wikipedia no reason to become furious.
I was curious because it's not the first time D&E dismisses an entire topic as "slave dialectic".

>> No.1370779

>>1370774
>It's wrong to declare homosexuality wrong when it isn't

Stopped reading, You cannot prove that homosexuality is wrong or right, and therefore cannot derive cultural value from talking about the way gay people are treated in a culture.

>> No.1370781

>>1370757
Maybe "Western" morals are better than Islamic ones because they're not so outdated and backwards that, by following them, the people aren't so miserable that their pastimes start to include things like blowing themselves up and flogging/chopping off body parts.

>> No.1370782

>>1370776
it's also not the first time d&e trolls u

>> No.1370786

>>1370773

Animals have physical sensations, pain, euphoria, etc; and plants show problem-solving behaviour; they shoot roots through ground to get what they need and they grow toward light for photosynthesis. The question of torture is entirely different; killing animals should be painless.

>> No.1370787

>>1370782
true. d&e is one of the most adept trolls i've come to see on 4chan.

>> No.1370789

>>1370781

Just because something is modern does not make it objectively better than something else, you know.

>> No.1370794
File: 488 KB, 230x172, 80f041931884f92954fb96e5.jpg.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370794

>>1370779
>prove
>a normative statement

what are you, some kind of aspie?

>> No.1370795

>>1370779

Homosexuality hurts nobody and doesn't deceive anyone; it's not right--because nothing is inherently right--but it's no wrongs--as some things are inherently wrong, for example, murder and lying.

>> No.1370796

>>1370795

Murder and lying cannot be proved to be wrong.

>> No.1370801
File: 463 KB, 250x170, 2010-7-27_9AEE010A-5E70-4.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370801

>>1370796
>prove
>normative
what are you, some sort of aspie?

>> No.1370805
File: 18 KB, 379x214, Im_ok_with_this.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370805

>>1370632
>>1370632
>you might as well eat dog, and human, and fuck humans while you're eating them.

>> No.1370806

>>1370786
>Animals have physical sensations, pain, euphoria, etc;
Just like humans, there is no reason to make the assumption they they don't carry the same weight to the animal as they do for humans.

>and plants show problem-solving behaviour; they shoot roots through ground to get what they need and they grow toward light for photosynthesis.
That's not problem solving behavior, thats a single biological response to one stimulus. They grow towards a light source, they do not move towards one, once grown they do not change (except minor adjustments based on turgidity of cells). They do not possess thought, which would be displayed in terms of a multiplicity of biological responses to a given stimulus. There's a complexity inherent in reactions of animals not present in those of plants.

>The question of torture is entirely different; killing animals should be painless.
If their pain has moral value, why not their lives? How much pain would you endure to stay alive? surely life has more value than a little pain.

>> No.1370809
File: 23 KB, 132x140, 1279207224524.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370809

>>1370794
>>1370801
YES, YES, YES. Finally somebody used that word.

>> No.1370818

>>1370806

Humans experience far more than animals and have more capabilities than animals.

Animals don't consider problems as humans do and simply try things until they get what they want; there is no skill about that.

You have me there: there is actually nothing wrong with torturing an animal. You're dead right.

>> No.1370824

Hello friends, >>1370687, again,

Stop this fucking shit please, you're honestly treading over the same tired retarded shit over and over again. What is wrong with you? I expect that some of you are 14 and just now thinking maybe there isn't objective moral truth, but the rest of you have no excuse. Stop being retarded please, it makes me sad.

>> No.1370828

>>1370789
Well while we're on the topic of whether modern is objectively good or not how about you toss that computer of yours out the window along with everything else attributed to technological development and we'll see how you fare.

>> No.1370829

>>1370796

>Nihilist

Oooooh, you're so cool. What gives you the right to lie to or hurt your equal? Do you go about murdering and lying, O Enlightened one?

>> No.1370832

>>1370824
why so srs

>> No.1370833

>>1370818
>Humans experience far more than animals and have more capabilities than animals.
What are you talking about plenty of animals can experience things in visual and auditory ranges humans cannot. And have a diverse array of capabilities that humans do not.

>Animals don't consider problems as humans do and simply try things until they get what they want; there is no skill about that.
[citation needed]
You cannot read into the intentions of animals anymore, than you can read into the intentions of other human minds.

>You have me there: there is actually nothing wrong with torturing an animal. You're dead right.
Congrats you're now 1/3 of the way to being a serial killer.

>> No.1370845
File: 35 KB, 298x292, 1270832816091.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1370845

>My face when it would take only two lines of text to summarize all arguments that have been brought up in this thread.

/lit/ I'm proud.

>> No.1370847

>>1370845

Let's hear the two lines of text.

>> No.1370848

>>1370845

Is that because your face is FICTIONAL

>> No.1370866

In my lifetime, I will not give up the delicious ribs and burgers that are staples of my diet.

Fuck your fava beans and lentils!
(My girlfriend is also vegetarian. She eats all the stuff I don't, while I devour a delicious steak.)

>> No.1370885

In the future OP, we'll all be enjoying our meals of delicious Soylent Green.