/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4499694]

ITT: Philosophers you hate or disagree with, but can't find fault in.

[Anonymous No.4499717]

i don't find his argument against expensive shoes convincing...if i buy the cheapest sweatshop shoes from an exploitative megacorporation like walmart instead of buying a 900 dollar pair of made in italy loafers by a middle class skilled tradesman haven't i just continued oppression? seems like some slave morality bullshit meant to make people who can afford nice shit to feel guilty.

[Anonymous No.4499762]

>>4499717
no because you give the rest of the money that you otherwise would've spent on the $900 shoes on charity

>>4499694
why do you hate/disagree with him OP?

[Anonymous No.4499771]

>>4499762
Animals don't have long term goals or aspirations. I acknowledge that factory farming, which produces the lion's share of meat produce, is utterly abhorrent, but the essential idea that we as humans shouldn't be allowed to consume species that are dumb and have no concept of life or death is silly.
I realise that we don't *need* to eat meat, but we want to. And so long as we want to, and there exists an ethically justifiable manner of doing so, I'm not going to stop.
Basically, I'm not convinced that there's anything morally wrong with speciesism.
But I can't see the flaw in his logic and so can't directly attack his argument.

[Anonymous No.4499784]

>>4499771
>Animals don't have long term goals or aspirations
neither do infants or the severely mentally disabled

>humans shouldn't be allowed to consume species that are dumb
why should intelligence, an arbitrary measure of a being's existence determine their right to life? why not choose an equally arbitrary measure like skin colour or height?

>no concept of life or death
so why should we not be allowed to eat infants and the severely mentally disabled then?

[Anonymous No.4499785]

>>4499762
> that are dumb and have no concept of life or death is silly

nothing to do with the suffering they experience or the abhorrent conditions in general, which is sufficient unto itself to end meat eating.

Furthermore, it is the single greatest cause of global warming.

[Anonymous No.4499786]

He's a cunt. There's that.

Remember kids, postmodernism is for fags who can't take a joke.

[Anonymous No.4499794]

>>4499786
>peter singer
>postmodernism
are you sure we're talking about the same guy?

[Anonymous No.4499795]

>>4499784
There is nothing morally wrong with consuming infants or the severely mentally disabled. We don't do it because we acknowledge future potential or the capacity of their closest relations to suffer in the event that we did consume them. And, of course, because we, as speciesists, instinctually have a preference to not kill or harm our own species.
Intelligence has an enormous impact on our perception of the external world, and hence, the moral implications of certain actions are influenced by the intelligence of those affected by it.
>>4499785
>Furthermore, it is the single greatest cause of global warming.
This is true.
>>4499786
what

[Anonymous No.4499799]

>>4499762
so giving hard earned money to elite bureaucratic 1 percenters is more ethical? sounds like me and the italian shoe maker are under attack by some ideological class war here

[Anonymous No.4499813]

>>4499784
why shouldn't plants have a right to life? why does having a central nervous system determine your value as a person? suppose a person is born without a central nervous system? should we kill and eat them?

[Anonymous No.4499816]

>>4499813
>born w/out a CNS
So no brain or spinal cord? I would have no moral issue with eating them, no.
I wouldn't, personally. But I fail to see why there'd be anything wrong with eating them.

[Anonymous No.4499822]

>>4499795
>the capacity of their closest relations to suffer in the event that we did consume them.
say the mentally handicapped person's family would be happier if they did not have to care for them.

>instinctually have a preference to not kill or harm our own species.
why is it then, that westerners have an innate sense of shock and anger to the mistreatment and killing of dogs and cats whereas other cultures do not?

>Intelligence has an enormous impact on our perception of the external world
so were a highly evolved super-intelligent alien race to encounter us, would it be just for them to harvest us for food?

> the moral implications of certain actions are influenced by the intelligence of those affected by it.
that doesn't mean that animals do not suffer and feel extreme pain and sadness through the process of farming (factory or not)

>>4499799
>world's poorest
>elite bureaucratic 1 percenters
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here

[Anonymous No.4499829]

>>4499813
it's about minimising suffering

I don't know if plants feel pain, I'm sorry if they do but but we have to eat something in order survive and not suffer, however humans in industrialised societies do not necessarily need to eat animals in order to maintain a healthy diet.

[Anonymous No.4499836]

>>4499822
the point is this elite professor wants me to spend my hard earned proletarian paycheck on some non-union sweatshop produced disposable junk and then send the rest to some wealthy bureaucrat instead of buying a quality product from a fellow worker. i'd say that dude is a straight up reactionary piece of shit waging ideological class warfare. where is we from again? princeton? the favorite ivy of south slave owners...makes sense.

[Anonymous No.4499838]

>>4499771

So you're against causing suffering to animals, but indifferent towards killing them because they have no way of seeing it coming?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm genuinely curious. I always sound angry when I read what I've typed out ;_;

[Anonymous No.4499839]

>>4499822
>say the mentally handicapped person's family would be happier if they did not have to care for them.
I suppose it depends on how mentally handicapped they are. I mean, if you support euthanasia, you could probably extend it to this instance.
>why is it then, that westerners have an innate sense of shock and anger to the mistreatment and killing of dogs and cats whereas other cultures do not?
Don't know. Probably a cultural association. Grew up with them as pets, they feel like part of the family, almost like a disabled family member. I only included the idea of preference as an explanation for human attitudes, it has little bearing on the practical matter of the the morality of the action.
>so were a highly evolved super-intelligent alien race to encounter us, would it be just for them to harvest us for food?
No, because we're intelligent enough to understand both death and the desire to not die.
>that doesn't mean that animals do not suffer and feel extreme pain and sadness through the process of farming (factory or not)
I agree and disagree. The ideal kind of farming is pretty moral to my mind. The idyllic farm scene with the local farmer feeding his chickens every day and then one day he comes to the pen with a knife rather than grain. But yes, factory farming because of the nature of the killings is unethical.
>>4499829
>I don't know if plants feel pain
They don't, there you go :)

[Anonymous No.4499844]

>>4499694
Chose a career which, rather than contribute to humanity, currently thrives on the edges and is no longer an area of useful development. Isn't a doctor of medicine. Isn't an engineer. Chooses to work in moral philosophy and espouses utilitarianism while until only recently not practicing what he preached. The problem with any discussion of morality or ethic coming down to the basic issue: that the whole project presumes objective worth, and isn't just a fine spiderweb network of people equally unfit to contribute to their society but feel perfectly happy to do nothing more than make statements which are
>implying

Your project is a joke. Go to sleep.

[Anonymous No.4499858]

That she was miserable and died childless gives me some solace, at least

Incredible [as in, 'not credible'] as it may sound, I don't consider myself a misogynist.
I think that women should do most of the job of raising children, because they're more empathetic, and because, when I was a kid, I enjoyed the time I spent with my mother more. I think that the only reason women entered the workforce was because Reaganomics made a single salary too little to live on. The whole business of making women into men seems, to me, to be depriving the world of one of the only good things it has in it. But my disagreements are wholly subjective, again. I apologize if my ignorance has offended anybody.

[Anonymous No.4499863]

>>4499771
Animals may have no concept, and consequently no fear of death, but they still have the capacity to feel pleasure and/or suffering. Shouldn't we allow them to continue their opportunity to experience these things, in the same way we allow humans to experience them?

[Anonymous No.4499865]

the right has always been obsessed with vegetarianism at least since Wagner, maybe earlier. The guy's a crypto-fascist, face it.

[Anonymous No.4499880]

Just getting off Singer, I'll add this one in too. Though I don't think she's quite as popular.
>>4499863
In my opinion? No, because experiencing the same amount of happiness for one year or ten years if that happiness never really ends (it just vanishes when all other modes of perception do) are equally moral situations. To my mind.
Like, if I was in a coma for one year or ten years. If I don't know I'm about to die, then the contentment never ends and it doesn't matter to me. That's how I see it at least.

[Anonymous No.4499883]

>>4499694
Huge faggot bordering on incoherency.

[Anonymous No.4500250]

hnnnnnngh

[Anonymous No.4500251]

Just had a nice juicy steak. Tasted good too ^__^

[Anonymous No.4500782]

>>4499858
>I think that the only reason women entered the workforce was because Reaganomics

lol wut? Progressive movement son. Women had been pushing into the workforce since the 20s.

[Anonymous No.4500799]

>>4499795
>There is nothing morally wrong with consuming infants or the severely mentally disabled.
Somebody needs to get some sunshine.

[Anonymous No.4500832]

>>4500251
Haha me too bro, wudda fucking slit the cows throat if i could have lol

[Anonymous No.4500856]

>>4499836
The argument works by sums. The idea is a four dollar pair of shoes plus 896 dollar donation to help end worker oppression will do more to end worker oppression than depriving the corporations which put worker oppression in place of four dollars.
If you could get eight dollar shoes that were made by people with a living wage, he would advocate you get the eight dollar shoes because the four dollars in donation is negligible.
The background argument is that you should be freeing up as much of your income as you can and devoting it to improving the condition of the severely impoverished instead of your own, and you need to calculate how your get the most good per dollar. For instance, an argument could be made that you'll use those hand-crafted Italian shoes for twenty years, and over those twenty years the money they would have gone to shitty shoes, which break down say, every six months, would be a similar sum that could be diverted to helping the impoverished.

[Anonymous No.4500864]

>>4499838
I can see how that argument works. If deaths are done humanely, the death inflicts zero suffering on the animal and adds to the net pleasure of people. If what you care about is adding to the animal's suffering, it's a morally neutral act, even preferable if you're prioritizing human pleasure and avoidance of pain.

[Anonymous No.4500870]

>>4500250
>sensus divinitatis

[Anonymous No.4500893]

>>4499844
>philosophy does not contribute to humanity

You are a disgrace to your species.

[Anonymous No.4500918]

>>4499844
How do you determine what contributes to humanity?

[Anonymous No.4501003]

>>4499858
I don't think that letting women into things that used to be male-only is "making them into men". It's also a huge generalization to assume that all women are more empathetic than men and better at raising children because of that (or that empathy is a good thing when you're raising children, for that matter).

>>4499863
Animals do fear death, though. The whole evolutionary game and all? It's all about fearing and avoiding death. They have no critical/objective understanding of death, but they do have feelings towards it.

I think the vegan/vegetarian argument that "intelligence is an arbitrary measure" is very weak because if you're going that way, so is "feeling pain/not feeling pain" or "having or not having a brain". Vegans who choose to do so because they want to protect animals (and not for objective reasons like health or global warming) should just fucking admit they do so because they feel more empathy towards animals that are closer to us, and most of all for the ones who are mammals like we are.

Saying otherwise is hypocritical: "your measure of what should be eaten and what shouldn't is arbitrary, and mine, although just as arbitrary, is a lot better and superior".

[Anonymous No.4501049]

[Anonymous No.4501466]

[Anonymous No.4502070]

so smug

[Anonymous No.4502075]

>>4501049
Not a philosopher and you're probably a troll but his theory that a religious upbringing is on par with child abuse is fucking appalling.

[Anonymous No.4502121]

Refuting utilitarians is like flipping pancakes.

[Anonymous No.4502139]

>>4499694
>disagree with
>can't find fault in

Surely these are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.4502178]

>tfw you trash talk several philosophers on /lit/, but if you actually were to have a conversation with them then you're not sure that you would win a debate with them
anyone else feel this?

[Anonymous No.4502197]

>>4502121
>tfw can't flip pancakes but can refute utilitarianism
are they really alike anon? i need to know

>>4499694
Aristotle. I can't read him to find out how he's wrong. Nietzsche because he's brilliant with portents of becoming the bus passenger that distinctly smells of something unpleasant but nobody wants to inhale enough to find out what.

[Anonymous No.4502202]

>>4502178
They would destroy any /lit/ try hard. We're not good philosophers here.

[Anonymous No.4502218]

>>4499694

If I didn't find fault in them, i wouldn't hate or disagree with them

[Anonymous No.4502306]

>>4499838
What part of that is hard to understand, same reason im pro-abortion

[Anonymous No.4502321]

>>4501003
>empathy
>not good for raising children
nice to know I don't need to continue arguing

[Anonymous No.4502336]

>>4501003

>Animals do fear death, though. The whole evolutionary game and all? It's all about fearing and avoiding death.

Incorrect.

Animals fear threats. Animals have the wherewithal to understand when others in their group have died, sure - elephants have been documented as mourning their dead for example - but they do so only knowing that the fellow being was claimed by a threat. They have no concept of death from an epistemological standpoint as well as none of the psychological apprehension that comes with it.

Theirs is a fear of threats, not death.

[Anonymous No.4502357]

>>4499858
I agree with most of your statement save for the Reaganomics part.

>>4500799
How lowbrow of you

[Anonymous No.4502361]

>>4502075
He said making a child believe they will go to hell and be tortured if they don't believe in your fictitious deity is child abuse.

[Anonymous No.4502418]

>>4502336

The evolutionary game is about propagating your genes. Whether you survive or not is irrelevant. If you are 14 and you had like 50 kids and died, you would have been considered successful from the evolutionary standpoint because you were able to propagate your genes.

[Anonymous No.4502421]

>>4502418

if you were 14*

[Anonymous No.4502428]

>>4500856
>The idea is a four dollar pair of shoes plus 896 dollar donation to help end worker oppression

This is just overly-theoretical crap. It just isn't realistic and has nothing to do with the real world or how most people behave with their money.

[Anonymous No.4502431]

I can't believe we are talking about this stuff, when clearly a giant conspiracy is at hand. Pic oh so related.

[Anonymous No.4502433]

>>4502361
>making a child believe they will go to hell and be tortured if they don't believe
it's not child abuse if it's true

[Anonymous No.4502450]

>>4502418

Either you've poor reading comprehension or poor analytic faculties because this tangential afterthought of yours had absolutely nothing to do with the distinction between threat and death that I was conveying.

[Anonymous No.4502499]

>>4502361
And he would be correct, indoctrination like that can fall apart when exposed to the real world, and when it does the emotional consequences of it can be far reaching.

(Most) Religious doctrine simply doesn't align with reality, and forcing it on people is a disaster waiting to happen when the faith they have it in dissolves.

[Anonymous No.4502510]

>>4502431
holy moley

[Anonymous No.4502512]

>>4502499
>implying there is a real world

[Anonymous No.4502521]

>>4502512
>Can't know nuthin faggot

[Anonymous No.4502528]

>>4502521
>implying you know I am a 'can't know nuthin faggot"

[Anonymous No.4502534]

>>4499784
>neither do infants or the severely mentally disabled

Infants we expect to turn into fully grown humans, so we give them a chance

we don't kill disabled people because it's considered horrific for us on a biological level

[Anonymous No.4502541]

>>4502499
i was amazed when i realized how many kids are actually traumatized by finding out santa is fake! the first time i realized some people had taken santa way to seriously as kids when one day i was taking a shit reading a skateboard mag and i start reading someshit which was written to look like a article about the skate scene somewhere or something but was really an essay about the betrayal of santa clause and how what a horrible thing for parents and adults to conspiratorial foist on unsuspecting little kids. i was like "woah, this dude took santa waaaay too fucking seriously!". i figured maybe he was that one kid at school who claimed to see santa on christmas and now felt like a moron for having his childish lie exposed...but it stuck with me and throughout life i have noticed angry little snipes and hurt whimpers about the santa fraud slipped into conversations and writing here and there. i' guess i've always been a skeptic even since i was a little shit so realizing there's no santa, god or freedom did not really shock me.

but it stuck with me and later in life i kept noticing angry little snipes and hurt wimpers about the santa fraud. i thi

[Anonymous No.4502543]

>>4502499
i was amazed when i realized how many kids are actually traumatized by finding out santa is fake! the first time i realized some people had taken santa way to seriously as kids when one day i was taking a shit reading a skateboard mag and i start reading someshit which was written to look like a article about the skate scene somewhere or something but was really an essay about the betrayal of santa clause and how what a horrible thing for parents and adults to conspiratorial foist on unsuspecting little kids. i was like "woah, this dude took santa waaaay too fucking seriously!". i figured maybe he was that one kid at school who claimed to see santa on christmas and now felt like a moron for having his childish lie exposed...but it stuck with me and throughout life i have noticed angry little snipes and hurt whimpers about the santa fraud slipped into conversations and writing here and there. i' guess i've always been a skeptic even since i was a little shit so realizing there's no santa, god or freedom did not really shock me.

[Anonymous No.4502547]

>>4502543
This is weird to me. However I didn't understand why kids made a big deal out of parental divorce either, I was 100% okay with it and even saw the gain of having two instances of Christmas.

[Anonymous No.4502550]

>>4502534
we don't kill disabled people not because it's horrific but because it has some weird factors involved. for instance if society decides it saves money to kill retards then there has to be a beauracracy to decide who is too retarded to live and some parents will protest and say their kid is only borderline retarded and should live...then on the hand suppose we left it up to the parents to decide? then if they decide to keep the retard fiscal conservatives will be mad that they are wasting precious retards on a non-productive "taker" meanwhile if they decided to slaughter the imbecile and take it out of it's misery their neighbors who are blessed with healthy non-retarded offspring will judge them as evil baby killers who did not love their own flesh and blood, so killing retards while economically a fine idea and morally debatable it would just be a bitch to put into practice without making everybody miserable.

[Anonymous No.4503062]

>>4499694
The fault lies in assuming hedonism. Pleasure and pain as a prime motivation for (moral) action.

[Anonymous No.4503066]

>>4499694
>Disagree
>Can't find fault

Which one is it? Are you talking of the divide between deductive validity and truth?

[Anonymous No.4503067]

>>4503062
*motivation = justification

[Anonymous No.4503090]

I'm a vegan so I agree with his main principles, but it's the "having sex with animals is fine as long as they aren't harmed" that really fucking set me off. He takes a practical approach to what you 'should' be able to do to animal rather than a 'right-based' approach, which is what it should be. Also, the fact that he recognized the grotesque cruelty in dairy farms, yet is not a strict vegan, worries me.

[Anonymous No.4503112]

>>4503090
If the animal doesn't mind, fuck away. If you're not unwilling it's not rape. Who the fuck cares, all animals do is walk around eating grass and shitting all day. We are superior in our thought and our behaviour. We should fuck them to reassure them we are their masters.

If anyone harmed an animal or the animal was noticeably distressed or bothered by the act, then I would find the behaviour disgusting and wrong, but if they don't fucking mind why the fuck does it matter.

Fucking vegans.

[Anonymous No.4503114]

there I said it

[Anonymous No.4503126]

>>4503112
>If the animal doesn't mind, fuck away. If you're not unwilling it's not rape.
This literally allows us to date rape women (and babies, and very some disabled people) because if they're unconscious then they aren't 'unwilling'. (The definition of rape is without consent, therefore is someone can't consent then it's rape.) The woman isn't going to be hurt by the rape, or even know that it happened- so where's the ethical dilemma? It's about rights.
>Who the fuck cares, all animals do is walk around eating grass and shitting all day. We are superior in our thought and our behaviour. We should fuck them to reassure them we are their masters.
I'm not sure if you're trolling here, but this, again, could be said for babies.
>If anyone harmed an animal or the animal was noticeably distressed or bothered by the act, then I would find the behaviour disgusting and wrong, but if they don't fucking mind why the fuck does it matter.
I'm gonna have to reach the conclusion that you think raping an unconscious women is ok.
>Fucking vegans.
:) Enjoy destroying the environment, supporting torture, rape, and murder.

[Anonymous No.4503129]

>>4503126
Not that anon, but. - You assume that there is no difference in the way in which we are moved to act towards humans and other animals. It's a good rhetirical move, but no more than a trick if not properly argued for. Which you have neglected. Burden of proof is on you to convince others that we ought to treat other animals the same as we treat our fellow human beings.

[Anonymous No.4503136]

>>4503129
Because the thought of retards being treated like humans just because they share DNA with us sickens me, to be perfectly blunt.

[Anonymous No.4503141]

>>4503136
your being sickened is, as you well know, not an argument for others to start vomiting as well.

[Anonymous No.4503156]

>>4503129
>>4503136
I'm not asking you to show compassion to a fetus here- or yeast. Most people love dogs. If you were to buy a bunch of puppies, show them off to your neighbours and girlfriend, and then kill them, roast them and serve them with some delicious sauce, your girlfriend would break up with you and your neighbours would probably call the police. We all have compassion for animals, and have been raised to love them and treat them with respect (cats and dogs). It's just that we have decided that traits like attractiveness and intelligence (even though pigs are as intelligent as dogs) equate an animals worth. Pigs are sentient, intelligent yet people have been taught to ignore their suffering and death because of the profit and taste that comes from meat. Speciesism is just as sickening as racism and sexism. Do you want me to explain to you why black people should be treated as humans as well? Imagine your dad comes home one day and start beating a pig to death with a cricket bat in the kitchen, would you not feel a overwhelming feeling of disgust and feeling to help the animal? The same could not be said for plants, or yeast. We are naturally compassionate to sentient beings.

[Anonymous No.4503160]

>>4503129
I'm "that" anon, and you give a very good point of criticism. Exactly right, he's playing on semantics but you cut through to the nub of the issue. We treat humans differently to other animals because we are undeniably different, and to a very large degree. Look at the division we have created between nature and civilized man. We still attempt integration, but at the best this becomes feeble attempts at constructing parks and zoos which are really just for our amusement. You venture further out from civilization you will tend to come closer to nature.

[Anonymous No.4503174]

>>4503156
Again you make a sleight of hand: it is not at all proven by your emotive arguments that speciecism is as bad as racism or sexism. The fact that we are culturally conditioned to care about certain animals mroe than about others has little to do with the question of speciecism. When Stalingrad was beleagured by the forces of Hitler the first things to disappear from the streetview were cats and dogs. Eaten.

There is also the difference between unnecessary cruelty (my dad beating the pig) and clean cut killing.

[Anonymous No.4503189]

>>4503174
"...make a sleight of hand..."

"...beleaguered..."

Nice. never heard beleaguered before, what a nice word. I like your style you are very forthcoming and clear yet with some flair and elegance. I love when one achieves good balance expressing meaning and making that meaning enjoyable to read.

[Anonymous No.4503191]

>>4503189
beleaguered might be a Dutchism

[Anonymous No.4503192]

>>4503191
Ah, it isn't

[Anonymous No.4503215]

>>4503174
>There is also the difference between unnecessary cruelty (my dad beating the pig) and clean cut killing.
I agree. However, humane slaughter is an absolute oxymoron. The aim should be to minimize suffering as much as possible, which is, in this case, to not kill the pig at all and to have a lentil dahl instead.
> it is not at all proven by your emotive arguments that speciesism is as bad as racism or sexism.
How would you have me 'prove' that something is morally wrong? Morals are inherently subjective- emotive arguments are all that can be used when discussing morals. The facts are that a sentient being is being harmed unnecessarily. This is always wrong, and should be minimized as much as possible. Why is trying to minimize death such an unattainable stance to you? The irony is that ending the slaughter would not come with any major consequences, we would be healthier, the animals would be healthier and our environment would be much better off.
>When Stalingrad was beleagured by the forces of Hitler the first things to disappear from the streetview were cats and dogs. Eaten.
I'm not sure what your point is here? Killing animals for survival is a form of self defence, and therefore a necessary evil. Imagine that the people in Stalingrad had cats and dogs to eat, but also had storage supplies full of lentils and soybeans. This is the scenario you're in. The animals are dying strictly for our pleasure and convenience
>

[Anonymous No.4503247]

>>4503215
>humane slaughter is an absolute oxymoron. The aim should be to minimize suffering as much as possible, which is, in this case, to not kill the pig at all and to have a lentil dahl instead.
If I put a gun to my head temple and pull the trigger I can be pretty sure that I do not suffer before I die. Death is instant. As such, I do not see how humane killing is an oxymoron if the objective is to kill without inducing suffering.

>Why is trying to minimize death such an unattainable stance to you?
So, you are pro-life? Every sperm is sacred and all that jazz.

>emotive arguments are all that can be used when discussing morals.
I guess you are not a pragmatist.

>unnecessarily.
The question of necessity is situation dependent. No one here argues for the right of people to practice animal cruelty. Most of us (I at least) merely acknowledge that in order for human societies to function they will need to make use of animals and their deaths. The question you ask, I suppose, is whether our society has reached a point where we are no longer reliant on animals in this way. My answer would be: no. If not for food, then for, say, medical purposes.

>ending the slaughter would not come with any major consequences, we would be healthier, the animals would be healthier and our environment would be much better off.
This is one of the few good arguments in favour for a vegatarian way of life. Of course if the environment is your objective, this is still only treating symptoms and not the cause. The better solution is to start sterillizing people. Over population and such.

>I'm not sure what your point is here?
My point was: check your priviledge. The only reason you can feel compassion for animals is because you've had the luck to be born in a society where you can get most of your nutritional needs fullfilled by recourse significant sums of money and the movements of global markets. It is ridiculous that you'd demand of humanity in general to stop using animals.

[Anonymous No.4503253]

>>4502357
I take that (Reaganomics) back, how could I have overlooked all the suffragetes et al-? It is not enough that I do not think before I speak, but I do not even think before I write!

[Anonymous No.4503256]

>>4500782
Absolutely right. I'm stuipd

[Anonymous No.4503258]

>>4502547

>and then you ended up on 4chan

definitely a well-adjusted kid you are.

[Anonymous No.4503279]

>>4499694
Does Dawkins count?

[Anonymous No.4503332]

ITT: /lit/ circlejerks over their ignorant views and unethical choices.

[Anonymous No.4503412]

>>4503332
More like "ITB:". To blame only this thread would be to miss the bigger picture.

[Anonymous No.4503480]

>>4503332
>I can't convince people through the use of sound reason, therefore I resort to ad hominem fallacies

[Anonymous No.4503526]

>hurr animals can't feel
>muh comprehension of death
>its just fear so it doesn't matter
>hurr it's not rape unless a lack of consent is explicit

*tips fedora in the direction of this juvenile edge*

[Anonymous No.4503527]

>>4503247
> Death is instant. As such, I do not see how humane killing is an oxymoron if the objective is to kill without inducing suffering.
The act of killing a sentient being (unless euthanasia) is wrong, because you're taking away it's right to live it's life. Much like raping an unconscious woman is evil, even though she will not feel it, or even know it has happened. "Humane Rape" is an absolute oxymoron, like human slaughter.

>So, you are pro-life? Every sperm is sacred and all that jazz.
No, my apologies. I meant to say "Why is trying to minimize the death of sentient beings such an unattainable stance to you?" I am pro-choice, and pro-euthanasia.

>I guess you are not a pragmatist.
I'm not sure what pragmatism means, but I do not believe that moral issues cannot ever be objective.

>The question of necessity is situation dependent. No one here argues for the right of people to practice animal cruelty. Most of us (I at least) merely acknowledge that in order for human societies to function they will need to make use of animals and their deaths. The question you ask, I suppose, is whether our society has reached a point where we are no longer reliant on animals in this way. My answer would be: no. If not for food, then for, say, medical purposes.
Which medical purposes do you mean? America is one of the countries that is not reliant on animals for food, along with most lots and lots of places.

>This is one of the few good arguments in favour for a vegatarian way of life. Of course if the environment is your objective, this is still only treating symptoms and not the cause. The better solution is to start sterillizing people. Over population and such.
This, in itself would raise lots of moral objections. Whereas taking meat of the market would not.

>My point was: check your priviledge. The only reason you can feel compassion for animals is because you've had the luck to be born in a society where you can get most of your nutritional needs fullfilled by recourse significant sums of money and the movements of global markets. It is ridiculous that you'd demand of humanity in general to stop using animals.
In societies that can, they then should. And that is a lot of societies- the US included. I'm not insane; i'm not going to ask a rural village in north africa to go vegan. But you CAN go vegan, and it's purely selfish reasons that are stopping you. I can ask humanity in general to stop using animals, actually, just like humanity was asked to stop using slaves in general.

[Anonymous No.4503556]

>>4499694
Are there any sustainable pro-meat eating arguments though?

[Anonymous No.4503638]

>>4503556
health issues. 'specially when it comes to children in growth.

[Anonymous No.4503658]

>>4503527
>because you're taking away it's right to live it's life
Do all sentient beings have the right to live? This is an assumption your argument hinges on. I am unsure of the existence of this right.

> Much like raping an unconscious woman is evil, even though she will not feel it, or even know it has happened.
I urge you to be careful with analogies like this one. It suggest that you think killing a rabid dog is on the same level as raping a person. I think this is a reprehensil standpoint.

> "Humane Rape" is an absolute oxymoron, like human slaughter.
I take it you mean humanE slaughter?

My point in the previous post was still based on the assumption that you are, like Singer, in pursuit of reducing suffering. As a clean kill involves no suffering, there is something like humane slaughter. If the definition is to avoid killing, than it is indeed an oxymoron to speak of humane slaughter. I think that such a standpoint is untennable.

>"Why is trying to minimize the death of sentient beings such an unattainable stance to you?"
I am for minimization of sentient death. But this is an easy theoretical standpoint to take. When put to practice it has you run into all sorts of problematic situations, e.g. do we gass these birds so that they won't spread a particularly deadly strain of flu?

>but I do not believe that moral issues cannot ever be objective.
Double negative. I take it you mean "cannot ever be objective." I disagree, which brings me to pragmatism. John Dewey, for example, speaks of warranted assertibility when he speaks of justification and truth. I think this works well for ethical dilemma's. In summary: we are confronted with a problematic situation in our life. This situation asks us a question. We have to answer this question. The range of possible answers is likewise determined by the situation we are confronted with. As such there is the possibility of an objectively valid solution to an ethical dilemma, which takes the point of relativivity - that is, situational position - serious.

>Which medical purposes do you mean?
Pfft, I dunno. Cancer research for example. You need mice for that at some stage of your research.

>America
Ok. This does not resolve the issue of our reliuance on animals.

>This, in itself would raise lots of moral objections.
Yet it is what would reduce suffering and death the most and in a most effective way

> Whereas taking meat of the market would not.
Questionable. What about all those people who rely for their income on the meat industry? What about those whose way of life is intimately tied up with animal husbandry? Is it not unethical to deny someone the right to their way of life? (It is, as per the Human Rights Act)

> to stop using slaves in general
Again, I think it is perverse to compare human slavery to animal slavery.

[Anonymous No.4504031]

You'll drive yourself crazy if you follow the rabbit all the way down the hole. Singer proved to himself that assisted suicide was justified but clearly couldn't end the suffering for his mother as she laid in her deathbed. Logic can drive you insane just like irrationality can keep you sane.

[Anonymous No.4504800]

>>4502321
Even Plato thinks you're a moron.

[Anonymous No.4507200]

>>4500799
OP here, forgot about this thread. What, in and of that action, is immoral? As an insular event, isolated from every other aspect of society, there is nothing morally wrong with killing the severely mentally disabled or infants or coma patients.
That doesn't make it an advisable course of action, so it wouldn't be prescribed by ethics, but it's not "wrong".

[Anonymous No.4507282]

>tfw you really want to get into understanding philosophy rather than picking it up through talking with others/reading wikipedia.
What should i read guys?

I was gonna start with plato.

[Anonymous No.4507316]

Does he oppose all animal slaughter or just the automated institutionalized meat industry ?

[Anonymous No.4507320]

empiricists

[Anonymous No.4507352]

>>4507200
>if someone shoots a child in a forest and no one's around to witness it then that is fine

yeah,nah, not so much

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.4507362]

>>4507352
child is a part of society too leaving aside his relatives

[Anonymous No.4507375]

>>4499858
>> I don't consider myself a misogynist
Misogynists usually don't.

>> I think that women should do most of the job of raising children, because they're more empathetic
The problem is that you think they should and you're (I assume) not a woman. I don't think you should have a saying on what women should or should not do. If you feel that you're entitled to decide for them what it's best, I'm sorry, but you are misogynistic.

Also, I don't think all women are more empathetic than all men, your argument seems to be purely anecdotal.

However, if there's a couple that makes the decision that one of them will work and the other will take care of the kid and the woman says "well, I think I more empathetic, I'll be the one staying home" there's absolutely no problem with it, as long as she wants this herself.

[Anonymous No.4507386]

>>4507352
>no one's around to witness it then that is fine
what about the shooter?

[Anonymous No.4509179]

>>4507352
Not a child, but an infant. Tabula rasa man. No suffering, no fear.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.4509207]

lewis

[Anonymous No.4509225]

>>4499694
ayn rand

[Anonymous No.4509229]

>>4507282

I have the same issue. I'm going to the library tommorow to pick up some stuff. I'm also gonna pick up Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and Candide by Voltaire. I'll add Plato to the list.

[Anonymous No.4509235]

>>4507375
You don't have to hate women to think a society is structured better when women are homemakers. Any more than you have to be a misandrist because you think men are better suited to dangerous and laborious jobs.

[Anonymous No.4509349]

>>4507282
/lit/ will tell you to start at the ancient greeks (plato's republic, plato's gorgias, aristotle's nicomachean ethics) and then go onto other philosophers who referred to the greeks a lot (hurr durr muh nietzsche) but really you can start wherever you like. Find a part of philosophy that tickles your pickle and read whatever's related to that

[Anonymous No.4509368]

>>4509207
>lewis
C. S., C. I. or David? Which one?

If it is David: why can't you find a fault in his modal realism?

[Anonymous No.4509377]

>>4502534
>it's considered horrific for us on a biological level

how about no

[Anonymous No.4509401]

>>4507282
Start with an anthology, I'll recommend this one.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8493026-the-philosophy-book

From there go onto what catches your interest.

you won't know shit about philosophy from reading an anthology, but you don't have time for it all, use it to find your philosophical interest.

[Anonymous No.4509423]

>>4499786
are you an idiot

[Anonymous No.4509448]

>>4499865
>social democrat
>obsessed with equality, both in how we regard beings and their material standard of living
>crypto-fascist
ok mate, whatever

[Anonymous No.4509453]

>>4502428
cool assertions dood

[Anonymous No.4509468]

>>4502336
we actually have no way of knowing this - you are making pure assertions. it is actually more likely that there is a gradient of understanding of death - elephants and dolphins probably do understand death from an epistemological standpoint - thats why they actively mourn their dead, not something you would expect if the death is just a "threat". besides, the levels of comprehension of death vary within humans. a philosopher understands it better than a garbage man understands it better than a dolphin understands it better than a dog. there are no fixed lines here, certainly not any that are objectively verifiable - and thats singers point

[Anonymous No.4509475]

>>4502139
emotional disagreement, rational acceptance that hes probably right
especially easy when the man advocates infantacide

[Anonymous No.4509477]

nobody ever have the right to live, in every moment you can be killed, you can be traited and send it to the fucking hole of nothing and darkness, anybody can give you that right... every name that try to give a sense to live other than been forced is just a flawless liar too comfortable in her vision and path of life..

[Anonymous No.4509488]

>>4509477
/thread

[Anonymous No.4509489]

>>4509477
If we collectively decide it we do have it.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.4509499]

>>4509368
modal realism is kind of the same problem with Löb's paradox but in modality. i present it as a paradox in teh same manner, not an error per se (or rather, it is an error but it takes interesting work to unravel why)

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.4509504]

>>4509235
not rly. men can be better cooks than some women for instance. there's no physiological reason why women are better homemakers. this is sociological

[Anonymous No.4509510]

>>4509489
if we collectively decide it we BELIEVE we have it

[Anonymous No.4509553]

>>4509510
No just like laws it Is a thing, don't be edgy, variables also exists.

[Anonymous No.4509566]

>>4509499
Hmm, interesting... haven't thought about his modal realism as a paradox, because it doesn't seem as if it is: I always thought of it as an ontological stance of his.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.4509590]

>>4509566
if you accept his stance, or at least feel the pull of his argument, then you get this "possible worlds exist" stance which is imo paradoxical. it does appear absurd to most

[Anonymous No.4509627]

>>4507375
I don't think that all women are more empathetic than all men. But I think that women are, on average, more empathetic than men. The problem with gender equality is that it has become too simplistic. Its adherents fall into this mental space where they're desperate to prove that men and women are identical. But the truth is more complicated than that.
I disagree with your definition of misogyny. I think that women should be just as happy as men, if not happier. I'm sure we agree on the same end. Our is only a difference of means.

[Anonymous No.4509641]

>>4509504
I think that, in the case of a childless couple, you are correct.
But when there are children involved, isn't it to everybody's benefit that women take care of children? At least until the child is weaned?

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.4509658]

>>4509641
takes a couple months. ok. that is not housework in general

[Anonymous No.4509672]

>>4509658
>weaning
>a couple months
lol

[Anonymous No.4509679]

>>4509672
I'd argue that doctors are more likely to diagnose someone with a mental illness in the US, so they can peddle drugs, even to people who clearly don't have mental illnesses.

[Anonymous No.4509680]

>>4509679
that's a very interesting argument that most likely used a lot of what i like ot call critical thinking which is esentaial to get aheda today. with the internet, everonye can read information, but who can apply it? that's what you did, with crical thin

[Anonymous No.4509711]

>>4509627
>But I think that women are, on average, more empathetic than men.
but why does that matter?

that still leaves a significant portion of men who are more empathetic than the average woman, same goes for women and spatial awareness.

why should you have to say that women should be the homemakers when according to statistics that is the most likely natural path for most women.

why should you alienate women who are not better homemakers than their husbands? shouldn't everyone be evaluated individually and not on their gender?

[Anonymous No.4509873]

>>4499694
tfw the only person i could post in this thread is myself

[Anonymous No.4509883]

>>4509873
deep

[Anonymous No.4509898]

The problem isn't meat consumption.

It's cheaply available meat, something that is a phenomenon pretty much only in the United States.

Meat should be considered a luxury food item and priced as such. No amount of moralizing is going to actually effect meaningful change in peoples' lifestyles.

When a restaurant burger costs 45 bucks, or when packaged chicken breast at the grocery store are 25 dollars/pound, THEN people will start thinking twice.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with humans eating meat. The problem is that meat has been made into an ultra-cheap commodity which in turn has produced the awful animal processing industries we all know and suffer from.

At the end of the day, about half our population, if not more, needs to be forced off meat. If that means a few thousand have to go to an early grave, then so be it. We will adapt.

[Anonymous No.4509902]

>>4509898
That IS a solution, but it's not a practical one. The meat industry makes too much money to end.

[Anonymous No.4509905]

Here's a joke - how do you know someone's a vegan?
They'll tell you.

[Anonymous No.4509907]

>>4509898
have you not learned the life long tale of "governing" not being able to overcome business?

the people have to make the change, not the "leaders". All they lead is governing of leading, no leaders of change in government dude.

Don't believe me? Why is the war on drugs actually being won? The people. Finally some generations are trying to prove to their parents that there is better drugs than alcohol and nicotine.

[Anonymous No.4509920]

>>4509902

>Good solution
>Not easy

no shit spurglord

if it was easy to do the right thing we'd already have done it

[Anonymous No.4509925]

>>4509920
I wasn't saying it wasn't easy, I was saying it was impossible.

[Anonymous No.4509940]

>>4509907

Oh please. The people can't be left to their own devices for more than a few months by the governing minority.

The real problem we face today is the massive proliferation of commoners in the ruling castes because of our lacking a true nobility at the top of society. The wealthy have ascended to every conceivable position of power because no higher strata exists to check their arrogation.

No surprise that the prerogatives and initiatives that most benefit THEM are those that common society is taught to take seriously.

No one needs to be eating a pound worth of cooked meat every single day. But it would be very dangerous for the animal processing industry and the retailers that carry their produce to introduce that notion as a consideration with serious implications. It would be still more dangerous to take an authoritative stance and raise the price of meat production tenfold, but that is exactly what needs to happen.

The way to get rid of McDonald's isn't to stand outside their headquarters with PETA and harass the executives. Hit them in the pocketbook, make them need to charge 8 dollars for a paper-thin hamburger to turn a profit.

'Not virtue, but proficiency.'

[Anonymous No.4509956]

>>4509905
kek

[Anonymous No.4509999]

>>4509905

[Anonymous No.4510176]

>>4509999
I like your quartz, but you need a sense of humour. Go rape a woman and tell her it's not as worse as killing a duck.

[Anonymous No.4510180]

>>4503527
>The act of killing a sentient being (unless euthanasia) is wrong, because you're taking away it's right to live it's life
If veganism is about granting life, then I don't see why you'd want to destroy the meatindustry. If that industry stops, lots of animals will no longer be born.

I eat meat because I'd rather have these creatures have a semblance of life, than no life at all.

[Anonymous No.4510183]

>>4510180
have you seen the inside of a slaughter house?
its like satan built a factory on earth.
if demons are real, we're last in line and next to go in these things.

[Anonymous No.4510184]

>>4510180
I do not believe in a superficial 'sanctity of life' or anything. However, I think that torture is much much worse than murder, so I would rather pigs go extinct than the torture continued.

[Anonymous No.4510187]

>>4510180
Most of those animals shouldn't exist. The cows we raise in farms couldn't survive in the wild.
It's funny how all at once meateaters will call in the "it's natural" argument then go and say silly things like "at least these creatures get to unnaturally live". I'd rather die than experience the treatment these animals do. Their quality of life is so poor that the fact that there are so many farmed animals is an argument against the industry. To mention nothing of the greenhouse emissions and raped arable land.
What are your feelings on abortion?

[Anonymous No.4510194]

>>4510184
I do not believe in a superficial 'sanctity of life'?
why not?
its better to live a sacred world then one thats been desacralized.
if people still had an idea of the sacred things would be completely different today, but we've lost it and are now on a highway to hell literally.

[Anonymous No.4510207]

>>4510187

Is being alive in itself virtuous, or is it not virtuous? Is it better to live, or better never to have been born?

[Anonymous No.4510210]

>>4510207
Depends entirely upon the quality of life.
I'd rather not have been born at all than have been born into a DPRK labor colony.

[Anonymous No.4510221]

>>4510210
I shouldn't have googled that.

[Anonymous No.4510233]

>>4499771
I find it hard to give certain rights to, for instance, a bear that would rip my socks off without blinking an eye. They don't have this ethical epiphany that Levinas attributes to people.

[Anonymous No.4510236]

>>4510187
what do you mean with natural? it is entirely natural for people to domsticate them and put them in holding pens. small step from there on to the factory.

[Anonymous No.4510237]

>>4499795
>There is nothing morally wrong with consuming infants or the severely mentally disabled

[Anonymous No.4510240]

>>4510194
>its better to live a sacred world then one thats been desacralized.
Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with my capacity to believe in sacrality.

[Anonymous No.4510243]

>>4501049
He makes me furiously walk my anger off in the backyard every time. God damn cock sucker forgot how to human.

[Anonymous No.4510242]

>>4510187
By that same argumetn, you should probably not exist.

[Anonymous No.4510245]

>>4510236
The industrialisation of any activity is unnatural. If you want a definition of unnatural, I'll call it as when two agents capable of independent thought bring about something that would not have happened without their intervention. Feel free to contest that definition.
>>4510237
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29

[Anonymous No.4510248]

>>4510242
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.4510250]

>>4502070
Medieval philosophy was a waste of time for sure. Have his writings on the Law, bothered reading them once, was a christmas present; gave it back. It's utter bullshit, like a cow, ruminating the Arabic and Greek heathens.

[Anonymous No.4510252]

>>4510240
it should, just believing in a sacredness has great powers of its own, just by believing in it.
regardless, existence is/can be a sacred experience.
cause when you get right down to it, existing and existence itself doesn't make any common sense at all.
existence, you just can't explain that shit. its magical really.

[Anonymous No.4510257]

>>4499694
Stirner

[Anonymous No.4510260]

>>4510245
I contest that definition. First of, what do you understand by independent thought? You don't actually need to define thatm, though. Example:

Two agents, guy and a gal, capable of independent thought, cause they aren't retards, fuck and bring about a child that otherwise wouldn't ahve happened.

Well, how very fucking unnatural.

[Anonymous No.4510263]

>>4502070
Is it plebby if all I know of his is the Quinque Viae that my 9th grade RE teacher made us read excerpts from?
I did like the Argument from Degrees though.

[Anonymous No.4510264]

>>4510252
dude, come back when you're not high anymore.

[Anonymous No.4510269]

>>4510260
Yeah, I just pulled it out of my ass.

[Anonymous No.4510271]

>>4510264
come back when you're ready to contemplate your existence
theres more than meets the eye, ands thats something thats already been scientifically proven for you profane non-believers

[Anonymous No.4510272]

>>4510248
You can't survive in a "state of nature." Not unless you're willing to drink your own piss.

[Anonymous No.4510274]

>>4510272
Yes we can, and we did for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.4510277]

>>4510271
you conflate existence with life.

>theres more than meets the eye, ands thats something thats already been scientifically
Yeah, there's also hearing, taste, smell, tactile stimulation.

That there is more to existence than what we may notice of it is not proff of sacrality.

[Anonymous No.4510279]

>>4510274
No, we - humanity in its current state, can't. An act like the declaration of Human Rights (by extension a possible future act of animal rights) cannot come into existence in your romanticize state of nature.

[Anonymous No.4510284]

>>4510277
true, but wouldn't you say existing and existence themselves are sacred on their own rite?

[Anonymous No.4510285]

>>4510279
If I was born into a state of nature isolated from contemporary society, I could survive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child
However, if a cow was born into a state of nature isolated from contemporary society, it could not survive. Its physiology (skinny legs, concentrated regions of fat) does not enable it to access vital food sources or defend itself from predators.
I wasn't referring to social evolution, but actual physical evolution. The domesticated bovine is not equipped for nature.

[Anonymous No.4510288]

>>4510274
>doesn't realize how fucked the natural balance currently is by humanities own doings

this planet was a self-sustaining gift and we used the other gift our own free will to fuck it up

[Anonymous No.4510291]

>>4510284
nope

[Anonymous No.4510292]

>>4510285
humanity as a whole cannot go back to that lifestyle, if we all suddenly went back without proper restoration programs before hand, like if all technology suddenly ceased to function.
it'd be like human locusts consuming anything and everything that can be consumed. we'll live like insects and die like them aswell.

[Anonymous No.4510293]

>>4510285
yet you appeal to products of social evolution to support your argument in favour of a return to nature.

[Anonymous No.4510294]

>>4510293
Where?

[Anonymous No.4510295]

>>4510293
also, social evolution, like phsyiological evolution, is a natural process.

[Anonymous No.4510296]

>>4510294
>muh rights

[Anonymous No.4510297]

>>4510291
well, i tried. i don't envy your viewpoint. if you'd like to learn, read The Sacred & The Profane by Mircea Elliade. very interesting and very true. its all historical. it might not be in your comfort zone considering its a religious history of symbology, but nothing new was ever learned by staying in the same place, mental and physical.

[Anonymous No.4510299]

>>4510297
I don't envy yours. You seem to need to posit sacrality in order to enjoy and appreciate existence and life. I don't.

[Anonymous No.4510302]

>>4510297
also, I am very much interested in religion and symbology from a historian's point of view. This, however, does not necessitate me to subscribe to these beliefs studied.

[Anonymous No.4510303]

>>4499694
this post is retarded

[Anonymous No.4510304]

>>4510299
just learn about it for the sake of learning about it for the sake of clear viewpoints.
strive to know as much as possible about everything and anything, otherwise you won't have a clear picture, thank you i'm out.

[Anonymous No.4510305]

>>4510304
Who says I don't already? You assume too much.

[Anonymous No.4510311]

>>4510305
you did indirectly

[Anonymous No.4510312]

>>4510311
how?

[Anonymous No.4510315]

>>4510312
i'm psychic, now leave me alone

[Anonymous No.4510320]

>>4510315
alright, anon. I hope you find what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.4510329]

>>4510320
thanks, i didn't mean to be condescending if i was, but i felt as if i came off like i did

[Anonymous No.4510656]

>>4509999
You know how radical feminists get all uppity when they see a deodorant commercial for men?

[Anonymous No.4510972]

>>4509898
45 bucks for a burger that's 450 bucks in my country. Working at 12.50 an hour.
>working 36 hours for a burger