Last thread reached bump limit, but I need some more recommendations. What are some works in favour or against veganism? Are there any anti-vegan positions that don't imply moral nihilism and edginess?

File: 152 KB, 600x450, peter singer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:21:23 2015 No.6955679 [Reply] [Original]

Last thread reached bump limit, but I need some more recommendations.

What are some works in favour or against veganism?

Are there any anti-vegan positions that don't imply moral nihilism and edginess?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:25:28 2015 No.6955696 How about "I enjoy the taste of beef"

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:26:55 2015 No.6955702 >>6955696 Would you consider 'I enjoy the taste of human flesh' as argument enough to kill and eat people?

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:27:35 2015 No.6955705

>>6955679
Like why the fuck do you care? Not everything you do has to be backed up by theory. For fuck's sake. If you need to find some moral basis for eating meat and can't, either stop eating meat or realize that essentially nobody is moral if all the consequences of their actions are taken into account.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:31:25 2015 No.6955725

>>6955679
Not that I'm aware of. It's worth bearing in mind that most people don't attempt to justify their actions to themselves. If it's in the culture, it's okay. More than this, it seems a lot of people are actually incapable of moral philosophy: they simply can't think in the right sort of ways.

I'm a vegan and I long ago gave up on discussing it with anyone. When people find out, they'll ask about it, but I'll just say it's not worth talking about and steer the conversation onto something else. Why bother hearing people fail around trying to get to grips with their own inconsistency?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:32:55 2015 No.6955731 File: 9 KB, 177x278, xzbyBd7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6955702 Yes

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:33:03 2015 No.6955733 >>6955702 God made all the clean animals for human consumption. It's against His will to eat humans.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:33:21 2015 No.6955734 >>6955702 No. Because that's illegal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:36:20 2015 No.6955743 >>6955733 Are you a Jew or something? Because if you're just a run-of-the-mill Christposter I suggest you have another look at your book.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:40:17 2015 No.6955757 >>6955743 If you are suggesting that in the NT the rule of not eating unclean animals is revoked, you should reread the bible. It is a common misconception, but it is not true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:41:57 2015 No.6955763 >>6955679 Why does every cultural critic hate burgers?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:42:47 2015 No.6955766 Peter Singer is such a faggot, though. It's not like utilitarianism is written into the cosmos so that J.S Mill will strike thee down for eating one animal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:44:00 2015 No.6955770 >>6955766 Are you seriously suggesting there isn't a cosmic, objective set of ethics? Wow.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:44:22 2015 No.6955773 >>6955696 Same, but pork ribs. >>6955702 Absolutely, though I have never tried human flesh and my curiosity is not great enough to go through the trouble. Also I dislike killing things myself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:44:41 2015 No.6955774 Also, does nobody think it's a little incongruous that Singer advocates infanticide but god forbid we ever eat a fucking cow?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:45:17 2015 No.6955776 >>6955757 Well pretty much everyone disagrees with you. Not that it really matters, you and whatever little heretical sect you belong to can do what you want. It's not as if you're doing anything wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:45:22 2015 No.6955777 File: 10 KB, 225x346, 41zDJYvJdPL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:47:10 2015 No.6955781 File: 8 KB, 252x244, 6125bCK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6955777 Trips speak the truth

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:47:23 2015 No.6955782 maxim: when I desire it I shall kill and eat a cow I see no contradictions in the universalization of this maxim so it seems Kant is cool with eating animals

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:47:41 2015 No.6955783

>>6955774
Nope, read his stuff more closely. He's entirely consistent, which is what makes him write such seemly strange things. "Common sense" tends to be a pretty inconsistent sort of thing, and if philosophy has any job whatsoever, it's to make us question our common sense ideas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 11:57:25 2015 No.6955807 >>6955782 If everyone in the world would eat cows often we would all perish.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:00:44 2015 No.6955815 >>6955783 >"Common sense" tends to be a pretty inconsistent sort of thing Gonna need some examples of this, son.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:08:04 2015 No.6955830 >>6955815 >it's okay to eat pigs and cows, it's wrong to eat dogs and horses

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:08:32 2015 No.6955831

>>6955766
>>6955774
>implying Singer isn't simply arguing for consistency in ethical behavior
Most of what philosophy does is to look for incoherence in a set of arguments/beliefs.

I know a "vegetarian" who is perfectly fine with eating stuff like shellfish or animals that died of natural causes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:09:33 2015 No.6955833 >>6955830 >the Chinese are more ethically consistent than our Graeco-Roman based society What happened?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:09:59 2015 No.6955835 >>6955807 Not necessarily

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:10:36 2015 No.6955837 >>6955815 Are you for real? If you don't accept that, why even bother thinking about philosophy? All the work has already been done for you. An example that comes to mind straight away, since you ask for one, is people's intuitions about probability.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:11:41 2015 No.6955841 >>6955830 >what is tradition

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:12:17 2015 No.6955846 >>6955833 Greeks also ate dogs and horses. >>6955835 With current technology we would. We just don't have the resources. Meat is very inefficient.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:13:17 2015 No.6955849 >>6955841 I'll take bullshit for 500, Alex.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:15:25 2015 No.6955853
File: 21 KB, 275x413, esselstyn5[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6955679
Hey, /fit/ here.

This fucking guy, pic related.

That said, I know a couple of Ph.D. dietitians who suggest that small amounts of super lean white proteins are extremely helpful, especially low mercury fish.

Also, Vegan is fucking dumb (and unhealthy), but i understand vegetarians who dont give to their children. You can have a very well balanced vegetarian lifestyle, especially if you do cardio or are a woman.

I have a very high protein diet, i use turkey tips and chicken to get there. I would like to cut out red meat but its a fucking addiction

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:15:34 2015 No.6955855 >>6955849 >jeopardy >500

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:17:05 2015 No.6955858 >>6955841 >implying tradition is moral

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:17:06 2015 No.6955859 >>6955846 But why did we stop? And more importantly: Why did we stop eating insects?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:18:37 2015 No.6955862 >>6955859 We bonded with dogs and horses

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:18:38 2015 No.6955863

>>6955846
>With current technology we would. We just don't have the resources. Meat is very inefficient.
yes we do. People just aren't willing to use them for those purposes. We have many ways of reducing and steadying the amount of greenhouse gases and stuff in the air without ceasing carnivorism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:19:33 2015 No.6955865 >>6955853 Vegan isn't unhealthy. It requires supplements (iron and B vitamins etc.), which is why you might have thought that, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:20:24 2015 No.6955868 >>6955859 >>6955862 Also Christianity happened, and dogs and horses are unclean animals

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:21:21 2015 No.6955869 >>6955830 Horses and dogs fulfill important utilitarian purposes through their capabilities, which sets them above livestock

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:21:41 2015 No.6955871 >>6955783 >He's entirely consistent not on abortion

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:22:59 2015 No.6955879

>>6955865
I mean my mother-in-law doesnt eat food anymore (by choice) and takes handfuls of supplements, but that isnt healthy. And every vegan i see is a somewhat Jaundiced skinny fuck with a shit attitude. Also, regular people are not extremely attentive to their macronutrients.

If a vegan guy was actually counting his vitamin D and B12 day to day, sure he will be healthy enough, but most people dont even count their calories.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:23:41 2015 No.6955881 >>6955862 >>6955868 By what standard? How are they less clean than locusts?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:24:17 2015 No.6955884 >>6955879 I'd rather be a slightly thin vegan than a disgusting carnist. Okay?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:24:42 2015 No.6955885 >>6955881 I don't eat locusts either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:24:56 2015 No.6955888 >>6955871 Yes, he is. Read it again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:25:56 2015 No.6955893 >>6955885 Theologically. The kosher system seems absolutely arbitrary.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:26:27 2015 No.6955895 >>6955868 You're an idiot. 1. this isn't true, you're not a normal Christian, and 2. horses are eaten in some Christian countries, dogs too, although much less commonly.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:28:03 2015 No.6955901
File: 109 KB, 650x650, inspirobot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6955888
no he is not, he is biased from the very beginning
is argument is tautological

this stance says that somebody else than the fetus can calculate the utility of the fetus's life. Here the utility is null since at 8 weeks, nobody feels anything as we suppose that the utility comes from the senses.

The thing is that singer denies, beforehand, the possibility of the fetus to feel anything since you abort it before it can feel anything. So singer stance is the fallacy : let us prove that the fetus can be aborted by saying that it can be aborted. He does not let the fetus a chance to actually be relevant in his doctrine.

Furthermore, he does not take into account the utility of the father, who could very well be pained by the abortion (reminder that the females do not need to even tell the fathers about the pregnancies). If the female does not take into account the wishes of the father, then we must look at what happened before the ejaculation, aka the sex.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:29:46 2015 No.6955905 >>6955705 Maybe he just wants to learn about view points? He doesn't NEED affirmation. Turboaspie

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:30:22 2015 No.6955908 >>6955879 Well then it's not really anything to do with veganism then, is it? I'm vegan and I have a mostly healthy diet. If anything I tend to gain weight, because I drink too much eat a lot of fried food (I'm from Scotland, it's normal here).

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:30:28 2015 No.6955909

>>6955884
ok VG, just so long as you realize that your perceived disgust is only felt by 10%>x and is considered a first world problem.

>>6955893
I can imagine half of an early Hebrew camp getting sick on bad shellfish or a trade dispute over mixed fabrics being a good reason to dictate against certain actions. Most of them are pretty reasonable for their time and place.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:30:47 2015 No.6955911

>>6955893
Not really. If you think about it all the unclean animals are ones that are either bottom feeders eating scum (shellfish) or animals that have the potential to eat rotting flesh (carnivores, vultures etc.)
So by eating these animals it's like you are eating this filth.
God wants you to be pure inside and out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:31:09 2015 No.6955913 >>6955837 Because there is more to philosophy than sorting out common fallacies. I would instead refer to misconceptions about probability as a lack of common sense, but I guess that gets into "define 'define'" territory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:31:41 2015 No.6955916 >>6955908 That may be, but if you are a vegan that is not careful with protein and b12 intake you have a much better chance of fucking yourself up then someone who eats a "healthy but i dont pay to much attention" mixed diet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:33:20 2015 No.6955919 File: 121 KB, 858x536, Scott-Jurek-ultram_2702740k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6955853 Not true at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:33:40 2015 No.6955922 >>6955901 So you admit that a fetus can't feel anything, but that it still has rights? On what basis? And the father has fuck all to do it really. It's like him being upset because the woman decided to cut her hair.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:35:21 2015 No.6955929 File: 432 KB, 1244x1622, Richard-Side-Pose[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6955919 Have a jaundiced gains goblin

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:38:36 2015 No.6955940

>>6955922
Not him, but when my wife had a miscarriage I was really upset and I dont know why (it was in first 15 weeks). I decided that even though it was really a ball of cells, I felt that my potential child, a potentially great (or shitty) human being had had an entire future taken away from him/her, and it was that loss of potential that made me grieve.

A potential human being should be afforded a chance to really become one.

>inb4 you shit breeder, it bothers me that having children just subjects them to future pain

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:41:06 2015 No.6955952
File: 732 KB, 747x747, InspiroBot_-_2015-08-10_18.30.51.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6955922
>And the father has fuck all to do it really. It's like him being upset because the woman decided to cut her hair.
so you admit that his argument is not an argument but a mere tautology ?

also, there are fathers who want the child and are upset to learn that the mother killed the fetus

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:41:28 2015 No.6955955 >>6955940 Still just cells; you got spooked tbh

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:42:01 2015 No.6955959

>>6955940
This. I used to be pro-choice. It doesn't matter if the fetus is just a ball of cells, what you're doing is interrupting a process that would produce a healthy infant, and thereby depriving it of life. That's not right to me. If it's a rape baby or poses a danger to mother, okay, sure, but abortion rubs me the wrong no matter how undeveloped the fetus is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:42:21 2015 No.6955962 File: 9 KB, 160x240, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6955929 thanks brah

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:43:03 2015 No.6955968 >>6955955 if you think that abortion is right, then why not let the child evolve and ask him if it wants to die later on ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:43:04 2015 No.6955969 >>6955955 Sure is easy to meme away any troubling real-life shit from behind a screen aint it fuccboi?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:44:54 2015 No.6955974 >>6955696 >we are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet for the sake of hamburgers

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:46:34 2015 No.6955979 File: 141 KB, 800x600, 2005_chicken_little_wallpaper_2-800x600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6955974 I find the moral concerns of vegetarians very valid, but this shit makes me laugh like no other.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:47:43 2015 No.6955981 >>6955679 i eat meat and i dont see myself giving it up anytime soon that said i hate faggots who are like "heh veganism? why would i wanna do that? maybe god shouldnt have made cows so delicious XDDD". kill yourselves you memeing fucks

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:47:49 2015 No.6955982 >>6955959 I always considered that a healthy abortion of rape is the only instance in our society where the child is punished capital punishment! for the crime of the father.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:49:27 2015 No.6955984
File: 90 KB, 511x448, John Green can't melt cuck beams - the philosopher of the Cheerios and the liberated women.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

about abortion : the point is that singer takes the stance of to be in favor of abortion, and THEN tries to justify it. it does it very poorly

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:50:57 2015 No.6955989

>>6955968
>evolve
the fuck?

>>6955969
Well, let me put it like this: your argument, because of its reference to potentialities, logically entails we attempt to inseminate as many woman as possible. Wouldn't want any potential humans to not get the chance to live, would we?

And I accept that some guys get upset about not getting to have kids. This is not really a moral point though.

Basically the whole thing is a total mess unless you believe in souls and shit like that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:52:19 2015 No.6955993 >>6955984 i hate john green more and more each day

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:54:11 2015 No.6956001

>>6955959
>If it's a rape baby or poses a danger to mother, okay, sure
The difficulty in making these exceptions though is that they appear to be gut-feeling rationalizations. Why, if the mother is in danger, is it right to kill the baby? If the mother might survive, but faces permanent physical repercussions, is that enough or not enough to justify aborting? If it's a situation where either the mother lives and developing baby dies, or the developing baby lives and mother dies, is one of those outcomes more moral than the other?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:55:22 2015 No.6956007 >>6955989 >And I accept that some guys get upset about not getting to have kids. This is not really a moral point though. just like mothers being upset is not really a moral point.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:55:54 2015 No.6956010

>>6955989
actually no it doesnt bro because i dont live in some sperglord beep boop bizarro world where im not extrapolating retarded fucking philosophical scenarios from a statement as straightforward as "its not right to kill to fetuses, no matter their stage of development"

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:57:22 2015 No.6956014 >>6955679 muh planet is just a spook

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:57:33 2015 No.6956016 >>6956010 >its not right to kill to fetuses >its not right to kill >its not right Why to all of these

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:57:43 2015 No.6956017 >>6956010 where im extrapolating* >>6956001 case by case brah. it's up to the mother. point is it's a sober decision that must be arrived at rationally

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 12:58:48 2015 No.6956019 >>6956016 put a sock in it you sheltered relativist twink faggot

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:01:18 2015 No.6956024 >>6956019 I am none of those things. If you say something you might ought to justify it in a thread about philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:01:34 2015 No.6956027 File: 32 KB, 334x393, KJCqaPS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6956019

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:03:05 2015 No.6956036

>>6956010
You're going about it backwards then. The question is, what set of moral rules lead one to have a set of opinions about abortion? You don't seem to have a consistent set of rules. If you oppose abortion because of a notion of "potential life", then you have to permit the notion its full application.

>>6956007
Not really. It's like hair, as I said. I might be upset if my girlfriend cut her hair, but it's her hair. It's the woman's body, it's her fetus. The fetus is not magic or anything; it's just some cells in her body.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:04:42 2015 No.6956039 >everyone who is for abortion has already been born

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:05:05 2015 No.6956041

I used to eat meat and defend it at all costs, then I tried to go vegetarian and realized it's pretty good and decided to stay that way.

Some things I've noticed:
>we don't realize how much meat we consume
I ate meat three days after trying to go vegetarian, I didn't even notice it before I was finished. We are on automatic about it.
>meat is everywhere in the menu
It's very hard to find restaurants with good vegetarian options. Sometimes they have just one to cover it up, sometimes not even that and you have to tell them to take out part of your meal. This is so far the only downside that I can think of, sometimes I just wish to enter a restaurant and order anything that I want without thinking. With more vegetarians, this would hopefully change. If you're vegan, that is ten times harder, I'm not vegan still just because of that, but I always try to order vegan options if they have them.
>there are no apparent health issues
I was totally expecting to be weak all day long or something, but far from it, I feel better. Even if you could argue it's just wishful thinking, I really am not seeing any problems on that matter, but only good points.
>there are a lot of more interesting tastes out there
I changed my diet and forced myself to eat different things, but in the best sense possible. There is a much greater variety of things that I'm eating now. Fruits are absolutely fucking delicious, I cannot believe I spend so much of my life not eating them at all.
>you begin to notice meat
Before going vegetarian, I did not have any opinion of meat as meat. I had my favourites and others I did not like so much, but as a whole, it was nothing. After a while not eating meat, my perception of it has changed. I never thought I'd find it to be disgusting, but you start to imagine it not as a thing on its own, but as a piece of flesh of an animal that was killed, cut and travelled a long way. You don't notice it if you eat it everyday, I mean it.

I'm not arguing on moral grounds or through universal statements, saying what you should or should not do, but offering my personal account on it. I loved eating meat, I also thought it was impossible to stop eating meat (when in fact, I admit I just didn't want to stop) and I think it's very weird for me to read arguments pro-meat eating because I see myself in them three years ago. I refuse to offer any specific reason for you to go vegetarian or vegan, but just saying that if you try it out, if you force yourself to be a month without meat, hell, a week without meat (that's how I started), and if you engage yourself in it you'll perceive this matter in a much different way. I think this personal experience is much more valid than a discussing it on a Thai Cricket Discussion Forum.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:05:43 2015 No.6956043 >>6956036 >it's her fetus. she clearly borrowed some material from the father without his consent most of the times >>6956036 >it's just some cells in her body. so she can live with these cells, no biggie

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:06:02 2015 No.6956045

>>6956036
>It's the woman's body, it's her fetus.
If anything its a parasitic organism after conception, and then it becomes a conscious thinking entity (to whatever extent you give humans that title)

>>6955955
Very possible, but I think that same argument could be used against any incident that causes anguish, especially if you are into Taoism or the like, where there is just one way and no deviations.

>>6956039
I like this, please work on applying it to veganism

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:07:00 2015 No.6956050 >>6956039 So what? I can't even begin to see how this makes any sense as an argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:08:03 2015 No.6956053 >>6956039 No one is for abortion. You were fooled by those who want to keep abortion illegal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:10:41 2015 No.6956063 >>6956043 >she clearly borrowed some material from the father without his consent most of the times And without her consent as well. It's not "her fault" she is pregnant.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:10:55 2015 No.6956064

>>6956036
nah brah only faggots like you would start whipping out philosophical escape clauses because you can't relate to anything other than through A = B = C logic bullshit

like it or not the real world doesn't operate according to the standards of academia so the statement "killing a fetus at any stage of development is depriving it of a full life" is a perfectly valid statement, but in there in the nether regions of your fucking ass you think that's equivalent to "not fucking right now is equivalent to depriving a human being of their life" because you literally think there's no difference between a cluster of cells on the fast track to becoming a human being and, well, nothing.

logically, there is an equivalence, but brah, ask yourself, who honestly gives a fuck about your sophistry in the day-to-day trenches of life? fuck off

>>	King John !!+wn/iw/Q3yd Mon Aug 10 13:11:19 2015 No.6956065 Honestly, if you're not at least a vegetarian in 2015 then you seriously need to re-evaluate your ethics. Truth hurts, but if you eat meat then you are essentially raping the earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:11:51 2015 No.6956067 >>6956053 Mandatory abortions for all females over 18: vote anon 4 prez hoo-rah

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:13:05 2015 No.6956072 >>6956053 I am. And infanticide.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:13:15 2015 No.6956073 >>6956063 why does she have sex if she does not want to deal with the consequences ?

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:13:18 2015 No.6956074

>>6956043
She can do what she wants. I can actually see where you're coming from here, btw. I can imagine it would be a real kick in the teeth if you thought you were going to have a kid. But it's just a worse form of not getting a birthday present or something.

You're trying to muddy the waters with this point. It doesn't impinge on the substance of the dispute, viz. whether abortion is equivalent to the killing of a person.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:13:50 2015 No.6956078

>>6955901
>potential life argument
Are you really this stupid?
Also the argument is not based on "sensory" alone. You obviously didn't catch the differentiation between pain and suffering.
>>6955940
>my feels are an argument
Nobody ever claimed abortion or miscarriages are fun.
Doesn't mean they are inherently wrong.

Also by the same argument, contraception falls into the same category.
And before you go all "muh, but the fertilized cell is inherently different", you'll have to explain why.

Do you morons really not see how you are just emotionally upset about abortion and therefore desperately try to suspend the argument until rights can be reasonably granted?
Your exceptions are rape or physical risk to the mother. Why? Because then your feels don't get in the way. But there is no reason why the mode of conception or involuntary risk to a mother would somehow alter how many rights a "human" would have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:14:42 2015 No.6956083 >>6956045 >I like this, please work on applying it to veganism Well, birth happens near the beginning of your life while being eaten happens at the end. So, I'm not sure if this line of thought can be used for veganism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:15:02 2015 No.6956084 >>6956073 why does he have sex if he does not want to deal with the consequences?

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:15:29 2015 No.6956087

Tbh I never understood why people wanna tie themselves down to doing only xx. feels stupid to me and attention whoring.
Maybe It's just me. but the only thing I've been addicted too was caffeine and sugar.

majority of my meals are kale,pasta,jasmine rice,flat seeds and sometimes tuna n chicken.
never cared for red meat.

grinds my gears when somebody says being a free thinker=vegan

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:15:52 2015 No.6956088 >>6956065 see >>6955979

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:16:07 2015 No.6956089 File: 66 KB, 613x677, uZIdOs6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6956074

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:16:14 2015 No.6956090 >>6956078 >my feels are an argument heh first and foremost we are feeling beings so get the fuck off your high horse already sick of reading this robot shit on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:16:14 2015 No.6956091 >>6956064 That's some heavy duty anti-intellectualism dude. Why are you even on this board?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:17:19 2015 No.6956099 >>6956091 because I want to talk about this shit as it relates to the real world not your autistic lotus-eater fantasy lands that has no relevance to anything other than itself

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:17:26 2015 No.6956100

>>6956074
>>She can do what she wants.
yes, violating the consent of the father especially and demanding for free abortion and no judgement

but I see that you begin to project, quite funny.

>>6956074
>But it's just a worse form of not getting a birthday present or something.
just like having a child when after you spread your legs and yet still do not want a baby

also, I am pro abortion.

>>6956074
>whether abortion is equivalent to the killing of a person.
this is not what the argument from singer is about

I am fine with killing babies

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:18:10 2015 No.6956102 >>6956078 Another anon made an argument against rape or danger to the mother. I disagree with the rape statement, and danger to the mother is made out of survival instinct, "it or me"

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:18:27 2015 No.6956105 >>6956084 exactly, so why violate his consent even further ? the woman can carry the child for a few months and then give the child away

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:18:34 2015 No.6956106 >>6956065 What if you only eat wild boar which are an invasive species in your area and hunting them is better for deer and other wildlife and promotes biodiversity?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:18:57 2015 No.6956109 >>6956083 wow way to totally ignore and erase the existence and experiences of various species of parasitic worm, you shitlord fuck

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:19:04 2015 No.6956110

>>6956090
The point still stands. YOUR feelings are only a valid factor for YOUR decisions.
But what you are doing is extending this to the rights/freedoms of others. And that is NOT how a society functions. Which is why you have to base your arguments on things we can agree on and not set precedence for "You can't do that because it makes me uncomfortable."

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:20:12 2015 No.6956114 >>6956099 In a thread about Peter Singer? Like, come on man. There are some decent argument against utilitarianism, but "relevance to the real world" is truly pathetic. I suggest you read more.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:20:48 2015 No.6956118 >>6955773 You should have to go to slaughterhouses personally and kill the animal before you're allowed to buy the meat imo.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:21:11 2015 No.6956121

>>6956078
>Are you really this stupid?
kek a butthurt one.

explain the difference between pain and suffering then

reminder

>Singer holds that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is essentially tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure.
In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[20]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[21]
>>6956078
>Your exceptions are rape or physical risk to the mother. Why? Because then your feels don't get in the way. But there is no reason why the mode of conception or involuntary risk to a mother would somehow alter how many rights a "human" would have.

just like the feelings of all the liberals and the mothers who are pregnant and do not pregnancies

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:21:20 2015 No.6956122 >>6956105 That's ridiculous, grow the fuck up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:21:58 2015 No.6956127 >>6956118 That would take too long; some of us have things to do

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:22:29 2015 No.6956128

>>6956110
look brah there's a point where you're forcing it if you're trying to justify female circumcision with your feels or whatever but the murder of a fetus I think you can understand what people GASP might be getting GASP emotional about. stop being a sperg

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:22:31 2015 No.6956129 >>6956109 I thought we were talking about veganism as it applies to humans. I don't think we can control the diets of wild animals (or parisites).

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:22:39 2015 No.6956130 >>6956118 This would likely change what I eat. Except maybe in this case: >>6956106

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:22:43 2015 No.6956131 File: 848 KB, 747x750, InspiroBot_-_2015-08-10_18.30.33.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6956122 hey no feelings involved we said

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:23:44 2015 No.6956136 >>6956114 kek you fucking bozo the real world is the only thing there is get out of your ass and join the rest of us out here you sperglord

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:23:59 2015 No.6956138 >>6956128 You feel emotional attachment to a fetus?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:25:29 2015 No.6956141 >>6956128 >murder We're arguing over whether it is murder or not. Don't simply take that for granted.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:25:40 2015 No.6956142 File: 85 KB, 650x650, aXm681xjU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6956131 ayy lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:25:45 2015 No.6956144 >>6956110 >The point still stands. YOUR feelings are only a valid factor for YOUR decisions. le meme about rationality of people why do you care so much anyway ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:26:24 2015 No.6956149 >>6956138 Yes I do and don't act like only weirdos feel an emotional attachment to a potential human being here in enlightened spooky memeposter land you stupid fucking faggot

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:27:12 2015 No.6956153 >>6956136 Sure, that's tautological. My point is that you refuse to discuss the issues, preferring your own prejudices. Not philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:28:41 2015 No.6956159 >>6956149 >emotional attachment to "potentials" You've been spooked hard mate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:29:40 2015 No.6956164 >>6956153 lol frankly dude I don't care about getting proven right in autism tron so thanks for playing

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:30:41 2015 No.6956167 >>6956149 Give how many people are pro-life I would be wrong to call it weird, but I would say it indicates a softness, oversensitivity, and a feminine sort of sentimentality that I find repugnant and weak.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:30:41 2015 No.6956168 >>6956159 keep getting cucked by some faggot german philosopher no one remembers except for a coven of chronically gf-less robots on a chinese cartoon board m8

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:30:59 2015 No.6956170 >>6956159 shove it up aquinas' ass

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:31:04 2015 No.6956172 >>6956127 Just take time out of the day like you're going to the supermarket. If it was required in order to buy meat and you really felt like you needed it you would find time, trust me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:31:41 2015 No.6956175 >>6956168 What is your native board?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:32:15 2015 No.6956176 File: 12 KB, 255x184, 1430592259745.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6956167 heh only women get sentimental about children heh breh

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:32:32 2015 No.6956178

>>6956121
>explain the difference between pain and suffering then
Meta-cognition.
It really isn't that difficult.

>reminder blabla
Exactly. Pain isn't sufficient, because pretty much everything alive can be physically distressed.

>just like the feelings of all the liberals and the mothers who are pregnant and do not pregnancies
What does that even mean?
>>6956144
Because the thought that people, who enjoy being offended and have opinions about literally everything, determining the rights and freedoms of my family and me, worries me. As it should worry you.
You just can't let it become a trend of our society. The result is never good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:32:56 2015 No.6956179 >>6956149 >emotional attachment to a potential human being Intellectual valuation of potential things would be understandable, but emotional attachment? the fuck?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:33:41 2015 No.6956182 >>6956176 Only some people equate a fetus with a child which has been born.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:34:34 2015 No.6956188 >>6956179 go arrange your cupboard in alphabetical order autismal faggot

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:35:35 2015 No.6956191 >>6956179 >>6956167 I do not understand something, so it is not possible and I prefer to make fun of it

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:35:59 2015 No.6956192 >>6956182 only some wouldn't equate a fetus, which is a child growing in a womb, with a real child are you fucking slow?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:36:36 2015 No.6956196 >>6956178# >>Meta-cognition. >It really isn't that difficult. explains then when it comes to abortion, fetuses, mothers and fathers

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:36:52 2015 No.6956198

>>6956186
It isn't.
Obviously instinct/emotions cloud our judgement. That is to be expected.
But, if anything, you should use it as motivation to argue with a strong foundation, rather than repeatedly injecting it into the debate as though that gives you the right to make decisions for others.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:37:56 2015 No.6956205 >>6956196 >explains then when it comes to abortion, fetuses, mothers and fathers >>6956198 Are you a troll or are you language skills really that bad?

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:39:59 2015 No.6956218

>>6956192
Alright. An ovum is a child which is awaiting fertilization so that it can grow in a womb to be a real child. This can lead to an infinite regress, you see?
>>6956191
I do understand it, I just find it grotesque. It is okay for people to feel things about things. It is okay to feels ways about how others feel things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:41:28 2015 No.6956223 >>6956188 >>6956191 >>6956192 >I am so misunderstood and my special emotions are all-important, stop triggering me with your refusal to accept my snowflake being Back to tumblr please.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:41:31 2015 No.6956224
File: 73 KB, 747x747, InspiroBot_-_2015-08-10_18.52.16.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6956198
I think that you are underage, so let me tell you that people's stances on every subject are not rational. people have affinities, intuitions and emotions, then they attempt to rationalize them towards themselves or somebody else, with more or less persuading arguments and deductions.

also, you are yourself emotional from the very beginning, as you admit, failing miserably to brought an argument on the table

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:42:25 2015 No.6956226

>>6956064
One benefit of distilling opinions down to logical axioms is that it makes imperfections in the continuity of one's system of morals easier to spot and amend. I don't think there's an overall intention to convince anyone here that their opinion itself is wrong, but rather to identify weaknesses in the rationalization of such an opinion and possibly to help come up with a better way to express support for that idea.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:44:24 2015 No.6956238 >>6956224 dat inspirobot doe

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:46:16 2015 No.6956244

>>6956218
>Alright. An ovum is a child which is awaiting fertilization so that it can grow in a womb to be a real child. This can lead to an infinite regress, you see?

no because an ovum by itself can't become a fetus if you leave it unintended. jesus fucking christ is this so hard to understand?

A FETUS = A HUMAN BEING GIVEN ENOUGH TIME
AN OVUM = NO
A SPERM CELL = NO
THE FUCKING AETHER = NOT A POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING UNTIL A CONSENTING MALE AND A CONSENTING FEMALE FORNICATE TO PRODUCE THE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD RESULT IN A REAL HUMAN BEING

>>6956223
shut up faggot

>emotions heh

like im talking to a robot right now. like your conclusions are being arrived at through cold mechanical processes or some shit. fuck off

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:46:27 2015 No.6956245
File: 948 KB, 748x747, InspiroBot_-_2015-08-10_18.32.37.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6956226
perhaps, but then you must motivate why you want people's opinions to be based on some logic. [knowing that there exist several logics with different inferences rules]

are you a typical classical liberal believing in the century-old idea that the universal reason is what everybody can have once everybody is ''properly educated'' ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:48:21 2015 No.6956249 >>6956224 >muh feels [again] Calling other people underage is pretty rich when you argue like a child. Everything you say can be boiled down to "I don't like it, therefore you're wrong".

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:49:45 2015 No.6956255

>>6956226
actually dude when I say "killing fetuses, at any stage of development, is equivalent to snuffing out a potential human being" means I have to prove why not fucking the next fertile female I see on the street is not genocide then you're so far up your ass your butting heads with your prostate. fuck off

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:51:46 2015 No.6956261 >>6956244 A fetus by itself can't become a born child if you leave it unattended either faggot. That's why the womb exists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:52:05 2015 No.6956263 >>6956244 You're making an arbitrary distinction between action and non-action. A man and a woman are also a potential human. Your argument entails they ought to produce said human.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:52:36 2015 No.6956265

>>6956224
I am not underage.

I never argued people are rational. I argued quite the opposite. Which leads me to believe that you are either intentionally bad at reading comprehension or straight up not smart enough to understand the difference between personal moral axioms and ethics.

Rights can not be infringed upon based on personal feelings. Nobody is arguing that abortion is inherently right or fun.
The point is that for a certain amount of time in the beginning of the pregnancy, the woman has the right to decide how she wants to handle the situation.
It isn't an argument about how she should decide. It is an argument of who can make the decision.

So unless you actually believe others can reduce your freedom based on nothing but their opinions and how they would deal with a situation, you ought to stop arguing as such.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:54:45 2015 No.6956273 File: 203 KB, 1968x1017, Discurssive Logic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6956226 discurssive logic

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:55:36 2015 No.6956275

>>6956265
lol look at this autismal fuck keeping on with this bullshit

Everything you are saying is a cheap rationalization. EMOTION > REASON every time in real human experience, and my emotions (and yours too, I bet) tell me pure and simple that a fetus is a living child. That is the start and the end of any non-autistic argument you can make.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:55:45 2015 No.6956277

>>6956261
lol you fucking retarded or something bro? hoooooooooly shit

>>6956263
>arbitrary
>action and non-action

holy shit why are you spergs having such a hard time with this

>a fetus
>in a womb
>in all probability will grow up healthy
>killing it
>tantamount to snuffing a potential life

the arguments against:
>muh feels heh
>why dont u fuck all the women then bro heh
>a fetus doesnt feel heh
>heh
>action and non-action heh

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:56:41 2015 No.6956280 >>6956275 Okay, troll detected. Thanks for wasting my time.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:57:11 2015 No.6956284
File: 33 KB, 480x282, alan-johnson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6956265
>The point is that for a certain amount of time in the beginning of the pregnancy, the woman has the right to decide how she wants to handle the situation.
>It isn't an argument about how she should decide. It is an argument of who can make the decision.
this is not an argument, it is a thesis. Do you learn logic ?
you even contradict yourself with your inner right and not inner right

>>6956265
>So unless you actually believe others can reduce your freedom based on nothing but their opinions and how they would deal with a situation, you ought to stop arguing as such.
this has nothing to do with the subject and confirms that you are bad at logic.

you know that you are not good at trolling ?

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 13:58:27 2015 No.6956289

>>6956245
Because I must abide among others, and how would I be able to trust people if I knew they didn't think logically? I must follow laws set in place based on the opinions of those who lead; if they were to entertain illogical systems of ethics then I would have to fear for my own safety across all aspects of civilized society.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:01:39 2015 No.6956302 >>6956277 >lol you fucking retarded or something bro? hoooooooooly shit That is an interesting argumentation style. You should write philosophy books of your own, you are so good at it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:01:41 2015 No.6956303 >>6956289 only if you expect people to hurt you, which is based on what ? what you want from the very beginning is people abiding to your world view, just like most people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:03:33 2015 No.6956310 >>6956284 >what are axioms The troll is you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:04:07 2015 No.6956314 >>6956302 >I literally cannot stop being autistic and just admit that, emotionally, all non-sociopaths understand that a fetus is a child. And emotion is central to humanity, yes, before reason, as has been proven already repeatedly in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:04:23 2015 No.6956316 >>6956303 only a fuckin dingus like you would respond to "an ovum left unattended does not magically become a fetus" with "HEH same thing with fetuses, ever heard of a womb?" your gay little burn didn't squat faggot

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:06:02 2015 No.6956320 >>6955679 nah

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:07:30 2015 No.6956323 >>6956316 >>6956314 >>6956284 >>6956277 >>6956275 >people are still responding to this troll Is /lit/ this gullible?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:07:42 2015 No.6956324 >>6955981 >heh >>6956090 >heh >>6956176 >heh heh >>6956244 >heh heh >>6956277 >heh heh heh >>6956316 >HEH Painful.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:11:20 2015 No.6956339 >>6956323 lol sorry it's so hard for you to believe not everyone is a spook-finnegans wake-gravity's rainbow goose-stepping faggot brev

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:13:18 2015 No.6956350 >>6956339 Please return to /b/ or wherever you normally dwell.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:13:24 2015 No.6956352

>>6956303
It's not limited to assault. What if regulation of water supplies weren't enforced? What if building codes weren't made necessary? There are certain priorities that I must know are held common between people. That doesn't mean I demand all others share my exact worldview.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:13:29 2015 No.6956353 >>6956324 Yeah what the fuck is this? I hope it doesn't become a thing on /lit/. I'm guessing this guy is from /pol/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:15:15 2015 No.6956360 >>6956353 heh tbh

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:15:30 2015 No.6956362 >>6956339 No, we just chose to believe that surely a person to seriously put out such filthy can not really exist. Now go back to /b/ or /pol/ or whatever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:17:31 2015 No.6956373 >>6956362 fag

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:21:00 2015 No.6956387 >>6955757 Are you familiar with the New Dispensation? What do you think Jesus was talking about when he "fulfilled" the law? Are you a 7 day Adventist?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 14:25:23 2015 No.6956401 I genuinely believe that Sanger and everyone who agrees with him is mentally damaged.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 15:11:50 2015 No.6956631 >>6955734 >my morals don't go beyond the laws of the state

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 16:46:06 2015 No.6957176

>>6955776
>>6956387
Not to support that fuckwad, but ive read a lot of stuff recently that suggests that Jesus was an apocalyptic member of the synagogue reformation movement who had spent a lot of time with the Essenes, and that while he didnt believe in the moneyed temple hierarchy, he definitely would have rejected Paul's mission to the gentiles in favor of James' Jesus movement

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:00:16 2015 No.6957242 >>6955679 animals arent rational, which means they arent moral agents, which means they dont have any rights. See Oderberg for an elaboration on the above point

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:29:32 2015 No.6957420

>>6955679
Good works that rail against veganism & present philosophical inquiries into the nature of plant perception:

Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Botany
(http://www.amazon.com/Plants-Persons-Philosophical-Religion-Environment/dp/1438434286))

Plant-Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life
(http://www.amazon.com/Plant-Thinking-A-Philosophy-Vegetal-Life/dp/0231161255/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_y))

How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human
(http://www.amazon.com/How-Forests-Think-Toward-Anthropology/dp/0520276116/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439242101&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=forest+anthropologgy))

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:32:36 2015 No.6957440 >>6957242 What makes you say animals aren't rational?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:35:06 2015 No.6957452 >>6957420 This stuff is all complete balls though.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:35:50 2015 No.6957459

>>6957242

I think the thought that our morals should only include rational beings is beyond ridiculous. The point of any ethical discussion is to reach hapinness through our actions, so ethics are not only based on rational thought.

They may not be rational, but they can suffer as we do. I'd even say they suffer more, as we have the ability to put things in perspective. It's not my obligation to avoid causing any form of suffering, but it sure as hell makes me more happy with myself when I don't do it.

So yeah, that argument doesn't make sense because moral agents aren't the only object of ethics. That's one of those times I could say "pure ideology" without being ironic.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:42:35 2015 No.6957500 [SPOILER]

File: 1.45 MB, 3284x2916, 1439242955238.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6957452
You seem to have already made up your mind about the material without having read a single page of any of the three books. I'm just passing through to give OP links that they might be interested in, that's all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:42:40 2015 No.6957503 >>6956387 Why did Peter never eat anything unclean, even after Jesus fulfilled the law?

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:44:19 2015 No.6957510

>>6957440
there isnt any proof of them being rational

>>6957459
morality only applies to rational beings because they are the only ones who can recognize their goods.

If morals shouldnt apply to rational beings only, then moral oughts should apply to the actions of nonrational animals. But it is absurd to send Fido to jail because he ate another animal, or takes a shit in public or in private property.

So yeah, "pure ideology"

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:46:30 2015 No.6957521

>>6957510
Neither is there any proof otherwise, nor will there ever be, because humans are incapable of delving into the consciousnesses of animals and therefore will never be able to communicate with or understand them.

All you're doing is saying they aren't rational because it's the option you most want to believe.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:47:05 2015 No.6957531

>>6957503
read Acts, it says Peter had a vision where he was presented with a table full of unclean animals, then heard a voice telling him to eat, and when he said no because theyre unclean, the voice told him it was nonsense, since everything was created by him.
Or that's more or less the stuff i remember

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:48:28 2015 No.6957537

>>6957510
>morality only applies to rational beings because they are the only ones who can recognize their goods.
>If morals shouldnt apply to rational beings only, then moral oughts should apply to the actions of nonrational animals. But it is absurd to send Fido to jail because he ate another animal, or takes a shit in public or in private property.

c'mon son no one would send fido to jail for eating another animal for the same reason we don't send people to jail for eating beef. a

d dude how autistic do you have to be think because animals cannot recognize a "good" all moral valuations regarding them are null? ill tell you how autistic: literally autistic

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:53:08 2015 No.6957555

>>6957521
of course there is proof otherwise, animals dont have rationality because any adult healthy animal of any species doesnt show rational activities (such as class 3 and 4 language i.e. making coherent statements and ordering those statements in a logical order like argumentation)

If you have proof showing there is in fact a species of rational animal, then show it to me.

(fyi, youre acting the same as theists who, when faced with the "there isnt any proof of God", respond with "there isnt any proof against him", which isnt good argumentation)

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:53:26 2015 No.6957558

>>6957531
You misinterpret this verse. Acts 10 is about the conversion of Cornelius, the first gentile baptized into gods church. Peter's vision must be understood in this context.
His vision was God telling him that salvation was available to those previously held at arms length. God cleansed the gentiles, not unclean meat.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:54:40 2015 No.6957569 >>6957510 >moral rights imply moral responsibility NAAAT Too bad. Try again next week.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:54:52 2015 No.6957571

>>6957510

>morality only applies to rational beings because they are the only ones who can recognize their goods.

No, morality is only "practiced" by rational beings, but it applies to everything. Morality is based on human action, but that action is towards other things. If your argument was right, there'd be no morality in our relationship with money, honour, fame, or any other non-human object.

Where's your argument for morality to only be appliable to rational beings? Pure ideology?

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:54:55 2015 No.6957572

Meat is only ethical if the relationship between animal and farmer is symbiotic. The grower/human must provide its animals a better and safer life than they would experience in an untouched wilderness. In exchange, mankind gets to harvest the remains of the animal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:57:50 2015 No.6957594 >>6957500 Well I've come across some of ideas before, and they're mince. It's seriously wacky stuff. You should talk to a botanist sometime maybe.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 17:58:09 2015 No.6957598

>>6957555
You're trying to equate human rationality with the rationality of other animals. Dogs have their own rationality which they exhibit between one another. A dog can't understand a human's rationality, but that doesn't mean that a human isn't rational, and vice-versa.

You're basically saying in a roundabout way that humanity IS rationality, when being a human and being rational are two different things.

I hardly believe I'm shifting the burden of proof here.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:00:59 2015 No.6957610

>>6957537
>because animals cannot recognize a "good" all moral valuations regarding them are null?
because if they cant recognize their own goods, then they dont have any "rights" for them to pursue those goods, which is what morality is.
>>6957558
whatever, the point applies, everything is his creation, so it's ok to eat. Jesus also said "what comes into a man's mouth doesnt defile him".
>>6957571
if morality applies to everything, then why arent we sending silkworms to jail for eating leaves? or flytrappers for eating other beings?

there is only morality in things like money because it affects other human beings in their own goods.

Again, you dont even have an argument to support your assertions, where does it say that morality applies to EVERYthing?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:01:17 2015 No.6957611 >>6957521 But dogs are not rational because rationality is pure thought about abstractions which dogs do not seem to possess not does anything seem to lead to that conclusion.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:05:44 2015 No.6957631

>>6957598
There arent any other rationalities, rationality implies being able to grasp concepts and form logical ideas based on these concepts. So while humanity isnt rationality per se, only humanity posseses rationality among the animal kingdom (im open to proof that other animals exhibit rationality, but the only ones ive heard of are trained to do such things, like a painting elephant or a parrot)

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:06:25 2015 No.6957633 >>6957571 Holy fuck are you trolling? Money etc. represent relationships between individuals. Morality is something between conscious individuals. I really hope you aren't serious.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:08:39 2015 No.6957649

>>6957610
"what comes into a man's mouth doesnt defile him"
He was talking about eating with disgusting Pharisees that didn't wash their hands before eating. They were eating bread at the time.
Basically telling people to be polite if other people don't follow the same ceremonies as you (I.e. washing your hands before eating)

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:10:12 2015 No.6957658 >>6957649 and your authority for your interpretation is...?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:11:11 2015 No.6957662 >>6957658 Extensive study, and yours?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:16:17 2015 No.6957694 >>6957649 >>6957662 No man who excessively studied theology could claim this. No, wait, Karl Rahner and the rest of modernist theology crew exist.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:16:27 2015 No.6957696

>>6957633

No, since there is morality in our relationship with food, alcohol and other substances, and even the land. I hope you are not being serious by ignoring those obvious examples.

>>6957610

>where does it say that morality applies to EVERYthing?

It applies on our *relationship* with everything that we can relate with, since eudaimonia is not only based on our relationship with rational, thought-capable things. Our moral principles are only applied to our own selves, but it does have to relate with the world outside, since what is the fucking point?

In that example, you are misunderstanding our relationship with morality. Ofc a venus-flytrap won't have any guiding principles, but we can have our own set of principles when dealing with those plants. So, even though morality isn't practiced by non-rational beings, it has to be applied to them.

Now, that doesn't mean that it is immoral to eat meat or anything, that's not the point. My point is that morality is not limited to only be applied towards other human beings, but rather to all aspects of our lives.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:19:25 2015 No.6957718

>>6957610
>because if they cant recognize their own goods, then they dont have any "rights" for them to pursue those goods, which is what morality is.

exactly which is why we're talking about giving them rights in the first place

this fuckin board mane

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:23:02 2015 No.6957735

>>6957631
So when a squirrel collects acorns for the coming winter, that isn't grasping a concept and forming a "logical idea" around it? Of course, you could always say this is "in their nature," but that's because we can't get into the mind of the squirrel to know for certain. (Plus, also, we could say everything humans do is in our nature, as well--just at a macro level in comparison to that of squirrels.)

Humans are by far the most capable and intelligent of animals in our usage of opposable thumbs for creation and our intelligent utilization of pack mentality but that doesn't mean that we are the only creatures that are rational.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:26:15 2015 No.6957753 >>6957735 Are you retarded? Rationality has a definition explained earlier and no a squirrel is never, in any way rational. And yes, humans are the only rational being we know of.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:27:13 2015 No.6957757 >>6957753 Go read Philosophical Investigations and fuck off, dimwit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:28:16 2015 No.6957764 >>6957757 I've read them today. What about them?

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:36:06 2015 No.6957811

>>6957242
>animals arent rational, which means they arent moral agents
Yes, but does that mean we shouldn't care about their preferences? Do you consider infants or the mentally disabled moral agents? Should we care about their preferences?
>>6957510
>But it is absurd to send Fido to jail because he ate another animal, or takes a shit in public or in private property
Yes it would be absurd, but most vegans don't argue that. If an infant steals a toy has it done anything wrong? Of course not, it can't reflect on its actions. Same goes with a lion mauling a gazelle. Only moral agents can commit moral or immoral actions, but that doesn't mean they can only act immorally towards other moral agents.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:49:43 2015 No.6957894

>>6957696
it relates to the world outside of us insofar that world contains what is good for us.

>Ofc a venus-flytrap won't have any guiding principles, but we can have our own set of principles when dealing with those plants.
but if they dont have any guiding principles such as "good" and "bad", why should we give them rights in the first place? since rights are granted so that the individual realizes it's own goods which he understands. To give rights to something that cannot in principle recognize its own goods would be like giving a math tutor to a rock.

>>6957718
rights arent arbitrarily given, they are acknowledged.

>>6957735
no it isnt, since the squrrel doesnt say "Oh golly! I must collect acorns and other nuts for the winter is coming!", it just does it (by appetite).

we cant get into the mind of a squirrel because there isnt any mind to begin with, Mind implies intentional states and abstract concepts.

You wouldnt be wrong to say that everything we do is in our nature, since it is in out nature as rational animals. What a squirrel does is in it's nature too, but it is only in it's non rational animal nature.

>>6957811
>Yes, but does that mean we shouldn't care about their preferences?
yes, insofar as they cant know what their preferences are.
>Do you consider infants or the mentally disabled moral agents?
Yes
>Should we care about their preferences?
Not really, since what a child or an Original Poster want can be different from what is good for them, but they form an idea of "good" in the first place, which the animal cannot.

>Yes it would be absurd, but most vegans don't argue that.
they dont because it's absurd.
>If an infant steals a toy has it done anything wrong? Of course not, it can't reflect on its actions. Same goes with a lion mauling a gazelle.
it isnt the same, precisely because an infant is an immature individual, and will continue to develope, while the lion is a mature healthy individual and since it doesnt express rationality in a mature and healthy state, it follows that it doesnt have it.

>Only moral agents can commit moral or immoral actions, but that doesn't mean they can only act immorally towards other moral agents.
Of course it means precisely that. To act immorally is to act against what is good for oneself or against the good of another. But to act against what is good means knowing the "good" in the first place, and mature, healthy animals cannot do that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:51:31 2015 No.6957905 >>6957894 >we cant get into the mind of a squirrel because there isnt any mind to begin with fuck off, jesus christ

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 18:55:31 2015 No.6957918 >>6957905 >I cannot justify starving myself, so i will proceed to shitpost!

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 19:00:25 2015 No.6957929

>>6957894

>Not really, since what a child or an Original Poster want can be different from what is good for them, but they form an idea of "good" in the first place, which the animal cannot.

Not until they are 6 years old. So until then, just because the baby can't fathom what's good or bad, we shouldn't give them any rights? Can't you truly see how that's a horrible argument?

>but if they dont have any guiding principles such as "good" and "bad", why should we give them rights in the first place? since rights are granted so that the individual realizes it's own goods which he understands. To give rights to something that cannot in principle recognize its own goods would be like giving a math tutor to a rock.

No, rights are not only given to something so that it can see its own goods. Rights are actually "given" to something in order to protect them from unnecessary suffering in general I'd argue. And in that case, it must also be extended to any life-form that can experience suffering.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 19:04:50 2015 No.6957945

>>6957894

>it isnt the same, precisely because an infant is an immature individual, and will continue to develope

How can we know a child will continue to develop? It could be hit in the head with a rock or something. Also, a really dumb kid should be put in the same category as live-stock since it's not fully rational?

>Only moral agents can commit moral or immoral actions, but that doesn't mean they can only act immorally towards other moral agents.

This guy is right. Morality must be applied to all things, or none at all. Trying to limit it to "rational" beings will have you descend into so many logical pitfalls you will be strucking oil in no time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 19:05:11 2015 No.6957947 >>6956041 good post

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 19:08:15 2015 No.6957957

>>6957894
>yes, insofar as they cant know what their preferences are.
Really? Do you think animals most animals have a capacity to suffer? If so, you you think they'd rather suffer or not suffer?
>Yes
Why do you believe that? What qualifies as a moral agent to you? Don't you think the capacity to reflect on actions is important? That seems like blatant speciesism to me.
>precisely because an infant is an immature individual, and will continue to develope, while the lion is a mature healthy individual and since it doesnt express rationality in a mature and healthy state, it follows that it doesnt have it.
Why does a future state have any relevance to a present act? Are you arguing that an infant IS responsible for its current actions because at some point in the future it will gain a capacity to reflect on them? That seems absurd. Also, you didn't address the permanently mentally disabled.
>To act immorally is to act against what is good for oneself or against the good of another. But to act against what is good means knowing the "good" in the first place
Again, do you think animals have the capacity to suffer? Do you think they would rather suffer or not suffer?

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 19:09:11 2015 No.6957962

>>6957894
I think the "right" of an animal should be best defined as the right not to suffer cruel treatment unnecessarily. This is widely accepted already when applied to animals we interact with culturally, pets in particular. Example: torturing and eating a dog or cat. Or walking into a pet store and cutting off the head of a turtle or hamster. Sure, you might be able to argue that if there was sufficient cause for doing that, like to save a human life or something, it might be a NECESSARY decision to inflict suffering on an innocent animal.

But extend this to farm animals - Cows, pigs. Fairly intelligent animals, comparable to dogs and cats at the very least. They are put through immense suffering on par with torture. For us to consume... Now here's the thing, the research is turning up time and time again that eating red meat is not healthy or necessary biologically. So can you argue that it is morally acceptable to support inflicting mass-suffering on innocent animal populations due to something that is not necessary, but merely cultural?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 20:35:27 2015 No.6958305 >>6956401 Why? He's consistent as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 20:37:57 2015 No.6958316 >>6955679 No, it's one extreme or the other Stop being a pussy and pick one

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:01:47 2015 No.6958864

>>6957957
>Do you think animals most animals have a capacity to suffer? If so, you you think they'd rather suffer or not suffer?
it depends if you equate suffering with pain. I take suffering to refer primarily to emotional states, which animals lack.

>What qualifies as a moral agent to you?
a rational being.
>Don't you think the capacity to reflect on actions is important?
that is an expression of rationality, so it would depend whether rationality is expressed or not.
>That seems like blatant speciesism to me.
So? name dropping wont help your case, I could call you a meatophobe and call it a day.
>Why does a future state have any relevance to a present act?
rationality isnt a "future" state, it is a present state which hasnt been expressed because of the reasons i gave earlier.

>>6957945
>How can we know a child will continue to develop? It could be hit in the head with a rock or something.
>teens talking about parenting

>Also, a really dumb kid should be put in the same category as live-stock since it's not fully rational?
no, rationality is binary, you either are or you arent. And humans are. You could be irrational, but that doesnt mean youre non-rational.

>This guy is right. Morality must be applied to all things, or none at all. Trying to limit it to "rational" beings will have you descend into so many logical pitfalls you will be strucking oil in no time.
many people here say animals are intelligent/have interests/would rather do x without any shred of proof. That does sound like a pitfall
And no, morality isnt to be applied to all things, only to us. how can you apply morality to something that doesnt know what morality is in the first place?

>>6957929
>Not until they are 6 years old
have you ever taken care of a child? or seen one of those little boogers crying for a candy bar or a toy? they see these things as good for them, even if they are not.

>just because the baby can't fathom what's good or bad, we shouldn't give them any rights?Can't you truly see how that's a horrible argument?
hey, im not peter singer.
I actually think they should be given rights. They are called human rights after all. And rationality is of the essence of human beings. Just like elasticity is the essence of a rubber band, but you wouldnt say a rubberband is a rubberband until it stretches for the first time. or a ball is a ball until it rolls,etc.

>No, rights are not only given to something so that it can see its own goods.
i didnt say that, try to read what i said next time "since rights are granted so that the individual realizes it's own goods which he understands. "
so they can only be granted to rational beings, since rationality implies understanding

>Rights are actually "given" to something in order to protect them from unnecessary suffering in general I'd argue.
>I'd argue
then do it, it will be wrongheaded and impulsed by pure ideology
>muh suffering
>muh pain is bad
>muh consent

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:06:31 2015 No.6958886 reminder that no one has actually refuted this >>6957242

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:18:59 2015 No.6958934 >>6958886 Reminder that you're a retard and have been refuted multiple times in this thread but are too ignorant to see it.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:23:46 2015 No.6958955

>>6958864

>teens talking about parenting
you didn't refute my point though, it was used mainly to show that argument was not sound.

>rationality is binary

Why? Who said so?

>many people here say animals are intelligent/have interests/would rather do x without any shred of proof.

I'm not one of them, as I didn't use that argument.

> how can you apply morality to something that doesnt know what morality is in the first place?

What is morality in its core? Is it not the search for hapinness or peace through actions or inactions deemed "good" for us? Now, do you think that the only "good" actions are ONLY those which are done towards another moral agent (rational being), or rather all actions that can be classified by our subjective notions of "good" and "bad"? I think it is the latter, and I'd argue that it is immoral to, for example, torture animals mainly for our pleasure, or to eat too much of anything, or to drink too much alcohol. All of the above bring about destructive estates to MOST people, and are thus said to be immoral.

>then do it, it will be wrongheaded and impulsed by pure ideology

I would, but it is far too late for me start a whole new argument. Let's just say that Rights are not based upon that which is "good", but rather upon that which is necessary for a decent life. "The right of having food" is not "good" in itself, that food might be processed cow shit, it could be objectively the worst thing ever to be tasted by human tongues, but if it would replenish us, then it would serve as being a "right". I don't know if all of the "rights" were made like that, but I don't think that has any relevance to the previous discussion.

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:31:21 2015 No.6958983
File: 7 KB, 225x225, 1434606792487.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6958864
>muh suffering
>muh pain is bad
>muh consent
>ideology

congratulations, you've abstracted real life to the point that wanting to avoid inflicting pain and distress on living beings is "ideology". you think you're so smart using that word. fucking faggot pomos and their meme buzzwords

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:38:20 2015 No.6959019

>>6958955
>you didn't refute my point though
you didnt have a point, i said something about a developing child and you said "the kid could die"
the kid dying is not something we should take for granted, it's something we ought to prevent.
>Now, do you think that the only "good" actions are ONLY those which are done towards another moral agent (rational being), or rather all actions that can be classified by our subjective notions of "good" and "bad"?
neither
>Rights are not based upon that which is "good", but rather upon that which is necessary for a decent life.
and what is a decent life? I'd say a fulfilled life, and a fulfilled life is one which fulfills what is good for us.
>"The right of having food" is not "good" in itself.
There isnt any right to have food, it is a right to nourishment, and since there isnt any imperative for us to not gain nourishment from plants or animals, then we can get it through those

anyway, i dont feel like arguing anymore, if one wants to see a good developed argument for meat consumption you could see some of the works of David Oderberg. Peace be with you

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:40:31 2015 No.6959028 >>6958983 >wanting to avoid inflicting pain and distress on living beings is "ideology" but it is

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:43:55 2015 No.6959041

>>6958864
You kinda avoided the question bud. If you say babies and mentally disabled people are moral agents, you imply(by the definition of a moral agent) that they are responsible for their actions.

So, do you believe we should hold babies accountable for stealing etc.? How should they be punished?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:46:23 2015 No.6959049 >arguing for being a carnivore from a religious perspective lmao now you're gonna tell me Lord of the Rings says it's gandalf's will that you smoke weed

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:48:14 2015 No.6959055 >>6959028 when finding murder and rape abominable becomes an arbitrary "ideology" as interchangeable as what political party you subscribe to you've lost the forest for the trees and are off in magical philosophy land population: autism

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:49:39 2015 No.6959065 >>6959041 not really, i drew the distinction between rationality and its essential properties (those which "flow" from rationality)

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:52:04 2015 No.6959074 >>6959055 i consider those abominable too, the ideology starts when you replace "humans" with "living beings"

Anonymous Mon Aug 10 23:58:39 2015 No.6959103

>the Earth in it's current natural form is objectively perfect
>any alteration is a moral catastrophe

Volcanic wasteland? EVIL. Primordial soup? EVIL. Oxygen rich supercontinent? EVIL.

The Mojave Desert is supposed to be hot. The Alps are supposed to be covered in coniferous forests. Bamboo grows in Central China.

That's the way it is and the way it SHOULD be.

Humans aren't renters. We were born of this planet. We are this planet.

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:00:03 2015 No.6959109

>>6959074
your harping on rationality is as "arbitrary" as any ideology that seeks to protect non-rational animals

as you can't get inside an animal's head there is no way to confirm your claim that they have no inner experience of pain. this is absolutely impossible. you can't deny this. someone said this dozens of posts ago and you're still drawing ideological lines in the sand and deriding us for doing the same

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:03:46 2015 No.6959121 >>6959065 So explain clearly, in what way can a mentally disabled human be said to have rationality, and in what way will this human exhibit the properties of rationality at any stage of their life?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:04:42 2015 No.6959124 THESE ARE BAD THREADS THEY ONLY GET WORSE STOP

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:05:40 2015 No.6959126

>>6959041
>If you say babies and mentally disabled people are moral agents, you imply(by the definition of a moral agent) that they are responsible for their actions.
that is too quick, since your definition of moral seems to be the one where one agent is responsible for its actions, a thing that not ever moral share

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:07:46 2015 No.6959137

>>6959109
>is no way to confirm your claim that they have no inner experience of pain.
this wasnt my claim, and your logic works backwards, you cant prove they feel pain as we feel it, as you cant go inside their "mind" to check it, hell, you cant even go inside the mind of anyone, so by your logic, we cant know they feel pain. You can claim Agere sequitur esse, a scholastic principle, but you cant cherrypick this one and leave the other principles

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:09:44 2015 No.6959142 >>6959121 by being human medicine, to remove that which is "blocking" the expression of their rationality.

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:09:51 2015 No.6959145
File: 43 KB, 747x745, InspiroBot_20.15.38.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6958864
>it depends if you equate suffering with pain. I take suffering to refer primarily to emotional states, which animals lack.
the suffering is the pain added with whatever believe in self we have

but what you suggest is that pain alone is fine as long as the agent in pain do not identify with the pain. But animals do not do this, since in order for the agent in suffering to detach itself form the pain [to cease suffering], we need reflexivity.

animals seem to have not a good reflexivity [and many humans seem not to develop it either]

so animals identify themselves with the pain. they are solipsist more than us, they are less able to separate ''self'' with perception [again most humans seem unable too]

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:11:59 2015 No.6959149 >>6959126 Being responsible for your actions is literally in every definition of "moral agency". If you're using an idiosyncratic definition you must defend its use because it makes the word "moral agent" somewhat meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:14:31 2015 No.6959157 >>6959145 >reflexivity >identify >self all rationality based concepts

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:18:43 2015 No.6959173 >>6955757 I'm agnostic, and even I know that your view is not only heretical, but just bad exegesis. >Read more Paul

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:20:09 2015 No.6959179 >>6959142 medicine can't cure many severe genetic syndromes that affect intelligence, are these people human?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:22:01 2015 No.6959185 >>6955871 You're wrong. Read "Practical Ethics"

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:23:50 2015 No.6959191 >>6959179 >medicine can't cure many severe genetic syndromes that affect intelligence then we work for it to cure them, easy piecy

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:30:26 2015 No.6959218 >>6956019 Leave this board if you're not willing to justify your shitty claims/demands

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:32:56 2015 No.6959223 >>6956168 Fuck off back to reddit kid

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:33:42 2015 No.6959228 >>6959191 Why do you believe that every syndrome or disability has the ability to be cured? is there any proof of this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:34:42 2015 No.6959234 >>6956302 kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:35:57 2015 No.6959235 >>6957242 Muh Descartes, 'Animals are unfeeling machines' bullshit..

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:36:37 2015 No.6959238 >>6959228 because that is what we do, we solve problems, ancient deadly diseases are now prevented with a single pinch, who says our deadly diseases wont be cured with a tiny pill?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:37:37 2015 No.6959240 >>6959235 didnt say they were unfeeling, and I dislike Descartes

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:41:58 2015 No.6959249 >>6959185 read the thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:43:27 2015 No.6959257 >>6959157 how come? and why do you seem to say that it is a bad thing ?

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:44:08 2015 No.6959259

>>6958864
You're using terms like rationality in odd ways, but not defending their usage.

Going by your terms, Why should we give those that simply have 'rationality' moral consideration, and not those that have, (by your terms), the 'essential properties of rationality'?

As you would probably agree, many people with your so-called 'rationality' will never show the properties of it; Why should they be given moral consideration?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:47:20 2015 No.6959271 >>6959149 morality is about saying what is right and wrong and why morality matters. It is not connected to responsibilities from the onset

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:51:29 2015 No.6959282 >>6959259 because they have inherent rationality, and are therefore rational beings

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:54:44 2015 No.6959293 >>6959282 show me your inherent rationality then

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 00:57:51 2015 No.6959303

>>6959293
im a human being, rationality is of the essence of human beings, so im rational.

i dont understand, you do know agere sequitir esse only works when we dont know the essence of a certain being? it seems to me you want to get away with mere casuistry

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 01:01:25 2015 No.6959312 >>6959282 You haven't explained anything. Why is your conception of rationality meaningful? Why does possessing it posit moral consideration?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 01:04:40 2015 No.6959324 >>6959303 you can say all you want that you have inherent rationality, but that does not show anything

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 01:05:12 2015 No.6959325

>>6959271
>morality is about saying what is right and wrong and why morality matters
Sure, and moral agents are those that can make judgements based on these rights and wrongs.
So it follows that those that can make these jusdgements should choose right over wrong (if the words are to have any meaning) and thus can be responsible for their actions

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 01:07:04 2015 No.6959332 >>6959325 >thus this thus is intuitive to you, but not necessarily intuitive to other people you connect two concepts with no other basis that your wish to connect them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 01:09:35 2015 No.6959339 >>6959238 retarded idealism, i'm not surprised you're one to hope for the treatment of mental illness

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 01:24:03 2015 No.6959367

>>6959332
>but not necessarily intuitive to other people
If you don't agree you must explain yourself, this is the view of the majority of philosophers.

Say you have a newborn baby, isn't it the right thing to do to feed it and not let it starve? Would you be accountable at all if you let the baby starve to death, granted you had all the time and food available?

If you can't see the direct relationship between moral agents and responsibility you're going again the views of basically everyone without any explanation, this is not a fringe view.

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 01:40:45 2015 No.6959410

>>6959367
>If you don't agree you must explain yourself, this is the view of the majority of philosophers.
hum no, the ''burden of proof'' in always on the one connecting two unrelated concepts in order to persuade other people that he is spot on.

>>6959367
>>Say you have a newborn baby, isn't it the right thing to do to feed it and not let it starve?

hum no, if I no longer want to feed the baby. There can be plenty of motivations why somebody would not fee its child. the motivations will persuade more or or less the other people, but that's all there is.

>>6959367
>If you can't see the direct relationship between moral agents and responsibility you're going again the views of basically everyone without any explanation, this is not a fringe view.
as if everyone who ''see'' the link between these two concepts can explain why they ''see'' the link.
You yourself cannot say something else than '' this link is intuitive'', ''it cannot be otherwise'', ''it is a necessity'' without even knowing why.

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 01:50:28 2015 No.6959437

>>6959410
You just seem confused, you haven't read about this stuff obviously. You're not even talking about moral accountability, you still arguing on right and wrong

>hum no, if I no longer want to feed the baby. There can be plenty of motivations why somebody would not fee its child. the motivations will persuade more or or less the other people, but that's all there is.

You're not talking about morals here. Morals aren't about what people may do in a situation, it is what they SHOULD do.
Do you think that morals exist? In a situation, is it possible for there to be a right and a wrong thing to do?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 02:28:03 2015 No.6959529 Why are we even talking about about a guy that supports evolutionary psychology?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 02:38:54 2015 No.6959563 >>6959529 We aren't. This is a troll and shitposter thread for one moral realist and some stirnerian egoists who didn't understand what Stirner meant when he wrote about other people's limits.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 04:13:20 2015 No.6959890 >>6958305 The whole idea that ethics should be based on reducing pain and increasing pleasure is moronic.

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 04:31:25 2015 No.6959957

>>6959437
>Do you think that morals exist?
not much no.

>>6959437
>>You're not talking about morals here.
well I forgot to be precise in that people will be more or less persuaded that the action was right or wrong, or at least not wrong or not right.

>>6959437
>Morals aren't about what people may do in a situation, it is what they SHOULD do.
indeed, and the first question is then: why do you seek some personal rules about what other people must do or not and that you seek to impose on other people.

if there is an answer, it will greatly influence on what your moral perspective will be, but too many moralists forget to answer this question.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 07:01:59 2015 No.6960272 >>6959563 This thread is shit but you have to admit that there has been a lot more in it than "stirnerian egoists."

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 07:03:57 2015 No.6960275 >>6959957 Morals objectively exist you fedora

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 07:16:48 2015 No.6960298 >>6959890 Why is it moronic?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 07:17:15 2015 No.6960300 >>6955879 >my mother-in-law doesnt eat food anymore What?

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 07:20:55 2015 No.6960308

>>6960275
By what faculty of the mind do you have knowledge of objective values and why is there so much disagreement over the matter compared to the natural sciences and folk epistemic matters (this phone I'm writing this post with exists etc)? What is the metaphysical nature of values since they sure as shit can't be spaciotemporal nor causally effective.

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 07:21:02 2015 No.6960309

Peter Singer gives talks at my college and is slightly more tolerable in person than one might think

did you know that he was in an documentary about puppy play fetishes
cos you should
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rGDCQWyUjZM#t=291

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 07:35:44 2015 No.6960330 File: 50 KB, 470x470, bou10_76s_a_iso.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Plants feel pain too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 11 08:01:37 2015 No.6960407 >>6955879 >And every vegan i see is a somewhat Jaundiced skinny fuck with a shit attitude. That's like saying "every gay guy I see is a flaming queen". It's seems that way because those are the only one you notice.

Anonymous Tue Aug 11 09:00:08 2015 No.6960578

>>6959312
>Why is your conception of rationality meaningful?
my conception of rationality is the one agreed by many philosophers (the capacity for thought, broadly speaking)
Because it implies that the individual can recognize its own goods.
>>6959339
>wanting progress is idealism
guess /lit/ is *literally* all for scientific progress

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:00:04 2015 No.6960578,1 >>6955696 Shut up you pretentious cuck

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature