This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
My favourite pro veganism quotation!
Scroll to see replies
Debate or don't. Don't quote me and waste my time with juvenile sarcasm.
Original post by somethingbeautiful
Of course there is: self preservation over and above altruism.
Why should preserving your own life, say, matter more than the preservation of someone else's life?
Original post by somethingbeautiful
Every single person on this planet assigns more importance to their own interests and suffering
That's not the point: the point is, is this logically defensible?
You've so far failed to provide a logical defence for it, so I would say that my view of objective morality holds.
Humen bangs er stupad...
We don't care what we eat. As long as we don't actually think about what it actually is.
'Hmm this 'ham' is lovely' *said whilst watching Peppa the pig on TV*
We don't care what we eat. As long as we don't actually think about what it actually is.
'Hmm this 'ham' is lovely' *said whilst watching Peppa the pig on TV*
Original post by viddy9
Why should preserving your own life, say, matter more than the preservation of someone else's life?
Because you can't save someone else if you're dead.
Original post by viddy9
That's not the point: the point is, is this logically defensible?
You've so far failed to provide a logical defence for it, so I would say that my view of objective morality holds.
You've so far failed to provide a logical defence for it, so I would say that my view of objective morality holds.
Individuals desire to survive due to their biology. What is the relevance of defending that fact logically? It's a biological fact that biological organisms strive to survive.
Humans are multicellular organisms composed of many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs.
We are a bag of cells. Cells don't have moral reasoning for wishing to function and survive - they just do.
Quote me my sarcasm? I haven't been intentionally sarcastic anywhere in my responses to you.
You're avoiding debate because you have nothing to offer in light of what I've said.
You're avoiding debate because you have nothing to offer in light of what I've said.
It's ultimately based in emotion. Morality = virtue = goodness. We decide on 'good' and 'bad' depending on how things make us feel. You can make up different ethical systems and theories and write essays on them but ultimately, they boil down to human feelings. How does murder make you feel? Happy? Probably not. Repulsed? More likely. So we file that under 'bad'/'immoral' and most of us don't do it. But why is that feeling authoritative? Why is it more authoritative than someone who responds with 'happy' to the same question?
That's what I'm getting at. I'm not being sarcastic.
That's what I'm getting at. I'm not being sarcastic.
No, that's not entirely true. There is many reasons why FGM occurs. That's just one of them.
http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Forward_-FGM-FAQ.pdf
Also, many circumcised males report enhanced sexual pleasure from having the skin removed. I dunno.
http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Forward_-FGM-FAQ.pdf
Also, many circumcised males report enhanced sexual pleasure from having the skin removed. I dunno.
Original post by somethingbeautiful
Because you can't save someone else if you're dead.
That's not a reason for valuing your own life above the lives of others, though. You're not claiming that there's anything special about your life here, you're essentially saying that all lives matter equally and, in recognition of this fact, saving someone else's life is a reason to keep yourself alive.
Original post by somethingbeautiful
Individuals desire to survive due to their biology. What is the relevance of defending that fact logically? It's a biological fact that biological organisms strive to survive. We are a bag of cells. Cells don't have moral reasoning for wishing to function and survive - they just do.
You talk about survival, but I was referring to interests, or preferences. Humans have been known to sacrifice their own lives for others, so it's simply not a biological fact that biological organisms strive to survive, at least not in all cases.
Indeed, as beings who are capable of engaging in higher reasoning, we can reflect on whether our interests matter more than those of others, and alter our behaviour accordingly.
The simple fact is that there is no logical justification for putting one's own interests above those of others: the good of any one individual is of no more importance than the good of any other.
It is a biological fact, however, that sentient beings aim to maximise their preference-satisfaction. This is impossible not to do - if we wanted not to satisfy our preferences, that would itself be a preference.
The aim of satisfying our preferences cannot be logically justified: it simply is a fact. But, from this fact, we can deduce, as I demonstrated earlier, an objective moral framework. Essentially, the fact that all sentient beings aim to satisfy their preferences is an axiom from which we can deduce objective moral truths, namely that we should maximise the preference-satisfaction of every sentient being. This is why meat-eating is objectively wrong: it frustrates the preferences of tens of billions of sentient beings every year.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Katty3
What disease? Veganism isn't a disease. It merely rejects the need for animal products in food. It is therefore one of the least harmful lifestyles going.
So someone with depression should be murdered then? Given that it is a sickness of the mind and should be put down, according to your logic.
Posted from TSR Mobile
So someone with depression should be murdered then? Given that it is a sickness of the mind and should be put down, according to your logic.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes! Natural selection must prevail if we are to progress as a species for the future
Original post by Evening
Yes! Natural selection must prevail if we are to progress as a species for the future
No. That is called eugenics. Have you ever heard of the Nazis? No? Well let me tell you what they did.
They decided that some people weren't worth as much as other people. They decided that these people must die. They killed millions of people in persuit of the "master race"
They killed Jews, gypsies, gay people, disabled people, trade unionists and anyone else they decided that they didn't like. This was called the Holocaust.
Now I'll let you in on a secret. The master race does not exist. There is no group of people who are better than the rest of us. Anyway, how do you know that vegans aren't the next step on the evolutionary ladder?
Original post by Katty3
No. That is called eugenics. Have you ever heard of the Nazis? No? Well let me tell you what they did.
They decided that some people weren't worth as much as other people. They decided that these people must die. They killed millions of people in persuit of the "master race"
They killed Jews, gypsies, gay people, disabled people, trade unionists and anyone else they decided that they didn't like. This was called the Holocaust.
Now I'll let you in on a secret. The master race does not exist. There is no group of people who are better than the rest of us. Anyway, how do you know that vegans aren't the next step on the evolutionary ladder?
They decided that some people weren't worth as much as other people. They decided that these people must die. They killed millions of people in persuit of the "master race"
They killed Jews, gypsies, gay people, disabled people, trade unionists and anyone else they decided that they didn't like. This was called the Holocaust.
Now I'll let you in on a secret. The master race does not exist. There is no group of people who are better than the rest of us. Anyway, how do you know that vegans aren't the next step on the evolutionary ladder?
You ask the question ''how do you know that vegans aren't the next step on the evolutionary ladder?'' May I ask, how you assert ''The master race does not exist.''?
Original post by zetamcfc
You ask the question ''how do you know that vegans aren't the next step on the evolutionary ladder?'' May I ask, how you assert ''The master race does not exist.''?
ATFQ
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Katty3
Ok so the question is ''how do you know that vegans aren't the next step on the evolutionary ladder?'', Answer, nobody (at this time) can know, so it is an irrelevant question. There you go.
Original post by daydreamer4life
Do you and your family enjoy eating similar food? Then thats like me saying to you "You don't love your family if you eat their food."
But the truth is, you DON'T eat their food because there is enough around for everyone to share
Same goes here, we might eat the same food as the animals, but thats fine because there's enough for both them and us!
I know you were trying to be smart, but your argument just makes no sense.
But the truth is, you DON'T eat their food because there is enough around for everyone to share
Same goes here, we might eat the same food as the animals, but thats fine because there's enough for both them and us!
I know you were trying to be smart, but your argument just makes no sense.
hmm okay, you made a fair point, I do agree.
Thank you for not accussing me for being a troll for just making a simple statement, I appreciate it, unlike you other guys
Original post by JD1lla
I'm great with my money, I saved 3 grand this year! Strict £50 a week diet. Where are you getting this broccoli from?! It's 67p per broccoli here, tenderstem is much more expensive, but it works better in a stir fry.
Lamb derived.
Lamb derived.
Strict 50 quid a week diet is just an extortionate amount to be spending. You may be saving but you could easily save another 10-20 quid a week. That's another grand right there.
Original post by viddy9
Basic animalistic survival does not equate to eating meat, for the simple reason that we don't require meat in order to survive. You could also use "basic animalistic survival" to justify murdering other humans and enslaving them.
No, you couldn't - the survival of the species is paramount, so harming fellow members of our species is in violation of that basic rule, harming other species to survive isn't.
And, whether lions consider the ethics of what they do is irrelevant: why are you using lions as ethical role models? Lions also kill each other to steal their homes and their "wives", and also kill each other's babies.
I'm not using lions as moral guides, the point I'm making is morals don't exist in predator-prey relationships.
Meeting humans' basic needs is justifiable under an anti-speciesist ethic: most humans are rational and self-aware and have an interest in continuing to live. There's very little that's ethically problematic with the actual act of killing most nonhuman animals (aside from chimpanzees and other primates; dolphins; elephants and some birds), because they have no preference to continue to live, and do not conceive of their existence on a time continuum. Therefore, killing animals in order to meet basic human needs is justifiable, and we also have to ask: what would have happened to these wild-animals had they not been killed? The answer is that they would've died deaths just as bad, if not worse.
So it's justifiable to kill animals - why then is it wrong to eat them?
Now, all of the examples you cite are to do with wild-animals. To address your previous point about morality in nature, wild-animal suffering is actually incredibly important for many vegans (see Brian Tomasik and David Pearce's work, for instance), and the vegan community is increasingly on board with the idea of striving to eliminate wild-animal suffering too.
.
Then there's one simple question - why do they not abandon veganism for diets such as the insectivorous one that does reduce suffering? Or, if the thought of eating insects makes them squeamish, bivalve based or fruitarianism - as it is wild animals are killed for them to eat, it's avoidable so then we're still trying to find out why killing to eat is fine so long as it's not the animal that you eat?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
No, you couldn't - the survival of the species is paramount, so harming fellow members of our species is in violation of that basic rule, harming other species to survive isn't.
Now you're just making things up. Why is the survival of the species paramount, first of all? Natural selection, recall, isn't about the survival of the species, but about the survival of your genes. Secondly, you still fail to recognise that we don't need to eat meat to survive.
Either you really believe what you're saying, or you've gone on a parody site for worst meat-eater arguments ever and then transferred them here as a joke.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
I'm not using lions as moral guides, the point I'm making is morals don't exist in predator-prey relationships.
You're using the fact that lions don't think about the ethics of what they're doing as evidence that morals don't exist in predator-prey relationships. So you demonstrably are using lions are moral guides.
In anything that humans do, we're able to think about the morality of what we're doing, especially considering that we do a lot of things, such as eating meat, which aren't necessary for survival.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
So it's justifiable to kill animals - why then is it wrong to eat them?
The majority of nonhuman animals are raised in factory farms where they suffer, all of them are transported to the slaughterhouse under a great amount of stress and a significant proportion are slaughtered in intense pain, simply because a significant proportion of slaughters in abattoirs go wrong and even the most experienced workers get it wrong.
On top of this, the meat industry is one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Then there's one simple question - why do they not abandon veganism for diets such as the insectivorous one that does reduce suffering? Or, if the thought of eating insects makes them squeamish, bivalve based or fruitarianism - as it is wild animals are killed for them to eat, it's avoidable so then we're still trying to find out why killing to eat is fine so long as it's not the animal that you eat?
Firstly, veganism leads to the reduction of a lot of suffering compared to a diet with animal products in it, especially as 40% of the world's grain is used to feed nonhuman animals reared for meat in the first place, meaning that any deaths of wild-animals from plant-based agriculture are also included in the total death toll from animal agriculture.
Secondly, it's perfectly possible to follow a vegan diet and completely minimise wild-animal suffering, whether it's through buying from farms which don't use technology such as combine harvesters which lead to the deaths of around 0.76 animals per hectare, which isn't exactly a lot, according to a study conducted by Tew and MacDonald. It's also possible to grow food in one's own back garden and buy from farms practising veganic agriculture. The reality is, though, that plant-based agriculture is actually responsible for the suffering of very few wild-animals, and certainly less than meat production and, on top of this, it's far better for the environment in the vast majority of cases and doesn't involve confining, transporting and slaughtering tens of billions of sentient beings every year.
Third, many vegans, in theory, have no objection to eating bivalves, but there's often a lot of by-catch from bivalve farming, which makes it ethically problematic. Similarly, insect farming may be ethically problematic because there's a non-zero probability that they can actually suffer, and the numbers of insects who would be raised in insect farms thus makes the expected disutility of eating them quite high.
Fourth, with all of the diets you mention, it's likely that your basic needs won't be met, so not following these diets may be necessary for self-aware and rational beings, such as normal humans.
(edited 8 years ago)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
