-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
How do you morally justify eating animals? (itt the OP discovers forum discussions)
- Thread starter sulam
- Start date
- Status
Eugh this is such a pointless argument... you keep talking like there are some "right" and set morals just floating out there for somebody to stumble upon; moral is just the perceived view of what is right and wrong, and it changes dependent upon where you are. If a single culture thinks that something is moral in that culture, then it is. It may not be in somebody else's given set of morals, but it's still moral to that one person/culture.
Morals are subjective, so stop acting like there is one "right" set.
However, subjective morals would allow for rape, paedophilia and racism being justifiable to some, therefore we obviously have some tacitly agreed moral structure of society. The structure is also viewed, in some way, as "right", even if we accept it may change, so in that way it is reasonable to talk about there being a "right" moral.
Now if we think individualistically we can see differing morals (such as eating/not eating morals), yet to have defined morals you must again believe your own to be somewhat more "right" than someone else's morals.
Personally, the lack of a necessity for eating meat means that I chose to be vegan. Anyone who can see that there is suffering in meat farming and argue that they eat meat just for taste reasons is a weak and selfish person in my view. It's even worse when carnists "love" a pet!
Of course I am not going to be endorsing those things you listed, but in some culture, somewhere, those things are perfectly acceptable, I'm sure. In their set moral structure, there is no problem. The only reason we think it is wrong is because our moral structure defines it as so.
Yes, it is true that most of the world does have a general moral code, some places to not. So it's still subjective to where you are...
I would also like to say, that as somebody who eats meat, I do indeed love my pets. I doubt a vegan loves any given animal more than somebody who eats meat. Like somebody already said in this thread, not every "carnist" as you put it, laughs and ignores the idea of an animal being in pain. I love all animals, but I do not feel bad about eating an animal for food. Again, different moral codes come to play. I cannot say that yours is right or wrong, anymore than I can say mine is right or wrong.
did he say that he subscribes to the current society's set of morals? no
what is moral for a lot of people in one society can and normally is very different to another. morals are subjective and vary from person to person, deal with it
just because something is deemed moral by anyone doesn't mean you agree with it because morals differ from person to person. you seem to be under the delusion that morality is something that everyone should agree on
I think there is a conflict between eating animals of similar (and possibly better) mental capacity and loving pets. For me, the fact that that the pet you love could equally be any of the farm animals, in mind, makes it difficult to reconcile. I accept this is a personal idea.
Onto you loving all animals. I just have to say that farming for meat (at the moment) often results in large amounts of pain for the animals. If you ever eat at a place serving caged animals I think you would have to be very ignorant to love animals and not feel bad eating them. Still, other 'humane' farming methods will produce pain as show by numerous mistreatment videos on the net, which makes loving all animals difficult to put into practice whilst eating meat. I'm not saying that eating meat and killing animals humanely could never be better, but that the current practicalities of industrial farming mean that you are causing pain, and therefore I don't think you can truly love animals.
PS: Carnist is a term to break the idea that vegetarianism and veganism are against the 'natural' way of being.
But this also for absolutely no criticism to other sets of morals and leads to really bad situations. And is for all intents and purposes useless.
Ex. a culture says that it is morally right that they should kill thousands of people through acts of terrorism. You cannot say that action is morally wrong. Well I guess you could, but their response would just be who the fuck cares out culture says it is morally right. So what good does that moral philosophy do anyone?
as I said earlier, a useful way to define morals is by striving to maximise happiness in a society. of course, many other sets of morals appear to be suboptimal because they're based on stupid things like what a 2000-year-old book says
however, not only do people have different opinions on how to maximise happiness, but there are varying opinions on what this entails. in a vegan's world the happiness of other animals has a higher weighting than in someone else's who happily eats meat products. this is why there can be no strict set of morals.
however, not only do people have different opinions on how to maximise happiness, but there are varying opinions on what this entails. in a vegan's world the happiness of other animals has a higher weighting than in someone else's who happily eats meat products. this is why there can be no strict set of morals.
So now you are no longer a cultural relativist, but a utilitarian?
do everyone here a favour and stop trying to label people as such and such or using buzzwords like that because it's not actually relevant to discussion. so what if you're a relativist? how does that change the relevance of your argument?
i was never a cultural relativist: i was merely stating that what is generally considered "moral" is tied to the majority. you used the example of homosexuality in america so rebuttle this but you must remember that the community you're engaging this debate with is not representative of the america that hates gays.
i was never a cultural relativist: i was merely stating that what is generally considered "moral" is tied to the majority. you used the example of homosexuality in america so rebuttle this but you must remember that the community you're engaging this debate with is not representative of the america that hates gays.
So then what do you think makes something moral vs. immoral?
Also, so what if America does hate gays? It wouldn't matter, because our culture would say that hating gays is not immoral.
- Status