If you want an absolute moral standard then we could state:
Humans > Animals > Plants > everything else.
-
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
Humans > Animals > Plants > everything else.
Lol, but you consented to reading it, so no I do not, sorry.
But why? why is it not sentient > nonsentient.
Here's the main issue with such absolutes. Take a simple one, that most people would agree on: knowingly taking another's life is wrong.
Now construct a scenario. Say someone is trapped in a location with no hope of escape. That location is also on fire, and the fire spreads to the person. You have a gun, and have a clear shot to end their life, and thus, end their suffering. Is it wrong to knowingly take the person's life, or is it wrong to stand by idly and watch them die in agony, knowing full well you have the power to end that agony?
See, this is why we can't have an absolute moral standard: disagreements and stubbornness.
Because I said so. Why would it be sentient > nonsentient?
(Please don't say that God told you so.)
There is almost always a right answer.
Ramblin Wreck said:
Fishy said:
The reason I dismissed Ramblin Wreck's argument should be evident just from reading his post, which literally suggested that if an animal does anything, then it is morally okay. Sorry, but I'm not going to lend that any more credence than it deserves (I think it's worth pointing out how funny it is, though).
I didn't even dismiss your post, Fishy, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I clearly explained why your "population control" argument was incorrect: we can control animal populations without mass killings, and we are responsible for those populations in the first place.
This is the Naturalistic Fallacy (a huge portion of the arguments in this thread are, actually).UncleSam said:
You can't say that "my moral code says X, so therefore X is justified" any more than you can say that "my religion says Y, so therefore Y is justified."ssbbm said:
In fact, the entire "moral relativism" dialogue going on here has gotten totally out of hand and is obscuring the real issue. Here is the actual, interesting question at hand: "is eating meat justified? Does the benefit we gain from killing animals outweigh the suffering we cause them, and why?" Somehow, people have spun this into a semantic clusterfuck about the definition of "morality," and have turned the question into "do certain cultures believe that eating meat is justified?" Well of course they do, and that isn't even remotely relevant-- nor does it even entertain the idea of whether meat-eating is ultimately justified. Gee, semantics sure are exciting.
The question was "How do you morally justify eating animals?". I don't see how you can answer it without defining morality.
and I'm asking you why you've decided that having no absolute moral standard can't possibly be true, ESPECIALLY when you say...
since you yourself acknowledge that people have become more "enlightened" over time. Since we, as a culture/society, have become more and more aware of how to act with one another (I call it evolving, which you seem to agree with but still deny for some reason), we continue to adjust our moral standards to reflect this new knowledge. Besides the fact that what you call an "absolute" standard in this post (this part):
is actually just your opinion, I think you would have an incredibly difficult time arguing that this is not a relative moral viewpoint. Certainly, many societies before us did not hold this viewpoint.
Because it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on another thing, sentience is the ability to suffer. That is the premise the whole argument is built on, if you reject that premise than fine that is another debate. But if you accept that premise that the differentiation has to be sentience v. nonsentience.
11 million children die because of starvation every year. You could have saved more than a thousand lives by selling everything you don't have to have and sending the money into third world countries.
To stop using animal products.
Ok Sheen, you obviously feel strongly about this and I applaud you for that so I'd just like to fire a quick question. I have asked this to many vegetarians and I've never received a straight answer.
Basically the question is: Fish? Your OP implies that you're opposed to all suffering of sentient beings and yet throughout the thread you have only ever used the word 'animals.' Since it's generally accepted nowadays that fish are sentient and are harvested and prepared in a less than humane manner, why is fish such a staple in the diet of vegetarians?
Gonna go ahead and assume you do eat fish on the basis that I am yet to meet a vegetarian who doesn't so perhaps you could answer a variant of the question you posed in your own OP - 'how do you morally justify eating fish and yet condemn those who eat animals?'
EDIT: to address the OP myself, I do eat meat (a lot) and I kinda feel bad for the animals but I don't feel bad about the act itself probably because I've grown up in a rural setting and know that the meat industry keeps a roof over the head of millions of people and puts food on the table of millions (billions?) more. Maybe I'm just trying to justify an act I know is probably wrong but meh, it's their own fault for tasting so good and being so full of nutritional goodness.
Basically the question is: Fish? Your OP implies that you're opposed to all suffering of sentient beings and yet throughout the thread you have only ever used the word 'animals.' Since it's generally accepted nowadays that fish are sentient and are harvested and prepared in a less than humane manner, why is fish such a staple in the diet of vegetarians?
Gonna go ahead and assume you do eat fish on the basis that I am yet to meet a vegetarian who doesn't so perhaps you could answer a variant of the question you posed in your own OP - 'how do you morally justify eating fish and yet condemn those who eat animals?'
EDIT: to address the OP myself, I do eat meat (a lot) and I kinda feel bad for the animals but I don't feel bad about the act itself probably because I've grown up in a rural setting and know that the meat industry keeps a roof over the head of millions of people and puts food on the table of millions (billions?) more. Maybe I'm just trying to justify an act I know is probably wrong but meh, it's their own fault for tasting so good and being so full of nutritional goodness.
But because I did not cause them to starve, I do not have a moral obligation to keep them from starving. Also, I can do more by keeping the things that I need in order to produce more, therefore build more capital, which would enable me to give even more in the future than I would be able to by selling everything I have right now and therefore starving myself.
But this is a silly argument in general.
What makes you think your opinion is any more important than anyone else's? I choose to eat meat, you don't. Neither of us is "wrong" or "right" so stop trying to force your beliefs on others.
Sure, we could get all the nutrients we need by just eating plants. Hell, any carnivore on this planet could get all the nutrients it needs to survive solely by eating plants. However, our reason for eating meat is more than just for nutrients and because they taste good. If no animals ate other animals, overpopulation would run rampant and there simply wouldn't be enough space for everything. The food chain is constructed as such to balance out population so that all species are kept in check. Each species instinctively eats a certain type of food because they are biologically programmed to. Lions, Tigers, and other carnivores hunt other animals because that is their nature. The same can be said for animals that are Herbivores by nature--they are programmed to eat plants. Humans are omnivores by nature, so we eat both plants and animals. You're basically saying that because are intelligent enough to make a choice, that choosing to eat other animals is wrong. There just isn't enough meat to this argument to give it justification. You go eat your plants and be happy. I will continue to enjoy my weekly Triple Baconator with Cheese.
Sure, we could get all the nutrients we need by just eating plants. Hell, any carnivore on this planet could get all the nutrients it needs to survive solely by eating plants. However, our reason for eating meat is more than just for nutrients and because they taste good. If no animals ate other animals, overpopulation would run rampant and there simply wouldn't be enough space for everything. The food chain is constructed as such to balance out population so that all species are kept in check. Each species instinctively eats a certain type of food because they are biologically programmed to. Lions, Tigers, and other carnivores hunt other animals because that is their nature. The same can be said for animals that are Herbivores by nature--they are programmed to eat plants. Humans are omnivores by nature, so we eat both plants and animals. You're basically saying that because are intelligent enough to make a choice, that choosing to eat other animals is wrong. There just isn't enough meat to this argument to give it justification. You go eat your plants and be happy. I will continue to enjoy my weekly Triple Baconator with Cheese.
Well if you are going that route I could just as easily say that I didn't personally butcher the animal and cause it suffering so no harm done...
I'm all for animal welfare and think animals should be treated at least decent even if they are used for food, but the slaughter doesn't really bother me, even if you could argue that killing is worse than pain. I'm do consider animal welfare when I buying meat, like I only buy Swedish meat since Sweden have better animal welfare laws then most other countrys and I've seen a lot of swedish meat industry with my own eyes.
Shit always happen when money is involved thought, but I feel like if I wanted to be 100% true to my opinons I wouldn't be able to buy enything at all, because everything would cause pain, suffering and deaths somehow. So I prefer to enjoy my life, I'm just human after all.
Shit always happen when money is involved thought, but I feel like if I wanted to be 100% true to my opinons I wouldn't be able to buy enything at all, because everything would cause pain, suffering and deaths somehow. So I prefer to enjoy my life, I'm just human after all.
It does not matter what other animals do, it only matters what we do. We are moral animals, we have the ability to think rationally. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you; having a discussion about something is not forcing beliefs on someone.
Sure, but "morality" is just "what's right and what's wrong." Different cultures may have different "moralities" (moral codes), but all this serves to illustrate is that different cultures are different. Suggesting that "different cultures have different moral codes" is analogous to saying that "different people have different opinions," and it's just as uninformative. Yes, we used to believe that slavery was fine-- if I, someone who firmly believes that slavery is wrong, went back in time a few hundred years, would my arguments suddenly hold less water? What if I just met some racist old man in a cardboard box somewhere and talked to him for a while? In both instances, the answer is "no, my arguments would not hold any less water," because "morality" is just an extension of "opinion," and "moralities" (again, "moral codes" is probably the less confusing term) are just a morality that has become more formalized/popularized/institutionalized on some level. We aren't talking about formal/popular/institutional understandings, though-- we're here (or at least should be) to discuss pure, no-frills "right and wrong." There's no need for this semantic nonsense. All we need are ideas.
- Status