Ethical Vegetarianism/Veganism

[LightFang]

It's a hard topic, really. I do remember opening a thread about this that generated lots of discussion, but it's always good to see some new faces and maybe talk about it some more now that I'm older (and hopefully wiser!).

I did go vegetarian for about a year. This was the culmination of my views and was, I will admit, largely influenced by Douglas Hofstadter's thoughts on the subject. Pigs and cows and such possess, I think, sufficient interiority that snuffing that light, however dim, for our own pleasure, was probably unethical. Combine that with the atrocious farming practices carried out and you have a pretty good case for being vegetarian.

But, why am I not vegetarian now? Well, you could say that I'm weak-willed. After receiving so much flak for it, I decided to just take the easy way out and stop my experiment. I prefer humanely raised meat though, which I know to a lot of people sounds really stupid and pointless but believe you me, if you do a little research into the conditions that some farms raise their animals in, I don't think you'd want to eat animals that come out of those hellholes.

 

[Brighteye]

... So like "the sky is blue so murder is wrong?". This makes no sense at all. You have to consider specific moral cases to derive principles from.

It does indeed make no sense. Which is why many moral foundations are shaky. There's no sensible justification. They are not made solid by creating a circular argument.

what the crap is that

I don't know. I was leaving the option open for someone to use if desired.

We can't derive principles of the properties of glass by looking at actual glass and investigating to attempt to determine the properties of all glass. If we cannot derive the principles of glass from facts we already know, either about the non-glass portions of the physical world, or glass reality, then principles of glass do not exist, and neither does glass.

This is equating observations about physical reality with our observations of human moral action. We know that physical laws always apply, because otherwise they would not be laws. We know that humans are not always moral, and we know that there are many concepts of morality. In trying to define a (/the) true moral code we are trying to define the morality that people ought to be using.
If we instead look at the intuitions that they are using, we equate what is natural with what is true/right, which as you know perfectly well is a famous fallacy.
Has this re-phrasing of my position made it any clearer, or will you yet again pretend to be the one held up by stubborn entrenchment:

ok I can't go on with this.

and not answer my points?

If you want a thread on basic normative ethics methodology, make one.

Any thread that opens up basic questions of morality will lead into something like this.

In the sense that morality is a form of knowledge, then its meaning comes from the fact that it adds something to human knowledge, or describes some area of reality in a way that no other concept does.

If it is consistent with the Qu'ran then it is superfluous. If it is not then it is heretical.
Things can overlap or examine knowledge in a different way.

If law=morality [which it doesn't] then we could eliminate one of these concepts. Nothing is added to knowledge by having two concepts that identically describe the same thing.

Morality is concerned with right and wrong. Law is concerned with punishment (and maybe reward). Obviously the two are very heavily intertwined. That doesn't make one of them superfluous.

Morality is the study of outcomes where harm is involved. It is not the arbitrary assertion that all harm/exertion equals immorality. Remember we are trying to reach a reasonable, objective definition of morality as an area of knowledge.

Given this definition of morality I fail to see how morality can generate any commands over what one should or should not do. If this is morality, then I am happy to admit that it exists, but not that it has any more ability to determine people's actions than any study of the outcomes of actions, such as knowledge of gravity.

The question is this: is harm an integral concept to the study of morality or not? This is not the same as saying that all harm=immorality. The point at issue is whether issues of harm should be included in morality, or excluded from morality. I suggest that a definition of morality that includes harm is sensible, and a definition that excludes harm is meaningless.

A definition that includes some harms seems likely, rather than excluding all. That might be said to make harm an integral concept, but I'd reserve that phrase for things that are not only involved, but also central.

Subjective statement: why do you think it? What objective grounds do you have?

You were suggesting that since we have law, we have no need for morality (if the two are the same). I could as easily ask why we have law, since we have morality. If morality comes first, and both forbid the same actions, we add law in because it imposes punishments. Both can define as wrong the same actions.

Is that the only difference? This would make law a form of inadequately expressed morality.

Just as I said.

It also implies that morality is, by contrast, perfectly expressed; yet you have not presented a perfectly expressed definition.

It might. Just because one thing is an inadequate expression of a set of principles does not mean that other discussions of those principles always express them well. If you doubt that there are expressible principles of morality then we're opening a whole new can of worms.

A subjective line of argumentation. What are the [objective and rational] reasons for their disagreeing and how do you know them to be true reasoning?

How do you know that morality is pointless if we already have law? I was questioning your assertion with rival assertions of my own.

 

[kulade]

logically, it's only immoral to kill and eat kawaii animals. :3

kittehs and puppies are kawaii; cows and cheekens are not kawaii.

<3

 

[GoodGame]

I just want to qualify my vote as saying that eating meat is a-ok under any circumstances, if it is properly cooked, but one should not try to cause pain and suffering to the animal supplying the meat, especially not with intent to cause suffering.

 

[Raisin Bran]

How do we know that we don`t hurt vegetables????

Drinking orange juice is in fact drinking orange blood ..... ill sttick to red meat hurting defenceless vegetables and fruits is wrong!

 

[Oerdin]

Pain and suffering makes meat taste better.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Ethically, animals have either been created by God to serve as food for us, or we have evolved to use them as prey. Therefore eating meat is part of human nature and in that respect ethical.

However, the fact that animals require a far greater amount of land then the equivallent amount of plant matter means that less food can be produced overall, which is unethical considering that food is in short supply in many parts of the world. That being said, these places would be able to support themselves just fine in most cases with a suitable farming revolution.

Finally, intensive farming of animals is definitely unethical and some people believe causes the animal significant psychological damage. However, the method produces cheaper eggs and meat which is beneficial to people on low incomes. In my opinion humans come first, so intensive farming is justifiable in that respect. Although, of course, they could just eat vegetables.

Actually, according to the bible plants were created to feed humans and other animals, but human dominion over animals did not extend to killing and eating them. Permission to eat animals was not given until after the Flood, along with the caveat not to eat blood or anything strangled (killed in a needlessly cruel manner). That does not mean it is unethical to eat them, but would imply that serving as our food was not the purpose for which they were created.


Overall I agree with this post though. I would add that I find government subsidies to the meat industry to be very unethical.

 

[Narz]

Meat production also causes significant environmental harm from factory farming. Plenty of documentaries on this, Home is one (which only touches on it briefly among other environmental issues but is a visually beautiful film & available in a dozen or so languages). That said, factory-farming is wrong & anyone above poverty level who chooses to consume meat would be better served & more "righteous" to buy organic meat & also to consume less of it (the eating meat everyday thing is relatively new phenomenon in American/Western culture). Actually if you're poor one of the best ways to save money is cut out meat. Unfortunately the govt. heavily subsidies meat making produce much more expensive by comparison. It also subsides soy & corn & crap making it far cheaper to be a junk-food vegetarian than a healthy produce eating one.

I voted non-vegetarian because I consume fish about once a month.

No. Eating meat is part of nature, that's good enough for me.

Link to video.

 

[Maniacal]

Eating meat (that isn't from your own species) is never wrong, however poor treatment of the animals is.

 

[mangxema]

I see nothing wrong with eating meat itself, only with the practices used in modern meat production

What he said. The chance of me ever going vegetarian is precisely zero.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

To make an obvious suggestion to make - humans are far more sophisticated than other species. Oh crap, I am beginning to start out by making a speciesist argument. Anyway, can we just do one test of capturing a few of our fellow human beings and start a meat-processing plant out of them? To see if a certain forms of mental sophistication out of them can endure the whole process of being turn into simple meat products. Of course not! But there are in some of us that think that both criteria has to be under the scrutiny of the same full moral consideration.

One argument I do have a problem with, which I can't fathom that it can be solved, that is - If it is morally acceptable to experiment or treat other less sophisticated animals into a such harsh environment as the meat processing plant, then is it morally acceptable to treat babies and retards in a similar way

 

[ZeletDude]

I love meat, I mean they are pretty mean to the animals if they treated them more humanely i'd feel better, but I really don't mind... As long as I don't eat someones pet.. like a dog or cat..

 

[Lone Wolf]

Humans are vile and evil. Animals are pure and uncorrupted. Only eating human meat is moral, eating the meat of other animals is vile.

 

[JohnRM]

Excessively cruel and unnecessary pain and torture of animals for the production of food is immoral and wrong, in my opinion. I am not a vegetarian, but I have, for a multitude of reasons, been attempting to reduce my consumption of meat.

 

[Shaihulud]

Meat is tasty, so I will eat it even if it isn't that good for the enviroment or the animal. I would not eat/buy meat if it was farmed in an atrocious manner that causes harm and suffering, I suppose like many people I would like a compromise between greed and ethical consideration. I do reduce my meat intake, although I eat lots of eggs.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I know I'd happily eat flesh, it would seem only right considering how many pigs, chickens, cows etc. I've consumed throughout my life. I wanna eat a WASP though, not some asian poor child eh. even though it would surely be way more healthy.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I miss a poll option: "Eating meat is wrong either way. I eat it anyway." I recognize the moral failure in killing other beings capable of emotions to enjoy their meat. It is barbaric. No matter how they were treated. I just chose to go down that immoral path (and to not fool myself in that regard).

Humans are vile and evil. Animals are pure and uncorrupted. Only eating human meat is moral, eating the meat of other animals is vile.

"Pure and uncorrupted" is not a virtue by itself.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Edit: For clarity, when you talk of law, are you talking about legal laws, or physical laws?

It does indeed make no sense. Which is why many moral foundations are shaky. There's no sensible justification. They are not made solid by creating a circular argument.
I don't know. I was leaving the option open for someone to use if desired.

This is equating observations about physical reality with our observations of human moral action. We know that physical laws always apply, because otherwise they would not be laws. We know that humans are not always moral, and we know that there are many concepts of morality. In trying to define a (/the) true moral code we are trying to define the morality that people ought to be using.
If we instead look at the intuitions that they are using, we equate what is natural with what is true/right, which as you know perfectly well is a famous fallacy.
Has this re-phrasing of my position made it any clearer, or will you yet again pretend to be the one held up by stubborn entrenchment:

You didn't say this to me but I wish to comment on it - describing morality as knowledge is objectively possible. Defining it as a "law of physics" is objectively impossible. As you stated, if morality were an objective law of physics, it would always operate. However, some of the knowledge principles involved are objective.

Also, we already agreed that morality is a voluntary choice - where there is no choice there is only necessity, and no need for morality. So morality is only a form of knowledge, without compulsion. Compulsion is called necessity, not morality. Morality has to be voluntarily accepted, by a free agent, who has choices to make, and who has knowledge of the consequences in a rational manner.

Any thread that opens up basic questions of morality will lead into something like this.

Agreed - any fundamental question on ethics will revert back to epistemology or the principles of knowledge. In fact, any question on anything will revert back to epistemology, which is why epistemology is so crucial.

If it is consistent with the Qu'ran then it is superfluous. If it is not then it is heretical.

Interesting, I will remember it. [Aside; of course, this means that the Qu'ran is all true knowledge, and that everything outside the Qu'ran is false knowledge, which is easily disproven.]

Things can overlap or examine knowledge in a different way.

In which case it adds something to our knowledge. Two concepts can overlap, just so long as there is some addition to our knowledge, then they are not the same concept but with different names. In defining morality, we are, in knowledge terms, defining the part that adds to our knowledge. How it adds to it is immaterial, just so long as it adds.

Morality is concerned with right and wrong. Law is concerned with punishment (and maybe reward). Obviously the two are very heavily intertwined. That doesn't make one of them superfluous.

No - but if you had continued in your argument that they were equal, then the only logical consequence of complete equality between any two given concepts is that one or other is no longer needed, as they replicate a description of exactly identical forms of knowledge.

Also, perhaps another way to think of law and morality is this; morality is the ethical reasoning of the individual. Law is the ethical reasoning of the State.

Given this definition of morality I fail to see how morality can generate any commands over what one should or should not do.

It does not and cannot generate any commands. An individual acting under command is acting under necessity, and individuals acting under necessity do not have a moral choice. Morality is only needed for those situations where there is choice - and it is needed to provide knowledge of a situation and its consequences to a rational free agent.

If this is morality, then I am happy to admit that it exists, but not that it has any more ability to determine people's actions than any study of the outcomes of actions, such as knowledge of gravity.

Good, we are agreed in this sense. Morality is purely a form of knowledge, if it were able to force people's actions, it wouldn't strictly be morality.

However, it is possible to 'force' people to accept the outcome of rational moral knowledge by telling them such things as 'you will go to Hell if you don't act morally'. However, this is independent to morality as knowledge - it does not get us out of the need to objectively define morality.

A definition that includes some harms seems likely, rather than excluding all. That might be said to make harm an integral concept, but I'd reserve that phrase for things that are not only involved, but also central.

So we agree that some kind of harm must be included, but that some judgement must be made on what is or is not harm - not all harm can be included. We therefore need to define harm, which is not unexpected.

And we agree it is rational, objective, for free agents, for situations where there is a choice.

We may agree that it is a form of knowledge, and you wish to examine the possibility of compelling people to obey morality. Perhaps for you, it is not morality unless it achieves the goal of forcing people to obey its outcomes in some way? If that is how you think, I suggest we deal with that as a second issue. We therefore need to define "moral force" or something similar.

You were suggesting that since we have law, we have no need for morality (if the two are the same). I could as easily ask why we have law, since we have morality. If morality comes first, and both forbid the same actions, we add law in because it imposes punishments. Both can define as wrong the same actions.

Exactly, we are agreed since I was only following a line of reasoning to demonstrate that two concepts cannot be equal in this way if they each represent their own form of knowledge.

Just as I said.
It might. Just because one thing is an inadequate expression of a set of principles does not mean that other discussions of those principles always express them well. If you doubt that there are expressible principles of morality then we're opening a whole new can of worms.

How do you know that morality is pointless if we already have law? I was questioning your assertion with rival assertions of my own.

Again this is just following the same line of reasoning - I think we have agreed the outcome now and both accept that morality and law, although they overlap, do not express the same thing. I believe this started because we needed to clarify the question "are all laws always moral" or something like that.

I assume you meant legal laws, not physical laws?

 

[Brighteye]

Edit: For clarity, when you talk of law, are you talking about legal laws, or physical laws?

Legal ones, as you have guessed.

You didn't say this to me but I wish to comment on it - describing morality as knowledge is objectively possible. Defining it as a "law of physics" is objectively impossible. As you stated, if morality were an objective law of physics, it would always operate. However, some of the knowledge principles involved are objective.

Agreed - any fundamental question on ethics will revert back to epistemology or the principles of knowledge. In fact, any question on anything will revert back to epistemology, which is why epistemology is so crucial.

If it is objectively possible, then there is no need to use the opinions of others as data, except where they guide us to lines of reasoning that we had not previously considered. The opinions themselves, however, are of no value. If it is only subjective, then the opinions of others are equally unimportant, since I am capable of subjective opinion all by myself.
This is the point I was making to Fifty, who has politely asked that I not infest his threads with such comments in the future, because educated philosophers have resolved this apparent problem with reasoning that is too complex for him to explain in a reasonable amount of time. This will therefore be my final post in this thread.

Also, we already agreed that morality is a voluntary choice - where there is no choice there is only necessity, and no need for morality. So morality is only a form of knowledge, without compulsion. Compulsion is called necessity, not morality. Morality has to be voluntarily accepted, by a free agent, who has choices to make, and who has knowledge of the consequences in a rational manner...
It does not and cannot generate any commands. An individual acting under command is acting under necessity, and individuals acting under necessity do not have a moral choice. Morality is only needed for those situations where there is choice - and it is needed to provide knowledge of a situation and its consequences to a rational free agent.

On this we agree, but I had been considering morality to have some driving force beyond knowledge of outcomes. Therefore although the agent is free, morality adds an intangible weighting to certain already known outcomes: it is not merely the study of outcomes, but decides which are preferable. Since principles of morality exist outside independently of the agent himself (we might question this) the agent is constrained if he desires to be moral.

Interesting, I will remember it. [Aside; of course, this means that the Qu'ran is all true knowledge, and that everything outside the Qu'ran is false knowledge, which is easily disproven.]

I am aware of the flaws in the reasoning. It is an apocryphal quotation of the a Muslim general who is purported to have ordered the Library of Alexandria to be burned.

So we agree that some kind of harm must be included, but that some judgement must be made on what is or is not harm - not all harm can be included. We therefore need to define harm, which is not unexpected.

Not must be included: might be included. I have yet to be persuaded that harm is necessarily part of morality. I will admit that it is foolish to exclude it, because I have no reason for doing so.

We may agree that it is a form of knowledge, and you wish to examine the possibility of compelling people to obey morality. Perhaps for you, it is not morality unless it achieves the goal of forcing people to obey its outcomes in some way? If that is how you think, I suggest we deal with that as a second issue. We therefore need to define "moral force" or something similar.

I hope I defined what I think distinguishes morality from personal inclination. But again: morality weights the desirability of actions beyond the expected outcomes for an individual and his goals. It is a judgement about actions and their value, and if we link it directly to something, such as harm produced, that is a link that needs to be justified.
If we can justify no link, then we must accept that actions cannot be weighted except by an individual's desire to do those actions.
If we define morality as not necessarily involving any compulsion (once the moral rules have been accepted and the individual prioritises being moral) then I don't think we are discussing morality any more. If we do this solely to ensure that morality exists, because we can't find any justification for such compulsion, then we're being disingenuous.
Morality as simply a study of harms is not morality;

Exactly, we are agreed since I was only following a line of reasoning to demonstrate that two concepts cannot be equal in this way if they each represent their own form of knowledge.

We are agreed.