Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SILLY GOOSE

The Ethics of Eating Non-Human Animals

355 posts in this topic

I didn't ask for a descriptive explanation. I asked for a normative justification. You're the one mamking the positive claim so you're the one who has to back up that talk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof - The Canadian constitution. Multiculturalism is enshrined in federal law.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people have the customs and traditions they have? They just do. It is not me to question why. If they aren't harming me no reason to go around harming them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LoL at this thread, Sillygoose is trying to engage in a moral philosophy debate, everybody else is interpreting it as a challenge to their own practices.

If my philosophy classes weren't a decade ago, I'd probably be able to put up a good arguement against Sillygoose on the morality issue. However, I concede that from his philosophical logic, it is hard to justify the consumption of most animals as moral.

However, I would point out that if you take Sillygoose's arguement to other aspects of life, most interactions between us and animals are not moral. Draft animals, riding horses, harvesting furs/leather etc...

I would rather question whether the utility we enjoy in consuming animals can justify the pain and suffering of these animals. Keeping in mind that the evolution of our species and the rise of our intellegence is largely attributed to the consumption of meat, specifically cooked meat.

Quite honestly, I don't give a ... about the morality of my meat consumption, no more than a lion would feel sorry for a delicious antelope baby. If I did, I would argue that my personal enjoyment would justify the death of the animal. If you feel morally wrong in consuming meat, then you're just not enjoying it enough! Something a good steak and a side of bacon will fix.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, if you want to show something I've said is wrong then you have to provide reasons to believe such. If you can't, then don't cry about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I asked you for normative justification about meta ethical cultural relativism. The Canadian Constitution doesn't justify that
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're forgetting the fact that I'm not the one who said that.  Think more carefully next time.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a cop out pure & simple. It is in our interests to question customs and traditions if they are unfair, cruel, etc. That's why fighting for same sex rights e.g. same sex marriage is important.

Who said every activity? We are just talking about the treatment of non human animals here. You're just trying to distract the point at issue. That's a red herring.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I would point out that if you take Sillygoose's arguement to other aspects of life, most interactions between us and animals are not moral. Draft animals, riding horses, harvesting furs/leather etc...

I would rather question whether the utility we enjoy in consuming animals can justify the pain and suffering of these animals. Keeping in mind that the evolution of our species and the rise of our intellegence is largely attributed to the consumption of meat, specifically cooked meat.

Quite honestly, I don't give a ... about the morality of my meat consumption, no more than a lion would feel sorry for a delicious antelope baby. If I did, I would argue that my personal enjoyment would justify the death of the animal. If you feel morally wrong in consuming meat, then you're just not enjoying it enough! Something a good steak and a side of bacon will fix.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're completely missing the point. Ron was making a good counterpoint, and you tried to discredit it because it referenced the holocaust (gasp!).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're clearly misinterpreting what I'm saying. Sensationalizing the issue in order to reject it is a straw man. I shouldn't have to point out this as obvious Ron. You can do better
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are switching back and forth between two different meanings of "cultural relativism". The normative meaning is that all moral judgements reduce to particular facts about one's community. That's different from a legal perspective, because law is relative to the legal rules a particular society adopts.

I'm asking for normative justification for cultural relativism. That is a meta ethical claim. I also have problems with the normative implications of cultural relativism i.e. if the holocaust is morally wrong, what grounds do we have for saying German's acted wrongly given that we are judging it by our community standards? Is it just us expressing our attitudes or is there an actual fact about the matter (most people think there is- the holocaust is universally morally wrong)? There seems to be a gap between communities and therefore no objective standard that applies to all if cultural relativism is adopted

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't argue with the fact that meat is very tasty for many people. It's probably the foremost reason why people are so hesitant about not eating meat. This is why I consider development of in vitro meat to be ethically significant (ironiclly enough I have to argue with many vegans about even in vitro meat being ethically permissable)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And doesn't that give you pause? Shouldn't this make you doubt the superiority of culture? You're the one constantly appealing to tradition for your justification to eat meat. If tradition itself is problematic, why do you constantly evoke it?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, seriously, in English.

Not jargon. English.

If I have to get a degree in philosophy to determine whether or not my own morals are justified or not I would prefer the bliss (especially when enlightenment may deprive me of my thirst for blood) of ignorance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I CAN.

It's enshrined in the constitution. And of course MY culture is superior! It's MY culture! Duh!

That other people's cultures seem to be clashing in violent matters is there problem. Heck, it's a pretty good case that my culture really is superior! See, you and your friends aren't the only ones that can sustain themselves on sunshine and moral superiority!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.