Brief Introduction

[thebestofenergy]

I never claimed I defended current consumption/practices. I am merely questioning moral obligations towards animals. The rates of consumption and production practices can be changed hence 'mitigated'.

And I never claimed you defend current consumption/practices, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. In fact you said you would like to see them 'mitigated/changed' (whatever mitigated/changed means, it doesn't seem like you have concrete examples).

You claim the rates of consumption can be changed? So you're advocating for a reduction in animal products consumption?

How much do you think they would have to be reduced so that there are no more negative consequences for humans? You realize it would have to be the vast majority of it to significantly reduce global warming and risk of pandemics, which would still be there more than simply eating plants.

And how would you even arrive at a fair conclusion between what's best for humans in terms of severely diminishing animal products consumption, vs. how much people want to eat animal products?
Does improving the quality of lives of the workers in slaughterhouses and reducing global warming and the chances of global pandemics justify depriving humans of their favorite food?

I hope you don't arrive at the conclusion just using a narrow utilitarian lens, or, god forbid, the golden rule.

1. Because they relate to quality of human lives.

Not necessarily. Animals could be living in garbage, in a tight cage, and tortured forever, and it wouldn't affect us.
And you would be perfectly fine with that.

There are many cases where human lives aren't affected and animals are treated beyond horribly, such as being skinned alive for the fur industry, and the act of it being done by a psychopath that doesn't feel anything - or that has the same views as you and wouldn't be affected by an animal suffering intensely.

You could even create a machine that automatically skins animals alive (no human has to do it), and in your opinion there would be absolutely no issue with that happening.

[brimstoneSalad]

I hope you don't arrive at the conclusion just using a narrow utilitarian lens, or, god forbid, the golden rule.

Interpreted correctly, there's nothing wrong with the golden rule -- just with people misunderstanding it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ru ... criticisms

It's just considering the interests of others.

[thebestofenergy]

I hope you don't arrive at the conclusion just using a narrow utilitarian lens, or, god forbid, the golden rule.

Interpreted correctly, there's nothing wrong with the golden rule -- just with people misunderstanding it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ru ... criticisms

It's just considering the interests of others.

I know, I was being sarcastic by taking his own stance and using his own words, so that he wouldn't use either any utility argument or best interests argument to arrive at any conclusion, since he refuted both of them before.

[brimstoneSalad]

Not only is it a leap to assume we must follow utility,

Like a leap in assuming we should minimize our risk of extinction, and reduce human suffering.
It's not a leap for any sane human being, it's a very safe assumption for anybody who isn't a psychopath.

If reducing human suffering comes at the expense of animal suffering, this is something to weigh up. To attribute importance to preservation of the human species is a nebulous concept which is different from the previously mentioned pleasure/pain calculus.

This is part of utility.

FYI I'm not a utilitarian.

Do the humans alive now count more than the hypothetical humans in the future? If so, by how much?

Are you asking seriously?

No, they don't, but probability does weigh in.

All of these involve value judgments.

No, these are empirical claims once you have established the basis of utility.

Claiming there is virtually no upside to eating meat is naïve.

Claiming there is an up side in utility is either ignorant of utilitarian calculus, or ignorant of the science. There is no meaningful up side to meat eating moving forward in the developed world. Other regions needs to be transitioned away from it with development.

You're not pointing out any logical failure, you seem to be making an assertion that animals have no moral value until proven otherwise which is precisely the wrong assertion to make and one that carries its own burden of proof.
You have selected the wrong null hypothesis, the logical failure is your own.

To make an analogy, I am the agnostic who lacks the knowledge to conclude God is not real but who is under no obligation to go to Mass and is unwilling to accept Pascal's wager. I am not convinced the threshold has been passed to oblige me to be vegan and voices his concern that there are people who are suggesting others have this obligation to do so without sufficient reason.
If I have misspoken earlier, I retract. This, however is the position I am in.

This "concern" carries the burden of proof.
1. You do not know that others lack sufficient reason, you need to prove this. You have barely engaged in moral philosophy and are unaware of the science as shown above.
2. You have not substantiated YOUR ethical system that proves it's morally wrong for person A to claim person B has an obligation without sufficient reason even if this were occurring.

If you are not claiming this is happening and you are making no value judgement about it if it is, then you have no basis to be "concerned" as such. You should really only be speaking for yourself re: rejecting only claims of your obligation because you have not been convinced of it.

It's precisely as asinine as the nihilistic atheist (not all atheists are nihilists) making an uproar about people being converted to religions despite having no evidence against them simply because those religions have not been proven to his satisfaction to be factually correct.
Said nihilistic atheist needs to find and substantiate a credible value system that shows conversion without evidence to be morally wrong, and further prove there is inadequate evidence or prove a contradiction in the religious belief.

The point is, you're still shifting the burden of proof here in your implicit claims and you don't even realize it.

And then you go on to assert your own mandates without any evidence at all:
...
You can shout assertions as loudly as you want, that doesn't make them true. Social contract and Randian-esque theories of ethics are not well regarded, and you've done nothing to substantiate those claims with logical argument...

The difference of course is that I'm an inheritor of all that has come before me and can use conservative principles to accept these liberal freedoms.
Contrast this with a novel ethical position that has only recently gathered traction. Do you not think it's understandable (and wise) to apply more scrutiny to a belief system that has not long been fabricated versus the very foundation of a working society?

It's not a new belief system, it's new technology and knowledge that makes that belief system viable to put into practice.

It's only as wise to be skeptical of veganism as it would have been to be skeptical of the abolition of slavery; the moment veganism was proven to be not only viable but superior in terms of resource use and environment as well as resources devoted to public health was when that wisdom evaporated.
Adopting veganism broadly as a society is not a cost:benefit analysis that should have anybody on the edges of their seats. It's benefit across the board with or without consideration for animal ethics. That's what makes it fundamentally different from Pascal's wager. If it were the case that when you believed and prayed it actually worked (even if by another mechanism than god) so that you also got cured of illnesses and prospered financially it would make a hell of a lot more sense to just believe. What's missing from the wager is the cost of belief; this is lacking in the vegan wager when we're talking about a societal scale. Sacrifices only apply to the vanguard on the individual level. Once economy of scale is reached and availability is not an issue there are no meaningful downsides to abandoning animal agriculture.

Social contract is not morality, and if you think it is you've fundamentally misunderstood the definition and purpose of morality. It's not appropriate or intellectually honest to redefine words and concepts to suit your agenda without disclosing that, and you know that if you are upfront in defining morality as "Doing whatever is best for me at the time based on rational calculus without any scruples", IOW "rational selfishness" people will rightly laugh you out of the room.

I'm using the common definition of morality; one that transcends arbitrary human laws and extends beyond the selfish most explicitly to consideration for others in spite of or even against what would otherwise be to your own benefit. You can advocate for humpty-dumptyism if you want, but you need to do that honestly and that has to be your first premise before you start to talk about morality.

This is what I was getting at before. That morality is inherently objective so assumptions must be taken out. You happen to be assuming utilitarianism which is based on the assumption that pleasure/pain are the determinants of what is good/bad. This is based on the assumption that because our pleasure feels good when we experience it and pain, the reverse, we must construct our moral system in this manner. I reject this as the foundation of a possible moral position.

I don't see how your response has anything to do with what I said. Maybe you quoted the wrong thing.

I'm not assuming utilitarianism. I'm not a utilitarian. And assuming that pleasure and pain (as specific mental states in themselves) were the determinants of value would be in error; that's hedonism a la classical utilitarianism. I have been explaining how your refutations have not been valid (that doesn't mean I'm a hedonist).

[brimstoneSalad]

I hope you don't arrive at the conclusion just using a narrow utilitarian lens, or, god forbid, the golden rule.

Interpreted correctly, there's nothing wrong with the golden rule -- just with people misunderstanding it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ru ... criticisms

It's just considering the interests of others.

I know, I was being sarcastic by taking his own stance and using his own words, so that he wouldn't use either any utility argument or best interests argument to arrive at any conclusion, since he refuted both of them before.

Ah, I was so confused because I just read that.

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

I'll lay my points out here to tighten the debate.

1. I eat meat
2. I want to determine if the act of eating meat is in itself a morally reprehensible act.
3. Can someone show me a moral principle which is objectively true which concludes eating meat is inherently wrong?
4. This is different from 'rearing animals causes X ecological problem' which is contextually relevant. The government can regulate. My question concerns the immediate morality of killing animals.

PS - I've made assumptions about what people's chosen ethical theories are in this thread. Ignore this. Concentrate on point 3. This will answer my own question and allow me to make the right conclusion about your own ethical theories.

[Jebus]

I'll lay my points out here to tighten the debate.

1. I eat meat
2. I want to determine if the act of eating meat is in itself a morally reprehensible act.
3. Can someone show me a moral principle which is objectively true which concludes eating meat is inherently wrong?
4. This is different from 'rearing animals causes X ecological problem' which is contextually relevant. The government can regulate. My question concerns the immediate morality of killing animals.

Hi DaBankasDaBonuses and welcome to our forum.

It might help us better understand your position and tighten the debate if you responded to the following:

1. I molest children.
2. I want to determine if the act of molesting children is in itself a morally reprehensible act.
3. Can someone show me a moral principle which is objectively true which concludes molesting children is inherently wrong?
4. This is different from 'molesting children causes X societal problem' which is contextually relevant. The government can regulate. My question concerns the immediate morality of molesting children.

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

It might help us better understand your position and tighten the debate if you responded to the following:

1. I molest children.
2. I want to determine if the act of molesting children is in itself a morally reprehensible act.
3. Can someone show me a moral principle which is objectively true which concludes molesting children is inherently wrong?
4. This is different from 'molesting children causes X societal problem' which is contextually relevant. The government can regulate. My question concerns the immediate morality of molesting children.

This doesn't prove anything about ethics. It just makes me lament the fact that I cannot prove an ethical system from the ground up.
I can use conservative pragmatism to justify my alignment with the existing taboo. I see the overlap between the possible ethical systems and judge our taboo as being more reasonable than not. I can appeal to the self interest of the majority of moral agents to stand against the practice.
As far as the practical consequences of my beliefs are concerned, myself and the vast majority of the political community align on this question and are willing to use the barrel of a gun to enforce our preferences.

Before the 'conservative pragmatism' is brushed aside, I'll reiterate that a new ethical trend should be put under greater scrutiny and suspicion than an already established order. A two thousand year moral order which still exists in my moral community is worth more than a new one - all else being the same.

[Jebus]

This doesn't prove anything about ethics. It just makes me lament the fact that I cannot prove an ethical system from the ground up.

Are there any human acts that you find admirable or reprehensible?

Are there any humans that you admire because they live their lives trying to reduce the amount of reprehensible acts and/or increase the amount of admirable acts?

If so, do you feel any personal desire to act more like the people you admire?

A two thousand year moral order which still exists in my moral community is worth more than a new one - all else being the same.

Why so?

[thebestofenergy]

4. This is different from 'rearing animals causes X ecological problem' which is contextually relevant. The government can regulate.

You're being disrespectful when you baselessly assert this again after my rebuttal.
Please go back and read my post.

I have explained why the government cannot simply regulate it, as the issues with animal agriculture are inherent, and I have asked you some questions.

I get that you want to know about the morality of animals, but when it comes to being vegan, environmental damage and risk of pandemics are a major part, and it's not dismissable by simply asserting the same over simplistic thing over and over - which is like saying:

'I don't care about driving my truck all day everyday, the government can regulate emissions'.