Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2012, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 10:35 AM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(27-04-2012 01:58 AM)Filox Wrote:  The point he is trying to make is that if we eat meat because it is natural, why don't we do all other stuff then as well, stuff like no wearing cloths, not watching TV and other natural/unnatural things.

I would like to hear your explanation how do you see this as not-natural thing? I see your vegetarianism as your choice, your free will, not natural way of things, or to be more precise, it is natural and normal for you, but not for me, which, again, brings us back to the word PERCEPTION.
It is precisely my point as you mentioned. I think I need to help you connect the dots though. I require justification for things. Not every aspect of my life has one, but that is only because there are so many things that I haven't touched down on yet. At the moment, we are discussing eating other animals. My point you brought up was, "why don't we do all the other things" and this is what I am stressing. You all have been arguing with appeals to nature. Yet this argument can be applied to hundreds of things within your lives and I think it is obvious that you ignore your "logic" when it comes to these issues. The appealing to nature isn't only reserved for arguments for a motion, it is also applied to arguments against it. If you argue in favor of nature so strongly, your argument against unnatural things should be just as strong. This is why I am demanding a better justification, because everyone is only using the appeal to nature in their favor--eating meat because it is good. This is cherry picking, and we require better reasons for our action. Especially if we only use this reasoning when we want to.

This is why the appeal to nature is flawed. If you propose something as a justification, you cannot dismiss it later when asked, why use computers? Not go naked? Not ignore vaccines? Not throw away that cellphone? etc... Your appeals to nature are quickly ignored in these situations. This makes your appeal to nature not the reason you are eating meat. You are eating meat because you enjoy the taste more than you care about animals. Or, if someone can find a better reason for it. I am waiting.

I will be the first to admit, eating meat is natural, and it tasted great! I am not, and never have, argued that it was not natural. Also only eating vegetables is probably not natural. But, I do not use nature as a justification for anything, there is always something better. I am vegetarian because my justification doesn't lie with something that I cannot use globally as a justification. My justification is well-being on a maximum scale. I can apply this to everything and everyone. I don't eat meat. Why? Because it would harm animals--suffering, stress, fear, etc... Some might argue that my well being outweighs the other animals, but I contend that the health aspects of eating no meat are minuscule. Arguably, it might cause more damage with the fats/cancer it does cause.

The base of my argument is, my justification isn't based on bias. I can argue for it on every aspect and I also apply it everywhere I can. Everyone else on the other hand is appealing to the argument of nature, but only apply it to a fraction of their actions. I argue that this is biased thinking, and I am asking once more for the actual justification. At the moment, I don't think there is one, nor have I heard one. The appeals to nature is a smoke screen hiding the fact that people are too lazy/don't want to give up the luxury of eating meat.

I would be perfectly happy--in this discussion--if people would admit to this. At least they will admit they are wrong instead of trying to push the square through the circle with fallacious logic. Like this guy:
(27-04-2012 06:16 AM)frankiej Wrote:  Meh... I just eat meat because it tastes amazing. Don't know why everyone is going all Hulk over this.


@Noah, act like an intelligent person, and I might respond to you. Until then, keep blabbering idiotic statements.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 10:39 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(24-04-2012 03:42 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(24-04-2012 02:47 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The fact that we have "self awareness" (whatever this means) is not sufficient enough a reason to say that eating meat is wrong.
I agree. That is why I also said--along with self awareness--that we are more intelligent and that we are moral agents. If you all would like to explain to me how Dolphins are on the same level of intelligence/self awareness/abstract base thinking of morality as we are, then please, I am all eyes.

Also, target my arguments as a whole.
We, as a species, are not much more intelligent than many animals. The only thing that really sets us apart from animals in terms of "intelligence" is our coordination.

When it comes to morality, you hit a slippery slope. For one, morality is different for every single person. The definition of morality is also very vague. So while you may feel it is immoral, the majority of humans still have the craving for meat.

Intelligence does not imply that eating meat is wrong, therefore, de nuevo a la mesa de dibujo, mi amigo.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
27-04-2012, 10:39 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 10:48 AM by NoahsFarce.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Are you just completely ignoring what I am saying to you? Are you scanning for the word "natural" and then promptly disregarding it?

Let me tell you something flawed about your computer and vaccine argument... THOSE ARE A PRODUCT OF OUR NATURAL BRAIN'S INTELLIGENCE. They are not necessary for the survival of our species. They are necessary for the longevity and THRIVING our species though so don't get my words mixed up here. Oh, and where do you get that wearing clothes is not natural? When ancient apes lost their body hair, they needed something to keep them warm and alive. Even a fig leaf covering the crotch in those days was considered clothing.

I explained to you that Vegans WOULD NOT get all the necessary nutrients without the aid of modern technology. The hunger for meat is a primal one. It has nothing to do with our brains (at least on a conscious level). It has everything to do with our evolutionary need to provide our bodies with nutrients. This goes for veggies as well. We are omnivores on a primal level.

Now, the point I was trying to make in my previous post... this evolutionary byproduct gave us our "intelligence". This intelligence allows you to CONSCIOUSLY make the choice not to eat meat. You are resisting the primal instinct much like a nun resists our primal urge to reproduce (read sex). This is UNNATURAL.

In fact, technology and things like vaccines are unnatural as well. But they can be explained as being byproducts of intelligence which in itself is a byproduct of our evolved brains.

So explain to me why someone would be vegan? I explained to you why we have technology and shit like vaccines. Wait, I already know the answer:

YOU FUCKING LOVE ANIMALS.

Good for you. So do I. But I also have a primal hunger for meat which I choose not to ignore like you.

Moral of the story = Vegans are Meat Nuns.

If this explanation is not "justification" enough for you, then tough fucking tofu cookies. I don't like that I won't live long enough to travel through space, but that's the way the panda shit crumbles.
(27-04-2012 10:21 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  @Noah, act like an intelligent person, and I might respond to you. Until then, keep blabbering idiotic statements.
Oh? And I guess you're some ultimate judge of "intelligence"? Sure seems like it from the high horse you mounted yourself on.

You can't handle curse words? THEN DON'T FUCKING CALL EVERYONE IGNORANT IN ONE SWEEPING COMMENT.

That's as far from intelligent as you can get.
What's most laughable here is that VeryVacuousBrain here calls my statements "idiotic" when he's sitting there comparing our primal need to eat plants and meat to the products of our intelligence.

Wow man, wow. So much for civil discourse. Admittedly, civility got thrown out of the window when you generalized every single meat eater in this thread as being "ignorant".

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like NoahsFarce's post
27-04-2012, 12:12 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 12:22 PM by Antirepublican.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(27-04-2012 01:58 AM)Filox Wrote:  The point he is trying to make is that if we eat meat because it is natural, why don't we do all other stuff then as well, stuff like no wearing cloths, not watching TV and other natural/unnatural things.

I actually did explain that, but as usual, I am not heard in the right way. It is abut prioritising things, someone prioritise food, someone TV watching. As for me, if I could, I would live in the woods all alone. What is the problem? The law that prohibits me from hunting without a permit, prohibit me form having a hunters weapon (gun, bow and arrow or crossbow) without a permit and even then I have to use what they like, not what I want. Then, there is all sorts of other regulations and laws I have to abide, so it is pretty impossible to live like some might want. When it comes to food, I have a choice, I can choose what I want. I have chosen what feels normal and natural to me and that is all the food I eat. I don't claim it is the natural way of things (although I don't see how it is not), but I claim it FEELS natural and normal TO ME. It may not look like that to you, but is not the problem of what is natural or not, it is a problem of how me and you view and understand the world around us, which, again, brings us back to the word PERCEPTION.

Now, I can't explain why it is natural to me, it just is, it is the normal part of my life, I eat meat. Period. It is the way I was raised, it is the way I am surrounded it is the way I live every day.

I would like to hear your explanation how do you see this as not-natural thing? I see your vegetarianism as your choice, your free will, not natural way of things, or to be more precise, it is natural and normal for you, but not for me, which, again, brings us back to the word PERCEPTION.

Want to philosophy some more?

Smile
You are confusing the use of technology as not being natural.

That is not true. Lots of animals use technology to some degree.
A monkey will put a stick in the ground to collect ants, is that automatically assumed to not be natural? No.

We adapt to our environment, and sometimes that means using new technology.
One could even argue that the body itself is merely a piece of technology, thus every time an animal adapts it is creating new technology better suited for the environment.
So, yes, it is very much a natural process.

His argument is pathetic and absurd and based completely on ignorance.. He is saying that genetic predisposition doesn't exist, despite mountains of evidence, and then demanding we prove some ridiculous statement. "Justify my life choices!" WHAT?!?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 12:25 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(27-04-2012 12:12 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(27-04-2012 01:58 AM)Filox Wrote:  The point he is trying to make is that if we eat meat because it is natural, why don't we do all other stuff then as well, stuff like no wearing cloths, not watching TV and other natural/unnatural things.

I actually did explain that, but as usual, I am not heard in the right way. It is abut prioritising things, someone prioritise food, someone TV watching. As for me, if I could, I would live in the woods all alone. What is the problem? The law that prohibits me from hunting without a permit, prohibit me form having a hunters weapon (gun, bow and arrow or crossbow) without a permit and even then I have to use what they like, not what I want. Then, there is all sorts of other regulations and laws I have to abide, so it is pretty impossible to live like some might want. When it comes to food, I have a choice, I can choose what I want. I have chosen what feels normal and natural to me and that is all the food I eat. I don't claim it is the natural way of things (although I don't see how it is not), but I claim it FEELS natural and normal TO ME. It may not look like that to you, but is not the problem of what is natural or not, it is a problem of how me and you view and understand the world around us, which, again, brings us back to the word PERCEPTION.

Now, I can't explain why it is natural to me, it just is, it is the normal part of my life, I eat meat. Period. It is the way I was raised, it is the way I am surrounded it is the way I live every day.

I would like to hear your explanation how do you see this as not-natural thing? I see your vegetarianism as your choice, your free will, not natural way of things, or to be more precise, it is natural and normal for you, but not for me, which, again, brings us back to the word PERCEPTION.

Want to philosophy some more?

Smile
You are confusing the use of technology as not being natural.

That is not true. Lots of animals use technology to some degree.
A monkey will put a stick in the ground to collect ants, is that automatically assumed to not be natural? No.

We adapt to our environment, and sometimes that means using new technology.
One could even argue that the body itself is merely a piece of technology, thus every time an animal adapts it is creating new technology better suited for the environment.
So, yes, it is very much a natural process.

His argument is pathetic and absurd and based completely on ignorance.. He is saying that genetic predisposition doesn't exist, despite mountains of evidence, and then demanding we prove some ridiculous statement. "Justify my life choices!" WHAT?!?
Something tells me that VacuousBrain wasn't getting as technical as you're getting. I don't think he's capable of that. So for him, technology strictly = MacBooks.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 12:31 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 12:40 PM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(27-04-2012 10:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(24-04-2012 03:42 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  I agree. That is why I also said--along with self awareness--that we are more intelligent and that we are moral agents. If you all would like to explain to me how Dolphins are on the same level of intelligence/self awareness/abstract base thinking of morality as we are, then please, I am all eyes.

Also, target my arguments as a whole.
We, as a species, are not much more intelligent than many animals. The only thing that really sets us apart from animals in terms of "intelligence" is our coordination.

When it comes to morality, you hit a slippery slope. For one, morality is different for every single person. The definition of morality is also very vague. So while you may feel it is immoral, the majority of humans still have the craving for meat.

Intelligence does not imply that eating meat is wrong, therefore, de nuevo a la mesa de dibujo, mi amigo.
Irrelevant until I hear counter arguments.


(27-04-2012 12:12 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(27-04-2012 01:58 AM)Filox Wrote:  The point he is trying to make is that if we eat meat because it is natural, why don't we do all other stuff then as well, stuff like no wearing cloths, not watching TV and other natural/unnatural things.

I actually did explain that, but as usual, I am not heard in the right way. It is abut prioritising things, someone prioritise food, someone TV watching. As for me, if I could, I would live in the woods all alone. What is the problem? The law that prohibits me from hunting without a permit, prohibit me form having a hunters weapon (gun, bow and arrow or crossbow) without a permit and even then I have to use what they like, not what I want. Then, there is all sorts of other regulations and laws I have to abide, so it is pretty impossible to live like some might want. When it comes to food, I have a choice, I can choose what I want. I have chosen what feels normal and natural to me and that is all the food I eat. I don't claim it is the natural way of things (although I don't see how it is not), but I claim it FEELS natural and normal TO ME. It may not look like that to you, but is not the problem of what is natural or not, it is a problem of how me and you view and understand the world around us, which, again, brings us back to the word PERCEPTION.

Now, I can't explain why it is natural to me, it just is, it is the normal part of my life, I eat meat. Period. It is the way I was raised, it is the way I am surrounded it is the way I live every day.

I would like to hear your explanation how do you see this as not-natural thing? I see your vegetarianism as your choice, your free will, not natural way of things, or to be more precise, it is natural and normal for you, but not for me, which, again, brings us back to the word PERCEPTION.

Want to philosophy some more?

Smile
You are confusing the use of technology as not being natural.

That is not true. Lots of animals use technology to some degree.
A monkey will put a stick in the ground to collect ants, is that automatically assumed to not be natural? No.

We adapt to our environment, and sometimes that means using new technology.
One could even argue that the body itself is merely a piece of technology, thus every time an animal adapts it is creating new technology better suited for the environment.
So, yes, it is very much a natural process.

His argument is pathetic and absurd and based completely on ignorance.. He is saying that genetic predisposition doesn't exist, despite mountains of evidence, and then demanding we prove some ridiculous statement. "Justify my life choices!" WHAT?!?
If you would pay attention, my entire argument over the past 6 or so pages has shunned the idea of what is natural/unnatural. I am merely entertaining the ideas that are proposed. I think what is natural/unnatural is so subjective that it is irrelevant. I am only counter arguing with technology because he was.

Again, pay attention. Easier said than done considering you are only reading recent posts though. Go back to page four where your attention span burned out and pick back up.



*A quick note here. Everyone is fully aware that this is in the philosophy section, right? Also, that this thread is accompanied by "moral baseline"?

It's just that I am getting this strange suspicion that people are mistaking this for the science board, and that the OP was asking about what is natural--not what is right?*

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 12:36 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I insist, why is it the food we eat object of a moral debate?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like nach_in's post
27-04-2012, 12:47 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I'm not really paying attention to anything that's being bashed back and forth here, but I SOooo want a bumper sticker that says:

Vegans are Meat Nuns.

That is just fucking awesome.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kim's post
27-04-2012, 02:39 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Everything we do is natural.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 02:48 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(27-04-2012 12:31 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(27-04-2012 10:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  We, as a species, are not much more intelligent than many animals. The only thing that really sets us apart from animals in terms of "intelligence" is our coordination.

When it comes to morality, you hit a slippery slope. For one, morality is different for every single person. The definition of morality is also very vague. So while you may feel it is immoral, the majority of humans still have the craving for meat.

Intelligence does not imply that eating meat is wrong, therefore, de nuevo a la mesa de dibujo, mi amigo.
Irrelevant until I hear counter arguments.


(27-04-2012 12:12 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  You are confusing the use of technology as not being natural.

That is not true. Lots of animals use technology to some degree.
A monkey will put a stick in the ground to collect ants, is that automatically assumed to not be natural? No.

We adapt to our environment, and sometimes that means using new technology.
One could even argue that the body itself is merely a piece of technology, thus every time an animal adapts it is creating new technology better suited for the environment.
So, yes, it is very much a natural process.

His argument is pathetic and absurd and based completely on ignorance.. He is saying that genetic predisposition doesn't exist, despite mountains of evidence, and then demanding we prove some ridiculous statement. "Justify my life choices!" WHAT?!?
If you would pay attention, my entire argument over the past 6 or so pages has shunned the idea of what is natural/unnatural. I am merely entertaining the ideas that are proposed. I think what is natural/unnatural is so subjective that it is irrelevant. I am only counter arguing with technology because he was.

Again, pay attention. Easier said than done considering you are only reading recent posts though. Go back to page four where your attention span burned out and pick back up.



*A quick note here. Everyone is fully aware that this is in the philosophy section, right? Also, that this thread is accompanied by "moral baseline"?

It's just that I am getting this strange suspicion that people are mistaking this for the science board, and that the OP was asking about what is natural--not what is right?*
I am still waiting for an argument that isn't a strawman.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: