Absolute nonsense from beginning to end. It makes the a priori assumption that harming animals is a moral issue, and never questions that position. Given that we evolved from omnivorous predecessor species this is not a strong position to adopt.

Even if we accept that inflicting harm on animals is wrong, the suggestion that lab-grown meat is being developed for purely utilitarian reasons is nonsense, and again no justification is given for this assumption.

Is the question of harming animals anything but an ethical question? What else would it be?

Also, the article doesn't actually claim that lab grown meat is being developed for "utilitarian reasons". Did you read it? The final section is titled:

> Moral crises can’t be solved by technology

[removed]

> Also, the article doesn't actually claim that lab grown meat is being developed for "utilitarian reasons".

The paper says:
> The moral problem stems from the fact that we will likely switch over to lab-grown meat because it is cheap, or thanks to its benefits for human health or the environment. That is, we will do it for our own sake and not for the sake of animals.

Did you read the paper?

Ah, I thought by "utilitarian" you meant utilitarianism.

> Is the question of harming animals anything but an ethical question? What else would it be?

That sounds like the same sort of reasoning that suggests that carnivores should be genetically modified to be herbivores. Which is nonsense. Nature has made us what we are. I believe that to be a justification for being that way.

Ugh!

This just sounds like the naturalistic fallacy to me.

It's also a red herring because we are omnivores and thus capable of making a choice one way or another. This is where ethics come in.

Is it not the case that the reason that we as a species developed our large brain and reasoning faculties is because we ate meat?

Our brain probably evolved through natural selection, which is a very distinct process from ethics.

But without that process, there would be no ability to understand and consider ethics.

So is your point that because evolution brought us to the point where we can consider things ethically that we should not consider things ethically and instead just appeal only to evolution?

No, my point is that the ethics we choose should make allowance for who we are and where we come from. The idea that there is some absolute ethics imposed from above is anathema to me.

[removed]

Which ethics is that?

Because we are omnivores, we are able to decide what to eat and develop ideas about what is moral or immoral to eat.

[deleted]

So if we decide to become vegetarian, we risk losing that ability?

No.

Edit: well, maybe after many, many generations of a population eating an exclusively vegan diet we could lose the enzymes that allow us to eat meat.

[removed]

How high above are we talking? Where does objective morality come from? Are you arguing there is no objective morality?

The question of whether or not we can justify the animal suffering and death necessary to perpetuate meat consumption.

Absolutely I'm arguing there is no objective morality unless you believe in a transcendent Deity who defines such a morality. I don't.

Sure, but don't you think you'll end up at a different conclusion depending on where you start? What ethical framework are you using for your own conclusions?

Some of the 'arguments' vegans come up with suggest you could be wrong.

So everything is permitted - so long as you can get away with it I suppose. Good and evil are just a matter of what's trendy.

Ok?

Well, sure, I agree that an externally imposed ethics isn't the best. At the same time, this doesn't excuse us from ethics. We still have to be able to create an ethical justification for meat consumption. I'm not aware of one, but should one emerge, then it would lend more weight to the decision to eat meat.

[removed]

I don't know of an ethical framework that's yet been able to launch a successful defense for eating meat, honestly.

That's very much not what I said. In my opinion, ethics should be based on the ways to act which are best for, in descending order, the social group, society at large, humanity, the biosphere and the universe as a whole. There will be competing interests here, of course, and for me that is the valid area for ethical debate.

Which is exactly why people are commenting that this isn't philosophy/ethics. Easier to dismiss outright than face something they don't want to acknowledge.

Is it ever okay to kill an animal for food?

Animals don't belong in any of those categories for ethical consideration?

Animals form part of the biosphere.

Sure, in marginal cases. But arguments from marginal cases don't make good day to day ethics.

Yes, so, coming back to your original comment, talking about how we ought to treat them very much IS a moral issue.

My personal take is that if you're talking about the survival of one animal vs. the survival of another animal, then we're discussing something more primordial than ethics. That is; the prerequisites for ethics haven't been met.

If we're talking about eating an animal simply because it's pleasurable, though, then I think you'd have to somehow find a way to justify that animal's suffering and death to create that pleasure and I'm not sure this is possible to ethically justify.

I Have always had a certain lack of clarity with vegetarianism and veganism, even though my own mother is one. I wouldn't call Lions imoral, for example. I suppose that you could argue that as we are on top of and can subvert the global ecosystem, we have a special requirement to not create unnecessary suffering for those poor animals with a disadvantage in cognition. It seem that we have a species wide vanity that we are separate from nature, not apart from it.

But of course, I'm ignoring the whole point of this post. This is probably the objectively wisest and most moral choice for a whole host of reasons. But as this technology develops, we cannot just ignore the argument that can be rooted in the question: "why do we even care?"

Indeed, but their welfare does not trump other issues.

Sure but there is no objective morality so all morality is simply a matter of opinion. There's nothing real about morality, it's just that a mode of behaviour is more or less trendy within the "social group, society at large, humanity," and so on. You didn't have to explicitly state that was the case, it follows from your assertion that it must be the case. If there is no objective good then good is whatever I say it is and I can do whatever I like so long as I have the power to do so (e.g., "the state of nature"). It's actually a pretty rational take on things if you don't believe in objective morality. The Romans weren't wrong to the Romans. The Nazis weren't wrong to 9/10 Germans. Whether Alexander was great or terrible depends on where you lived. It's not a novelty.

[removed]

You haven't really supported that argument either, other than simply stating your preferred hierarchy.

Ain’t it funny just how un-absolute and un-objective morality really is.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying, which isn't this. The concept of the 'common good' is a perfectly valid basis for a moral perspective. The issue is around what counts as 'common', who (or what) is in the community. What you are suggesting is no morality at all. I think that's a stupid position to adopt.

What if cows were bred each year for decades so that you had a rolling supply of cows dying of natural causes? Is it ok to eat them then?

Again, that is my personal view of how a non-absolute morality could be derived, based on the concept of a 'common good' with expanding circles of commonality. I am sure there are alternative options, and am happy to consider them. What I'm not willing to consider is an imposed morality from 'above'.

Do you have any actual arguments to support your personal view? I agree that we needn't have a morality "from above," but when your critique of the article is that it doesn't support a moral assumption, I would assume you have something more solid and supported to counter it with.

I suppose it depends on their treatment in that case; though we usually don't eat old animals after they die from natural causes so I'm not sure this is ever going to realistically happen.

What I said was:
> Absolute nonsense from beginning to end. It makes the a priori assumption that harming animals is a moral issue, and never questions that position.

Now I'm not saying there isn't a moral argument to be made, just that assuming it without question is not good philosophy.

If it's feasible to be vegan, and it is, our omnivorous predecessor is irrelevant when debating morals. Sure there are no universal morals but what is a morally consistent reason for which it wouldn't be immoral to harm animals?

>I wouldn't call lions immoral

And neither would anyone else, unlike us they aren't moral agents and even if they were they require hunting for survival unlike us

[removed]

If the social benefits to humanity outweighed the harm to animals? I'm not saying that's true, but if it were that would for me be a reason.

You already admitted that it is a moral issue. Just because you don't agree with the moral conclusion the author makes doesn't mean it's suddenly not a moral issue.

Being an omnivore doesn’t give you the option to completely shift from carnivore to herbivore. It allows you to broaden then kinds of foods you can eat so as not to become over reliant on a particular food source

Also, you're using a priori wrong.

I mean you'd have to develop as to why our species would have more objective worth than any other, but sure that could be a reason though I don't see how wide scale farming would ever achieve that

The problem is that we are fundamentally animals and animals need to eat. A tiger is not immoral for eating other animals in the same way we are not immoral for eating animals, where we have a choice is in how to kill this animals and how to treat them in life, that is where morals become important

Just because I think it's a moral issue doesn't mean that it can be assumed without question. Also, the paper treats it as a moral imperative, which is something else entirely.

Actually humans are perfectly capable of getting all the nutrients we need from non-animal sources.

Though we cannot be healthy on meat alone, so you are partially correct to a small extent

But the option in being an omnivore is not to stop being an omnivore but in the balance of meat and plants you will eat not in throwing one of those out

I doubt you make that claim when an article makes the case against human trafficking.

A tiger is a carnivore, and thus there isn't a question of meat eating for them. They either eat meat or die. The same is true for an herbivore; they are not acting more ethically simply because they are incapable of surviving entirely off meat.

The fact that we're an omnivore, and thus are confronted with a choice at all, is why ethical consideration comes into play.

To be a vegetarian, you have to first be an omnivore and then decide not to eat meat. This doesn't stop you from being an omnivore. Herbivores can't make this decision; they have to eat plants. Same with carnivores. They don't get to decide.

Similarly, you can't decide to stop being an omnivore any more than you can decide to stop being a carbon based lifeform. You can only decide what to do as an omnivore.

My perspective is that things which are closer to us are weighted more highly than things which are more distant. In the same way I care more about my family than I do about society at large. Again, that's not an absolute. As I've said I don't believe in absolutes.

Ok you’re right, but there are still a number of nutrients that are easier to obtain by eating meat and more easily digestible in meat. In addition the whole concept of not eating meat ignores the fact that today approximately 50% of the worlds fertilizer come from farm animals. This allows you to eat plants without relying on synthetic fertilizers that have a larger carbon footprint then cows.

Doubt on.

So I guessed right.

Edit to add: You're setting a bar for this article that we obviously don't set for a multitude of other issues, simply because you disagree with it. That's bad faith right there.

Why do you consider there to be "no morality" rather than 8 billion people with their own subjective take on morality? If my moral compass allows me to kill you then certainly I'm still moral by my own measure, you just don't like my measure. Well, I don't like yours so we're even.

I'm simply trying to illustrate what's permissible without objective morality (i.e., everything). If there is no objective morality then morality isn't a "real" thing that exists. If "murder is wrong" doesn't exist objectively somewhere out there then it doesn't actually exist at all. We avoid murdering because we don't happen to find it trendy (it has been before) or because we don't have the power to actualize our will to commit murder (people have before).

I think what you're imagining is a scenario where you and some other people get together to decide among yourselves a version of morality you can force upon the world. So long as everyone is obeying your group's subjective morality it's as though an objective morality actually exists, but what makes YOUR moral code the correct one? You decide that it's because it satisfies conditions A, B, C but you just decided that those conditions had to be satisfied. I could decide that morality needs to satisfy X, Y, Z instead and conclude an entirely different system of morality that opposes yours completely. What's wrong for you, of course may be right for me. You can get the allies behind you, I'll get the axis behind me and the result is whoever is more powerful decides which subjective moral system survives. This isn't unlike the world today (sovereigns are still in the state of nature).

Maybe definitionally but if you decide to stop eating meat completely you’ve functionally stopped being an omnivore. Plus the idea that despite having a choice one of those choices is always wrong no matter what just doesn’t sound realistic. Eating meat has advantages either in the fact that certain nutrients are more easily digestibly accessible through meat or the fact that the animals we get meat from also provide fertilizer for our plants and often are fed with waste products from crops that humans cannot eat to begin with.

The animals still make manure if you don't kill them.

In fact you receive a constant supply of manure from live animals.

A lot of fertilizer use can also be avoided by no longer practicing monoculture, and cultivating many types of plants that have symbiotic relationships.

But it's ok to eat these animals, right?

You really don't understand at all what I've been saying. I've tried enough, if you won't or can't understand so be it. But just for my interest, where do you believe objective morality comes from?

And I never said that was an invalid argument.

But then I can preform a calculation based on the amount of manure they will produce plus the nutritional yields I will get from using it as fertilizer versus the nutrition received by just eating it as meat. Avoided also doesn’t mean gotten rid of, and as long as we need fertilizer it’ll be better for the environment to get it from cows and pigs then a factory, at which point the previous calculation I mentioned would come into effect in deciding when killing the animal for food would be efficient for us and the environment.

Probably not, because the use of resources needed to raise such animals is detrimental to the environment.

Because we are animals and are part of nature and are therefore part of the cycle of life, our goal should be to integrate ourselves sustainably into nature not remove ourselves from it, we should not go against our being omnivores that eat meat and plants, but do so responsibly

How about one along the lines of I am part of nature and I am an animal, no matter how smart I may be to deny my nature is to deny myself? Plus animals can be treated well and still killed for meat.

Well, again, an omnivore who decides not to eat meat isn't an herbivore. There's a decision there and that decision is what we call ethics. So it's an important distinction.

The claim that there's advantages to eating meat isn't very well supported. It's certainly easier, but that's largely due to the fact that meat consumption is the norm (more than in any historical period in fact).

We synthesize most of our fertilizers thanks to the Nazi tech we employ. If we wanted to maximize the use of animal produced fertilizers, we'd have them grazing in our fields rather than using fossil fuels to transport it. Also, it wouldn't be necessary to eat those animals.

Ok and why should we do that? And by that logic, since animals also rape and kill their own young, shouldn't we do that too? After all it's just a part of nature like the rest.

Sure, I think there's actually a compelling argument that we're animals and this goes beyond ethics to some degree. I don't think this is an excuse to escape entirely from ethics, but I do think it serves as a framework for understanding our own limitations when enforcing upon ourselves a rigorous and unforgiving ethical mandate.

Should the lack of a defense for meat eating eradicate all meat consumption? I think that's an interesting question honestly, and I suspect that addressing it helps to also calm the fears of meat lovers who feel threatened by calls for vegetarianism or veganism.

Who said I believed in objective morality? If there is an objective morality of the universe then the universe must have a design, right? Then there must be a designer which imbued the universe with that objective moral truth, right? This is the line one would have to argue.

I found the "so is it good because God says so or is God simply the messenger of what is good?" argument to be pretty good at discrediting the objective moral goodness of God until I heard an argument that went something like "Goodness is an essential element of the concept of God" (Craig). I'll paste a quote about this below.

Either way, you don't have to believe in objective morality to recognize that without it morality is not actually "real." It would be up to everyone to decide for themselves, even if that includes rape and murder.

"You state your fundamental question as follows: How do we know that God is good?Now at one level, as I explained in last week’s Question #294, that question is easy to answer: it is conceptually necessary that God be good. That is to say, goodness belongs to the very concept of God, just as being unmarried belongs to the concept of a bachelor. For (i) by definition God is a being worthy of worship, and only a being which is perfectly good would be worthy of worship; and (ii) as the greatest conceivable being God must be morally perfect, since it is better to be morally perfect than morally flawed."

That's from this page: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/on-the-goodness-of-god

That's a dishonest evasion. Is it or is it not OK to eat a cow that has died of natural causes?

I understand but I think that’s more of a technicality.

Ok but your decision is nonsensical it’s like saying that because you’re breathing carbon dioxide and there’s too much carbon dioxide in the air you shouldn’t breath air out in the open but should instead stay inside a bubble that filters out the carbon.

Then tell me what’s not supported.

And finally you can probably make the calculation on the amount of fertilizer a cow will produce over a given period of time and how much that will improve your crop yield versus the nutrition you’d get from simply eating it. And you can further perform the calculation on the carbon cost of transporting the manure versus creating it in a factory

Ok but we’re not “animals” we’re humans, a type of animal just because some animals do things doesn’t mean we do. And the reason we should sustainably enter the cycle of life and nature is because we are and have always been a part of it, we cannot escape it, nor would it be of any good of us to escape it and so we should be in it properly and responsibly

>Because we're animals

>Because we're not "animals"

Kinda contradicting yourself a lot. So how is your argument valid for diet but not infanticide or rape?

Yeah no for sure just cause we eat meat doesn’t mean we should treat the animals we eat terribly while they’re alive and that we shouldn’t balance the benefits of eating meat with the moral, practical, and environment costs. I just don’t feel the idea of completely getting rid of one of our basic food sources makes sense.

That wasn't your question. Your question was whether it's okay to raise and then eat a cow that dies from natural causes.

A wild cow? Probably also not, if you consider that a wild carcass is part of the ecosystem. But as for what you're really tacitly asking: no, you haven't done a moral harm to the cow per se by eating it then.

Bro chill my point is that not every animal rapes their young and we are clearly not a species of animal that rapes their young like I said just because one animal does something doesn’t mean all of them do it. I feel like I expressed that clearly earlier though I may not have, I just hope you’re taking the time to seriously consider my difference of opinion here.

Ok and not every animal eats meat so why should we do so? An appeal to nature isn't gonna get you very far

Personally I eat meat, though not very often. This is consistent with a lot of humans throughout history and it's very easy to maintain a healthy diet doing it. It's what I would advocate as the next step. As I see it, advocating for veganism is a little like advocating for communism. It might be something that is easily possible in the distant future, but we need to take steps if we wish to one day get there. It would be a radical reorganization of the food industry to shift to my diet, much less a fully vegetarian one.

Dude again in the particular case of humans, humans eat meat my exact point is that it’s not about looking at animals in general but humans in specific. It doesn’t matter what other animals do it’s about what the human animal does and what it evolved to do and be capable of.

Ok humans can also not eat meat, we aren't carnivores. If it doesn't matter what animals do then why are you using animals as an argument in the first place?

You introduced a new variable to the scenario to try and stretch the goalpost a little further rather than just answering the question considering the context in which it was asked. That was dishonest from my perspective. You could see that the debate was about eating meat in the context of suffering. Regardless, you've answered.

Is it a moral harm to eat a man that died of natural causes?

Bro my whole point is that humans fit inside the category of animal. That doesn’t mean we do everything every other animal does. Furthermore as the human animal also fits inside the category of omnivore we cannot choose to stop being omnivores and not eat meat.

If we don't do as animals do then it's irrelevant what they do. We can choose not to eat meat, it's irrelevant that we're omnivores since we can choose not to

Red herring...

It's actually just an appeal to nature argument to begin with, otherwise what is it that makes one supposedly natural action good and the other bad? If there's a distinction to be made then it isn't the fact that it's natural or not that makes an action morally justified or not

Fair enough. :P just beginning to flex my philosophy muscles again :)

Bro do squirrels do what every animal does? No, but they’re still animals. You see what I mean? Squirrels have intrinsic parts of their nature some parts overlap with some animals and some parts don’t. Humans have intrinsic parts of their nature some overlap with some animals some don’t. The point is that like other animals we have intrinsic aspects to our nature, one of which is that we are omnivores we should then not use the intelligence of our nature to deny the fact we are omnivores and stop eating meat.

This is ignoring we have morals and eating meat has moral implications which is enough of a reason to not eat meat

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

It's like whenever problematising meat eating is brought up on reddit (even on philosophy subs) the response is "why even have morals and ethics, we are just simple animals." The sheer amount of frankly thoughtless and unscrutinized arguments people bring forth to dismiss the issue is maddening.

Well unless you believe in universal morality, morality is based in part on your nature. For a tiger eating meat has no moral implications because it has neither the option to choose or the ability not to eat meat. Humans are omnivores and therefore eat plants and meat, despite being intelligent enough to choose I would say it is not moral to reject your nature and therefore the choice to eat meat is not a moral one because it is a part of our nature.

How you treat the animals you choose to eat in life and in killing them is moral however.

Why isn't it moral? By that logic surely curing disease isn't moral either? If you get a natural tumour then by getting rid of it you're rejecting your nature.

Why is how you treat them a moral question but not killing them when you don't have to?

It's a multi-faceted issue. The real dishonesty would be in ignoring that.

>Is it a moral harm to eat a man that died of natural causes?

Not to that man.

So if no one knows about it cannibalism is alright?

Do you think that cannibalism harms that man? Or do you agree that this is another multi-faceted issue where other factors need to be taken into account?

Is cannibalism inherently wrong?

Yes, but not because of harm done to that person in particular. It's multi-faceted, don't you agree?

Thank you. You expressed much better the exact things that sprung out at me from that article.

The problem is, that's a straw man argument. You start off with it being the killing of animals. I could easily start it off with the necessary eating of other life forms. Both are true, but expressing it as if that is the issue, killing animals, is disingenuous at best, and as I said, definitely a strawman.

It's a straw man argument.

But it's generally the considered consensus in evolution that our brains became large because our archaic ancestors started eating meat.

I'm not so sure.

Are you going to elaborate?

I think this line of reasoning is still contentious. It might have been correlative rather than causal. It might have been coincidental or accidental. After all, plenty of pea brained animals also eat meat.

Even if it's true, it's still not a very convincing argument for meat consumption being ethical.

I don't believe in cannibalism.

For what it's worth, that argument only really applies if God is transcendent. If God is purely immanent, it makes little sense.

Okay, you've clearly run out of arguments to contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Let me know if you think of something of value to add.

The article disregards the suffering of plants. Why should we only concern ourselves with the suffering of animals? Is it because they’re biologically closer to us?

Is it more ethical when the animals are hunted, rather than farmed?

[removed]

As I said in another reply, if you're hunting for survival then you're engaging in an activity too primordial for the preconditions for ethical behavior to even exist.

If you're killing animals just because the taste and texture of their flesh gives you pleasure, then you're going to have a hard time finding an ethical argument for doing so.

That being said, hunting is significantly better than factory farms.

Lol, I've not done anything but ask questions to discover if it was inherently wrong to eat meat, apparently not. I then asked whether it was inherently wrong to eat a human being, apparently it isn't. The problem is that I agree with the first but not the second.

As a human I can express my will not to be eaten (or have my organs harvested) in the event of my death. Animals don't seem to have the capacity for this particular will. But then again you can see even plants demonstrate a desire to survive/live in the way they reach deeper in search of water and stretch towards the sun. That desire to live doesn't seem to stop anyone from cutting them down in their prime and consuming them. Similarly when I watch videos of microorganisms moving around, hunting and eating under a microscope it becomes obvious that even they have a desire to survive/live but no one seems to mind consuming fermented foods and beverages. It seems to me that a desire to survive/live isn't enough to explain whether something should be eaten or not. Nonetheless I still believe it's okay for me to survive at the expense of other living things and at the same time I don't believe in cannibalism.

I imagine now that the real justification is something like: the more dissimilar from me something appears the more excusable it is for me to destroy for my benefit. As a result you get a hierarchy of value that goes something like humans>animals (mammals on top)>plants>simple organisms>molecules>... In terms of consumption I guess some people think it's okay to organize this as "humans>everything" and some people like to take it to "humans + animals > everything." I'm not so sure I'm content by that hypothesis. I think how far you decide you want to go down that ladder, what a person decides to consume, is entirely arbitrary; it's all wrong or it's all right.

I may think cannibalism is wrong but what if someone asked to be cannibalized? A man can't give their consent to be murdered. There must be something objectively wrong with the act of murdering another human so that it's not even okay if the "victim" requests to be murdered. Cannibalism is wrong, but is it OK if the dead man wills it? So does that make it different than murder somehow? I don't know if it is. I think once you eat a human, willed or not, your consumption changes from "human>everything" to "me>everything." Once you have established yourself as "me>everything" then whether a man wills to be eaten or not becomes irrelevant, just as the desire for survival/life of everything else isn't enough to save them. So, at that point, what makes eating humans different than eating other animals or a plants? It may be that murder and cannibalism aren't so different in this context. It may be as simple as "cannibalism is wrong."

Please, go on. I've not heard this criticism before.

I don't think you've addressed the issue at all.

Plant "desires", lifeform hierarchies, and murder all are irrelevant to the question at hand of cannibalism.

Uh huh..

Well, does your monologue boil down to anything other than: "I think humans are special for really vague and spurious reasons, so I think their dead bodies are also strangely and inexplicably special." ?

Isn't that all it boils down to or is eating a human being ok?

That's what we call a false dichotomy.

Either they're special and you can't eat a human or eating humans is okay = "false dichotomy." Okay, I can see you're not particularly keen on having a dialogue, you're just being toxic at this point.

I eat meat, but I’m pretty sure that non-meat eaters would point out that animals have a central nervous system and can feel pain. A stalk of corn doesn’t suffer the same way a cow does, for example.

The issue is rather that you seem so uncomfortable with entertaining the notion that humans are not special or unique in moral value that you'd rather stoop to petty insults.

Edit: Sure, go ahead and block me rather than have to have a conversation that brings you face to face with the idea that maybe just maybe humans are not that special among animals and maybe just maybe that means you cannot just go around harming other animals. You'd rather insult me and block me and uncharitably assume I think we should harm humans than raise the status of other animals and think that maybe just maybe you should change your own habits. Just shows to go ya how deeply entrenched your ideology is.

Chickens, pigs, bears, and raccoons are omnivores. The very animals we eat (chickens and pigs) do the same to other species lower on the food chain. There's a balance to our ecosystem. Don't get me wrong I think there needs to be great reform in how we consume animal products so that they are treated in a right manner up to their consumption.

What the hell, when the did I insult you? I simply criticized your [pattern of] objection. If you think humans aren't privileged in relation to all other life on earth in this context then it's OK to destroy humans for your benefit the same way it's OK to destroy other things for your benefit - since it's all the same, right? I really don't think you believe that. I think you actually agree with me but don't want to play along. I don't think you actually disagree with me but are rather in a bad way and don't want to play along with the discussion. While I'm trying to explore this idea you're trying to explore ways you can pick at my responses to you. I think my assessment was correct. You may disagree.

What I've gotten so far is:

X - asks a few questions

Y - You demand: "Give me more"

X - gives you more

Y - "it wasn't good enough!"

X - "OK.."

Y - *Well i don't like your answer"

X - "But isn't it basically the answer?"

Y - "Wrong!"

X - "You're wrong!"

Y - "DON'T YOU LOB PETTY INSULTS AT ME!" D:<

We could do it for our own sake- to have less depressing jobs, and generally avoid technologies of entrapment, butchery etc

This article is naive as hell. This the only way to actually solve the issue.

You can't make society be more moral. You can only incentivize moral behavior and disincentivise immoral behavior.

You can't change humanity. You can only change everything around us.

In short, the issue of "humanities moral failure" cannot be adressed. Only it's symptoms can.

Yes, I understand, and I'm not trying to shame anyone for eating meat (I eat meat, just not very often). All I'm pointing out is that there isn't yet a very strong ethical argument in favor of meat consumption. None of these animals are engaged in ethics, and I tend to agree with David Hume in that ethics has some prerequisites which they all lack, making this a uniquely human issue.

At the end of the day we're all animals and our behavior can't be fully dictated by logic, ethics, or evidence. Regardless, I think it's important to understand when we're acting in a way that doesn't have any real justification even if we go ahead and act that way sometimes.

Oddly enough I'm not vegan or vegetarian, but I think vegan burgers are just as good. Literally what I get everytime I go to Burger King 😂. Went on a pescatarian diet for a bit in high school just to try it out but eventually quit it. The way I see it, I genuinely enjoy eating meat. It tastes good, it smells good, it's easy to source and afford (compared to alternatives). If I as an individual could do something to ease the suffering of the animals I would, but it just seems impossible in the world we live in that's driven by profit and self-interest.

This is ideological, not philosophical.

A copypasta (with minor modifications) from elsewhere on Reddit:

>Immanent vs Transcendent Deity

> For me, the key issue is the distinction between a transcendent deity and an immanent deity. YHWH is a transcendent deity - He exists outside of the world, created it, rules over it, and judges us for the extent to which we obey him. For me Deity is immanent rather than transcendent - it is in and of the world, not an external creator, but rather a manifestation of Nature itself. In other words, it doesn't rule over the world, it is the world. It is certainly not judgemental. The only incentive to worship it is the joy and inner peace you can get from being close to nature.

Neuroscientist here, This line of reasoning is not contentious at all. We are the only species that in a short amount of time (evolution terms) changed so drastically and it is generally agreed upon that it is because we learned to hunt and cook meat, extracting way more calories from that. That also cleared out schedule enough to be more social and inventive.

No other animal cooks meat.

After thousands of years of evolution eating meat and relying on it for many vitamins and minerals it is not so simple to remove it entirely without consequences. Plant protein, and some vitamins and minerals do net get absorbed efficiently. Studies have shown the possibilities of health issues. That sound like a moral argument to me. harm to animals Vs. harm to self.

And I will concede that. But the real question is how far should a moral code affect? A group? A species? or all the animals? or somewhere in between? These questions are completely and painfully subjective, and cause us to align the answer with our personal preference.

If a cow was simply grazing a field a leaving dung piles then there would be a net loss of resources, no? They're just eating the grass, stealing half of it's nutrients and pooping half of it back. You need to kill the cow to get 100% again, right?

I'm just curious

>If you think humans aren't privileged in relation to all other life on earth in this context then it's OK to destroy humans for your benefit the same way it's OK to destroy other things for your benefit - since it's all the same, right?

Maybe it's not OK to destroy anything for our benefit? That way - yes, it's all the same.

God is supposed to be the first cause so it should always be transcendent, or it isn't God, but I imagine it's also of this world since it's supposed to be omnipresent.

Explain why the argument doesn't work if it's immanent. Is the idea that if God is all things of reality then God is also in all evil things? I've considered this before. Is this what you mean?

There are several rules you can apply to scrutinize your own consumption. "the least amount of harm", for example. And/or the lower forms of life are more acceptable to eat or breed for slaughter (for example, a cow is less ok to eat than lice). Most use a combination. I think hunted animals can be fine since it's necessary to keep wildlife populations in control. Some might disagree and that's okay by me. But if you're at the level were a cow is just as problematic to eat as a carrot would be, then I dont think you've made an honest effort to think through your choices.

For example, imagine that people have the choice to buy clothes from sweatshops or from a factory where the workers have rights and decent pay. We can discuss the choice from a lot of angles: maybe the sweatshop is good for the economy, maybe the good factory makes it money by slave labour further down the production line. Maybe maybe maybe - totally fine and something worth discussing. But if you're stance is "I like the sweatshop I like the clothes and it's fine." Then you're not really, honestly, engaging with the question and you're just covering up the dissonance.

Not a great believer in the good/evil dichotomy. Nature is 'red in tooth and claw', so if my Deity is immanent in nature, it includes that side of things. I don't accept that is evil, though.

We are on the same page, then. I don't we've had a single actual disagreement yet.

They do feel pain though. Cows are just different organisms. Everything lives and everything dies in a circle of life.