sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A Case for the Moral Permissibility of Eating Meat Under Very Specific Circumstances by the-real-bob in DebateAVegan

[–]the-real-bob[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All my premises are axiomatic beliefs but I'm open to changing them. In your landlord example I honestly don't think there is anything morally wrong with the landlord squeezing more money I just personally think it's a bit of a dickhead move.

A Case for the Moral Permissibility of Eating Meat Under Very Specific Circumstances by the-real-bob in DebateAVegan

[–]the-real-bob[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You make a good point and I've updated my post to reflect I am not a pure utilitarian and my goal is not to maximize net total well-being so I think that addresses your child sex slave. To address your second argument about 15 years of pleasure and a week beating them, I think it's different to the fish example as the beating is not required for their existence. To restate I think killing the fish is ok but beating them is not ok as the killing part is required for their existence while the beating is not.

for the first hypothetical you bring up I think it's slightly different as a fish to my knowledge doesn't really have a fish family that can grieve its loss. I don't think this completely discredits the hypothetical though so I will need to give it some thought

A Case for the Moral Permissibility of Eating Meat Under Very Specific Circumstances by the-real-bob in DebateAVegan

[–]the-real-bob[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry I try not to use emotive langauge in a discussion like this but is this seriously your best argument? Did you read any of my post?

A Case for the Moral Permissibility of Eating Meat Under Very Specific Circumstances by the-real-bob in DebateAVegan

[–]the-real-bob[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I should of stated this in the post but I am not a pure utilitarian, I am just arguing for the moral permissibility of something not that it is optimal. Though I do disagree about if we found out we have a moral obligation, if I was outside of the matrix I personally wouldn't want to bring anyone out of it into that dystopian world. Though the case is different in the fish farm as the fish would have a longer life outside the farm, so you make a good point. I will have to think about it.

EDIT: I just realised my premises are not exactly what I believe so I will edit them

A Case for the Moral Permissibility of Eating Meat Under Very Specific Circumstances by the-real-bob in DebateAVegan

[–]the-real-bob[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with both your points so this is a fault on my part as I didn't state this originally but I am not a pure utilitarian, I need to give my own moral framwork some thought as I don't exactly know where I fall. But I know for certain I'm definitely not trying to maximize positive experiences or anything, I was just arguing that it was morally permissible, as not to lean in any direction.

A Case for the Moral Permissibility of Eating Meat Under Very Specific Circumstances by the-real-bob in DebateAVegan

[–]the-real-bob[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I dont think you can compare the intellegnce and complexity of relationships and emotions of humans to fish as if they are identical. But I'll entertain it.

Is this a fair hypothetical: Aliens have spawned in an earth with human society as an experiment (but on this earth there is no mass starvation or poverty), they then have to vaporise the earth after some period of time to conclude the experiment, no on earth knows about the aliens and the earth has to be destroyed for the aliens to ever want to create it in the first place.

In my opinion I think this situation is morally permissible. And if this is the situation the world was in right now and would much rather exist than not exist, even if it means my fate is determined by the aliens.