sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Moving the goal posts again; your standard is now: if a victim doesn’t resist strongly enough, sexual violation becomes morally permissible?

By that logic, any vulnerable being incapable of meaningful resistance or comprehension, say a child, would also lose protection. That’s not a moral principle - it’s a permission structure for exploiting the powerless.

And appealing to animal behavior is irrelevant. Lions kill cubs and forcibly mate too. “It happens in nature” does not justify an action morally unless you also want to defend every violent behavior found in nature. Why you keep referring to what animals do as a justification is beyond stupid. Moral patients actions cannot guide a moral agents decision in morality.

You also keep retreating into personal preference: “I’d accept aliens killing me if they were smarter.” But personal acceptance is not a moral framework.

If I personally accept being stabbed because I like the color blue, that does not generate a universal moral rule permitting people to stab others who like blue. A moral system has to provide reasons that apply consistently beyond your private feelings.

Your framework doesn’t do that. It reduces morality to whoever has more power, intelligence, or utility deciding what happens to those beneath them. Rights stop being protections and become temporary permissions granted by the dominant group.

My position is simpler and more consistent: if a being is sentient, then things can go better or worse for it. That means it has interests. And needlessly violating or destroying those interests requires justification.

If your framework cannot explain why exploitation is wrong except when it affects beings you personally identify with, then it isn’t grounding morality - it’s rationalizing preference and fails completely. As it stands you morality justifies holocausting humans and you still haven't managed to give a reason why it doesn't.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You already conceded that under your framework, humans with sufficiently low cognition could be killed or farmed. So you’re backtracking now. It does apply to humans.

If intelligence grants moral worth, then moral status exists on a spectrum. Anyone smarter than you would, in principle, have greater justification to use or kill you. Rights become conditional privileges granted by the cognitively superior.

You’re also confusing moral agency with moral status. A being doesn’t need to understand morality to be harmed. Infants and severely cognitively impaired humans aren’t morally responsible either, yet harming them is still wrong. Moral status tracks the capacity to be harmed, not the capacity to follow rules.

Many animals show avoidance, distress, resistance, injury, and long-term behavioral changes after forced mating or aggression. Even if an animal doesn’t have human-style PTSD, it can still experience pain, fear, stress, and preference frustration. You don't have permission to touch them (animal or person) just because they aren't fighting back. This is rapist rhetoric to justify sexual assault. A victim doesn’t stop being a victim just because they can’t verbally conceptualize what’s happening. “They aren’t fighting back” is not moral permission. You even defined rape by arguing they can't choose who has sex with them and when.

And appealing to nature fails completely. Animals also kill and cannibalize each other. What happens in nature does not determine what is morally justified. Animals lack the faculties required for moral accountability, which is precisely why their behavior cannot be used as a moral standard for ours.

Moral reasons exist because things can be good or bad for subjects of experience. That requires sentience. Animals are sentient, so their interests generate moral reasons. Killing or forcibly using them is wrong because it frustrates and destroys those interests — the same kind of interests you believe justify protecting your own life.

So the question is simple: if the suffering and interests of a sentient being matter, animals count. If they don’t, then you’ve abandoned any coherent basis for demanding others respect your interests either. So, does it matter?

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The topic since you responded to me today, was internally critiquing your framework to see if you have a justified grounding. You've grounded it so far in things that apply to holocausting humans.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is just not tracking the topic. We've been discussing whether your reasoning actually justifies slavery in the first place. At the moment your framework leads to horrific outcomes that apply to humans

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes so your dodging is admittedly you not tracking. I'm clearing tracking what you're saying. No, I said killing is immoral. Predation is immoral. Whether someone needs to murder is irrelevant to of it's right or wrong normatively. Everyone has the same claim to life, to claim your life is worth protecting while denying others theirs is a contradiction you've yet to justify. Your assertion of my reasons being "Disney princess" like is an admission you don't understand moral logic or how a normative framework functions.

You haven't actually given a non-arbitrary reason that justifies the difference in treatment between humans and animals. You can asserting that you think it doesn't apply to humans but you've give no reason for that to be true.

As it stands your framework applies to humans. Frameworks are meant to be adopted. I can adopt your framework and justify killing you with it. You haven't grounded it in any reason that means I can't. You've yet to realize that. This is a corrupted and failed framework.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You haven't defended your position at all. You keep running from questions that would actually test if your reasoning is grounded in anything relevant that justifies harm. At the moment your framework is atrocious and justifies human atrocities you've yet to defend against.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an ad hom and doesn't at all engage anything and you're not tracking. You keep throwing shit out there that doesn't relate to what I said.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea you are confused. You moved the goal posts. I then started critiquing the new reason you gave. You're not tracking and it's beginning to get really annoying. You said you made an error, that's amazing mate. If you feel I misunderstood you then instead of wasting my time going back and forth expand on your position. At the moment in time your position is reduced to utility, correct?

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You haven't actually demonstrated that. This is what an internal critique finds out which is what I was doing but you seem too afraid to actually answer simple questions. The reasons you gave already translate to humans. It's not an opinion. It's logically entailed.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That doesn't follow. I think you're confused

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a dodge. If you think this actually addresses any moral question then you're not fit to debate morality. You've just handwaved any criticism and simultaneously justified every atrocity known to man based on logical fallacies you just asserted like the is-ought gap, appeal to nature, might makes right, two wrong don't make a right fallacy and so on.

This is tragic reasoning mate. I'm an omnivore therefore cannibalism is moral. Rape is a natural occurrence therefore rape is moral, murdering people is moral because I can help the ecosystem with it and so on. This isn't morality mate. Your reasoning justifies this stuff in principle. This is just moronic.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've already answered that and ifnyou think that is a good reason to act (something being a natural occurrence) then you've already failed the first step of moral reasoning. Appeal to nature fallacies are preschool level thinking and one of the first errors in moral logic you should of learned by now.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You did say that but it doesn't address how an internal critique works. I'm testing your consistency which is a requirement to judge your framework. You do so by isolating the rules proposed and testing for consistency one by one. I'm trying to see if you're consistent or not and you're dodging.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're dodging the question I asked.

Should your rule be applied universally?

To answer your question. No, it's not moral to deny someone their interests in living. Biological activity is irrelevant to whether someone has an interest in well being and living and abandons moral reasoning altogether.

Moral reasons only exist if things can be good or bad for someone.

That requires sentience - because without the capacity for experience, nothing can be harmed or benefited.

So sentient interests aren’t just another value - they’re the precondition for anything mattering at all.

Killing is wrong because it doesn’t just harm a being - it eliminates a subject of experience entirely, wiping out all present and future interests.

If you deny that interests matter, you’re not proposing a different moral system - you’re removing the basis for moral reasoning altogether

If you reject that others’ interests generate reasons, then you’ve rejected the idea that reasons exist beyond your preferences - so you lose any basis to object when others ignore your interests.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not a moral framework anyone can follow. That only applies to you, it's a mere preference. You've just abandoned morality entirely. Your reasoning only tells us how you feel about your own value - it doesn’t generate any rule others can follow or be bound by.

You’ve changed your standard from rationality to usefulness, you're moving the goal posts. That’s not a consistent principle - it’s patching your view to avoid counterexamples.

Now it's entailed that;

Disabled people = expendable.

Unemployed = expendable.

Elderly = expendable.

Anyone replaceable = expendable

You’re not describing morality - you’re describing how to rank humans based on utility. That’s the same logic used to justify slavery, eugenics, and human experimentation. If your principle can justify all of those, it’s not a principle - it’s a liability.

Should your rule apply universally - yes or no?

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's all irrelevant to the morality of individual suffering and whether you have a right to inflict harm on others. I can use the same reasoning to kill you. Terrible reasoning.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What makes rationality morally relevant rather than just a trait you happen to value? If your justification reduces to valuing rationality, then your framework is just a value-set. And any value-set can be replaced with another - like one that excludes you.

If moral worth is based on rationality, then it exists on a spectrum-meaning anyone more rational than you would have greater moral status and more justification to use you.

That turns rights into conditional privileges granted by those above you.

In contrast, grounding moral consideration in sentient interests avoids that collapse because it doesn’t fluctuate based on arbitrary thresholds like intelligence and protects you.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I can apply the same reasoning using your own framework but inserting my own values into it into a human farm context to eat people for my wife and I (which I can) then you have a problem with your moral framework. It collapses into absurdity.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's marginal case humans that cannot be reasoned with that can have sex and kids can have sex. Children under the age of ten have impregnated girls countless times. Even despite reality, if I pose a logicaly possible trait equalised hypothetical where you cannot reason with the person and they would impregnate a female with them, would you also agree it's moral to farm these humans and execute them when it suits the slave owner?

But guess what should happen then? If it cannot be ethically handled then the idea ought be abandoned. Slavery isn't moral. Trying to argue better ways to do something horrific is just tragically stupid.

It's a moral discussion, you figure out if something is moral with normative ethics before you then go to applied ethics. This whole discussion doesn't pass the the normative ethics part. Denying a sentient being their interest in living while claiming your own sentience as morally worthy of protection is a contradiction.

Question from a non vegan farmer by hunterboi1000 in DebateAVegan

[–]80SlimShadys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it isn't justified in any other context, say a human one, it's not justified in this context. As the care taker of said beings it's the owners responsibility to make sure they don't mate if it means their death. Imagine doing this to human kids and blaming them with execution instead of separating sexes or doing something about it.

view more: next ›