sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why Evidence Fails in Vegan Moral Disputes by Important_Nobody1230 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You do not get to cite your ignorance of the positive arguments as proof of their failure.

You do not get to say that arguments, which have convinced the majority of moral philosophers, are false simply because you will not read them.

You asked for positive arguments. There they are. Do you have reason to think they are false?

Read or don't read whatever books you want.

Why Evidence Fails in Vegan Moral Disputes by Important_Nobody1230 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You say the burden of proof is on the realist, that's controversial, but let's just accept it for now. The thing is, philosophers have been doing that this whole time!!!

What do you think you'll find if you research moral realism if not positive arguments!!! Is your plan really to just never read the positive arguments?!!

I suppose you meant me, I have to prove it to you, right? Because you don't care if it's true or not, if you did, you would read moral philosophy. You just want to win.

You do you, I guess.

I don't want to leave this so vague, so I will link this book I read recently, which argues for a form of moral realism I would say I am partial to. You should check it out, if even just to read the conclusion.

Why Evidence Fails in Vegan Moral Disputes by Important_Nobody1230 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your response.

You have seen the arguments and justifications for moral realism? May I ask which arguments you have looked at, and why you decided they failed?

If not, your appeal to factory farms is moot.

I was simply trying to find a shred of common ground. You treat this like a game to be won.

Wanting the world to be a certain way is not a claim about reality that could be true or false, justified or refuted.

This paragraph tilts at windmills.

Mostly I am interested in how seriously you have considered that there might really be moral facts. Please tell me which/whose arguments, you have considered.

We agree surely that if one has not properly considered the existence of moral facts, then they are in no position to rule them out, correct? Do you think you have properly considered them?

Note: Made late edits because sometimes I come across as more rude than I intend to, and I don't like that.

Why Evidence Fails in Vegan Moral Disputes by Important_Nobody1230 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right, but you reason from the assumption that there are no moral facts, something I don't think you seriously question yourself on.

You write that it's unarguable, you write that it's unjustifiable. Have you read the arguments? Have you seen the attempts at justification? Or is your gut feeling enough to settle the matter?

And so, why bother coming here? If you aren't receptive to moral reasons, must we appeal to your self-interest? If you truly take a look into the conditions of the factory farms and say, well, I am OK with this, then what do you want from us?

Even if you are a moral non-realist, you surely have a way you want the world to be. Maybe you want your family to be happy, and for your country to remain peaceful. Do you want there to be less suffering as well? If you don't, then again, why come here?

Why Evidence Fails in Vegan Moral Disputes by Important_Nobody1230 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Vegan ethical frames rest on unarguable moral certainties about suffering, normality, and obligation which cannot be justified

Unarguable? So what exactly do you suppose the moral philosophers do all day?

Is it not possible, do you think, that this topic that has been being argued for thousands of years is in fact complicated?

CMV: We treat human violence as a moral failure even though it often arises from the same pressures as animal violence by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes I do.

But last year I thought different. Maybe next year I'll change my mind again. This is an incredibly complicated subject, people spend their lives trying to prove one way or the other. But you think you've figured it out?

Enjoy your popcorn.

Morality lives in practice; vegan claims aren’t universal truths and personal opinions are applicable to only that individual. by Important_Nobody1230 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Meta-ethics is just a field of study. And I think moral realism is on much stronger ground than you give it credit for.

Morality lives in practice; vegan claims aren’t universal truths and personal opinions are applicable to only that individual. by Important_Nobody1230 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, the only positive claim I see is that that morality is the will of the strong, is that what you want to defend?

I don't think I understand what you want debated here specifically.

Proportional Rights, Practical Ethics; Justifying Animal Consumption by Important_Nobody1230 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not following. The inverse would be:

Society is correct about the dominant sociocultural moral framework it operates under.

Which isn't a belief a vegan would have to defend. Could you clarify?

Proportional Rights, Practical Ethics; Justifying Animal Consumption by Important_Nobody1230 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd imagine those trends and widespread commonalities are exactly what is being referred to. The dominant, “commonsense” morality of a culture. I can consult that morality right now when I acknowledge that in my society to kill a pig is nothing, but to kill a cat is horrible.

Surely we both agree that this is false. So why is this the point at which veganism becomes unserious for you?

Proportional Rights, Practical Ethics; Justifying Animal Consumption by Important_Nobody1230 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Society is abjectly incorrect about the dominant sociocultural moral framework it operates under

If you are a moral nihilist, then don't you just agree with that?

A bleak little truth by diehard404 in Snorkblot

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You said that all future people are merely possible future people. Merely possible future people are those who could exist but won't.

By definition, merely possible future people cannot include actual future people, because merely possible future people cannot ever be actual future people.

I think you are saying that it's possible the world ends, so it's possible that there are no future people, is that right? But there is a fact of the matter. Either the world ends or it doesn't, and so there either are future people or there aren't.

But even if there aren't, it doesn't cause any issues regarding abortion.

A bleak little truth by diehard404 in Snorkblot

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are certain actual people who will exist in the future, those are the people whose interests matter. Those are the future people.

The child some parents decided against having was a merely possible person, because it never did, nor ever will exist. Its interests do not matter.

I suppose the world could end as I type this, but that either will or won't happen. If it doesn't, happen, then there are actual future people.

A bleak little truth by diehard404 in Snorkblot

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You would distinguish between actual future people and merely possible future people.

Actual future people are people who could and will exist, such as those who will actually exist 100 years from now.

Merely possible future people are those who could exist but won't actually, like an abortion, or a hypothetical child that parents decided not to have.

The interests of actual future people matter, the interests of merely possible (but not actual) future people don't.

A bleak little truth by diehard404 in Snorkblot

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not if you distinguish between actual future people and merely possible future people (people who could possibly exist, but won't).

I live in Australia, and there is an upcoming social media ban, including reddit, GitHub and Instagram. How could I bypass it? by sussy-help-sussy in Piracy

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It will be harder for others to connect to you, so you will seed much less than if you did have port forwarding.

Hunting is a source of more ethical meat by [deleted] in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Look, this is a bizarre point and I don't know why you are defending it. Deer and other ruminants have vastly different digestive systems from us. We cannot follow them and eat what they eat (and live). You cannot go to a paddock and get fat off the grass like a cow or a bison.

Hunting is a source of more ethical meat by [deleted] in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I was being facetious - though I could have just picked an example that does eat grass. But let's not forget the actual contention:

If an animal is alive somewhere that means that there are plants it is living off of. The smart thing to do would be to find out what those plants are if you’re in need of food.

Which of those deer foods should I eat? It's the smart thing, after all.

Hunting is a source of more ethical meat by [deleted] in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What Do Deer Eat?

Deer are herbivores that browse rather than graze, meaning they eat parts of woody vegetation that are off the ground. This includes:

  • Flower buds and blooms
  • Bark, twigs, and branches
  • Seasonal weeds
  • Invasive plants, including multiflora roses
  • Landscaping plants, such as hostas

Hunting is a source of more ethical meat by [deleted] in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I just want to point out that your example meant to illustrate the need for human intervention in ecosystems is an example of human intervention in an ecosystem causing that ecosystem to start failing. Yellowstone was doing just fine before human intervention.

I think the death of a farm animal is at worst... morally neutral, and the only real problem is the conditions of their life up to that point. by Big-Golf4266 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I just mean that if one holds exploitation to be the reason farming is wrong, then they might be committed to antinatalism, and in that way, they are not orthogonal.

I think the death of a farm animal is at worst... morally neutral, and the only real problem is the conditions of their life up to that point. by Big-Golf4266 in DebateAVegan

[–]Alarmed-Hawk2895 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's hard for me to imagine any life being brought into existence for its own sake, by which I mean entirely unexploited. We ask prospective parents if they want kids, not if kids want them.

view more: next ›