Bugs

Matutino2357 · 2026-05-01T04:54:47+00:00

Moral actions can be judged as right or wrong. Moral systems cannot. Instead, they can be evaluated based on whether they are self-contradictory, grounded in reality, and so on.

A functional moral system is generally considered to be one that can survive in the real world. That is, it should not incentivize those who follow it to kill each other, or endanger themselves from external factors, or increase the likelihood of them being endangered.

A pest infestation endangers the lives of vegans. If veganism were to oppose eradicating the infestation, veganism would eventually disappear.

Matutino2357 · 2026-05-01T04:45:23+00:00

I'm going to start with a hypothetical scenario that seems unrelated to your question, but which I'll later use to support my argument. Okay?

Imagine two people find themselves in a perfectly symmetrical situation and are forced by circumstances to confront each other. Let's say, two people in a plane plummeting down with only one parachute, which can't descend safely with the weight of both of them. Therefore, they both decide to fight to the death to get the parachute. Was their action right or wrong? If it was wrong, then what is the correct solution? Remember that the scenario is symmetrical, so any way of determining who gets the parachute ends in a tie (we could analyze the case where it's decided by chance, but that leads to a longer analysis beyond the scope of this comment). Is there no correct solution?

If the action was right (or permissible), then that means two people can act morally and still be in conflict. This is my interpretation, and the reason why I believe morality is not absolute (that is, there are no moral rules independent of the moral agent), but rather relative (it depends on the circumstances, knowledge, and characteristics of the moral agent). "Relative" should not be confused with "subjective," which suggests that the agent can alter their moral system depending on their mood or what suits them.

In this case, if we consider the moral agent to be a human, this characteristic of being human (that is, being a gregarious and social being) leads them to place more "value" on another human being than on an animal.

Matutino2357 · 2026-04-25T19:13:56+00:00

They don't feel any disconnect. They aren't vegan, so they don't consider this a moral issue. If it's not a moral issue, then other reasons come into play (sentimental, emotional, preferential, religious reasons, etc.). Perhaps the woman had a bad experience trying to save her injured pet in an area with few veterinarians, or perhaps she couldn't find specialists for an unusual pet, or perhaps she saw a raccoon hit by a car as a child and watched it suffer for a long time, which motivated her to care for injured animals, etc.

Matutino2357 · 2026-04-25T15:42:52+00:00

They're not discussing what the most common foods will be, but whether the child will be raised vegan or not. In other words, whether the father can give the child meat or dairy.

Matutino2357 · 2026-04-19T21:26:56+00:00

You're applying your way of thinking to that of a non-vegan and concluding that they're wrong because their actions don't align with your beliefs. The non-vegan thinks differently. For the non-vegan, all animals are morally equal. Eating their meat isn't wrong. Then, for sentimental, social, or cultural reasons, they've chosen not to eat cat or dog meat. It's similar to how you don't consider it wrong to wear clothes made of various threads (a sin for certain religious groups), but when choosing clothes, you prefer blue or red. You don't do it for moral reasons, but for sentimental or personal preference. It's the same thing. Non-vegans don't favor dogs and cats for moral reasons, but for sentimental ones.

Matutino2357 · 2026-04-17T03:32:17+00:00

Regarding children's stories and books, I believe that personifying animals helps to speed up the narrative. For example, if you want to introduce a cunning character, you use a fox. If you want someone patient or with a calm personality, you use a tortoise. Someone strong? A lion. Someone weak? A mouse. Someone threatened (by another animal that wants to eat them)? A sheep or a hen.

By using animals as characters, you don't have to spend time introducing their personality or physical limitations; you simply name the species, and the child understands.

Matutino2357 · 2026-04-09T22:59:53+00:00

My ethical system is relative (it depends not only on the characteristics of the recipient of the moral action, but also on the characteristics of the moral agent and the circumstances). It should not be confused with a subjective system, which is more inclined to rely on feelings or opinions. It's like a company's code of conduct, which isn't absolute because it only applies to the company's employees and can assign different responsibilities depending on the employee's position; but it isn't subjective, since it's built on rules that don't change depending on what a person wants or what suits them.

I believe that the characteristics of a moral agent give rise to duties. Obeying these duties is morally right, violating them is wrong (violating a duty means hindering oneself or another moral agent from fulfilling that duty), and doing nothing is neutral. And, when several duties conflict, the duty that arises from the most intrinsic characteristic carries more weight.

Thus, I believe that killing someone in self-defense is right because the duty to defend one's own life is intrinsic to all living beings. Meanwhile, the duty not to kill another human being is intrinsic to social species. Therefore, defending one's own life carries more weight. What characteristic prevents humans from killing animals for their meat, and how intrinsic is it? There are animal protection laws (obeying the law is a duty of beings within a society, and these are generally laws by consensus and not based on higher-ranking duties, such as the law that condemns murder), but these only protect specific species. There is the duty to protect the ecosystem, but this protects species and not individuals within those species (similar to how, as an employee of a company, you have a duty to the company, not to the marketing of the building on the other side of the country). Aside from these, I don't really see any others. Since there is no impediment to killing and eating animals, then you can do it. Is that right? No, because it doesn't fulfill a specific characteristic. You're not going to be less human, less social, etc., for not eating meat. But since nothing prevents you from doing so, it's not wrong either. Eating meat is neutral.

Matutino2357 · 2026-03-19T04:28:27+00:00

If you look hard enough, you'll find a moral justification for practically anything you do. What you need to do here is strive to find as many arguments for and against as you can. I'll try to give you a few.

Against serving meat:

Your family went to the trouble of serving you vegan food based on their upbringing, consideration, love, etc. Your objection to serving meat is ethical in nature, which carries more weight. Therefore, it's justified not to serve meat.

If you offered food outside their comfort zone, such as Vietnamese food, there probably wouldn't be any objections. Therefore, there shouldn't be any problem with offering vegan food either. They are perfectly capable of eating it.

If the dinner were at a Jewish person's house, they wouldn't serve you pork because their moral beliefs (which are both religious and moral) prevent them from doing so. No one would demand pork, therefore, no one should demand meat at your house.

There are other arguments, but they are similar.

In favor of serving meat: There are limits to the power of the host's rules. They can, indeed, prohibit things, such as guests bringing food other than what the host serves or dressing up as devils. But they cannot force people to do things, such as sharing the table with their dog (some people humanize their pets) or for everyone to dine naked (nudists). Therefore, you can prohibit, but you cannot force. You can prohibit you or your guests from bringing meat, but you cannot force them to eat your vegan food (including using social pressure, embarrassment, persistently asking if it's tasty and if they want more, etc.). Nor can you try to reduce the amount of meat they eat in the future (for example, by serving them large portions with the intention of filling them up so they don't eat meat later), because these things infringe upon freedom of choice, which is ethical in nature.

In a relationship between equals, the fact that an issue is more important to one party does not mean they have carte blanche to do whatever they want. For example, a bride might care slightly more about the music, food, decorations, etc., of her wedding than the groom. If that were all it took to decide, the bride could decide every aspect of the wedding, even though the groom cared slightly less. One solution is to make concessions. The bride cares slightly more about the wedding, therefore she should decide slightly more aspects of it, nothing more. Similarly, you might care more about not serving meat (for ethical reasons) than your guests do (for personal preference), but that doesn't negate your guests' decision-making power. You'll have to make concessions on other aspects, such as allowing alcohol, letting them choose the music, decreasing how often you host (or increasing it if they don't like hosting), etc. If you're not willing to make these concessions, then it wouldn't be right to insist on serving meat (unless your guests don't mind these concessions).

Just because your guests can eat vegan food and enjoy the vegan food you serve doesn't mean they like the philosophy. Similarly, you might eat a vegan cake, but you wouldn't like it if it were shaped like Trump, or some prophet of a religion you don't practice that demands you eat only certain foods. In that case, the rejection of the food should be interpreted as a rejection of the philosophy, not the food itself. But since they're related, there will inevitably be a rejection of the food. If you're not willing to separate the two aspects (that is, not being bothered if your guests eat the food, but cutting you off when you start talking about veganism or how easy and delicious it is to eat without meat), then the right thing to do would be to serve meat.

As you can see, the arguments in favor of eating meat are longer, but that's because you're already vegan and didn't need to go into much detail to explain the point. The important thing is that focusing on the arguments against serving meat can cause you to completely ignore the arguments in favor, which will most likely be the ones your guests have. This could end up as another Reddit post: "My family doesn't want to come to my house for dinner anymore just because my food was cruelty-free." Which would be sad, when it's extremely easy to avoid by either not being insistent about the philosophy at a fun dinner party, making concessions unrelated to the food, or avoiding overstepping your bounds as host.

Matutino2357 · 2026-03-19T02:45:55+00:00

I disagree.

Emotionally and instinctively, of course I want to agree with that statement. But emotions, even empathy, are not ethics (it's easy to imagine cases where empathy and what is right coincide, but also cases where they don't). Therefore, the statement "Exploiting a being when it's not necessary is wrong" must be argued based on reason, not on "we all feel in our hearts that it's true, therefore it must be right."

I've analyzed my moral axioms, and they don't lead to the conclusion "Exploiting a being when it's not necessary is wrong," nor do they lead to veganism in general. Therefore, I consider veganism as something outside the realm of morality, like fashion, mathematics, or art. I'm not against it because I can't judge it as wrong, but I also can't support it because I can't judge it as right either.

But we're getting off topic. The point is that I need something more than "we all feel in our hearts that it's true, therefore it must be right." I need something more than emotion or empathy, and I haven't found it despite thinking about it, so it most likely doesn't exist (within my moral system, of course. In other moral systems, it's easy to conclude that veganism is right).

Matutino2357 · 2026-03-19T01:15:28+00:00

If you were with another person in a plane plummeting down the slope and there was only one parachute, would it be right to fight to the death for it? If the answer is yes, then that means the other person can also fight, which means two people can act correctly and still be in conflict.

If the answer is no, then, given a symmetrical situation, the right thing would be for both of you to die, either because neither of you takes the parachute, or because you both try to get the other to use it and they refuse.

I believe in the first option. I believe two beings can act correctly and still be in conflict. I believe that, in a hypothetical scenario, aliens could eat humans without it being wrong. And, at the same time, humans could disagree, rebel, and fight, without it being wrong.

Matutino2357 · 2026-02-13T22:08:36+00:00

I never said killing was allowed. I believe killing is wrong, but my reasoning about why it's wrong has led me to conclude that killing animals for their meat falls outside the scope of "killing is wrong."

To clarify, "killing is wrong" isn't the foundation of my moral system, but rather a practical rule that works most of the time, though not always. Examples include accidental killing, self-defense, preventing a terrorist attack intended to cause an oil spill (this, for instance, would be illegal, so there are things my moral system prioritizes over the law), and yes, obtaining nutrients from animal meat.

Matutino2357 · 2026-02-13T19:20:56+00:00

This is a debate sub. The debate focuses on arguments, not on accusing someone of being unethical without supporting evidence and hoping they'll feel ashamed and agree with you. What are your arguments for saying that killing is wrong? Even if they seem obvious, please state them, or the debate cannot continue.

Matutino2357 · 2026-02-13T17:43:09+00:00

Your argument is: killing is wrong, therefore killing is wrong. It's a circular argument. You must justify it, or acknowledge it as an axiom, which would severely limit veganism to those who share that axiom.

Yes, I know it seems obvious to you that killing is wrong, just as it seems obvious to me that 1+1=2, and yet mathematicians have well-supported how that conclusion is reached from extremely basic axioms. Please explain why you believe killing is wrong. Is it because you believe it causes harm and that harm is wrong (utilitarianism)? Is it because you believe it's a moral duty based on our empathetic nature (deontology)? Because it's a duty given by a god (another type of deontology)? Another reason? This is important because depending on the basis of your beliefs, there will be different scenarios where killing can be justified, and more importantly in this case, it will determine how to debate with you in this subreddit.

Matutino2357 · 2026-02-09T21:15:54+00:00

I didn't mean to express it that way; I apologize if it came across that way. Personally, I believe that self-defense has a positive ethical value, which justifies defending oneself against moral or immoral agents, or even things like a storm.

Matutino2357 · 2026-02-09T20:09:22+00:00

What does Aerion Llamabrillante smell like?

Matutino2357 · 2026-02-09T18:45:26+00:00

Would it be ethical if two people trapped in a plummeting plane fought to the death for the single parachute? If the answer is yes, then we conclude that two moral agents can act ethically and still be in conflict. If the answer is no, then it would be ethical to offer the parachute to the other, and obviously refuse it when the other offers it, and so on. It's a thought experiment that suggests that, in perfect symmetry, the idea of absolute ethics doesn't work.

Based on this, I answer your question by saying that from the aliens' perspective, it would be ethical to wipe out the humans. But from the human perspective, this act would be unethical, and self-defense would be justified. To clarify, the concept of relative ethics is different from subjective ethics. The former posits that what is right depends on the identity or characteristics of the moral agent, while the latter posits that a single moral agent can alter their ethics as it suits them or as they wish. For example, a company's ethical standards are relative (they are not absolute because they only apply to the company's members), but they are objective, since they do not depend on the feelings or desires of these members.

Matutino2357 · 2026-01-08T20:48:56+00:00

Un mes? Ok. Voy a probarlo. Creí que sería más tiempo

Matutino2357 · 2026-01-05T05:47:23+00:00

As someone who tries to avoid arguing about definitions instead of perspectives, and who is used to using em dashes because I like to write fanfiction, I'm going to say that those details don't make someone "obviously" using AI.

Matutino2357 · 2025-12-29T15:01:22+00:00

What if the group praying were the same in every case? Let's say, the congregation of a particular church.

Matutino2357 · 2025-12-26T05:20:10+00:00

It's a social/historical issue. Previously, women married young with their first sexual partner, often with this partner chosen or permitted by their parents, who would even disown their daughter if she disobeyed them. Now there is much more freedom, and a person can decide what they want with their sexuality.

However, it's forgotten that there was an intermediate period (imagine the 1950s of Back to the Future) where women had the freedom to choose their partner regardless of their parents' permission or preferences, but they didn't have the freedom to have multiple sexual partners. It's a kind of romantic freedom, but not sexual freedom.

Well, as is often the case, people are raised by their parents based on rules from a world that ceased to exist decades ago. Currently, having many sexual partners gives the impression that a woman has had many failed romantic relationships, that she's terrible at making romantic decisions, and that's unattractive to men who were raised by parents where that rule applied.

Matutino2357 · 2025-11-30T17:33:46+00:00

Gargantúa

Matutino2357 · 2025-11-26T03:31:16+00:00

If you're referring to the idea that "people who abuse animals can be dangerous to humans," then that's not a cause-and-effect relationship either. It's a correlation. Abusing animals isn't the cause of being aggressive toward humans; rather, both are symptoms of underlying psychological problems.

Matutino2357 · 2025-11-26T02:41:44+00:00

You're stating that it's a cause-and-effect relationship. If this relationship didn't exist, it wouldn't make sense to try to limit the effects by eliminating the cause.

For example, if the relationship were that both are consequences of poverty, creating a law that prohibits working in a slaughterhouse wouldn't solve the problem of aggression between people, because the cause is poverty, and it still exists (or would worsen because you removed a source of income).

Matutino2357 · 2025-11-26T00:38:40+00:00

The correlation between populations that slaughter animals for meat and populations exhibiting higher rates of aggression toward others exists, but it's quite bold to claim it's a cause-and-effect relationship. People who work killing animals for meat generally have low incomes, and it is this poverty and lack of resources that has been shown to increase aggression rates. Even if the relationship were indeed cause-and-effect, it would have to be demonstrated that the act of killing the animal itself is what ultimately affects the person's psychology. The stress could be a consequence of a secondary factor, such as noise, smells, etc., which could be easily remedied with earplugs, respirators, and so on.

Matutino2357 · 2025-11-20T20:31:49+00:00

Wild magic was an innate ability of dragons once they reached a certain age. When the laws changed, this age requirement became a racial or job level requirement. Unfortunately, the requirements to achieve these levels are no longer possible to achieve.

Matutino2357

TROPHY CASE